Just got my bill for January's heath insurance, it more than doubled to $733, thanks.

[rbbert]

While the Fannie Mae pilot program described above sought to expand housing opportunities for under-served consumers, these loans did not result in major losses and performed significantly better than private label subprime loans

Although under Raines, Fannie Mae invested in some securities backed by subprime loans, it didn't start buying subprime and Alt-A loans directly (and bundling them into securities) until 2006 after Raines had left Fannie Mae. Purchasing of subprime and alt-A mortgages expanded under the guidance of Raines's successor Daniel H. Mudd.

On September 20, 2012 Federal District Court Judge Richard Leon granted summary judgment to Raines and dismissed him from the suit. The Judge noted that over its eight year history "the parties produced nearly 67 million pages of documents, deposed 123 fact witnesses, and engaged 35 expert witnesses." Despite all of that discovery, Judge Leon found, "plaintiffs have not identified any evidence that Raines knew or, indeed had any reason to know, that Fannie Mae's accounting violated GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles]. Further, plaintiffs have not identified any evidence that Raines intentionally misled investors through his statements concerning the implementation and operation of these accounting policies."


In later commentary the Washington Post (the original source) described McCain's attempts to connect Obama with Franklin Raines based on their reporting as "a stretch" and said all reporting they did about the matter actually stems from a single conversation a reporter had with Raines in which she recalls Raines said he "had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign".

Additionally, an email hoax falsely claims Raines was made "Chief Economic Advisor" for the Obama presidential campaign.[30

 

[mep]

how many will just say NO, and pay the penalty for not having insurance?

The first year penalty is $75. Big deal.

 

[rockitman]

The first year penalty is $75. Big deal.

right and that means young healthy people won't be paying in. Unsustainability in spades if you ask me. This is not rocket science.

 

[ddk]

In later commentary the Washington Post (the original source) described McCain's attempts to connect Obama with Franklin Raines based on their reporting as "a stretch" and said all reporting they did about the matter actually stems from a single conversation a reporter had with Raines in which she recalls Raines said he "had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign".

Additionally, an email hoax falsely claims Raines was made "Chief Economic Advisor" for the Obama presidential campaign.[30

The article has nothing to do with obama, this started under clinton.

 

[treitz3]

right and that means young healthy people won't be paying in. Unsustainability in spades if you ask me. This is not rocket science.

Ed Zachary.

 

[ddk]

While the Fannie Mae pilot program described above sought to expand housing opportunities for under-served consumers, these loans did not result in major losses and performed significantly better than private label subprime loans

Although under Raines, Fannie Mae invested in some securities backed by subprime loans, it didn't start buying subprime and Alt-A loans directly (and bundling them into securities) until 2006 after Raines had left Fannie Mae. Purchasing of subprime and alt-A mortgages expanded under the guidance of Raines's successor Daniel H. Mudd.

On September 20, 2012 Federal District Court Judge Richard Leon granted summary judgment to Raines and dismissed him from the suit. The Judge noted that over its eight year history "the parties produced nearly 67 million pages of documents, deposed 123 fact witnesses, and engaged 35 expert witnesses." Despite all of that discovery, Judge Leon found, "plaintiffs have not identified any evidence that Raines knew or, indeed had any reason to know, that Fannie Mae's accounting violated GAAP [Generally Accepted Accounting Principles]. Further, plaintiffs have not identified any evidence that Raines intentionally misled investors through his statements concerning the implementation and operation of these accounting policies."


In later commentary the Washington Post (the original source) described McCain's attempts to connect Obama with Franklin Raines based on their reporting as "a stretch" and said all reporting they did about the matter actually stems from a single conversation a reporter had with Raines in which she recalls Raines said he "had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign".

Additionally, an email hoax falsely claims Raines was made "Chief Economic Advisor" for the Obama presidential campaign.[30

I guess the similarity here is that both obama and raines are Know Nothings and bear no responsibility for anything that they're actually heading and responsible for. Remember "I Know Nothing" Schultz in Hogan's Heroes?

 

[ddk]

right and that means young healthy people won't be paying in. Unsustainability in spades if you ask me. This is not rocket science.

We don't know how things will work out yet for people who opt out. We know about the penalty but I'm wounding what really happens in practice when someone needs catastrophic coverage and doesn't have it. Most of us with families can't risk it.

david

 

[Whatmore]

I know you guys in the USA aren't known for caring much what the rest of the world thinks but for what its worth, over here in Australia we are astounded at how dysfunctional your health-care system is. Even the most hardened capitalists here are in favour of a good government-sponsored universal health system.

I have family members who are pathologists and cardiologists, for any medical emergency they will always recommend the public hospital system - that is where the best care is

 

[jazdoc]

1) The Joint Tax Committee Reports:

“The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.”

In other words, it appears the only way the IRS can collect the penalty is by withholding your tax refund. If you plan ahead so you don’t overpay your taxes, the IRS can’t collect the penalty.

2) The Obama administration unilaterally rescinded the mandate last week:http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/.../cancellation-consumer-options-12-19-2013.pdf

"If you have been notified that your individual market policy will not be renewed, you will be eligible for a hardship exemption and will be able to enroll in catastrophic coverage if it is available in your area. In order to purchase this catastrophic coverage, you need to complete a hardship exemption form, and indicate that your current health insurance policy is being cancelled and that you consider other available policies unaffordable."

In other words; the administration considers the disruptive effects of Obamacare "a hardship". Graciously, the administration now allows the peasants to purchase catastrophic plans which our betters had the previously described as "substandard".

Ahhh, makes me long for good old days when anyone who wanted to alter Obamacare was a 'terrorist' and a 'hostage taker'

 

[ddk]

I know you guys in the USA aren't known for caring much what the rest of the world thinks but for what its worth, over here in Australia we are astounded at how dysfunctional your health-care system is. Even the most hardened capitalists here are in favour of a good government-sponsored universal health system.

I have family members who are pathologists and cardiologists, for any medical emergency they will always recommend the public hospital system - that is where the best care is

FYI, our system wasn't dysfunctional, we had/have the best hospitals in the world, the best research in the world, and some of the best doctors in the world. 90% of Americans had health insurance and 80% of which were happy with their policies. Most importantly we had the LIBERTY to choose to buy or opt out. But I guess you can call it dysfunctional now that the government is involved. A few years back I spent some time in Australia and set up a company there, beautiful country, rich in resources and culture but Liberty is something that you haven't had for a while. We're trying to hang on to what's left of our constitution.

Good day mate,

david

 

[MylesBAstor]

FYI, our system wasn't dysfunctional, we had/have the best hospitals in the world, the best research in the world, and some of the best doctors in the world. 90% of Americans had health insurance and 80% of which were happy with their policies. Most importantly we had the LIBERTY to choose to buy or opt out. But I guess you can call it dysfunctional now that the government is involved. A few years back I spent some time in Australia and set up a company there, beautiful country, rich in resources and culture but Liberty is something that you haven't had for a while. We're trying to hang on to what's left of our constitution.

Good day mate,

david

Sorry mate but you've obviously never been in hospital administration or in a hospital in a poor area where the ER writes off 70+ million dollars a year. And the health care system is hardly uniform across our country. Perhaps if you're lucky enough to be in a big city but there are parts of our country where medical care is no better than a third world country.

 

[scouter]

You know, it might help if the politicians who are REPRESENTING us actually had the same healthcare and retirement benefits that we have, and were impacted accordingly with their votes in house and senate! I've been paying $1800./ month for a family of 4, in a small business for the last 8 years. The only thing that has changed has been deductibles - raising them every year. We, as a business, renewed 1 month early to avoid the expected increases- raised our deductibles and out of pocket expenses AGAIN, and still had increases for the year across the board. Next year is going to be the real deal, so look out, and that's not an opinion, it's fact! Free healthcare should be a right- to a certain point. You have to draw the line somewhere as to when costs outweighs benefit, or the escalation continues. In the end, guess what- none of us are getting out of here alive, so take time to listen to your stereo

 

[ddk]

Sorry mate but you've obviously never been in hospital administration or in a hospital in a poor area where the ER writes off 70+ million dollars a year. And the health care system is hardly uniform across our country. Perhaps if you're lucky enough to be in a big city but there are parts of our country where medical care is no better than a third world country.

No, but he is and he has a lot to say about it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/11/ben-carson-obamacare-worst-thing-slavery/

and she wasn't and passed the law;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

I don't see the relevance Myles nor do I see how crap insurance policies forced on us by corrupt politicians is going to fix any of the problems you mention.

david

 

[MylesBAstor]

No, but he is and he has a lot to say about it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/11/ben-carson-obamacare-worst-thing-slavery/

and she wasn't and passed the law;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

I don't see the relevance Myles nor do I see how crap insurance policies forced on us by corrupt politicians is going to fix any of the problems you mention.

david

It's the crap insurance policies where people are being ripped off that are of concern. You know the $50 a month and you don't get anything.

And the system's not broken? How much longer could health care costs continue to run at 20+ pct of GDP? That is simply unsubstainable. Figures are already showing that spending has slowed.

 

[BlueFox]

For what it's worth, I received an email from HR saying my insurance cost was going down a few dollars due to the ACA. Other than that, for decades it has just gotten more and more expensive.

 

[ddk]

It's the crap insurance policies where people are being ripped off that are of concern. You know the $50 a month and you don't get anything.

And the system's not broken? How much longer could health care costs continue to run at 20+ pct of GDP? That is simply unsubstainable. Figures are already showing that spending has slowed.

I still don't see how a shadow law forced down our throats by a group of deceitful politicians is going to fix anything. According to CBO all costs are going up under obamacare we'll still have 30 million uninsured.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=cbo+and+unisured&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Wait and see what happens when the employer mandate kicks in. Forget about me, why do you think that Dr. Carson is warning everyone or the perils of obamacare? Why would you ever trust a politician who wouldn't let you read a law that she's passing, specially one this important?

Edit- One more thing, I don't know how they claim lower costs when as it stands they have no idea what the premiums will be and when obama admin just promised to write the insurance companies a check to cover whatever costs they claim.

david

 

[rockitman]

It's the crap insurance policies where people are being ripped off that are of concern.

Are you part of the Obamacare marketing program ? Seems like he said the same thing...incorrect as it is.

 

[ddk]

Are you part of the Obamacare marketing program ? Seems like he said the same thing...incorrect as it is.

Let's not forget that no one was forced into buying anything, people bought what they wanted, and it worked for them. Now they're FORCED to spend thousands on crap policies that they/we don't want, who's the rip-off?

david

 

[DaveyF]

Unfortunately, once again we are seeing in the Obamacare plan a failure of many in government to stick to their guns and NOT let lobbyists and those with vested interests get involved. IMHO, by letting the same old insurance companies administer and control the public health plan, all we are left with is a situation where the "wolf is guarding the hen house". BOTH parties are to blame here, the Reps who are trying to use the situation for political gain and are "spinning" the situation with much hypocrisy in relation to how the old system was functioning ( or in fact completely failing to do) and the Dems in allowing the various lobbyists, etc., to impact the result. The concern that I see is where the government, who are "subsidizing" the insurance companies will be forced to legislate away from that; resulting in the "subsidized" cost then being passed on as usual to the consumer....By the same old insurance companies that were and are the problem.
A very bad potential scenario, BUT one that I believe can and should be corrected asap. How??---by removing the privately owned insurance companies from the public health care plan and enacting/forming a non-profit government owned entity that administers the public health insurance ( Like in all other countries with public health care ). All IMHO.

 

[ddk]

Unfortunately, once again we are seeing in the Obamacare plan a failure of many in government to stick to their guns and NOT let lobbyists and those with vested interests get involved. IMHO, by letting the same old insurance companies administer and control the public health plan, all we are left with is a situation where the "wolf is guarding the hen house". BOTH parties are to blame here, the Reps who are trying to use the situation for political gain and are "spinning" the situation with much hypocrisy in relation to how the old system was functioning ( or in fact completely failing to do) and the Dems in allowing the various lobbyists, etc., to impact the result. The concern that I see is where the government, who are "subsidizing" the insurance companies will be forced to legislate away from that; resulting in the "subsidized" cost then being passed on as usual to the consumer....By the same old insurance companies that were and are the problem.
A very bad potential scenario, BUT one that I believe can and should be corrected asap. How??---by removing the privately owned insurance companies from the public health care plan and enacting/forming a non-profit government owned entity that administers the public health insurance ( Like in all other countries with public health care ). All IMHO.

The law passed behind closed doors without a single Republican vote, only democrats, and they didn't even bother to read the bill that affects 300,000,000, THREE HUNDRED MILLION people! What should be removed is obamacare and those who forced it on us.

david