a projection

[ZackDaniels]

I take it back guys.

Obama's election is causing gun control.

"Obama is trying to take away our guns! :damn angry:"
"What? No he isn't! :ummm:"
"THAT'S IT! I'M TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS! :bang head:"

 

[Itgoes]

I've owned a small business for 17 years. Our health insurance premiums go up every year with out fail. It forces us to switch carriers on the average of every 2-3 years. When you shop, you can usually find a company that will insure you for what you paid the previous year. The next year when it''s time for renewal, generally we will get a 6-9% increase, the next year it will be over 15%. This has happened like clock work.

The health insurance premiums are one of the biggest drags on the companies profitability. We spend well over 100K in premiums (on only 15 employees) even with the employees picking up part of cost.

The truth is the most vocal opponents of the Obamacare are small businesses who DON'T offer health-care insurance for their employees and will now have to, or pay a fine. Cry me a river.

 

[ZackDaniels]

I've owned a small business for 17 years. Our health insurance premiums go up every year with out fail. It forces us to switch carriers on the average of every 2-3 years. When you shop, you can usually find a company that will insure you for what you paid the previous year. The next year when it''s time for renewal, generally we will get a 6-9% increase, the next year it will be over 15%. This has happened like clock work.

The health insurance premiums are one of the biggest drags on the companies profitability. We spend well over 100K in premiums (on only 15 employees) even with the employees picking up part of cost.

The truth is the most vocal opponents of the Obamacare are small businesses who DON'T offer health-care insurance for their employees and will now have to, or pay a fine. Cry me a river.

100k / 15 (employees) / 12 (months) = $555 a month. Figuring what they chip in that's $600 a month or so?

You have shopped insurance very well, because that's pretty cheap. For individual family insurance I've seen it go over a grand. Is your coverage as good as it was when you started offering it?

It goes up every year. It's already twice as expensive as a typical car payment, within a decade it's going to be as big as a mortgage payment. Means more and more people every year will be under-insured or uninsured, and every time one of them has a medical bill that goes unpaid it will raise the cost of insurance that little bit more.

It's a vicious cycle with no end in sight if the current health care system stayed as-is.

Consumer demand, and a surplus or lack thereof, is pretty much the single most important driver of whether firms are hiring or firing. Consumer demand is still the single biggest problem with the economy as it stands, and smart businesses are going to let consumer demand drive their decision instead of issues on the margins like health care costs. The only employment change you may see as a direct result of Obamacare are some full time positions becoming part time or hourly positions getting reduced to 30 hours per week so the employer can skirt around having to provide healthcare. This will only apply to employers that currently don't provide health care, and can't afford to now that it's being required of them to.

Add Applebees to the 'not smart businesses' list.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/09/1173181/applebees-ceo-obamacare/

TANKEL: We’ve calculated it will be some millions of dollars across our system. So what does that say — that says we won’t build more restaurants. We won’t hire more people — exactly the opposite of what the President says.

HOST: Do you feel under pressure to move to a more part-time workforce, as other restaurants are doing because of Obamacare?

TANKEL: The model’s been set. I’m sure all our people are watching this right now, so I don’t want to make any commitments one way or another. I just want to say we’re looking at it, we’re evaluating it, if it’s possible to do without cutting people back, I’m delighted to do it. But that also rolls back expansion, it rolls back hiring more people, and in a best-case scenario we only shrink the labor force minimally.

Just in:
Restaurant chain fails to recognize it's a luxury item and whines about having to make an investment that will dramatically expand it's customer base.

 

[Itgoes]

100k / 15 (employees) / 12 (months) = $555 a month. Figuring what they chip in that's $600 a month or so?

You have shopped insurance very well, because that's pretty cheap. For individual family insurance I've seen it go over a grand. Is your coverage as good as it was when you started offering it?

It goes up every year. It's already twice as expensive as a typical car payment, within a decade it's going to be as big as a mortgage payment. Means more and more people every year will be under-insured or uninsured, and every time one of them has a medical bill that goes unpaid it will raise the cost of insurance that little bit more.

It's a vicious cycle with no end in sight if the current health care system stayed as-is.

I think it's actually somewhere between 125K -150K (I don't pay the bill, that's part of my partners responsibility) and 13 of the 15 are on the plan (2 employees are husband and wife and 1 does not participate).

The employees contribute 30%. The employee contribution has gone up 10% over the years, but the coverage has remained pretty much the same and it's a good plan. We had already switched to HMO type coverage with the previous ownership.

We were forced 2 years ago to go to a "High Deductible" plan. It was the only way to keep from asking the employees to contribute more while in the middle of the recession. It does not cost them any more, because we pick up all expenses until the deductible is met. Even with us picking up the deductibles it is still slightly less expensive overall to the company.

 

[Rollie]

Just heard on Fox news this morning , Bo's admin. has averaged 68 new regulations PER DAY in the last 90 days.
Granted some were the changing of a word or two to existing regs and some were needed , such as adding a form of cancer to be covered for the first responders at the World Trade Center bombing , but 68 PER DAY ? He either thought he might lose the election and wanted to push through as much as possible in a short time frame , or this will become the norm. GOD help us 'cause the mainstream press won't keep us informed.

 

[ZackDaniels]

What does Fox News think about this?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/05/obamacare-it-s-cheaper.html

Projected drop of average health insurance cost by 2014 to all age groups as a result of Obamacare.

Cheaper insurance any year, ever would be historic. I'd be happy to learn that health care was only increasing at a rate matching inflation as even that would be a first. If the average cost actually drops that would really be something amazing.

People with more money in their pockets > means an increase in consumer buying power > means an increase in consumer demand > means a better economy > means more jobs and higher paying jobs > means more tax revenues without having to raise taxes > means less deficit > means less debt.

Leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is unexpected medical cost by under and uninsured. People filing bankruptcy and defaulting on their personal debt raises prices and rates for all kinds of things. Reducing that also increases consumer buying power.

Just heard on Fox news this morning , Bo's admin. has averaged 68 new regulations PER DAY in the last 90 days.

You can see for yourself what these are here:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;np=90;dct=N%2BPR;rpp=25;po=0

948 are rules. The rest are notifications and proposed rules and are not regulations per se.

Of the ones that are rules - you can read the details and you the public person of no political office can submit a comment regarding it. From your keyboard straight to regulating officials eyes. How cool is that?

 

[ZackDaniels]

I think it's actually somewhere between 125K -150K (I don't pay the bill, that's part of my partners responsibility) and 13 of the 15 are on the plan (2 employees are husband and wife and 1 does not participate).

The employees contribute 30%. The employee contribution has gone up 10% over the years, but the coverage has remained pretty much the same and it's a good plan. We had already switched to HMO type coverage with the previous ownership.

We were forced 2 years ago to go to a "High Deductible" plan. It was the only way to keep from asking the employees to contribute more while in the middle of the recession. It does not cost them any more, because we pick up all expenses until the deductible is met. Even with us picking up the deductibles it is still slightly less expensive overall to the company.

(($125,000 * .3 = $37,500) + $125,000 = $162,500 (employer + employee payment))/ 13 (employees) /12 (months) = $1041 a month for healthcare. That sounds about right, and that's really cool that you guys are taking on the first part of the forced higher deductibles so they're not having to eat their first $5,000-$10,000 of med costs on top of that figure every month.

I'm guessing $1041 is higher than some mortgages your employees pay. If you were not in NY where housing/cost of living is on the high side I'd even bet on it. If the system were to remain unchanged then whatever mortgage they have is likely fixed rate where as it's a guarantee they'll be spending more on the health insurance every year. So even if I was wrong at the moment I would be right in a couple years.


The funny thing is your group rate makes the cost cheaper than if the family didn't have access to employer provided insurance. If they didn't have employer options they'd have to get more expensive coverage since they don't get a group rate, and they'd have to eat the entire cost of it. It remains to be seen if Obamacare changes the outcome of that or not. I really hope it's able to, because I know a lot of hard working people who couldn't possibly swing a second mortgage payment every month. I would hate for them to be labeled lazy ******** just wanting handouts as a result.

 

[Rollie]

Looks like the FBI top brass may have joined the ranks of the mainstream socialist media in protecting Bo .

FBI Suppressed Petraeus Scandal to Protect President
Sunday, 11 Nov 2012 09:25 PM
By Ronald Kessler


Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. ? FBI agents investigating CIA Director David Petraeus's affair were shocked when told by bureau officials that despite the national security implications, no action would be taken on their findings until after the presidential election: Only then would President Obama ask for Petraeus? resignation.

The White House claims President Obama and his national security advisors were first informed of the Petraeus' affair on Thursday, two days after the election.

But the official timeline strains credulity. Senior FBI officials suppressed disclosure of the highly sensitive case, apparently to avoid embarrassment to Obama during his re-election campaign.

On Oct. 10, I was contacted by a longtime FBI source who told me that a bureau investigation had uncovered Petraeus? affair with a journalist and that it could potentially jeopardize national security.

The veteran agent related to me that FBI agents assigned to the case were outraged by what were they were told by senior officials: The FBI was going to hold in limbo their findings until after the election.

?The decision was made to delay the resignation apparently to avoid potential embarrassment to the president before the election,? an FBI source told me. ?To leave him in such a sensitive position where he was vulnerable to potential blackmail for months compromised our security and is inexcusable.?

My source said the FBI had been investigating the matter since last spring and the probe was considered among the most sensitive investigations the bureau was handling.

Both FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and the Justice Department were aware of the investigation, according to my source. The source did not specifically know whether Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder or FBI Director Mueller had given the order to delay taking action until after the election.

However, Mueller meets at least once a week with the president and routinely informs him of highly sensitive investigations and threats. An FBI investigation of the CIA director should have been at the top of that list.

In fact, it would have been a scandal if the FBI had not informed the president or the attorney general of an investigation of the CIA director.

Last Friday, the White House announced that Petraeus had resigned over an extramarital affair. At the time, I was completing my own investigation into the matter based on what my source had told me.

On the same day, my report for Newsmax, "FBI Investigation Led to Petraeus Resignation," revealed for the the first time that an an FBI investigation of Petraeus' emails had triggered his resignation.

Since then, the White House has claimed that the president was surprised when told of the FBI investigation two days after the election.

If the president genuinely did not know about the probe, it would constitute malfeasance by the White House. But my FBI sources doubt the order to suppress the probe?s findings until after the election ? while taking a chance with the nation?s security ? was made by the bureau.

For my recently published book, ?The Secrets of the FBI,? FBI Director Mueller gave me unprecedented access to the bureau, including to agents who told me normally classified details of how FBI agents break into homes and offices to plant bugging devices in terrorist, espionage, Mafia, and political corruption cases.

In my opinion, Mueller is a man of impeccable integrity. He would not have acquiesced to delaying action on the bureau?s findings unless ordered to do so by the attorney general or by the president.

Since this was not a criminal matter, Mueller may have justified his decision by saying it is up to the government agency who employs the individual or the White House to take action. But the decision to delay action on the Petraeus case ? when the fact that he had placed himself in a compromising position was known by the FBI for months ? clearly created a security risk.

As FBI agents and CIA officers tell me, such a delay could have meant that foreign intelligence service officers or criminals who may have learned of the affair could have blackmailed Petraeus into giving up the country?s most sensitive secrets. Given his position, those secrets would have included penetrations of Russian communications, bugging of foreign embassies, identities of assets risking their lives to give the U.S. valuable information on terrorists, and identities of terrorists who are about to be killed by drones.

My source told me that the investigation into Petraeus? affair began when FBI agents mistook a reference in one of his emails to ?under the desk? to mean corruption, as in payments under the table.

While the source?s information was correct, news reports later said the broader FBI investigation began last spring when Paula Broadwell, with whom Petraeus was allegedly having an affair, allegedly began sending threatening emails to another woman she viewed as a potential threat to her relationship with Petraeus.

It turned out that ?under the desk? was a reference to having sex under the desk with Petraeus, who is married.

Broadwell, who is married to a radiologist, was ?embedded? with Petraeus while writing a book about him when he was stationed in Kabul. A triathlete, she has degrees from West Point and Harvard and holds the rank of major in the Army Reserve. She has not commented on her role in Petraeus? resignation.

Michael Kortan, the FBI's assistant director for public affairs, had no immediate comment.

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. He is the New York Times bestselling author of books on the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA. Read more reports from Ronald Kessler ? Click Here Now.

? 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.



Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pet.../463697?s=al&promo_code=10AA5-1#ixzz2C1FHQYfL
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

 

[ZackDaniels]

Since this was not a criminal matter, Mueller may have justified his decision by saying it is up to the government agency who employs the individual or the White House to take action. But the decision to delay action on the Petraeus case — when the fact that he had placed himself in a compromising position was known by the FBI for months — clearly created a security risk.

So wait, is it they were investigating for months and held info to save face during an election? Or is it that they made the whole thing up to help cover up Benghazi? I can't keep my conspiracy theories straight anymore as they seem to be contradicting now.

Since we're on Benghazi help me out here. I can't wrap my head around why we created a military that lacks a hierarchy of decision-makers. It seems terribly inefficient to have to defer to the commander-in-chief for everything, and remaining completely paralyzed without their explicit say-so. We should really create a series of intermediary positions so that a second person is able to make military decisions in addition to the head of the civilian government.

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

Don't know if the whole Petraeus thing would have made a difference to the outcome of the election, but it's not surprising that top brass would do O's bidding, or that of his political advisers, to protect their own careers. It is a fact, however, that hurricane Sandy's timing was very fortuitous for him, in that it did take the focus off Benghazi, which could have definitely had an effect on the election. He gets to be a hero, instead of a possible sympathizer to our sworn enemies. Lucky for him, at the expense of Sandy's victims. No theory, simple fact.

 

[ZackDaniels]

I don't have one with the timeline to show where all the debates etc are, but 'Mittmentum' was dead as of the 2nd debate.

Here's the forecast based on polling data compiled and averaged by Nate Silver's 538 blog. The only time Romney was gaining anything was for those couple of weeks between the 1st and 2nd debate. Benghazi had little effect on public opinion and I doubt a sex scandal several degrees removed from Obama would have either.

The gray line in the middle is the 270 electoral votes needed to win.
The electoral count at the top is an average and not a static prediction which is why it doesn't line up with the final result.

Nate Silver correctly predicted every state for the general and all but one congressional race correctly. The methods were proven quite accurate in 2010 and extremely accurate for this 2012 run.

With that in mind... if the election were held at any time between June and November Romney would have lost. Even when he was at his best polling wise he was still losing the election. Sandy didn't effect the outcome at all unless Mitt would have used the extra air time he would have got to bring something to the table that would have swung the election more than it had at any point in the entire election to that point. I highly doubt this scandal would have been that thing even if it were in play.