<p>Nah, Jewish fathers are okay with whatever the kid is doing as long as the mother is happy.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure Tom doesn’t stay in Holiday Inns when he travels, and he probably doesn’t eat too many meals at the Olive Garden. He might well have flown in a private jet to get there. I’d also expect that he can write a check for whatever treatment costs any place he chooses to go. And? So what? Should everyone expect to be able to stay at the Four Seasons because Tom does? Get private jet transportation?</p>
<p>I bet Tom has group health insurance from NBC even though he is eligible for Medicare.</p>
<p>“my worst date ever was with a private pilot who attempted to land at dusk at the military field rather than the commercial field, and then flying with the guy back to Van Nuys airport later that evening. I still shudder.”</p>
<p>That’s not good. Had he suspiciously landed at a military field without permission, he’d be in big trouble.</p>
<p>So arabrab, did you marry him?</p>
<p>Let’s not stoop to nasty about Brokaw.<br>
It’s “from hunger,” fgs.</p>
<p>It is getting increasingly Orwellian what our govt is doing. Companies now must justify their workforce decisions to the IRS. If a company reduces its workforce from 104 to 97 employees to qualify for the delay in the mandate, they have to swear to the IRS they didn’t do it to avoid the Obamacare mandate. The certification is made under the threat of perjury. So the IRS is now the thought police, attempting to divine the motives of corporations for their workforce decisions. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/11/the-insiders-obamacare-creates-new-ways-to-prosecute-american-business/?tid=hpModule_6c539b02-b270-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/11/the-insiders-obamacare-creates-new-ways-to-prosecute-american-business/?tid=hpModule_6c539b02-b270-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19</a></p>
<p>Haha, two whack-a-moles. One for someone actually having the ribs to use the expression “thought police,” while trying to thought control their readers. </p>
<p>“Haha, two whack-a-moles. One for someone actually having the ribs to use the expression “thought police,” while trying to thought control their readers.”</p>
<p>Aha! So when GP presents an argument and his evidence, he’s trying to thought control? What about the rest of us then? Are we just arguing? Is he the only one that has such great power? </p>
<p>No, the WaPo link to Fox, where the big, scary (Orwellian) “thought police” is mentioned.
GP doesn’t have more power than you.<br>
Earlier, I complained about the link and rebut cycle. Link whatever and others rush to rebut. After a while, it feels like whack-a-mole. </p>
<p>As far as I can tell the story in the Washington Post and Fox News is accurate. If you want to rebut it, fine - but just complaining that you don’t like the story doesn’t shed much light on the subject. </p>
<p>It is a scary proposition for the IRS to potentially prosecute a corporation or an executive of a corporation because they didn’t believe their reasons for reducing their workforce. I can only imagine the can of worms we are opening by allowing the IRS to second guess the motivations behind a workforce reduction and to penalize the company if it is trying to save money or avoid losing money by circumventing the mandate. </p>
<p>Maybe the IRS should absorb the losses of a corporation from complying with the mandate. Since they are already committed to bailing out the health insurance companies, why not the companies that have to pay the premiums. Yeah, I think it is pretty bizarre.</p>
<p>GP, I’m just going to call whack-a-mole once in a while. This isn’t batting practice, where you toss 'em out and we get to explain/rebut every time. </p>
<p>You act like this oversight just comes out of the air. OMG, Orwellian! But companies have been following IRS and other govt procedures all along, certifying that their submissions are accurate.( I don’t know if it’s TOS to list them.) And all that has always been subject to review. And some scoundrels do get sued. And some good folks get tagged and have to explain. You ever been audited? The IRS second-guesses all sorts of things, makes you prove out. What’s this receipt for, was it reimbursed? – I’m sure dstark could really scare you about prior and ongoing regs. </p>
<p>There have been penalties for IRS matters as long as I can look back. </p>
<p>And, you don’t want the IRS to second guess? Isn’t that what things like the carnage prediction are? Or much of what you see coming, since it’s still early? </p>
<p>I am not in love with the numbers of the uninsured buying insurance that are coming in… Both the amount and the accuracy.</p>
<p>I dont know why the CBO says 6 million people are going to buy insurance on the exchange and counts all 6 million as formerly ininsured. </p>
<p>I am looking at the numbers. If 6 million sign up on an exchange, 2/3 are formerly uninsured and 75 percent pay, that gets us to 3 million. Another 1 million uninsured buy off exchange . That gets us to 4 million. </p>
<p>There are so many safeguards built into the system we will be fine for 3 years. By then, the actual number of signups will be much closer to projections. </p>
<p>But, as somebody that supports ACA, it is a little annoying to see incorrect numbers. I am sure those that dont support ACA want to see accurate numbers too .</p>
<p>There is a lot of incompetence. The number gathering could have been done much better. We dont want the health insurance applicatiions to turn into the complexity of the 1040 income tax returns, but adding a couple of lines to the applications and having a mechanism to pay when signing up would have given us more clarity. </p>
<p>Anyway, having written the above, I hope I am being a little too conservative with the numbers. Oh…I am sorry but there is not going to be an economic disaster with Obamacare. The middle class is not going to be crushed because of Obamacare. </p>
<p>Wait, when did the IRS require a good reason for a business to downsize? Maybe, I missed that.</p>
<p>Dstark, I think you’re missing much of the point these posters are making with your admirable numbers obsession. There are also a slew of taxes and employer-employee issues in there that obviously have consequences but that is not health care. </p>
<p>As for my kids now access to having insurance care even if they end up poor, that’s a phony benefit since it was never a problem for the young and healthy to purchase relatively affordable coverage. Some choose not to but If they can’t find 100 bucks a month they have much bigger problems.</p>
<p>There are benefits, but that’s not one of them. </p>
<p>Flossy, did you price out insurance for your kids? . I am looking at the non-exchange form now (lucky you, it was nearby.) What’s feasible to you, if she is “poor.” </p>
<p>LF - My son has always had his own policy. It was 90 dollars pre-ACA. Now it’s 96. He was grandfathered. Earlier in this thread Poetgirl said that was high. Her kids were 50 bucks each. Not a big concern. </p>
<p>Well, to say it is a phony benefit when your kid has been covered is…whack…different. </p>
<p>Don’t know his coverage but at the level matching what I deemed the family needs, a mid-Silver, purchasing alone straight from BCBS, my dau would pay $230/month. Minimum Silver/HSA, over $200. And that’s with a $2600 indiv deductible, 10% copay thereafter… Bronze is out, $181, minimum $2400 ded, 50% copay after. </p>
<p>Right, no big concern for him. My D is coming home after a grant and will be looking for a job. In the interim- or if she gets something that’s a good opp but not offering health benefits? </p>
<p>Is whack your new favorite word? It’s coming up a lot in you latest posts. lol.</p>
<p>You reading posts? Cuz I explained. I’ll tire of it, someday. But you see the difference in prices? I also have last summers quotes here, somewhere. She would have been $5-10 higher, at least, pre-ACA. It is a “phony benefit” for your son, who has coverage, at an aged rated. If he is poor, who pays? Not a phony benefit for all.</p>
<p>“But companies have been following IRS and other govt procedures all along, certifying that their submissions are accurate.( I don’t know if it’s TOS to list them.)”</p>
<p>I am not sure there are requirements in place to provide justification to IRS about a downsizing today (there are SEC filings made outlining what they are). I am fine with you pointing out such a rule that exists if there is one and show what it is. Discussing an existing law or rule is not against TOS, only discussing political aspects of it would be. I am not sure if the new requirement mentioned by WP is in place for us to discuss it though (has it been issued officially?).</p>
<p>Flossy, i like numbers. I like numbers because when I read how if there arent enough young people signing up, Obamacare fails, or Obamacare busts the budget, or there arent many people that were harmed by preexisting conditions, or how the high risk pools are so great, or young people are screwed, or how the insurance companies can go broke, I can look at the numbers. i can then see that these arguments are bs, </p>
<p>You should try using numbers some time.</p>
<p>My latest numbers are not positive for ACA. The numbers arent dire either.</p>