College Professors Lose Hours Because of Obamacare

One of my favorite stories this week is the college professors at Pennsylvania’s Community College of Allegheny who’ve had their hours cut because of the costly requirements of Obamacare.

One of Obamacare’s changes to general business practices is to make people who work 30 hours or more a “full time worker.” For generations that magic number was 40 hours a week. But now that Obamacare is forcing this change to what is considered a full-timer, businesses across the country are forced to change policies and cut the hours of employees to 25 hours per week.

This is what happened at CCAC. Part time professors, teachers, and other staffers will be cut to 25 hours a week so that these part time workers will remain part time workers and will, therefore, be ineligible for healthcare.

Naturally, some folks are mad. They think the evil taskmasters in charge of the school are violating the “spirit” of Obamacare. United Steelworkers representative Jeff Cech, who has been trying to unionize the college staff, is all upset, too.

“They may be complying with the letter of the law, but the letter of law and the spirit of the law are two different things,” Cech said. “If they are doing it at CCAC, it can’t be long before they do it other places.”

Someone needs to lead this union thug to a newspaper because businesses all across the country have already announced these sort of policy changes.

But what has changed for these college staffers? Not much of anything as far as their status is concerned.

Of course, their status hasn’t changed at all from before Obamacare to afterward. They weren’t full time employees before and they aren’t now, they didn’t get healthcare before and they don’t now. But, I suppose the whiny professors are sort of right. The “spirit” of Obamacare is a Santa Clause-like effort to give people free stuff and with the college cutting hours to thwart that give away, I guess that ‘spirit” was violated.

But here is the thing. Obamacare would have cost the school an additional $6 million taxpayer dollars. So, the “free stuff” would have come from our taxes. As a taxpayer, I salute the college for violating the spirit of Barack “Santa Clause” Obama and his destructive, ruinously expensive Obamacare debacle.

One thing has changed, though. These college workers will now lose hours and income thanks to Barack Obama.

That’s right. Barack Obama is responsible for making low income workers poorer.

Why does Barack Obama hate poor people?

Of course, one is tempted to say these college folk deserve their loss of income. After all, they love them some Obama, they voted for him and they donated heavily to his campaign. They deserve what they get. So, mark me as quite happy for their discomfort.

Angus T. Jones Of "Two and a Half Men" Thinks His Show Is "Filth," Urges Viewers To Stop Watching
The Notre Dame Player Who Allegedly Assaulted A Woman (Who Then Committed Suicide) Is Playing For A National Championship
  • How unexpected… An unforseen consequence, to be sure…

    • honestinquirer

      Not a bit. I hope you are being satirical! It was guaranteed to happen the day the atrocity was signed.

      • See tongue. See cheek. See very tight proximity.


  • Hank_M

    Well, they should look at the bright side.
    They may lose their hours, some may lose their jobs, but hey, Obama cares about them.

  • 914

    Merry Christmas!

    Yours truly ~ Barry!!

  • ackwired

    Providing health insurance through employers has pretty well proven to be a failure. I’m surprised that we are still trying to make it work in this country.

    • Actually, it worked fairly well until the government decided to improve on things.

      We could have covered the uncovered (welfare/unemployment) with premium packages for a hell of a lot less than Obamacare’s going to cost for minimal services.

      But – them’s the breaks. Whenever the government wants to ‘fix’ things, you’ll end up with a bigger mess than before.

      • ackwired

        Government certainly does not have a very good track record. But as broken as our healthcare system is, I think the solution is a little more complicated than buying a policy for those that do not have one.

        • jim_m

          I think the solution is a little more complicated than buying a policy for those that do not have one.

          So you are opposed to obamacare? Because that is exactly what it is doing.

          • ackwired

            There you go again.

          • jim_m

            Then answer the question. You certainly seem in favor of obamacare.

          • ackwired

            That was one of your strawmen. You just couldn’t wait to argue against Obamacare. If you had stopped to think about it, you would have realized that Obamacare endorses and continues and extends running health insurance through employers.

          • Carl

            Thinking is not Jim’s forte. He’s a knee-jerk reactionary jerk, who makes social conservatives look like morons.

          • ackwired

            I think Jim is a bright fellow. He’s a little emotional and juvenile in his constant insults. But beneath that there is a pretty sharp mind.

          • jim_m

            When you look at the long term effects of obamacare I would point you toward obama ally Jan Schakowsky who declared that the passing of obamacare meant the end of private insurance. The purpose of obamacare is to make the private insurance so expensive that companies drop it and put their employees on the government plan.

            You really have paid no attention to this subject.

            You really know very little about healthcare.

          • ackwired

            I guess if you are out of strawmen you can just declare victory.

          • jim_m

            Just stating the facts as regards to your knowledge.

        • retired.military

          Actually Ackwired a simple is solution is
          if you dont have health insurance than you have to pay the full bill or have wages garnished.
          It isnt a 100% solution but it
          a. gives people a choice
          b. keeps govt out of it except for wage garnishment
          c. gives people incentives to get insurance (there are already programs for those that truly cant afford it).
          d. doesnt need a govt beaurocracy and 10000 IRS agents to make it work.

          • ackwired

            I think it has merit. We would still need to address the problem of insurance companies routinely denying the claims.

          • jim_m

            Psst: Medicare and medicaid do the same thing. They actually pay for less than insurance you fool.

            The difference is that it is a hell of a lot easier to appeal to your insurance and if your insurance sucks your employer can contract with a different provider. What are you going to do when your government insurance sucks? I know. You’re going to die because it is a hell of a lot easier for the government to ignore your complaints.

          • ackwired

            Medicare and medicaid pay much more readily than private insurance. Just ask anyone who has been on both and has a chronic illness. pssst…These people don’t have the funds to chase a private insurance company through the courts.

          • jim_m

            Just ask someone who wants decent options. I recall not to long ago that Medicare would pay for your cancer treatment, but it would only pay for chemotherapy regimens that were outdated and not considered as effective as the newer ones. Those regimens also had far more severe side effects with nausea and vomiting and Medicare would not pay for the anti emetic therapy to go with them.

            The point is that getting treated and getting treated properly are two different things. So your claim that Medicare pays for everything is false. It pays for the treatments it approves not necessarily the treatments you need.

          • ackwired

            When your insurance company is denying your claim for some made up reason, you have no options.

          • jim_m

            Wrong on the facts. Yet again.

            Back in the 90’s when bone marrow transplant was being done for breast cancer, the insurance companies would refuse coverage because they considered it experimental (ultimately, it was shown to not be effective). When an insurer denied the application it was appealed. When the insurer denied the appeal they were sued. Nearly every patient won without having to go to court. Our hospital had a list of attorneys that would assist in getting this done.

            We also had an insurance verifier on our staff. When options for insurance ran out (because sometimes legal remedies were not helpful like they were in Breast Ca) she could often find alternative (ie charitable) funding. Very few patients were ever really refused.

          • ackwired

            You are making my point. The insurance companies routinely denied claims and would not pay them unless they were sued. This was so common that the hospital kept a list of attorneys to refer to the patients so that the hospital could get paid for services provided.

            And you see nothing wrong with this system!?

          • jim_m

            They were routinely denying claims for a therapy that was ultimately shown in scientific studies to not be effective.

            So you are saying that because a person wants a very expensive therapy that will not work, but will make them feel like they are getting something good because they are paying a lot of money, that insurance should always pay for it?

            By the way, at that time Medicare and Medicaid wouldn’t pay for it either and you had no recourse at all with them. So why is it that insurance is evil and the government is not?

            I know because you are ignorant of the truth and in your ignorance you are confident that your ideology tells you what is right.

          • Vagabond661

            “By the way, at that time Medicare and Medicaid wouldn’t pay for it either and you had no recourse at all with them. So why is it that insurance is evil and the government is not?”


        • It wasn’t that broken. Remember when Obamacare was pushed as necessary because there were 5-10 million who didn’t have insurance? And the only solution was massive government intervention…
          The weird thing is that government proposals and laws have a way of influencing the private sector in ways that aren’t readily apparent or even foreseen. Sometimes it seems like the folks pushing radical change think that their legislation will have no effects whatever EXCEPT on those particular things they’re looking to change, that there won’t be any bleed-over into other areas. Mandate coverage on anyone working ‘full time’, then define ‘full time’ as 30 hours a week – then suddenly there’s a lot of jobs that become ‘part time’.
          How unexpected – who could have seen that coming?
          I’m starting to think we can’t afford a full-time Congress.

          • ackwired

            It was very badly broken. Not only were many unable to get or change insurance. The insurance companies routinely refused payment. Prior to the housing collapse, the largest single cause of bankruptcy was healthcare bills. Many people were unable to change jobs or to start new businesses because they would lose their health insurance. None of this is necessary. It is simply the result of a bad system. Obamacare also has problems. But don’t think that you have to defend the old broken system just because you don’t like Obamacare.

          • You heard plenty of stories, but what were the actual stats on refusals, bankruptcies and the like? And is it worth upending a system that works for most, if not optimally, for something else that’s completely unknown, on the basis of individual cases where the system didn’t work as expected?

            The assumption that giving a problem to the government to solve will provide the best possible solution is, to my mind, ludicrous. If it was a case of providing care to those that needed it, there were cheaper ways to go.

          • jim_m

            Anecdotes are sometimes compelling but they are not statistical proof of a problem.

            Most stories of people being refused approval for treatment are people seeking treatment with relatively new therapies or drugs. People with life threatening diseases often seek out newer and riskier treatments. Insurance is reluctant to pay for these.

            However, as I have said before, in our system there exist alternative ways to get treatment covered. Hospitals will cover some treatments as charity. Other charitable funding is available. People can raise their own money as well. In a system like Canada’s there is no recourse. You take what the system allows you and you deal with it.

            Ask Liam Neeson how that worked out for his wife. If the Canadian health system would have paid for a helicopter she would be alive today, but they felt that an airplane was more cost effective per mile even though it is far less useful. Instead she’s dead because some ignorant bean counter had no clue about what works and what is needed for healthcare. Must have been a relative of Ackwired.

          • “Anecdotes are sometimes compelling but they are not statistical proof of a problem.”

            That seems to be lost on a lot of people.

          • ackwired

            What makes you think there are only two choices? Most of the time when someone tells you that you have to choose either A or B, you are talking to a scoundrel.

          • jim_m

            You have claimed that if you have insurance and they refuse a claim that you have no other choice. Your understanding is at least as ignorant (in reality more so).

            I guess by your own admission you are either a scoundrel or you don’t know what you are talking about. I will accept the second as true.

          • “You have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” – N. Pelosi.

          • ackwired

            LOL…that would be another sign of a scoundrel.

          • Yeah. She’s a great argument for term limits…

          • jim_m

            And against plastic surgery

          • Can it be repealled still or reversed? Does anyone know?

          • Vagabond661

            The state and federal governments broke it. How come the government doesn’t have to “rescue” the automobile insurance industry?

          • ackwired

            I think there is some validity to what you are saying. But you want to be careful. After all, the government requires you to carry auto insurance if you drive.

          • jim_m

            Driving is a voluntary activity. Living is (apart from suicide) not.

            However, like driving, insurance is not required to actually get health care. One can pay for healthcare without insurance if one has the means.

            The problem with government intervention in the healthcare insurance market has been that the regulations imposed have served to limit competition and to make it impossible to spread risk across larger populations both of which have increased the cost of insurance without generating any benefit for the consumer. Also government regulations under obamacare will increase the cost by mandating coverage for many things that are either not wanted or not necessary for the consumer.

            Government interventions have predominantly made things worse not better. But by all means I believe that you should advocate continuing to do the same thing in the hopes that you will achieve a different result.

          • ackwired

            You seem to have missed the context, here. The proposal was that auto insurance worked because government had not been involved. I was pointing out that this was true if you ignored the fact that government required that it be purchased.

          • Vagabond661

            That might be because driving is a privilege not a right. Auto insurance is not so much to fix you as it is to fix whatever you wreck into. Once your car is paid off you no longer have to carry collision but you still have to have liability.

          • No. It’s hasn’t been the INS companies …….but…..the FDA, CDC, WHO, and many other smaller but major players in health care that have brought on the high cost of health in the US! They padded each others pockets on our stupidity. By the way this probably won’t be posted like a lot of my other posts. I tell the truth. If you don’t hear from me again. You can guess what happeded!

          • ackwired

            Edward, it seems that you addressed one on the problems that I was not talking about, the high cost of healthcare. That’s OK. You had something that you wanted to say.

          • Yes. Let’s make them part time also. HEE HEE

    • jim_m

      Apart from the millions of people who have received life saving treatment via their employer provided health insurance. I’m sure that the majority of the over 270,000,000 insured people would say that their insurance has actually worked out.

      You think that government health care works? More people die unnecessarily with socialized medicine than they do with ours. In the UK 70 % of men survice their prostate cancer. In the US 99%. I guess that 30% who died really are glad that the state took such great care of them.

      Wake up moron. Socialized medicine has failed to deliver the quality we have today. What you have bought is obama’s bullshit that you can have the same free healthcare you have today for free.

      There is an estimated shortfall of 50,000 physicians in the near future. We are adding 10,000,000 people under obamacare. Where the fuck do you think these people are going to be seen? Get ready to wait for freaking forever for your treatment. That is why people die under socialized medicine. They have to wait too long for treatment and the technology to treat is simply not available because the government goes broke. Already obamacare is expected to dramatically increase the cost of healthcare. We are going to pay more and get less thanks to idiots like you.

      • ackwired

        It’s fine that a few like you think it is working. I assume that it is working for you.

        But it’s not working for the unemployed. It’s not working for those who can’t change jobs because they would lose their coverage. It’s not working for those who can’t afford to start a new business because they would lose their coverage. It’s not working for those with pre-existing conditions. It’s not working for the young with chronic illnesses who have to leave their parent’s insurance. It’s not working for those that get seriously ill and have the insurance company deny coverage and cancel their policy. It’s not working for those who are denied employment because it would raise the prospective employer’s premium. It’s not working for the millions that had to take bankruptcy because of overwhelming medical debt. It’s not working for those who have reached their lifetime limit of coverage.

        But I’m glad it’s working for you.

        • jim_m

          So your answer is that in the name of “fairness” for people who are temporarily unemployed and others, that we destroy the system we have and ensure that vastly more people die in a substandard system. Because it is so much more fair to make sure that everyone have an increase risk of dying so a small minority (if obama care adds only 10 Million to the insured that is 3% of the population) can have free healthcare.

          SO taking my prostate cancer example from above. You are willing to let 30 people out of 100 die so 3 of those hundred can get free care.


          • ackwired

            There you go again with the strawman. My answer is that the present system is not working for a large portion of the people, and that it should be changed to do a better job. A major part of the reason that it is not working for a large portion of the people is that we are trying to make employers responsible to fund it.

      • Commander_Chico

        Fact: only about half the population has employer-provided health insurance. And the percentage has been declining precipitously.

        The percentage of people who had health insurance through their employers fell to 55.3% in 2010 from 56.1% the year before, continuing a long, downward trend. In 2000, 64.1% of the population received health insurance through their employers.

        • Well, I don’t have insurance through my employer at this point. It’s hellaciously expensive with high co-pays. So I’m part of that 44.7% that isn’t insured by my employer. I refused it.

          Instead, I’m on my wife’s policy. Not terribly expensive, very comprehensive, with relatively low co-pays. (It doesn’t hurt that she works for a hospital, either.)

          Makes me wonder how much of that 44.7% is in the same situation. If your work insurance sucks, and your spouse’s is better, does it make sense to pay for the sucky?

        • Well, I don’t have insurance through my employer at this point. It’s hellaciously expensive with high co-pays. So I’m part of that 44.7% that isn’t insured by my employer. I refused it.

          Instead, I’m on my wife’s policy. Not terribly expensive, very comprehensive, with relatively low co-pays. (It doesn’t hurt that she works for a hospital, either.)

          Makes me wonder how much of that 44.7% is in the same situation. If your work insurance sucks, and your spouse’s is better, does it make sense to pay for the sucky?

        • jim_m

          Fact: the left in asking for obamacare estimated that 47million had no insurance, medicare or medicaid coverage. Fact: obamacare is estimated to cover only an additional 10 million.

          I got the 270 million by subtracting 47 million from the 316million population. Learn to do math

    • jim_m

      2 years ago I tore the medial meniscus in my knee. I had to get an MRI to see the damage. Had I been in Canada I could have waited for months before I could have been seen by an orthopedist and more months before they could have scheduled the MRI. I would have waited further months to get the surgery.

      Instead, I saw a physician the next day. I got the MRI within 24 hours of calling for the appointment. I had surgery in a matter of a couple of weeks.

      I really wish that I could have hobbled around on crutches for a few months while the system ground on like it does up north.

      What an ignorant stooge you are.

      • Brucehenry

        Well, don’t hold back, Jim, tell us how you really feel.

        • jim_m

          The left has chosen to let people die in the name of “fairness”. Must be nice to have the comfort that your ideology is worth more than human lives.

          That’s how I feel.

          • ackwired

            Actually, the life expectancy is quite a bit shorter in the US than in many other countries that don’t provide health insurance through employers. As prejudiced as you are against unions, and this system being a union idea, I’m surprised that you so irrationally in favor of it.

          • jim_m

            Jesus. Seriously? You are going to trot out life expectancy? You do understand that life expectancy has nearly zero to do with healthcare? Or are you a complete idiot?

            Life expectancy has a hell of a lot to do with lifestyle and genetics. How the heck does health care manage those pray tell? Or are you going to argue for a fascist mayor Bloomberg state where lifestyle is regulated strictly by the state?

            Next you will trot out the bogus WHO rankings that evaluated health care based on how socialist the systems were and not whether or not people actually were cured of disease.

            Then you will claim that we have higher infant mortality rates. We do, but then every country measures infant mortality differently so some will call babies that die within a month of birth “still born” so they don’t contribute to infant mortality rates.

            Not long ago there was an idiot who linked to a study that claimed childhood obesity was evidence that our healthcare system was lousy.

            It’s morons like you, who have no clue on how healthcare works or what is even attributable to healthcare who are the problem. Then you make asinine and uninformed statements about how crappy our system must be because some left wing master told you it was that way and you were too fucking ignorant and incapable to go and look up the info yourself and educate yourself so you could actually form your own opinion.

            Yeah, Julia needed a fascist state to run her life,. You are no different if taking the dictates of political hacks is how you educate yourself about the world

          • ackwired

            I usually don’t talk to people who insult me. But I’ll consider the source.

            Seriously, life expectancy is related to health care quality. It is pretty foolish to argue that it is not. There are other factors that influence it, and most of those are related to public health. You would separate public health from the health care system. I think that is a serious mistake. Denying their interdependence is possibly the only way that one could construct an argument justifying the present failed system.

          • You committed the insult with the apples-to-tennis-balls life-expectancy crap.

          • Carl

            You’re arguing with a fool. Life expectancy has lengthened considerably over the last century solely because improved health care, which includes diet, early detection and cure, etc.

            Remember, Jim is a moron.

          • ackwired

            I don’t think trading insults ever led anybody to the truth.

          • Plus one for ya…

          • 914

            Don’t you ever tire of being the village idiot?

          • jim_m

            So you think that whether you get help with your diabetes and high blood pressure is more relevant to how long you live than your being morbidly obese and your smoking and your cholesterol over 300?

            I’m not saying that healthcare has nothing to do with life expectancy. I’m saying that other factors are far more important. You are telling me that you believe that healthcare will save you from all your laziness and bad habits. You’re a dumbass.

          • ackwired

            Since you did not read what I said about this before, I don’t know why I would think that you would read it now. But here we go. As I said, there are factors other than personal health care that effect life expectancy. Most of them have to do with public health. I disagree with your assertion that public health has nothing to do with health care. We need both and they combine to determine the overall level of health and wellbeing.

          • jim_m

            Health care is what your insurance pays for dumbass. Insurance has never paid for public health.

            WTF? So you really believe that health care has failed because people are fat? People smoke and that is a problem with our healthcare system?You are suggesting that we should dictate what and how much people eat? Are you really Mayor Bloomberg?

            The idea that healthcare is responsible for the lifestyle choices that effect public health issues and that it is responsible for public sanitation issues that effect health is ridiculous.

            Once again you demonstrate that you have no understanding of what healthcare is.

          • ackwired

            You are not fooling very many, Jim.

          • jim_m

            Tell me exactly how the insurance that pays your doctor bills and your hospital bills is responsible for what you eat, whether you smoke or exercise and whether the city provides safe drinking water and effective sanitation.

            Because your claim is that public health is a function of the health care system and you are demanding that we alter how we pay for healthcare by ultimately eliminating private insurance.

            Pony up some explanation of how the two are connected because you are the only idiot who seems to have found a connection.

          • ackwired

            Calm down Jim. You are getting desperate and irrational. Nobody said that and you know it.

          • lasveraneras

            Uh, oh. Here comes “the they’re better than us” myth. Let’s call this bullsh*t for what it is. First, if death from violence – gunshot and traffic accident – is removed (after all this says nothing, repeat, nothing, about the quality of health care) along with much stricter “infant mortality” reporting in the U.S., then the U.S. has the highest life expectancy among all nations according to the OECD. Further, let’s make an actual comparison of a major health issue around the world, cancer survival. The World Fact Book records that, overall, the
            five-year cancer survival rate for men in the 66.3%, and 47.3% in Europe. Women have an advantage too, with a survival rate of 62.9% in the U.S. and 55.8% in Europe. The bottom line is clear – higher life expectancy and better health outcomes for serious diseases in the U.S. All this in what, even here, everyone agrees was an already flawed health care system. But, now we have Obamacare monstrosity, which we KNOW will lessen overall R&D spending, increase frivolous doctor/hospital visits, raise taxes, drive doctors and other medical professionals out of the profession, and, inevitably, ration health care. Soon the U.S. will achieve Europe-like health outcomes.

          • jim_m

            Exactly what I have been saying. Statistically we have a better health care system. But the left isn’t interested in quality healthcare. They are interested in “fairness”, which to them means free.

            PS: Your link isn’t working

          • Got some heavy criticism of a plan I proposed that’d go along with welfare/unemployment – a $1000 med account that’d go for medical or dental visits or prescriptions. If you needed more, you’d get it. Each year it’d get reset to $1000. That’d be per person, so a family of 5 on unemployment would have $5k for medical needs. (And only med, prescription or dental needs.) That’d provide something that folks didn’t have, and wouldn’t cost an arm and a leg to administer and pay out.

            But that wasn’t seen as ‘fair’ by a lot of folks I’ve proposed it to.

            We really need to get away from a mandated ‘fairness’ – because it rapidly devolves to a lowest common denominator ideal. Yeah, some folks can afford good insurance. Others can’t. Is it better to have a minimal level available for all with others being able to buy more, or lock everyone into a ‘fair’ system?

          • ackwired

            Since “everyone agrees” it is a “flawed healthcare system”, why are some so afraid to address the shortcomings?

          • Sometimes the drive for ‘perfection’ tends to destroy ‘good enough’. Instead of dealing with the flaws, the approach taken was to scrap it.

            Somehow, I just don’t think that was a good idea.

          • ackwired

            If we were always satisfied with good enough, we would be a third world country.

          • Don’t worry – we’ll soon be there. 🙁

            But it looks like Obama’s move to block energy resources in the US didn’t quite work – apparently the Bakken and Eagle Ford formations are producing more than expected.


            In the mean time, the idea that Detroit may dissolve has been proposed. Whether it’ll get any further is unknown.


            California’s not doing so hot either.

            And we’re getting to a point where… well, just read it.


            But perhaps the scariest chart in the entire presentation is the following summarizing the unsustainable welfare burden on current taxpayers:

            For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance

            For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.

            What can’t go on – won’t. We’ve had chances to turn away from the cliff. But there was always that tendency in both parties to kick the can down the road a bit further while the road got narrower and … now there may be no way to go but over the cliff.

            Guess we’ll see what happens.

          • ackwired

            The shale oil boom is probably the most positive thing going for the US. I wonder if Carter’s Energy Plan will ever be recognized for it’s contribution. It is interesting to speculate how history might have been different if we had not stopped all of that energy research.

            You are right about the welfare state situation. It is unsustainable and needs to be addressed.

            Everyone who has looked at our fiscal situation has said that we need to significantly cut military spending, entitlements, and we need to start paying for the government that is left. As you say, we will see what happens.

          • ackwired

            I was unable to verify your OECD citation. I found this which tells a much different story. Could you give me a link to your data?

          • Brucehenry

            Is it just me, or does Jim seem angrier since the election? LOL.

          • jim_m

            Actually, I feel better no that it is over. This subject and the amazing ignorance of idiots like Ackwired, really lights my wick.

            People who have been here when this topic has been discussed before and who must have read the comments by myself and JLawson (he’s far more temperate than I) have no excuse and deserve the contempt they receive.

          • You should see my first drafts sometime. LOL. Not temperate at all, at times.

            But I agree with Ackwired – you don’t get anywhere slinging insults. It just hardens the person you’re trying to communicate with and blocks off any potential dialog.

          • jim_m

            I find it somewhat frustrating that we have had these conversations many, many times and have addressed the issues of life expectancy, infant mortality etc thoroughly. Yet even having done this we get long time commenters repeating the same worn out, disproven arguments over and over. I’m sorry if I can muster little respect for such arguments.

          • It takes time – especially when (a) the source of the data is (to them) unimpeachable, and (b) there’s not immediate indication it’s wrong. It’s easy to get people to understand that 2+2 doesn’t equal 5, it’s harder when you have to show them that the reporting standards aren’t equal across the board for infant mortality and such.

            In fact, some you’re never going to persuade. You just have to keep chipping away at them. And it’s a long, boring, frustrating job. Insulting them, however, just adds more layers of defense to try to get through.

            Just keep pouring facts on them. Sooner or later, it’ll seep through.

          • jim_m

            especially when (a) the source of the data is (to them) unimpeachable,

            Yes, I suppose getting talking points from your lord and savior barack obama makes anything anyone else says a little less believable. Hence why abuse is sometimes warranted. You can never reach people who have already disconnected their brains.

          • I don’t think abuse is ever warranted – except in cases of deliberate misunderstanding or sheer Lee-Wardness.

            And all this health care stuff has been going on for decades. It used to be Cuba was the health care model we should aspire to, until conditions there finally leaked. And then the focus shifted from Cuba to the UK. Now that conditions there aren’t so good, the shift is to stats which are easy to turn into what you want.

            Eventually, however, reality always wins out. As does money – once that runs out things will get a lot simpler. Not better – but simpler.

      • ackwired

        See above.

    • herddog505

      I agree. However, let’s not leap from the frying pan of employer-provided health insurance into the fire of GOVERNMENT-provided health insurance. This is to say, let’s take people from a system with limited options to one with no options.

      • ackwired

        Fine with me. We are never limited to only two options.

  • GarandFan

    Well Barry is just going to have to pass another Executive Order, stating that working just 20 hours per week is “full time”. Just think of all those 23 MILLION unemployed who will be able to get a job now – 19 hours per week.

    • Very well said. My sentiments also. He needs to keep as many people poor as possible in order to take Dictatorial control over them. He has already driven lots of millionaires out of the country. Let’s just drive them all out. I’ll go with them:)

  • LiberalNightmare

    Their hours haven’t been cut. Those hours were redistributed.

  • jim_m

    Lest anyone have any questions about the model for our future health care system in the US. It’s found in the UK where they starve their patients to death because it is cheaper.

    The investigation, which will include child patients, will look at whether cash payments to hospitals to hit death pathway targets have influenced doctors’ decisions.

    But don’t worry! It is a better system by far than what we have here. Noted intellects like Ackwired have been told so.

  • Joseph Blosch

    Great news, these scum bags deserve it.

    • Guest

      Do any of you have a dog in this fight? As a small business owner, I wonder where your investment (& right to bitch) re: Obamacare is.

  • Do any of you have a dog in this fight? As a small business owner, I wonder where your investment (& right to bitch) re: Obamacare is.