If you do not allow us to raise the debt ceiling you will not get your SS check says Obama

page: 12
50
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 7 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Dutchowl
 


Maybe he was furloughed?




posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Now the SSA is chiming in. Folks, this does not seem good. I mean, raising a debt to pay debts is not the answer. They are basically saying that there is no money to make these payments.


The Social Security Administration has begun warning the public it cannot guarantee full benefit payments if the debt ceiling isn’t increased.

When asked by the public, the agency is notifying beneficiaries that “Unlike a federal shutdown which has no impact on the payment of Social Security benefits, failure to raise the debt ceiling puts Social Security benefits at risk,” according to a person familiar with the agency directive.

The warning was assembled after the agency consulted with the Treasury Department, which would play a lead role in determining how the government handles payments if the borrowing limit isn’t raised soon.

“Our employees started receiving questions from the public, so the agency worked with Treasury to provide an answer they could use when asked about the debt ceiling by the public,” a Social Security Administration spokesman said.


Risk. That is not a good word. You can make risky investments and you can make risky decisions but when used in this context it is scary. Why is FSOC coming out of my paycheck still? The 'it is for the future argument' is over now.



posted on Oct, 8 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
These posers are posturing and fear mongering. There is something else going on, something that is being left unstated to the average MSM viewer who believes any of this jibberish. I just heard the term "fiscal cliff" pop up again on a CBS news feed, hmmmm?, I thought we fell off of that awhile back....

If the majority of people don't fall for the fear mongering, such as the national parks being shut down (awwww, can't go on my vacation....), or a salmonella outbreak not being monitored by the CDC (chickens have always been dirty birds and should be cooked thoroughly, anybody knows that....), or the southern border being unpatrolled ( they have been admitting they can't control it for years....).....etcetera....We might just be OK and let the chips fall where they may to deal with what we should have long ago.

Most of these things they are jabbering about aren't very important at all, and mean very little. The debt ceiling issue is the one that catches my attention more than anything else, if it is raised things will just get worse for longer, and it will be harder to recover when we are weaker as a country (or whatever....) than we are already.

They keep jabbering about everything but the real problem, which is the banks and the tainted monetary system which is based on nothing, which is doing exactly what it was designed to do, to generate profits through interest and generate endless debt that can never be paid off.

Let it collapse, my personal economy collapsed long ago, and I'm just fine with things the way they are, hopefully y'all are fine too.

Even if you don't think you're fine, remember that where there is life there is hope for a better tomorrow, and being more frugal now will do you good later on.

Don't worry, don't be overly happy either (you don't want to draw attention to yourself, I have made that mistake in the past....), and have a good life....

The more you take from a person, the freer they become. If only more people realized that, these pinheads in Washington would stop trying to sell us junk we don't need and get something of substance done.

If more of us could only agree on anything at all...................................



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 





ok, so if obamacare is so wonderful, why are people flipping out about how much more expensive it is than what they currently have? if it's so wonderful, why were government employees exempted from having to buy it? if it's so great, why did they make it a mandatory purchase? if it's the greatest thing since jesus h christ, then why isn't it optional? why is there a fine for not participating?



1. If it's more expensive than what they have, then they can keep what they have. Also, these people are probably not going to the state exchanges that were put up the first of October. Here insurance companies compete with each other for customers. To get more customers, your rates have to be competitive.

2. Government employees are exempted because they already have insurance from the government.

3. The purchase is mandatory because otherwise people who are not participating get a free ride. People who DO buy insurance have their rates increased to cover the uninsured. That's one reason why emergency rooms are so expensive. The hospitals are making up for all the free riders they have treated by making everyone else pay more.

The mandatory rule does not apply to people who already have Medicare, Medicaid, or other state assistance. It also does not apply to people who like what they already have and decide to keep it. Likewise, there is government assistance for people who cannot afford it. There are also the state exchanges which were set up October 1st where insurance companies compete with each other for customers. It is in their best interest to offer the most competitive prices.

If everyone is covered, then the population overall is healthier, because they have access to early screenings and regular doctors' appointments.

5. The fine for not participating is negligible. What little is actually collected goes to making health care costs lower.

Universal health insurance is already in effect in places such as Germany, France, Norway, and Japan. It is working well for the people of those countries where it is in effect.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 


From what I heard and know no one would be denied healthcare. If you were uninsured and not on state welfare, they would take you to court and have your wages garnished for as long as it took for them to recoup their cost.

The very low income earners or those on permanent disability where already covered by state welfare.

The reason premiums have been grossly inflated for so long is because of medical school being too expensive, medicine being over-priced, doctors trying to repay off their debt and finally make their ambitions worthwhile financially speaking.

A society that values skill over labor by 10-20 times is bound to have disporportionate earning and spending potential. This creates class warfare and might as well be an indian caste system as well.

The insurance companies are "simply" using the government as leverage to force everyone to become insured. There might be some racketering involved but its not the main issue. Its like saying I paid $30 for a fancy surf&turf dinner without realising the restaurant has to spend lots of money and time preparing it. In other words despite the expensive cost to the customer, the profit margin is moderate at best. Selling soft drinks and coffee is what leaves astronomical profits. Buy cheap and sell expensive.

We live in a capitalist society yet we dont even understand the basics sometimes.



posted on Oct, 9 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Sestias
reply to post by Daedalus
 





ok, so if obamacare is so wonderful, why are people flipping out about how much more expensive it is than what they currently have? if it's so wonderful, why were government employees exempted from having to buy it? if it's so great, why did they make it a mandatory purchase? if it's the greatest thing since jesus h christ, then why isn't it optional? why is there a fine for not participating?



1. If it's more expensive than what they have, then they can keep what they have. Also, these people are probably not going to the state exchanges that were put up the first of October. Here insurance companies compete with each other for customers. To get more customers, your rates have to be competitive.

2. Government employees are exempted because they already have insurance from the government.

3. The purchase is mandatory because otherwise people who are not participating get a free ride. People who DO buy insurance have their rates increased to cover the uninsured. That's one reason why emergency rooms are so expensive. The hospitals are making up for all the free riders they have treated by making everyone else pay more.

The mandatory rule does not apply to people who already have Medicare, Medicaid, or other state assistance. It also does not apply to people who like what they already have and decide to keep it. Likewise, there is government assistance for people who cannot afford it. There are also the state exchanges which were set up October 1st where insurance companies compete with each other for customers. It is in their best interest to offer the most competitive prices.

If everyone is covered, then the population overall is healthier, because they have access to early screenings and regular doctors' appointments.

5. The fine for not participating is negligible. What little is actually collected goes to making health care costs lower.

Universal health insurance is already in effect in places such as Germany, France, Norway, and Japan. It is working well for the people of those countries where it is in effect.


1. Problem is, ALL Healthcare agencies went up in price and in turn that has to be taken from the employee. Employers are in recession and cannot give 'free' or discounted plans' anymore. All they have to do it come in a few bucks under the expensive Obamcare coverage which is overpriced. The only thing that stayed the same this year is Dental and Life Insurance for almost all of my clients. Also, if your spouse has eligible coverage if they work the company can deny them benefits. Seems like a catch 22 here does it not?

2. Government employees should have to do the SAME thing as everyone else. Especially if this is touted as a government option.

3. Why should those who 'choose' not to have coverage be penalized to pay for those who do not have it? This makes no sense. So, someone can not have it or afford it and get it for free but if I can afford it and do not want it I am fined? Think about that for a minute. It is like saying if you do not want a big screen TV you have to pay Best Buy 100 dollars a year so someone else can get one for free. Again, think about that. If everyone is covered the population is not healthier. Having healthcare does not stop Obesity and poor choices of how one lives their life.

4. You skipped 4

5. The fines collected do not go to make Healthcare affordable...it goes to the IRS. That is who will be collecting it. They are effectively in charge of enforcing the PPACA. The PPACA is NOT Universal Healthcare. It is a way that the government used to push a tax package. The fines can be heavy, not in the first year, but subsequent. People will choose the fine instead of coverage becuase it may be cheaper in the first year but the next will no be. See #3 as too how people will STILL not be covered and the government does not care as long as you pay them. Gangster tactics if you ask me.

This will also lead to more exceptions for healthcare to be added or updated or 'change the fines' based on the market or need in the future. This was all about taxes and not giving us 'free' or better healthcare. As much as I wish it was, it did not come to light in the end as that.

This is a good article in Forbes...

Link



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Sestias


3. The purchase is mandatory because otherwise people who are not participating get a free ride. People who DO buy insurance have their rates increased to cover the uninsured. That's one reason why emergency rooms are so expensive. The hospitals are making up for all the free riders they have treated by making everyone else pay more.


i don't have insurance, i'm not getting a free ride...

i pay my doctor when i see him, pay for meds when i need them(with a drug store perscription discount), and if i need to go to the hospital, i'm enrolled in their reduced cost plan.....i'm not riding for free....


5. The fine for not participating is negligible. What little is actually collected goes to making health care costs lower.


negligible? i'm glad you think 95 bucks, or 1% of your yearly income is negligible...for some people, it's kind of a big deal...and how about when it increases?



Universal health insurance is already in effect in places such as Germany, France, Norway, and Japan. It is working well for the people of those countries where it is in effect.


obamacare isn't universal anything....it's EXTREMELY variable...

and the system you're talking about....are you sure it's insurance, in the traditional sense, or is it a NHS-type system like in the UK, canada, or australia?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   

mrsdudara
The government is shutting down regardless.

At this point they are just trying to find someone else to blame.
edit on 4-10-2013 by mrsdudara because: added a piece of info.


Wow, I can't believe it, you are so spot on about this.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 



If $95.00 is 1% of your yearly income, then you would qualify for extra assistance under Obamacare.

My guess is you only go to doctors when you are desperately ill and don't get regular check-ups, which makes you at higher risk for serious illness.

I think you just don't like President Obama and that is why you refuse to co-operate in any way.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 





Since I do not consider state and federal workers to be employed, we already have much higher than 20% unemployment.


The real unemployment is 22% ==>23% from 2008 to the present. LINK


August 24th, 2004
"GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC REPORTS: THINGS YOU'VE
SUSPECTED BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!"

...Up until the Clinton administration, a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. As of July 2004, the less-than-a-year discouraged workers total 504,000. Adding in the netherworld takes the unemployment rate up to about 12.5%.

The Clinton administration also reduced monthly household sampling from 60,000 to about 50,000, eliminating significant surveying in the inner cities...
LINK


Note the date was just before Clinton signed the World Trade Oranization treaty that exported millions of US jobs.

I once used the US census and determined those recieving checks from the government or whose job was formed because of the government (Tax Accountant, OSHA compliance officer...) was around 25%

So between the two you are closer to 40% than you are to 25%.





top topics
 
50
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join