Barry Jive wrote:seriously that's how subsidizing works. also it's cool that you're just picking the parts of the article that support your argument instead of like this part

Older Americans, who tend to be sicker, will likely see their premiums go down, because they will now be mixed into a risk pool with younger, healthier people. Also, Obamacare limits the amount insurers can charge older enrollees to three times the amount charged for younger participants. It's now common to see older folks charged five times that of their younger peers.

but they're wealthier on average, so who cares

pacino wrote:if they get cut, it will only be due to a pre-emptive need to cut, not due to actual insolvency.

pacino wrote:insurers could just charge older people the same as everyone else and then we'd all be fine and dandy. but they gotta make their money off people's health and wellness, so

Werthless wrote: Congrats to the folks on this board, largely young men... if you purchase healthcare individually, or if you lose your job, you'll no longer pay lower insurance costs reflective of your risk.

Thanks Obama.

Werthless wrote:"That's how subsidizing works." I know. I'm saying we shouldn't be doing it. We're having younger, poorer people subsidize wealthier, older people. Do you think this part of the law is good policy???

Roger Dorn wrote:I think all Presidents abuse their authority, regardless of political affiliation. This isn't news, it happens all the time.

pacino wrote:sure would be nice


Anyway, i'm now seeing hte issue with the DOJ thing. It's that, unless they answer this and explain why they brought in so many lines, it's a very broad brush for what seems to amount to phishing for info, not necessarily a narrow investigation.

Holder's pretty terrible in every respect, but the only things people in DC seem to care about are partisan things. if this is what takes him down, fine. let's get someone who will actually prosecute some people in that role.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I think there's something to be said for the Reps nominating the whitest candidate. And of the leading contenders this time, there is none whiter than Rand Paul. He's not as white as Romney, but he's still pretty white.

What does this mean? Pigment of skin? Level of wealth? Immigration policy? Educational attainment? Appeal to whites? Something else?

SEC. 4009. ENDING SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSIST- ANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS FOR LOTTERY OR
GAMBLING WINNERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6 of the Food and Nutri- tion Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015) is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(r) INELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS DUE TO RECEIPT OF SUBSTANTIAL LOTTERY OR GAMBLING WINNINGS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any household in which a member receives substantial lottery or gambling winnings, as determined by the Secretary, shall lose eligibility for benefits immediately upon receipt of
the winnings.
‘‘(2) DURATION OF INELIGIBILITY.—A house-
hold described in paragraph (1) shall remain ineli- gible for participation until the household meets the allowable financial resources and income eligibility requirements under subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (k), (l), (m), and (n) of section 5.
‘‘(3) AGREEMENTS.—As determined by the Sec- retary, each State agency, to the maximum extent practicable, shall establish agreements with entities
responsible for the regulation or sponsorship of gam-
ing in the State to determine whether individuals participating in the supplemental nutrition assist- ance program have received substantial lottery or gambling winnings.’’.

SEC. 4016. PROHIBITING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED RE-
12 CRUITMENT ACTIVITIES.
13 (a) ADMINISTRATIVE COST-SHARING AND QUALITY
14 CONTROL.—Section 16(a)(4) of the Food and Nutrition
15 Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(a)(4)) is amended by insert-
16 ing after ‘‘recruitment activities’’ the following: ‘‘designed
17 to persuade an individual to apply for program benefits
18 or that promote the program via television, radio, or bill-
19 board advertisements’’.
20 (b) LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS AUTHORIZED TO
21 BE APPROPRIATED UNDER ACT.—Section 18 of the Food
22 and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2027) is amended
23 by adding at the end the following:
‘(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act shall be used by the Secretary for—
‘‘(A) recruitment activities designed to persuade an individual to apply for supplemental nutrition as- sistance program benefits;
‘‘(B) television, radio, or billboard advertise- ments that are designed to promote supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits and enroll- ment; or
‘‘(C) any agreements with foreign governments designed to promote supplemental nutrition assist- ance program benefits and enrollment.
‘‘(2) Paragraph (1)(B) shall not apply to pro-
grammatic activities undertaken with respect to benefits made available in response to a natural disaster.’’.

SEC. 4026. NUTRITION EDUCATION.
Section 28 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2036a) is amended—
(1) in subsection (b) by inserting ‘‘and physical activity’’ after ‘‘healthy food choices’’; and
1 (2) in subsection (d)(1)—
2 (A) in subparagraph (D) by striking
3 ‘‘$401,000,000;’’ and inserting ‘‘$375,000,000;
4 and’’;
5 (B) by striking subparagraph (E); and
6 (C) in subparagraph (F) by striking ‘‘(F)
7 For fiscal year 2016’’ and inserting ‘‘(E) For
8 fiscal year 2015’’.

ProPublica on Monday reported that the same IRS division that targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny during the 2012 election cycle provided the investigative-reporting organization with confidential applications for tax-exempt status.

That revelation contradicts previous statements from the agency and may represent a violation of federal guidelines. Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS sector that reviews tax-exemption applications, told a congressional oversight committee in April 2012 that IRS code prohibited the agency from providing information about groups that had not yet been approved.

Federal authorities have opened a criminal investigation of whether Internal Revenue Service employees broke the law when they targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, the latest setback for an agency that is the subject of withering bipartisan criticism and multiple congressional inquiries.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Tuesday that the Justice Department and the FBI began the probe after the IRS acknowledged that it selected conservative groups with the words “tea party” and “patriot” in their names for special reviews.

“We are examining the facts to see if there were criminal violations,” Holder said at a news conference.

Also Tuesday, a widely anticipated report by the IRS’s watchdog described the agency’s tax-exempt unit — where the screening of conservative groups occurred — as a bureaucratic mess, with some employees ignorant about tax laws, defiant of their supervisors and blind to the appearance of impropriety.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:The IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal (Pasadena CA) over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election, while conservative churches across the country were helping to mobilize voters for Bush without a peep from the IRS.

In 2004, the IRS went after the NAACP after its chairman criticized President Bush for being the first sitting president since Herbert Hoover not to address the organization.

In 2003, Public Interest Watch (a watch group that one year received 97% of its funding from Exxon Mobile) got the IRS to investigate and threaten to revoke the tax-exempt status of Greenpeace after Greenpeace had labeled Exxon Mobil the "No. 1 climate criminal."

People who didn't get rankled by this bullshit then have no right to get their panties in a bunch now and not have their indignation labeled partisan. It "ain't right", no matter which side does it, but to accept one and be infuriated by the other is the height of hypocrisy.