pikant » 3. Dez 2014, 17:20 hat geschrieben:
verstoesst dieses in den USA gegen ein Gesetz?
Gegen die Verfassung.
Moderator: Moderatoren Forum 3
USA TOMORROW » Mi 3. Dez 2014, 21:08 hat geschrieben:Gegen die Verfassung.
USA TOMORROW » Mi 3. Dez 2014, 21:07 hat geschrieben:Es ist nicht das erste mal, dass Obama illegal Gesetze ändert. Die Klagen laufen. Anders ist er wohl nicht zu stoppen.
Alexyessin » 3. Dez 2014, 21:13 hat geschrieben:Wo waren eigentlich die Reps, als Bush die Gesetze illegal geändert hat? Security Act z. B.?
USA TOMORROW » Mi 3. Dez 2014, 21:22 hat geschrieben:Welcher Security Act? Und was soll das mit Obamacare zu tun haben?
Könntest du nun noch erklären, woher Obama das Recht haben soll, dieses Gesetz im Alleingang zu ändern?
Alexyessin » 3. Dez 2014, 21:23 hat geschrieben:Verstößt er gegen ein Gesetz?
USA TOMORROW » Mi 3. Dez 2014, 21:28 hat geschrieben:Wirf mal einen Blick in die amerikanische Verfassung:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
USA TOMORROW » Mi 3. Dez 2014, 21:37 hat geschrieben:Das ist hoffentlich nicht dein Ernst.
Alexyessin » 3. Dez 2014, 21:45 hat geschrieben:
Aber hallo. Sicher ist das mein Ernst.
Alexyessin » 3. Dez 2014, 21:45 hat geschrieben:Du kannst deine Gopaganda wieder dahin stecken, wo sie herkommt. In den Sumpf der Erzkonservativen Rechten.
A strange thing has happened on Capitol Hill. Senior Democrats who were vital in writing and promoting ObamaCare appear to be having a change of heart.
First, there was Sen. Chuck Schumer, the upper chamber's No. 3 Democrat, who voiced regret about his party's misplaced priorities during President Obama's first two years in power, when they possessed a filibuster-proof majority.
"Unfortunately, Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them," Schumer told an audience gathered at the National Press Club last week. "We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem -- health care reform."
The New York Democrat punctuated his criticism with the disclaimer that health care reform was nevertheless an important issue; it just should have been a bit farther down on the to-do list.
"Americans were crying out for the end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs, not changes in health care," he said.
MIT professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber will testify on Capitol Hill Tuesday about his role in selling the 2010 healthcare law to "stupid American voters" through deception and non-transparency. The hearing will be held by the House Oversight Committee and Gruber will have to field questions from Chairman Darrell Issa and angry lawmakers about the legislation.
Gruber became infamous just a few weeks ago after a Philadelphia financial consultant and citizen blogger started pulling and publishing multiple video clips of him at various events discussing Obamacare. During those events, Gruber admitted the redistribution of wealth in the legislation was purposely covered up along with the fact that Obamacare is indeed a tax.
Marcin » 22. Dez 2014, 08:18 hat geschrieben:Wenn ich schon hoere, dass die meisten Familien unsaeglich hohe Selbstbehalte auf sich nehmen, um sich ueberhaupt eine Krankenversicherung leisten zu koennen, ist das einfach unwuerdig...
MIAMI (AP) — When Olivia Papa signed up for a new health plan last year, her insurance company assigned her to a primary care doctor. The relatively healthy 61-year-old didn't try to see the doctor until last month, when she and her husband both needed authorization to see separate specialists.
She called the doctor's office several times without luck.
"They told me that they were not on the plan, they were never on the plan and they'd been trying to get their name off the plan all year," said Papa, who recently bought a plan from a different insurance company.
It was no better with the next doctor she was assigned. The Naples, Florida, resident said she left a message to make an appointment, "and they never called back."
The Papas were among the 6.7 million people who gained insurance through the Affordable Care Act last year, flooding a primary care system that is struggling to keep up with demand.
A survey this year by The Physicians Foundation found that 81 percent of doctors describe themselves as either over-extended or at full capacity, and 44 percent said they planned to cut back on the number of patients they see, retire, work part-time or close their practice to new patients.
At the same time, insurance companies have routinely limited the number of doctors and providers on their plans as a way to cut costs. The result has further restricted some patients' ability to get appointments quickly.
One in three Americans has put off seeking medical treatment in 2014 due to high costs, according to Gallup — the highest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.
Thirty-three percent of Americans have delayed medical treatment for themselves or their families because of the costs they’d have to pay, according to the survey. Obamacare, of course, had promised that it would help make health care more affordable for everyone, but the number of people who can’t afford a trip to the doctor has actually risen three points since 2013, before most Obamacare provisions took effect.
The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.
The lowest-income section, some of whom can take part in Medicaid and who are more likely to qualify for significant premium and cost-sharing subsidies on an Obamacare exchange, are less likely to delay care this year. Now, 35 percent of those who earn under $30,000 a year are putting off seeking medical care, down from 43 percent last year.
It’s a remarkable shift: after Obamacare’s redistribution of wealth, the middle class is actually delaying medical care due to high costs at a higher rate than the poorest section of the country, which is highly subsidized by taxpayers.
Harvard Ideas on Health Care Hit Home, Hard
WASHINGTON — For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.
Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.
Half of Obamacare subsidy recipients may owe refunds to the IRS
As many as 3.4 million people who received Obamacare subsidies may owe refunds to the federal government, according to an estimate by a tax preparation firm.
H&R Block is estimating that as many as half of the 6.8 million people who received insurance premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act benefited from subsidies that were too large, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.
Paul said that there will be votes on total and partial repeal of ObamaCare.
Greta Van Susteren asked: what would Americans have instead?
“We could try freedom for a while. We had it for a long time. That’s where you sell something and I agree to buy it because I like it," Paul said.
USA TOMORROW » Mi 7. Jan 2015, 06:23 hat geschrieben:Für viele Empfänger von staatlichen Zuschüssen dürfte es 2015 ebenfalls eine böse Überraschung geben:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/half- ... le/2558106
Rand Paul hat derweil mal eine ganz verrückte Idee:
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/01/05/ra ... ry-freedom
Staples just announced that workers would have to keep their hours to 25 or less per week to rein in health reform related costs, Buzzfeed said.
But Mr. Obama rejected that claim, and said there is “no reason for an employer who is not currently providing health care to their workers to discourage them from either getting health insurance on the job or being able to avail themselves of the Affordable Care Act.”
Staples isn’t alone. The Blaze reported that hundreds of other employers have trimmed back employees’ hours to avoid taxes tied to Obamacare. And that has Mr. Obama incensed.
“It’s one thing when you’ve got a mom-and-pop store who can’t afford to provide paid sick leave or health insurance or minimum wage to workers,” Mr. Obama said, The Blaze reported. “But when I hear large corporations that make billions of dollars in profits trying to blame our interest in providing health insurance as an excuse for cutting back workers’ wages, shame on them.”
Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 0 Gäste