It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


For Once, Congress Does It's Job!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 04:52 PM


Both sides may have failed but at least one side tried. The other side was hell bent on obstructing any and every initiative coming out of the White House, at each and every opportunity.

I agree it's not perfect but, given time, we'll fix it. At least people are talking about it now and comparing it to countries with true universal care. Once they realize what needs to be fixed, they'll demand it and it will happen.

Just as they Fixed Social security? defunded it with IOUs?

Just as Education got fixed, and we continue to slide in ranking compared to the rest of the world?

Just as they Fixed the economy? By not holding those accountable that caused it and bailing out companies that practiced fraudulent practices?

This is the government you are putting your faith in to "fix" this??

Partisanship has killed the US governments ability to function in any semblance of sustainability or fiscal responsibility.

The answer is never MORE government, IT IS ALWAYS less.

Government is a rabid dog that needs to be held in check by a very short leash and masters with large sticks.

Instead, we have let the rabid dog run lose, and the results are what we see now.

The left and right have played us all for their own gain, and we all need to wake up to that fact.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 05:01 PM


The answer is never MORE government, IT IS ALWAYS less.

IMO, "more" vs. "less" is a misnomer in this particular circumstance when in actuality, it should be "good" vs. "bad".

I don't necessarily want less governance, what I want is good governance.

I fully expect the actual size of my government to grow right along with the growing population and their needs. What I'm tired of is bad or corrupt government that addresses the wants & needs of corporate lobbyist above those of the general population.

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 05:01 PM

reply to post by alienreality

IMO, your entire post is just your opinion coupled with a healthy dose of B.S. and hardly worthy of a legitimate response. Other than that, I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on the subject.

Only time will tell which of us is right.

Only some things I said were opinion.
And the things I pointed out about the deceptive selling of it all to the American people is documented fact, and even Obama himself apologized for misrepresenting the thing.... Your views seem to only confirm how delusional people can be and just pretend that eating the BS our leaders are feeding us, tastes real good.

But then when you are so used to the smell of lies and your taste buds also become weak from shoveling down so much BS, it can make you not notice how bad it really is...Yep, I feel for ya there buckaroo

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 09:30 PM
Does this new bill address the employer mandate for employees on Medicaid or Medicare?

How would that affect the "50" full time employee formula?

Better yet, does PPACA itself or regulations address any of this?

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 10:26 PM

Does this affect the employee count at all?
Say, the company has exactly 50 employees of which two are veterans, only 48 are eligible for care therefore, so does the company still need to provide for those, or would it need 50 eligible employees?

May depend on how some interpret the language....

(F) Exemption for health coverage under TRICARE or the Veterans Administration

Solely for purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer under this paragraph for any month, an employer may elect not to take into account for a month as an employee any individual who, for such month, has medical coverage under—

(i) chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, including coverage under the TRICARE program, or

(ii) under a health care program under chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, United States Code, as determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary.

H.R. 3474: Hire More Heroes Act of 2014

posted on Mar, 24 2014 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by BritofTexas

This is a step in the correct direction.

S&F to you.

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:04 AM

reply to post by BritofTexas

I wonder if veterans will now be considered to be optimum hires for companies, based upon the fact that the employer now has a pre-insured candidate for the position being offered?

Actually, this is something I considered. I get my health care at the VA, and I remember I was in an interview for a job at a cleaning service. The interviewer was extremely pleased when I told her I get my care at the VA, as the job offered no benefits, and wasn't planning on having any. In the end I found a better job, one with insurance which I will take, and use the VA only when necessary. But this wasn't the first crap job where this was commenting as a positive point for hiring.

It could potentially tax the VA if it ends up out of control. It would, in one sense, make veterans have similar appeal to illegals and undocumented workers, as far as employers are concerned. Which is not necessarily a good thing. Who knows. Will the next step be that veterans who receive disability pay/va pay will end up getting hired more at lower salaries, since they receive income from the government?

I am very thankful I have the VA, both as a provider and as a godsend for not having to deal with the mess that is obamacare. However, the idea of government programs lightening an employer's load, responsibility, and incentive to increase salary, improve working conditions, ect, is not necessarily a good one. It would really depend on a lot of things.

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:38 AM


alienreality I'm not sure how the ACA can be fixed because everything it is being sold as is actually the opposite, and everyone knows it. Everything about it is actually the worlds most brazen case of felony fraud committed by a president to date.
You may want to re think that.

  • LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati. FACT: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by Judith Miller in the New York Times, has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials, who monitor nuclear plants, say the tubes could not be used for enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst, who was part of the tubes investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie."
  • LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address. FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," he told the New Republic, anonymously. They [the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more strongly."
  • LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press." FACT: There was and is absolutely zero basis for this statement. CIA reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.
  • LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush. FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.
  • LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7 . FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
  • LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7. FACT: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000 miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to say "plane"?
  • LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address. FACT: Despite a massive nationwide search by U.S. and British forces, there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
  • LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council. FACT: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive stockpile has been found, as previously reported on AlterNet the United States' own intelligence reports show that these stocks -- if they existed -- were well past their use-by date and therefore useless as weapon fodder
  • LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press. FACT: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west, south or north, somewhat or otherwise
  • LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003. FACT: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But British and American experts -- including the State Department's intelligence wing in a report released this week -- have since declared this to be untrue. According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they were; facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British themselves.
Ten Appalling Lies We Were Told About Iraq

What does all that slop about Bush have anything to do with this? When Obama say's a blatant lie to you, you approve it because, why? Does believing lies make you feel loved? And I never approved of anything Bush did that was unconstitutional and Illegal like half of his projects were.

Did you know that Ignoring deceptions and pretending they aren't being said, or don't count is like an abused spouse being told over and over again that it will never happen again, each time it happens? This is the sign of a broken will of someone that has submitted to it and won't fight back anymore.
Is there a 12 step program for this?

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 08:33 AM
reply to post by BritofTexas

Did somebody believe TriCare is free for the retiree? Have you not paid attention to the horror stories posted on this site regarding VA care? Folks, military benefits are usually bare minimums and TriCare was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on us.

So here you have a company that's paying for everyone's insurance Except the veteran ... who is expected to pay for himself, find a healthcare provider willing to accept TriCare, or travel whatever distance is required for VA care.

I'm not seeing the fairness in this. Yeah ... it would seem Congress has screwed veterans again ... and made themselves look good in the process.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in