First on Lawyers. Lawyers are not there to see that it is a Fair Trial period end of thought. The Judge is there to see that it is a fair trial. The Judge is the only one who is supposed to be fair and impartial.

The Defense Lawyers main objective is to create doubt. This is usually done by distorting the facts as well as making statements such as "I believe this Crime could have been committed by." In other plain words, most Lawyers are paid to Lie.

Obama is purposely putting the implementation of this law off until someone else is in office. People will be so disillusioned with the Government that the Democrats will then again be able to blame someone else and put this problem off on someone else to solve. Of course most of these insurance companies will then be out of business.

There were a few ways to make this better such as allowing Insurance companies to sell across state lines but this would have allowed things to be a little better and lessen government control.

Our next President better be very exceptional or we are screwed.

I'd rather take my chances at Johns Hopkins or MD Anderson than suffer through some government sponsored obamacare dump that has neither the resources nor the competent staff to have access to the latest treatment tech. You want to go to something worse than a medicaid clinic then have at it but don't force that on everyone.
If you want some doctor that doesn't speak english and has a degree from some petting zoo in India or Pakistan then go for it.
There is a reason people from all over the world come to America for health care.....it's the best in the world.
Why let the politician bureaucratic microbes ruin it with some idea of health care utopia dreamed up on a high in a faculty lounge?!
Once again, why would any reasonably prudent American think the government could run health care? Think PO, medicare, ss, medicaid and so on....you libs never get it.
Obamacare is nothing but a giant vote buying scheme. Just like the democratic party has been since reconstruction. Give them a little to get their vote but still keep them down, election time rolls around, give them a little more but never let them achieve self sufficiency. If a person breaks from the democrat plantation and tastes success then they lose that voter. The dems always keep the man down.

Oh btw you said all your provider's doctors and facilities are very good. Just out of curiosity as a health professional to a non-health professional. How would you know?

Or discover that even at your hospital you still need a payment plan....

Like this person....

Breast cancer survivor Ginny Mason was thrilled to get health coverage under the Affordable Care Act despite her pre-existing condition. But when she realized her arthritis medication fell under a particularly costly tier of her plan, she was forced to switch to another brand.

Under the plan, her Celebrex would have cost $648 a month until she met her $1,500 prescription deductible, followed by an $85 monthly co-pay.

Mason is one of the many Americans with serious illnesses — including cancer, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis — who are indeed finding relatively low monthly premiums under President Barack Obama's law. But some have been shocked at how much their prescriptions are costing as insurers are sorting drug prices into a complex tier system and in some cases charging co-insurance rates as high as 50 percent. That can leave patients on the hook for thousands.

"I was grateful for the Affordable Care Act because it didn't turn me down but ... it's like where's the affordable on this one," said Mason, a 61-year-old from West Lafayette, Indiana who currently pays an $800 monthly premium.

Avalere Health, a market research and consulting firm, estimates some consumers will pay half the cost of their specialty drugs under health overhaul-related plans, while customers in the private market typically pay no more than a third. Patient advocates worry that insurers may be trying to discourage chronically ill patients from enrolling by putting high cost drugs onto specialty tiers.

Brian Rosen, senior vice president for public policy for The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said the group studied premiums and benefits for patients with blood cancer in seven states, including Florida, California, Texas and New York. They found 50 percent co-insurance rates for specialty drugs on several plans in Florida and Texas, while the highest co-insurance rates on California plans were 30 percent and in New York, co-pays were typically $70.

Under the law, insurers can't charge an individual more than $6,350 in out-of pocket costs a year and no more than $12,700 for a family policy. But patients advocates warn those with serious illnesses could pay their entire out-of-pocket cap before their insurance kicks in any money.

Thanks again barack!
What kind of fool votes for someone that changed his name from barry sotero to barack hussein obama?
What a pofs.

Here is what one of Obama's advisers said....


Why Employers Will Stop Offering Health Insurance
By ROBB MANDELBAUM March 26, 2014

Here’s a prediction: By 2025, “fewer than 20 percent of workers in the private sector will receive traditional employer-sponsored health insurance.” The source of this claim? Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, in his just-published book, “Reinventing American Health Care.”

Dr. Emanuel is an accomplished oncologist, medical ethicist and academic (and contributing opinion writer to The New York Times). And, of course, he’s no stranger to politics: He helped craft the Affordable Care Act as a health policy adviser to the Obama administration, when his brother, Rahm, now the mayor of Chicago, was chief of staff. The book is a full-throated defense of the law (its subtitle: “How the Affordable Care Act Will Improve Our Terribly Complex, Blatantly Unjust, Outrageously Expensive, Grossly Inefficient, Error Prone System”).
In it, Mr. Emanuel argues that in the next two or three years, “a few big, blue-chip companies will announce their intention to stop providing health insurance. Instead, they will raise salaries substantially or offer large, defined contributions to their workers. Then the floodgates will open.” He says that few small businesses will join the SHOP exchanges set up for them and that most of those that offer coverage are even more likely than big companies to drop it, since those who employ fewer than 50 workers face no mandate to offer it in the first place, which Mr. Emanuel thinks is fine.
Mr. Emanuel acknowledges that the fact that workers don’t pay taxes on the premium benefit from their employers is a big obstacle to this vision — the tax break is the second-biggest deduction in the tax code, and employees won’t be eager to give it up. But, he argues, the so-called Cadillac tax on especially generous health plans, set to take effect in 2018, will help pave the way by discouraging companies from offering those plans.
In two conversations that have been condensed and edited, Mr. Emanuel walked us through his prediction and talked about other aspects of the health law’s impact on businesses small and large — and then conceded that he could well turn out to be wrong.



LOL - you think !

Well he was right about the lack of participation in the small business SHOP programs...

The website still isn't finished for creation of the small business health plans - DUH !

But they keep giving "bonuses" to the companies working on the ACA website ! ! !

Hey Giga: send your check back to the Koch brothers. They paid you too much.

I don't pay for Koch !

But when I do - I get my money refunded !


Your so far left - you can't see reality !


The Democrats, still reeling from the findings of their favorite whiz kid Nate Silver that the odds favor the GOP taking over the Senate, get a few dollops of bad news in the George Washington University Battleground poll.

First, the left’s crusade against the Koch brothers isn’t working very well, as one might expect with an effort to vilify two businessmen unknown to the vast majority of voters. After months (years, even) of vilification, the brothers’ negative numbers (25 percent) are actually less horrible than those of Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who gets thumbs down from 35 percent, or the president who draws a negative reaction from 49 percent of voters. This only highlights how daft is the scheme to run against two private citizens not on the ballot and largely anonymous. (The effort, of course, is more properly seen as a fundraising ruse and lame attempt to engage the Democratic base.)

But, it’s all the Democrats have these days.




BaaaaaaWaaaaaaHaaaaaaHaaaaa --- say good bye to the Dem Senate Majority come election Time !


Lemme repeat that Original Post for you...


Obamacare (Democrats) Failing the Uninsured

At the outset, Obamacare was created to expand health coverage to
the 13 percent of eligible Americans—roughly 38 million—who are uninsured.

A new survey, however, found that most uninsured people believe the insurance
offered through Affordable Care Act is simply not affordable.

Consulting firm McKinsey and Co. found that just 27 percent of the 4 million
Obamacare enrollees were previously uninsured. That means the majority of
those who have signed up for Obamacare already had insurance, or were
kicked off their old policies and had to replace them.



Let me help you with the math - since your a DUMBAZZ - that means that
only 1 in 38 of those previously uninsured have benefited... But 100% of
all those previously insured have suffered higher costs and soon will pay
higher taxes and fees to make that possible ! ! !

6 million and counting signed up !!!!

I thought this article put into prospective good government vs Reaganomics:

Sorry Giga, but you're the dumbazz:

(CNN) -- According to court documents that surfaced this week, General Motors' engineers knew about ignition-switch problems in the Chevrolet Cobalt as early as 2009. The company may have been aware of the dangers as early as 2005 soon after the first Cobalts rolled off the assembly line in 2004. Since 2009, at least a dozen deaths have resulted from the flaw in which, upon impact, the ignition switch slips out of the "on" position and thus prevented airbags from deploying. Last month, GM announced the recall of 1.6 million Cobalts.
In a June 2013 deposition, Gary Altman, program engineering manager for the 2005 Cobalt, was asked whether GM made a business decision not to address the problem. "That is what happened, yes," said Altman.
This news comes just a week after Toyota Motor Corporation announced it would pay $1.2 billion to settle pending criminal charges from the Department of Justice alleging Toyota covered up evidence of safety defects in its vehicles.
Sally Kohn
Sally Kohn
"The private sector is more efficient," says Sen. Rand Paul and his fellow conservatives. Really? Efficient at what, exactly — fraud, deception and disaster?
Many of the public policy disagreements between conservatives and progressives are at essence a debate over whether government or the private sector is best equipped to provide vital services. Conservatives argue that government can be bloated and inefficient, which is certainly true sometimes, but attributing those characteristics to all government is like accusing every small businessperson of being Bernie Madoff.
At its heart, whatever the occasional shortcomings, government exists solely for the purpose of advancing the public good. That's the mission. That's the entire design of the enterprise. Corruption, waste and falling short on delivery are inherently anathema to the core principles and existence of government.
On the other hand, the point of the private sector is to make money. That's a good thing. Private enterprise is a vital engine of economic growth and opportunity in America and worldwide. That said -- if your primary goal is to make money, then hiding inconvenient facts, deceiving customers, cutting corners or sweeping risks under the rug are endemic to your enterprise.
In an era of capitalism where businesses are increasingly massive and removed from the direct consequences of their business practices on employees, customers and communities, these profit-at-all-cost impulses are increasingly unbound.
That's how you end up with companies knowing that its products are killing or hurting people and yet still refusing to do something about it lest it hurt their bottom line. Today we're talking about the Chevy Cobalt, but before that it was securitized sub-prime mortgages and before that it was tobacco companies selling cigarettes to kids. The list goes on and on and on.
And this week, we have the Supreme Court hearing arguments in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases that private businesses should be able to claim religion in order to evade tenets of the law. The litigants want to evade compliance with the Obamacare mandate that they provide health insurance that covers contraception.
But, as Justice Elena Kagan asked during oral arguments, what's to stop a company from using religion to object to vaccinations? Or blood transfusions? Or minimum wage laws or family medical leave or child labor laws? We've already ushered in unprecedented corporate rights through Citizens United and various doctrines of corporate personhood. Do we really need to go a step further and let corporations use religion as a loophole to rationalize their whims?
More importantly, in spite of example after example to the contrary, why do we trust corporations to tell us the truth and do the right thing when they are not only designed but incentivized to do the opposite? Why on earth would we trust oil companies to tell us that fracking poses no harm to our drinking water? Or that our old health insurance policies are good ones? Or that our education system would be better off in their hands?

Go fuck yourself Dean

Hey DG ---- what about them 3 top ranking Democrats arrested for CRIMINAL
activities this week on Bribery - Embezeling - Gun Running charges....

Not to mention Rhode Island House Speaker busted by the FBI and IRS on
undisclosed charges....

BaaaaWaaaaHaaaaHaaaa ---- take or steal all they can now cause a new broom is coming ???

Like car salesman one way or another they are gonna fuck you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another Democrat "bites the dust" --- that makes like 5 this week alone !

Pasted

Federal agents sought evidence of child pornography last week when they seized computers from the Elgin district office of former state Rep. Keith Farnham, who resigned Wednesday, according to a search warrant released Friday.

In addition, a federal agent on Thursday took a laptop computer that Farnham used in the Illinois House chamber, and last week agents removed a computer from a legislative office building next to the Capitol, according to the documents and an interview with a state technology official.

Asked about the child pornography matter, Farnham, 66, said Friday in a phone interview: “I can’t comment about any of it.”

Farnham has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Chicago, said no charges have been filed and refused further comment.

Farnham handed in his resignation on Wednesday, saying he was “battling serious health issues for a number of years.” He had won the Democratic primary on Tuesday, running unopposed.


Ironically

Farnham, who took office in 2009, is listed as the co-sponsor on two state bills that sought to increase the penalties on individuals who possess child pornography in certain circumstances.

In case anyone missed this in the news......


A flood of corruption scandals involving state and local Democratic Party lawmakers is threatening to muddy the party’s image as it enters what was already a tough election cycle.

In a week Democrats won’t soon forget, the Democrat-dominated California Senate took the unprecedented step Friday of voting 28-1 to suspend with pay three state senators in their own party accused or convicted of criminal conduct.



State Sen. Leland Yee was arrested Wednesday on federal gun trafficking and corruption charges. Sen. Ron Calderon pleaded not guilty Feb. 24 to charges of influence-peddling, and Sen. Roderick Wright was convicted Jan. 28 of perjury and voter fraud.

None of the state senators has resigned from office, although Mr. Yee has pulled out of the race for California secretary of state.

“One is an anomaly, two a coincidence, but three? That’s not what this Senate is about,” California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said to lawmakers before the suspension vote.


Last week, California state Sen. Leland Yee was arrested on federal gun trafficking and corruption charges.

Meanwhile, Patrick Cannon, the Democratic mayor of Charlotte, N.C., resigned Wednesday after he was charged with accepting more than $48,000 in bribes during an FBI sting operation. In Rhode Island, the Democrat-led state legislature voted to replace former House Speaker Gordon Fox, who stepped down after the FBI raided his home and office.

The FBI also conducted a Wednesday raid on the offices of New York Assemblyman William Scarborough, another Democrat. Mr. Scarborough told reporters later that the raid centered on whether he had abused his state expense account.

In Illinois, federal agents Wednesday seized computers at the home and office of Democratic state Rep. Keith Farnham, who resigned March 19, citing health concerns. The Associated Press reported that the agents were searching for evidence of child pornography.

The sheer number of federal arrests and raids stunned liberal commentators such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, who noted last week that California Democrats lost their supermajority in the state Senate because of the inactive status of the three lawmakers.

“There are now three Democratic state senators with federal criminal indictments against them just this session resulting already in eight felony convictions,” Ms. Maddow said. “And yes, the Republican Party is essentially defunct in most of California and probably beyond reviving, but if anything can bring them back, it’s probably days like this.”

On the other side are conservatives asking whether the Obama administration’s Justice Department is deliberately cleaning house on behalf of the Democratic Party now to prevent the scandals from cropping up in the weeks before the Nov. 4 elections.

“It is entirely possible that the head honchos of the Democrat Party are basically behind an effort to take out all of their bad apples before the election; make them old news by the time the election comes around,” conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said on his Friday show.

“The timing here is obviously curious, and it really is hard to believe the FBI would be working against the wishes of the regime, isn’t it?” Mr. Limbaugh said.




BaaaaWaaaHaaaHaaa ---- dirty politics, you think ????

Just when you thought it was - STUPID - it gets more stupid !


Here's more fallout from the health care law: Until now, customers could walk into an insurance office or go online to buy standard health care coverage any time of year. Not anymore.

Many people who didn't sign up during the government's open enrollment period that ended Monday will soon find it difficult or impossible to get insured this year, even if they go directly to a private company and money is no object. For some it's already too late.

With limited exceptions, insurers are refusing to sell to individuals after the enrollment period for HealthCare.gov and the state marketplaces. They will lock out the young and healthy as well as the sick or injured. Those who want to switch plans also are affected. The next wide-open chance to enroll comes in November for coverage in 2015.

It's a little-noted consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, which requires nearly all Americans to be insured or pay a fine and requires insurers to accept people with health problems.

"I have people that can buy insurance, but the companies shut them down. They won't take the applications," insurance broker Steve Bobiak of Frackville, Pa., said. "We're a free country. You should be able to buy anything anytime you want."

Those who act now may still be able to get in, depending on where they live. Following the lead of the government marketplaces, some companies are extending off-marketplace sales for a week or a month to help people who hit snags trying to enroll by this week's deadline. Rules vary from state to state.

After those extensions, eligibility for coverage during 2014 is guaranteed only for people who experience certain qualifying life events, such as losing a job that provided insurance, moving to a new state, getting married, having a baby or losing coverage under a parent's health plan.

The federal law doesn't prevent companies from selling policies to everyone all year. But insurers consider it too risky now that the law prohibits them from rejecting people in poor health.

"If you didn't have an open enrollment period, you would have people who would potentially enroll when they get sick and dis-enroll when they get better," said Chris Stenrud, spokesman for insurer Kaiser Permanente. "The only insured people would be sick people, which would make insurance unaffordable for everyone."

Bobiak, whose NICA Benefits company helps people buy insurance in New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, said he learned only a couple of weeks ago that insurers were cutting off new policies.

"It's lousy communication out there," he said. "If we don't know, my God, how do they expect other people to know? It's terrible."

A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation in mid-March found that 6 out of 10 people without insurance weren't aware of the marketplace deadline on March 31. The Obama administration, insurance companies and nonprofit groups scrambled to spread the word, often with messages that focused on the cost savings available to many people through the government marketplaces.

There wasn't much public discussion about people who prefer to buy policies outside the marketplaces, sometimes finding better deals or options more to their liking.

Health and Human Services spokesman Aaron Albright pointed to a cryptic note on the HealthCare.gov website: It says "in some limited cases some insurance companies may sell private health plans outside the marketplace and outside open enrollment" that satisfy the law's coverage mandate. It doesn't say how to find any companies doing that. Albright had no further comment.

Gary Claxton, a health law expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said it's "highly unlikely" that companies will offer such coverage after the deadline window fully closes. Some do still offer temporary plans, lasting from a month to a year. But those plans don't cover pre-existing conditions and don't get buyers off the hook for the law's tax penalty.

Nate Purpura, spokesman for eHealthInsurance.com, which sells policies from 200 companies across the nation, said at this point he knows of none planning to offer major medical insurance after this month, except to people with qualifying life events.

For people trying to get an off-marketplace plan through an open enrollment extension, some insurers are selling them through April 15, and others through the end of the month. Purpura said eHealth will offer such plans in at least some areas of these states: Arizona, California, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington state.

Kaiser Permanente will offer extensions that mirror the state or federal marketplace in the area where a plan is sold, Stenrud said. The federal marketplace extension for online enrollment is April 15. But Oregon, for example, is giving marketplace buyers until April 30.

After that, Stenrud said, without a qualifying life event, the door closes until Nov. 15.

___