Thursday, June 28, 2012

Affordable Care Act



A question for the gamer community. Do you think that FLGS will be able to pay the tax or keep health insurance on their employees? I personally am against the government being allowed to force people to pay for a service but I can see some regulation in the bill which may be for the good. The problem though is what is going to happen to small business? Will they have to close their doors forever?

We are getting a GW store in town. Is this going to force out the smaller guys because they can pay insurance? Probably but I really hope not. I have known these guys at the FLGS for my entire life and they put their blood, sweat and tears into it. The owner of the closest one to my house, Borderlands, spends six sometimes seven days a week at the office putting in his time and effort to keep his business going so he can cater to comic affectionados and gamers alike.

Think about it. Does your local FLGS carry insurance on their employees? Do you think that they could afford it if they were forced to do so? Could they afford the 2,000 fine (tax) that is incurred if they do not? Are we helping to get rid of small business by giving the government more power?

I apologize that these are politically charged questions and while I have worked very hard to keep my own personal opinions of politics outside of this blog and from my company in general I do have to wonder what is the future of this company and of other small businesses.

Feel free to speak up. I ask that everyone remain peaceful and calm although I understand the current of the situation is a very hot tempered one. I would like to keep the conversation specifically toward FLGS and what people think might happen as a result of today's passing of this bill as constitutional.  Thank you.

Update: You guys might be interested in this. I did a little reading of the 2400 page law and found this:
PART II—SMALL BUSINESS TAX CREDIT 
...
"‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘eligible small employer’
means, with respect to any taxable year, an employer—
‘‘(A) which has no more than 25 full-time equivalent
employees for the taxable year, "...
It appears that the actual amount for a 'small employer' to receive a tax credit (they still get the penalty and still get charged) is 25.

53 comments:

  1. Welcome to the new state of socialism as proscribed for us by Dr. Obama today's ruling was a surprise given Roberts conservative leanings and had Kagan recused herself as required their would have a deadlock. So like the Pelican Brief The Obamanation health care brief introduces a new level of government not seen since Prohibition or the new deal. The $2000 dollar fine will be easy for companies to pay rather than have to pay an obligatory health care insurance program. I know my father would be turning over in his grave at the sign of this new form of socialism on our shows. We can't even help people out of work in this country how can they afford to pay for health care - it is a ludicrous proposition. You will see bankrupcy's rise in this country as people already don't have money to pay back there debts. Look to 4 more years of this foolish president and his continued taxation of American business and citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I feel extremely confident in saying that the Affordable Care Act will not impact my local game store at all.

    Why? Because the law only requires that small business with 50 or more employees provide health insurance for their employees. That's roughly only 200,000 small businesses out of 6 million.

    My FLGS doesn't employ anywhere near fifty people, and I'd be shocked if there was one that did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alzrius thank you for sharing this. I did not know that the law was limited to small business with 50 or more employees. What is to stop the government from changing this clause however?

      Delete
    2. Don't count on this "clause being a [rotection - I am sure once the IRS gets ahold of it there will be rulemaking inactments that will bring smaller business's into the fold. Several things people forget
      1. The IRS is about bringing in revenue.
      2. This healthcare law is an open faucet of money for the federal government now directly into your wallet.
      3. Under Administrative law procedures it will be very easy for the IRS to modify this law "regardless of what it says" to what the "congressional intent" was by its passage. The congressional intent was to insure "everyone is covered" you can only do that if you have enough money in the system to pay for it. Or to insure coverage for all americans the IRS will implement special regulations which further tighten and define the number of employees required in a business. Remember Congress passes laws it is left to federal agencies as "unelected" bureaucrats to define and implement this kind of oppressive legislation. Check out any Administrative law textbook and you will see what I am talking about.

      Delete
    3. ACG, I'm not sure what you mean by "what's to stop the government from changing it?" I find the question difficult to answer because it uses a lot of terms that I find rather loaded.

      For one thing "the government" is not a monolithic entity. The federal government was designed to not make change easy - in order to change the law, a bill or amendment would need approval from both houses of the legislature, the signature of the president, and in the event of a legal challenge, would need to survive judicial review.

      That, to me, seems like a lot.

      Likewise, I'm also inclined to say that what will stop the government from changing this particular provision in the future is the same thing that stopped them when the law was written - that there's no compelling reason to require the smallest of the small businesses to purchase expensive health insurance when it's self-evident that they can't afford to do so.

      The other term you use that I find hard to properly guage is "what's to stop"? This seems like you want some sort of absolute guarantee of a check on particular government action. Such a thing doesn't exist. Assuming they act in (mahority) agreement (a rare thing even in the best of times), the government can do whatever it wants. If Congress proposes it, the President signs it, and the Court approves it, then it will be, at least for a time.

      For now, I'm happy to deal with what is, and not what might be in the future. Your local FLGS won't be required to provide health insurance for their employees. I don't see that changing anytime soon, so why worry about it?

      Delete
    4. Blah, typo. I mean "(majority) agreement."

      Fun fact, Titivilus is the demon in charge of typos.

      Delete
    5. Titivlus gets me every time. ;)

      My concern isn't the 'government' as a monotheistic entity but rather the IRS as a strong arm of congress. I worry about giving any one entity that much power. I believe that they have three branches of government for a reason to ensure that bills are not easily passed into law and I understand and even agree with some of your sentiments.

      How did they determine 50? Was it arbitrary? What about all of the 'exclusions' that were made to companies on the bill? What stops a company of more than 50 employees to just fire people and get down to the number 50? If this becomes a pandemic with people losing jobs will congress intervene and drop the number to some guesstimated number even lower?

      I digress as the original topic was about FLGS and how this bill would directly impact them and for now at least Alzrius I believe you are correct but it still makes one wonder what's next.

      Delete
    6. Sorry but you obviously have never studied administrative law - Under this manner federal agencies implement federal law. As has just been said the federal mandate on medicaid was found unconstitutional which means in order to "cover" more Americans under the new law certain provisions will need to be amended in implementation so in that manner the number of employees could be changed under a fucntion called rule making - this is different from ajudication where business's affected by a decision would have a "right to be heard" all that is required under rule making is "notification for comment" before the new ruling or "law/regulation" is implemented.

      NOW let me try this again we are taliking about IMPLEMENTATION of a law not passage. Under implementation is where laws become skewed. Congress does not implement legislation federal agencies do. Now there is nothing to prevent a narrowing of the definition of the number of employees under implementation especially if a directive comes from the president requesting such implementation. Perfectlly legal and NOTHING you can do about it. As a business your rights are now limited - Oh you can sue (but can you afford it?) Nah better to just pay the $2000 dollar fine per employee.

      Delete
    7. So you are saying that they do not have to change the law by putting another one into effect and can simply use 'rule making' to change the number from 50 to a lesser number?

      Delete
    8. Yes that is exactly what i am saying people fail to realize just how powerful federal agencies have become. Do you remeber the Snail dart fish back in the 80s or 90s because this itsy bitsy fish was on the endangered species act the EPA or some such federal agency made a ruling that a potential development project (Idon't remeber where but it was on a major river) could not go forward becaus the "habitat" of the tiny fish would be severely impacted. this was done through "rulemaking". In ajudication procedures the affected business "has a right to certain protections or the right to be heard" in rulemaking. Ok Robert pay CLOSE attention to the words "congressional intent" of the legislation. Is the congressional intent to provide health coverage to a large number or is it to limit the number of people covered. The intent as I see it (IMHO) is to insure coverage. This will be the overriding concern. Once a bill becomes many things can be changed during implementation. Remember the executive branch and the federal agencies control "how" a bill is implemented. Another example in the opposite direction. In the Bush administration the EPA implements and regulates the Clean Air Act. 16 states came forward with tougher emissions standards than the Clean air Act currently mandates. "Normally" the EPA would just sign a waiver allowing the tougher standerds to be implemented. However after political pressure from Chrysler and another automaker was brought through VP Cheney's office this waiver was tabled/buried. The 16 states were going to have to sue to get what normally they would have gotten anyway. The automakers reasoning - if these standards went through certain cars could not be sold in those states. (loss of profit) Eventually this waiver was granted not sure when - But an earlier comment was made about monopolies this illustrates what is also called an IRON TRIANGLE where you have an industry with undue influence over a federal agency by exerting political influence within the executive branch.

      Federal agencies are powerful institutions which implement and regulate and IMTERPRET federal law - As long as they follow congressional intent the courts generally give them (federal agencies) what has been called a Chevron deference. In other words as long as the agency follows congressional intent they are pretty much allowed large discretion in how they interpret and therefore implement laws.

      Delete
    9. sorry about misspelled words don't have spell check on the blog. As far as what is to stop a federal agency actually I guess I mis read your post - Nothing the government has become to much of a leviathan to stop look at the overreaction and vote that put an inexperienced president like Obama in the White House in the first place.mall business like FLGS should be very concerned about this new tax because it efects the customers who shop at his business and I alweays follow the rule 3 whatever job is lost multiply by three for the actual impact of those wages lost. Now multiply that by the millions unemployed in the last 4 years. This new tax is an iceberg in regards to FLGS. but the businesses and surrounding community that provide the "structural" support for FLGS through the sweeping tides of the economy will be pummeled by this new taxation and resultant criminal penalties this will inflict. I dont suppose anyone remembers prohibition? It may not seem similar but it was truly the era that gave the federal government the BIG STICK Robert was referring to earlier. If you recal Al Capone was never convicted of any "actual hard crime" He was convicted of Tax evasion. So now the IRS has been given authority over your health care taxation and "criminal implementation of the failure to carry out the mandate" Isn't this kind of a strange agency to be in charge of a health care benefit? Doesn't this belong in HHS? just a thought.

      Delete
    10. ACG, I wouldn't worry about the IRS as being the "strong arm of congress," if only because the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, which belongs to the executive branch. ;)

      As it stands, the law includes provisions to soften what the IRS can do if, for example, you don't pay the penalty for not having health insurance (assuming you don't already meet one of the exemptions).

      For example, in the bill itself, in Section 1501, subsection (g)(2), it adds the following to the Internal Revenue Code:

      "‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES. —In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

      ‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES. —The Secretary shall not—

      ‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section, or

      ‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to such failure.’’."

      In other words, the IRS can't throw you in jail or take your property or home for not paying the penalty.

      In regards to how Congress determined that fifty employees was the cut-off rule, I don't know. I'm not sure if that deliberation was recorded or not, but in all honesty the details of the process don't concern me, at least not as much as the practical impact.

      Likewise, I'm not sure what "exclusions" you mean. Can you be more specific?

      In regards to companies firing people to drop below this number, that seems unlikely. Even besides possible lawsuits brought on by laid-off employees (regardless of the merit of such suits), one wonders why companies don't already do that so as to (depending on their industry) try and squeeze under the size standards for being a "small business" rather than a "business," as the former offers a number of financial advantages.

      That's without even taking into account the issues of just how sensible such a thing is. If you have seventy-five employees, will you fire twenty-six just to avoid paying for health insurance, despite losing a third of your productivity? The idea that there will be mass-firings in order to squeeze around having to provide insurance seems to me to be evocative of Chicken Little.

      This Affordable Care Act doesn't make me worry "what's next." This is the government doing what it should be doing.

      Delete
    11. What history are you referring to, specifically?

      In regards to the issue of rulemaking, the primary practical use of this sort of administrative law is to allow federal agencies to develop regulations and guidelines. It's why the EPA, for example, can set environmental regulations without Congress voting on it.

      What rulemaking is not is a legal "blank check" that can be used to ignore or overturn existing legislative or judicial law. To suggest that the IRS could use rulemaking to lower the exemption of small businesses under fifty employees is highly dubious - the IRS could make a rule regarding how such businesses have to file their paperwork, for example, but it can't flatly countermand Congressional authority.

      Finally, even in the event that the IRS were to try and change the law in such a manner, it would have almost no chance of surviving the ensuing legal challenge.

      Delete
    12. Tell you what I won't pay my fine when it occurs and watch them GARNISH MY WAGES. Naivete is the first casualty of freedom/ As is Innocence in war.

      Delete
    13. History tells us that government's fall from within and the way that things are moving in this country with such polarized opposites vying for power I see this as history repeating itself. If the right is in control the left rail and threaten to leave the country. If the left is in control the right rail and threaten civil war. All the while all we as citizens can do is continue to barter our freedoms to the government in hopes that when they do finally achieve total dominance that we have a benevolent dictatorship that can tell us what we have to buy, have to eat and cannot say without fear of being locked away, fined or executed.

      Delete
    14. If naivete is a "casualty" of freedom, then living in a free society means people aren't naive any longer. ;)

      In regards to governments falling from within, I recognize that that's a pithy statement, but I'd hesitate to say it's a truism.

      Certainly, there have been instances of internal revolutions changing an existing government (e.g. the French Revolution). The American Revolution, however, combines aspects of an internal rebellion and an international war. Likewise, international conflict is often what topples countries, or changes existing governments therein.

      Similarly, I've yet to hear any serious politician talk about abandoning the country or starting a civil war. I chalk the recent spate of partisanship mostly to the rise of cable TV and the World Wide Web making commentary an industry unto itself.

      Likewise, I don't think that "all we can do" is "barter away our freedoms." Living in a liberal democracy means that anyone can choose to take part by running for office, along with campaigning, commenting, and of course, voting.

      I also don't think that expanded federal purview means that the country is becoming a dictatorship. I think it means that as technology grows, and soceity encounters new problems, new government action is required to fix it. If the government is growing, it's in proportion to everything else.

      Delete
  3. I suspect most FLGS's have fewer than 50 employees. The Act does not require employers with fewer than 50 employees to provide insurance. It may actually improve the chances of small employers being able to afford to provide insurance, since insurers cannot deny based on health status of workers, cannot exclude workers (its all or none), and must offer small businesses the same plan they offer other small businesses.

    Overall, I have mixed feelings about the Act. Hopefully it will provide more net good than bad. We'll see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am with you in that I hope it provides something good but I expect if you hand a bully a big stick of wood they are libel to use it on you rather than use it to protect you from other bullies.

      Delete
  4. PS this should be called the Unaffordable care act - For myself I am still withouth health care and supposedly won't have any for another 2 years. Bet all those people that voted for Obama did not realize they were getting a NEW tax on them and their childrens for years to come.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The act does not cover employers with fewer than 50 employees.......

    YET! Wait it will come

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For my sake and for FLGS sake let's hope it never does come.

      Delete
    2. See my comment above implementation can "change" the number of employees covered - As long as the Agency - The IRS- follows congressional intent of the legislation. And we all know how effective an agency the IRS is. OH and one more thing remember how powerful an agency this is especially when they want to make examples of American citizens in court.

      Delete
    3. It already dies as in it taxes the employees for 2k a year. The business is left out of the primary loop.

      Delete
    4. Ok I am sorry I must have missed something does not the business have to pay a $2000 penalty for NOT providing health care (of course i am assuming the 50 employee clause will be changed once implementation begins) and as I said the feds will need to provide care for folks through medicare noow that the medicaid provision was found unconstutional.

      Delete
    5. A final thought that is not a tax that is a FINE -

      Thanks for posting that interesting blog question - If I had not had a class this past semester on administrative law that dealt with analyzing and writing briefs about US Supreme Court cases I would have been simply clueless on the true impact of this new TAX. I am surprised at Chief Justice Roberts vote. Although I suppose making it a tax gives political ammunition for the coming presidential and congressional elections. Kagan should have recused herself as she did in the immigration case. But then it (Obamacare) would have been a 4-4 tie. Kennedy's vote did not surprise me as having studied his opinions and briefs in class he has been a staunch states rights supporter.

      What will be key in this law is implementation and interpretation of Congressional intent and how much TAX Obama needs raised for implementation. I think this is where people fail to see the true and probably devastating impact of this legislation. Its economic impact will be hard. And once the tax/fine is implemented who is to say it cannot be raised by the agency - Its is a FINE plus penalties and interest. IT is not a tax rate. Therefore I imagine the agency bureacrauts will have full charge and capability in that regard.

      Delete
    6. Oh one other point what use is there in having a FINE enacted if there is no teeth in being able to collect it. I am sure in the implementation phase of the legislation the TEETH of collection will be changed or amended by either executive order or federal agency rule making.

      Delete
  6. ironregime

    With all due respect when has monopolizing and industry adn imposing price controls ever not raised the cost of a good or service...

    Heck take a economic course in college and they actually teach you how this activity must raise the cost overall.... New York rent control is a prime example

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok don't follow what kind of monopoly your referring to - this is all about bringing in government revenue nothing more. Like the Social Security fund a new fund will be provided and created to help people who can not afford health insurance this fund will in turn be raided by congress as SS has been raided for years. Nor what time of price controls you are referring to - This is all about government control and government intrusion into our personal life - Something that has been going on since the founding of the republic. Everything has been regulated it is only a question of degree. I would imagine that this will be a way for the IRS to impose a tax on internet transactions since many of these healthcare bills are paid over the internet. Sound far fetched - remember I said the IRS implements the regulation through rule making which general the courts have given federal agencies much latitude in implementation as long as they follow congressional intent. Also important is the fact that Goldberg Kelly applies little in IRS cases - your right to be heard is limited or in fact non existyent when it comes to dealing with the IRS. Imagine being audited by the IRS over your federally required health care expense.

      Delete
    2. VolleyFire

      The government is enacting huge requirements on insurance companies including Pre existing conditions which will push the smaller insurers out of the business. This is how regulation works. When the FSA imposed inspection of meat in the 1920's hundreds of regional packers went out of business.

      Medicare already imposes price controls on services through schedules detailing what will be paid. Insurers use these schedules to reimburse and this has led to the dramtic rise in health care. As fewer options go in the market the cost of health casre will rise and the govenrment will use this as an example of more control in this case mandating rationing.

      Consider Oregon that had a Single Payer which sent a woman a letter unsigned denying here cancer medication becuase it would only extend her life not cure her but offering to pay for assisted suicide. This was based on panels to control costs that are very similar to the ones Obamascare creates.

      As a result of this act expect insurance to rise to a point that you can't afford it anymore. I can fully envision millions in the middle class paying the tax for no insurance because the can't afford it and their employers drop them. Need a cancer screening you may need to make it two years in advance just like they do in England.

      Delete
    3. Aww good thanks for pointing out the IRON TRIANGLE aspects of the legislation - You will see more of this as implementation takes affect - INTERESTING point about the assisted suicide letter does any one realize that is how the HOLOCAUST started in germany first the government started on those in institutions this sounds like a road aready traveled in a war against facists that was fought long ago now its legal to kill the unborn and if they can't contribute to society because of a serious illness - Also the meatpackers was one case that was found constitutional against the meatpackers. Don't remember the exact case. Similar one concerned several other including bakers (workers rights in New York)

      Delete
  7. Someone on a friend's facebook suggested we kick out all politicians and start over using only scientists. You know in a way I agree with them since politics is nothing more than back door backroom deals and plays for power grabs. I wonder what a body ran by the people using scientific method would look like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really do we want the folks that brought us the nuclear weapon running our governments - oops I guess the already are its what Eisenhower warned about in the his speech on the Industrial military complex or refer to global warming or any other complex organization like the EPA or OSHA - scientists are already involved in running or government it just deends on which political party is in control in DC. Who do you thinks pays lobbyists to insure certain medical products are approved by the FDA. No scientists are the last ones you want running things unless they are a type like Benjamin Franklin and that breed of man has long since passed away.

      Delete
    2. PS read Asimov's Foundation triology (Isaac Asimov was a secular humanist (most "scientists" are exactly that.) Individuals who believe "man" is more capable of deciding his own fate without any higher power being involved in his make or decision making process. The Foundation triology is a perfect example of a society run by scientists. Mind you Asimov was from the Age of the Atom. Which predicted Science would "cure" everything for us. And what did we get World War 2, the Holocaust and Hiroshima. No Science is very good at coming up with new and terrifying ways to destroy.

      Delete
    3. At least they would have to get their hypothesis to a theory before it could become law. ;)

      Delete
    4. That is assuming the science has a proper foundation. Consider the rush to use Nuclear power before the safety issues of disposing of nuclear waste have been dealt with. A nuclear power plant in Vermont I believe was approved before the "science" of dealing with waste had been completed. 40 yrs later they are still not any closer and the power plants license is up for renewal this year. Yankee power is the power company.
      Consider Japan - the Earthquake and tsunami has devastated Japan and radioactive materials are finally washing up on shore here in the US a year later. All but maybe 1 of Japans 50 nuclear power plants were shut down to my knowledge they still are. Science does not hold the answer for everything. In fact this should be a lesson on how it can make things worse.

      Delete
    5. There are no scientists that are promoting Global Warming. There are people who are making pseudo scientific claims and admitting to being deceptive about it in private emails that got leaked who are using the false controversy to obtain grants.

      I think the real question is to ask why does the government need to be involved in running Health Care. Especially given the fact that a) they are the investigsative agency responsible for un covering malfeaseance b) the courts responsible for adjudicating any wrong doing c) the budgetary process for funding this.

      In accounting this is the trifecta of a SEGREGATION OF DUTIES control issue where one person or group is responsible for the possession of an asset, the recording of the use of the asset and the approval of the use of an asset giving them the ability to commit fraud without ever being caught. This is the main problem with all these laws and the system of doing government.

      Fascism as defined by Benito Musolini in the 20's was government ownership of the private sector either through owning the stock of compainies (30% GM and Chrysler, 80% AIG, 12% Citigroup and that is just what i know about) or the essential direct ability to manage private enterprise through regulatory fiat (Obamacare and to a lesser extent even Medicasre and Medicaid).

      This is the mindset of the collectivist leftists weho control teh Democratic Party. Thety think it OK becuase they have decided they are moral people. they forget that Absolute Power Corrupts..... Absolutely! Even if Obama is the Poster child for ethical behavior of which we know he is not the system will allow the next one to be .....

      What strikes me is that both sides of the Aisle GOP and the DemoFascistCommunists do not speak to the control only the cost. It is the control that is the main danger. Money can be earned with just work, Earning your Freedom ususally requires bloodshed..... OK I will quit ranting for now

      Delete
    6. Excellent points - Bernie Marcus was on the news just (the true co-founder of Home Depot) the ripple effects of this new tax are already being felt. Businesses are already saying they will not expand and will keep them selves under the 50 employee barrier - Now with lost revenue doesn't stand to reason that implementation will see the number of employees lowered for small business to keep revenues flowing to support the new tax mandate.

      Delete
  8. I live in Canada and find it ironic that Obama would try to force your system of health care to be more like ours (albeit in a very clumsy and flawed way) when our so called "free health care system" is starting to crumble under its own weight as it is. It's doubly ironic that it looks like (and Canadian politicians will never admit this) Canada is slowly heading towards a private healthcare system. God help us, we live in interesting times...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zab you're saying that the healthcare in Canada isn't that great? I thought everyone was seen and that it was a good system ran by a benevolent government?

      Delete
    2. Having been in Scotland i saw the UK system up close when I spent 4 hours in the emergency room waiting for a friend who had dislocated her knee. The emergency room was efficient. However i can not speak to the level of care she got. As her leg was put in a brace but NONE of the scraps and cuts she had recieved were dressed much less treated in any manner. which surprised me unless because in Scotland they have to worry about infection less. However saying that after i told my boss about my friends accident - she remarked that UK hospitals were facing a lethal staph infection that was worse than anything here in the US.

      In regards to dental care here again its just like the US lower cost dentists are scam artists while the higheer cost dentists give you decent care.

      One of the key things missing from Obama care as far as i know is good dental coverage which is supposedly KEY to proper health. I wonder why this was ignored. (the Dental association lobby perhaps)

      So yes Canada goes private and the US in tons of debt goes public with a ne TAX - hint tons of debt and a NEW TAX. Anyone see the connection so do you really think the rule of "50" will last beyond impletentation and the rule making stage? My guess from recent studies is a resounding NO.

      Delete
    3. My understanding is that talk of Canada privatizing their health care industry has, as a matter of course, been around for a while. The latest such talk seems to be in reaction to the economic crisis - e.g. slash the debt by privatizing health care.

      As recently as 2009, however, most people in Canada support public health care and oppose privatization.

      Delete
    4. Oh hey, it was a great system and in some was still is but it is definitely in decline. The number of procedures and coverage that is being taken off the "paid for" list is ever growing. I like the system we have but the writing is on the wall.

      Delete
  9. Good, now my daughter won't be kicked off of her mother's health insurance...

    http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/obamacare_survives/

    ReplyDelete
  10. *hands out tinfoil hats, then walks away shaking his head*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My original question alzirus was a good one which was what impact would the bill have on FLGS. Now that you have stated that it does not impact anyone under 50 employees I accept that. There is no reason for further silliness by changing names and posting with the same icon. I specifically avoid current politics on this blog as it is a gamer's blog dedicated to gaming. We can all agree that Zhentil Keep are the bad guys and the Purple Knights are the good guys. Very simple.

      Delete
    2. Hey Robert lets hope it does but as it is already emerging Business leaders have mentioned they will not expand beyond 50 employees. I predict you will see this law/rule/regulation amended through rulemaking during implementation of the law which is done by a federal agency and not by congress. I appreciate your posting a topic on a current event subject that will affect the pottery industry of wargaming. Its affects may not be immediate but its affects will be felt all the same. As we have seen its a fine and a tax. The affects of which will be far reaching when implemented by the IRS.

      Delete
    3. For the record I am /not/ alziurs... I use my livejournal (with is anonynos) to sign in and that's the icon it gives me... it looks like alziurs uses their wordpad account.

      And I think your original question is fine, if the sentiment naive. I just get tired of the conspiracy theories that inevitably come out.

      Delete
    4. I wanted to likewise signal that Anonynos and I are two different people - I'm not sure why Blogspot is assigning us the same icon, but that's a coincidence.

      Delete
    5. I am not me either

      I have become my sock puppet ....

      Trailing evil laugh....

      Delete
    6. Or you could just compare our IP addresses, but that might actually end the ridiculousness.

      Delete
  11. Now Back to Black Powder and your regularly scheduled gamiing programs. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. ACG anothe4r key point I think you mentioned to me is that the credit is not for the entire portion paid. The employer only gets 35% for being a small timer back....

    Meaning costs still go up

    ReplyDelete