NYJetsFan.com Forums: HarlemHxC814 - Viewing Profile

Jump to content

Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER

ROBJETS Icon : (22 August 2014 - 09:06 PM) Don't read to much into Mark in the preseason. He usually looked good in the preseason even in a Jets uniform.. Big difference from regular season where the 1st string defense is playing 100%.
ROBJETS Icon : (22 August 2014 - 09:09 PM) A lot of 1st stringers are just getting reps in and trying not to get injured. Its only the backups trying to keep or get a job playing hard every down. If preseason qb play meant anything then Matt Simms would be the starting qb of the Jets.
MikeGangGree... Icon : (23 August 2014 - 12:00 AM) In Geno we trust
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (23 August 2014 - 07:23 AM) preseason or not, our offense hasn't looked competent in a while like it does this year. our rushing attack should be very good. Chris Johnson and Chris Ivory could be a dynamic duo
santana Icon : (23 August 2014 - 10:14 AM) http://youtu.be/2X0H709cJkA
santana Icon : (23 August 2014 - 01:28 PM) 2-0 lead most dangerous kind of lead
ganggreen2003 Icon : (24 August 2014 - 02:46 PM) Sam Bradford tears ACL and out for the season
ganggreen2003 Icon : (24 August 2014 - 03:13 PM) Dimitri Patterson is MISSING
ganggreen2003 Icon : (24 August 2014 - 04:50 PM) BREAKING NEWS: NO FAT CHICKS!!!!
MikeGangGree... Icon : (24 August 2014 - 10:28 PM) Rams want Sanchez
MikeGangGree... Icon : (24 August 2014 - 10:28 PM) Shotty and Sanchez again
FlyHiJets Icon : (25 August 2014 - 01:04 PM) Champ Bailey to be released by Denver. Considering how busted up we are and Patterson now being suspended, do we take a look?
FlyHiJets Icon : (25 August 2014 - 01:05 PM) Cro rumored to be gettin released from Arizona. We should definitely bring him in since he already knows the system and he's bett erhtan our 3rd/4th stringers which is where we're at at this point.
FlyHiJets Icon : (25 August 2014 - 01:06 PM) *better than
Chaos Icon : (25 August 2014 - 01:58 PM) Cro may get released?!
Chaos Icon : (25 August 2014 - 02:07 PM) /announcement
Jetsfan115 Icon : (25 August 2014 - 04:54 PM) patterson suspended indefinatly by idzik. were fucked at CB right now
azjetfan Icon : (25 August 2014 - 08:35 PM) Do the Rams have a CB worth trading for?
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (25 August 2014 - 08:52 PM) FIRE IDZIK
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (25 August 2014 - 10:29 PM) Saunders had a seizure, that is why he got into a car crash. He returned to practice, weird/
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (26 August 2014 - 07:00 AM) ‏@AdamSchefter 4m
Jets tried trading WR Stepehen Hill this summer. No takers. Let's see if final cuts today and Saturday change that equation.
Jetsfan115 Icon : (26 August 2014 - 11:15 AM) i hate izdik
azjetfan Icon : (26 August 2014 - 12:32 PM) Our starting CB Walls working in rehab area
Jetsfan115 Icon : (26 August 2014 - 02:52 PM) any CBs that are decent on the trade block or facing salary cuts?
MikeGangGree... Icon : (26 August 2014 - 03:00 PM) I wouldnt cut Hill watch him go to NE and turn into Randy Moss
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (26 August 2014 - 03:13 PM) I'm just glad there aren't anymore greedy bastards on the team to deal with
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (26 August 2014 - 03:13 PM) Or street thugs
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (26 August 2014 - 03:13 PM) f*** a CB problem
Jetsman05 Icon : (26 August 2014 - 03:49 PM) need 1 more in the fantasy league
RetireChrebet Icon : (26 August 2014 - 08:33 PM) Dimitri suspended for the rest of preseason. I'm sorry, I know we are bone dry at corner these days but they should have cut this prick on the spot . He's going to get torched regardless this year and I'd rather cut ties with any potential cancerous attitutudes before the season even starts.
RetireChrebet Icon : (26 August 2014 - 08:34 PM) Where I come from you take responsibility for your actions. Not showing up for a game is cowardly and selfish. f*** him
RetireChrebet Icon : (26 August 2014 - 08:36 PM) Also he doesn't know what the acronym AWOL means so he's also an idiot. No wonder he's never been anything but a journeyman corner is this league.
azjetfan Icon : (26 August 2014 - 09:11 PM) So how do you really feel?
RetireChrebet Icon : (26 August 2014 - 11:18 PM) I think my last three posts pretty much summarize how I feel haha. He's making 1.5 mill this year and no call no shows because his feeling are hurt. Would rather you play corner azjetfan than this guy
MikeGangGree... Icon : (Yesterday, 08:12 AM) Need 1 more for FFB!!
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Yesterday, 08:39 AM) Stephen Hill is going to get cut, guy sucks. Greg Salas is a better football player and deserves a spot over him
HarlemHxC814 Icon : (Yesterday, 11:27 AM) So when do we show up to 115s house with pitchforks, tar and feathers?
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Yesterday, 12:03 PM) i'd rather see idzik go then hill. fire idzik
bleedsgreen Icon : (Yesterday, 12:21 PM) Hill is such a disappointment. I really was hopping for so much when he scored 2 TDs his first game
MikeGangGree... Icon : (Yesterday, 03:11 PM) We need to get the J-E-T-S chant back this year to the way it was
MikeGangGree... Icon : (Yesterday, 03:13 PM) idk if any of u guys went to any of the games last year[Im sure some of u did] but im not a fan of the drumline leading the chant
MikeGangGree... Icon : (Yesterday, 03:14 PM) its not the same as 70,000 people doing it during every kickoff and after every score
Jetsfan115 Icon : (Yesterday, 05:43 PM) injuries and poor QB play aren't good for a WR to develop
Jetsman05 Icon : (Yesterday, 06:08 PM) 115 and Hill. Lol!
Jetsfan0099 Icon : (Yesterday, 10:18 PM) the excuses, Hill is just a terrible football player. no debate, just a fact. guy is soft as shit as well
Resize Shouts Area

HarlemHxC814's Profile User Rating: ***--

Reputation: 5 Neutral
Active Posts:
2,664(0.77 per day)
Most Active In:
THE JETS HUDDLE (904 posts)
30-March 05
Profile Views:
Last Active:
User is offline Yesterday, 12:00 PM

Previous Fields

NFL Team:
New York Jets Helmet (White)
New York Yankees (Hat)

Latest Visitors

Icon   HarlemHxC814 has not set their status

Posts I've Made

  1. In Topic: Jeremy Kerley Shuffles His Way Into The Spotlight With Ny Jets After The Derrick Mason Mess

    Posted 12 Aug 2014

    View Postcanuckfan, on 12 August 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

    You got a problem???? Then don't read it. Heaven knows we've suffered thru enough of your weirdass emanations over the years...I don't mind reading a nice story once in awhile.

    He wrote that 3 years ago lol
  2. In Topic: Dolphins Have Hired Mike Tannenbaum As A Consultant, One Of Several Moves To Their Front Office

    Posted 8 Aug 2014

    I support this 100%
  3. In Topic: <update> Jason Babin Signs With Jets

    Posted 23 Jul 2014

    Why is Izdick signing a 34 year old? FIRE IDZIK
  4. In Topic: <update> Jason Babin Signs With Jets

    Posted 23 Jul 2014

    His agent posted on twitter that he's signed with Jets
  5. In Topic: After Five Years Of Opposing It...

    Posted 15 Jul 2014



    Obamacare Myths
    Falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act are still swirling -- and the intensity of the claims is rising as the exchanges are set to launch.
    Posted on September 16, 2013

    We’ve been batting down bogus claims about the Affordable Care Act for years, since 2009, when legislation was still in the debate stage. But they’ve been increasing in intensity in recent months as we approach Oct. 1, the date the insurance exchanges will be open for business for those buying their own insurance, mainly with the help of federal subsidies.
    So, more than three years after our last health-care-whoppers piece (published just before the law was signed in 2010), we’re giving readers a rundown of the top claims.
    Some have been around for years, and others are relatively new. Most touch on three topics: jobs, premium costs and medical care. For instance:
    Republicans have made the overblown claim that the law is a job-killer, but experts predict a small impact on mainly low-wage jobs. The Republican National Committee says 8.2 million part-timers can’t find full-time work “partly” due to the law. That’s the total number of part-time workers who want full-time jobs, and there’s no evidence from official jobs figures that the law has had an impact.
    Proponents say premiums will go down, while opponents say they’ll go up. In general, employer plans won’t be affected much, and a price change for individuals seeking their own insurance will vary from person to person. Obama claimed that all of the uninsured would see lower premiums than what they could get now (before accounting for federal subsidies), but that’s not the case.
    Critics continue to make scary claims about the government coming between you and your doctor, but the law doesn’t set up a government-run system. If anything, the law comes between you and your insurance company, forbidding them from capping your coverage or charging you more based on health status. Meanwhile, Obama can’t promise you can keep your plan. Employers are free to switch coverage, just as they were before.
    And there’s more. Since 2010, we’ve been debunking the persistent claim that members of Congress are somehow exempt from the law. They’re not. The administration’s recent decision to give exchanges leeway in how they verify suspect applications for subsidies sparked the false claim that Americans can list what they’d like for their incomes and won’t face verification.
    Beyond these more reasonable topics, we’ve seen our share of far-fetched viral messages about microchips being implanted in patients and forced home inspections by the government. Rest assured. Neither is true.

    The law is long, complicated and still being implemented. Many of the claims we’ve seen — and expect to see for some time to come — center on the impact on employers (or employees), premium rates and medical decisions.
    Claim: 8.2 million Americans can’t find full-time work partly due to Obamacare.
    FactCheck.org says: False.
    This assertion from the Republican National Committee echoes others conservative claims that the law is hindering part-timers from finding full-time jobs. But the RNC’s 8.2 million figure was the total number in June of part-time workers in the U.S. seeking full-time work — what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “part-time for economic reasons” — and there’s no evidence from BLS numbers that the law has had an impact on such workers. There were more in this “part-time for economic reasons” category in March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law (9.1 million). The latest figure, from August, is 7.9 million.
    stressThe law requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to provide insurance or pay a fine. (This provision was delayed until 2015.) Full-time is defined as 30 hours per week. These details have fueled Republican claims that the law will cause — or is causing — employers to reduce their employees’ hours to get under the 30-hour/50-employee thresholds. It’s certainly possible that some employers will try to get by with fewer workers, or fewer worker-hours. And some among millions of part-timers seeking full-time work may have had their hours cut. But we can’t say how many that would be, and neither can the RNC.
    To be sure, there have been plenty of news reports of employers, particularly those, like retail stores or restaurants, with low-wage employees, saying they’re concerned and uncertain about the impact of the law, and they might cut hours or workers on their payrolls. We can’t predict what companies might do once the employer requirements take effect.
    While the BLS numbers don’t show an impact on part-time workers seeking full-time work, there is some anecdotal evidence of employers cutting the hours of part-time workers to get or keep them under a 30-hour-a-week limit. The Washington Post, for instance, wrote about the state of Virginia implementing such a cap on the hours of part-timers, like adjunct faculty at Northern Virginia Community College. And other colleges have instituted such limits, according to press reports. These employers have not indicated in the news reports whether they would be hiring additional workers, or increasing the hours of others, to fill in the gaps.
    “ObamaCare by the Numbers,” Aug. 2

    Claim: The law is a job-killer.
    FactCheck.org says: Overblown.
    It’s true nonpartisan economic analyses have estimated a “small” loss of mainly low-wage jobs because of the law. But as one expert told us, there hasn’t been much analysis of this impact of the law because, he believes, economists think the impact will be minimal. Still, Republicans have continued to push the idea that the law will have a significant effect on jobs.obamacarejobsatrisk
    This claim made our “Whoppers of 2011” list, and it has continued to be pushed in various forms — with the latest being the claims about part-time work. Mainly, the “job-killer” claims severely distort a 2010 nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report that said the law would have a “small” impact on jobs. And that’s mainly from workers choosing to work less. For instance, some might work fewer hours if they receive subsidies to help them buy insurance, or those close to retirement may retire early, with some reassurance that they can buy insurance on their own.
    The CBO report said this decrease in the amount of labor in the economy would amount to one-half of 1 percent, which Republicans quickly translated into a loss of actual jobs. But, as we said, CBO clearly explained this would come about “primarily by reducing the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.”
    CBO did say, however, that the employer requirements to provide insurance or pay a fine “will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers.” But they may hire more part-time or seasonal workers instead. CBO hasn’t put a number on these jobs.
    Other experts we’ve consulted have predicted a minimal impact. The Lewin Group, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group that operates independently of the company, estimated a 150,000 to 300,000 job loss of minimum wage or near minimum wage positions. Not included is an unknown increase in jobs in health care and insurance. Altogether, Lewin’s then-senior vice president told us there would be a “small net job loss.”
    In July, claims about the law killing jobs took the form of a “mis-tweet” from several congressional Republicans, who wrongly tweeted “74% of small businesses will fire workers, cut hours under #Obamacare.” But the online, opt-in survey from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the law, found no more than 13 percent of the small businesses that responded said that. During the presidential campaign, Republican nominee Mitt Romney cited an earlier survey from the group to bolster his claims.
    “GOP Mistweets #Obamacare Survey Results,” July 25
    “Romney, Obama Uphold Health Care Falsehoods,” June 28, 2012
    “GOP’s ‘Job-Killing’ Whopper, Again,” Feb. 21, 2012
    “The Whoppers of 2011,” Dec. 20, 2011

    Claim: Premiums are going up because of the law. Premiums are going down because of the law.
    FactCheck.org says: It depends.
    Politicians have been making these claims since before the law was passed — it was the first item on our list of whoppers back in 2010. Both sides have a penchant for misrepresenting studies on the matter to support their point. Our short answer — “it depends” — may be unsatisfactory to readers, but whether you’ll pay more or less than you would have without the law depends on your circumstances.
    Are you uninsured and have a preexisting condition? You’ll likely pay less than you would have otherwise. Are you uninsured but young and healthy? You’ll likely pay more (without accounting for any subsidies you may receive). Are you insured through your employer? You likely won’t see much change either way. trendchart2
    Let’s start with employer-sponsored insurance. Employer-sponsored premiums did go up slightly due to the law from 2010 to 2011 (a 1 percent to 3 percent increase, according to experts), because of added benefits, such as coverage for dependents up to age 26, free preventive care and an increase in caps on coverage. Overall, premiums for family plans jumped 9 percent that year, with the bulk of that due to higher medical costs, not, as critics claimed, the health care law. Since then, premium growth has been 4 percent on average for 2012 and 2013, modest growth rates historically.
    Note that premiums have been going up for years and will continue to do so — with or without the health care law. When Democrats make claims about premiums going down, they’re talking about premiums growing at a lower rate than they would have otherwise.
    The growth in national health spending (that’s spending from the government, businesses and individuals) from 2009 to 2011 also has been at around 4 percent, the lowest level since such spending was first measured in 1960. President Obama has boasted that the ACA has helped make this happen. It could be playing some role, with an emphasis on new payment models, but experts say the cause is mainly the down economy. A Kaiser Family Foundation study said the economy was responsible for 77 percent of the slow growth rate, and that rate is expected to pick up as the economy recovers.
    Now, the big question mark is for those who buy their own insurance. We’ll know more in October, when the state and federal exchanges have published rates and are accepting applications. But even then, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make generalizations. Some folks will pay more, some will pay less, than what they would have otherwise. Many who had purchased on the individual market in the past will get more generous benefits — which will be good news for some and irrelevant to others. And the vast majority buying their own exchange plans — 80 percent, according to the CBO — will receive subsidies that bring their total out-of-pocket costs down.
    These plans sold to individuals can no longer charge more based on health status or gender, but they can vary premiums based on geography, age and tobacco use. Republicans have warned of a “rate shock” in this market, with the young and healthy being subject to higher premiums if the market is flooded with older and less healthy policyholders. A RAND study, published in August and sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, estimated there would be “no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market,” in the words of the lead author. But rates would likely vary from state to state.
    The research group looked at 10 states and the U.S. overall, estimating no premium change for the U.S. at large and five states, a decline in two states, and an increase up to 43 percent in three states, not accounting for tax credits. The study, which held age, tobacco use and actuarial value (level of coverage) constant in comparisons, said average out-of-pocket costs would be unchanged or decline for all states once tax credits are factored in.
    But that’s one estimate from an economic model, with noted “limitations.” Says the RAND study: “Current data on nongroup premiums are limited, and there are many uncertainties about how individuals and insurers will respond to the complex policy changes introduced by the Affordable Care Act.” It cautions against “sweeping statements” about the impact on premiums, since rates will differ based on individual circumstances.
    That brings us back to our short answer: It depends.
    “False Assumptions on the Health Care Law,” July 11
    “Obama Overhypes Health Savings,” July 19
    “Health Insurance Premium Spin,” April 5
    ” ‘Obamacare’ to cost $20,000 a Family?” March 1

    Claim: All of the uninsured will pay less on the exchanges than they could now on the individual market, even without federal subsidies.
    FactCheck.org says: False.
    President Obama made this claim at an Aug. 9 press conference, saying that beginning Oct. 1, the 15 percent of the population that’s uninsured would be able to “sign up for affordable quality health insurance at a significantly cheaper rate than what they can get right now on the individual market.” Obama went on to emphasize that that was before including federal subsidies. “And if even with lower premiums they still can’t afford it, we’re going to be able to provide them with a tax credit to help them buy it,” he added.
    But even Obama’s secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, has acknowledged that young persons would likely pay more and older Americans would likely pay less on the insurance exchanges. As we explained, the reason is that the ACA changes how insurance companies can price these policies on the individual market — it forbids insurance companies from charging more for persons with preexisting conditions or based on gender, and limits them to charging older policyholders no more than three times what they charge to younger policyholders. Premiums can also vary based on geography and smoking — but smokers can only be charged 1.5 times the rate for nonsmokers.
    There won’t be any super-cheap plans for the young and healthy, nor sky-high premiums for older folks or those with health conditions. (High-deductible catastrophic plans, however, will be available to those under 30, or older Americans with hardship exemptions. They can be purchased only without federal subsidies.) Some on the exchanges will pay less; some will pay more than what they could get now. Economist Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was a paid adviser to both the Obama administration and then-Gov. Mitt Romney’s administration on health care plans. Gruber told us a “small share” of the uninsured would pay higher premiums on the exchanges. “The president is right for the average uninsured person, but not for all uninsured people,” he said.
    That’s before subsidies, of course. Only 10 percent of the uninsured earn too much to qualify for federal subsidies on the exchanges, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report. But Obama claimed they’d pay less even without the federal help.
    “Obama Overpromises on Premiums,” Aug. 13

    Claim: 8.5 million Americans will receive rebates this year averaging about $100 each because of the health care law.
    FactCheck.org says: Misleading.
    President Obama has stretched the facts in making this boast about the law’s impact. The rebates are real, but most of them will go to companies offering insurance to their workers. Only those who buy their own insurance will get a rebate check directly. And the $100 is an average per family, not per person.
    cashbackThe law requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on health costs — as opposed to spending on administration and marketing, and, of course, profit. If companies don’t meet the 80/20 ratio, they have to issue a rebate to consumers. Large group plans have to meet an 85/15 ratio. In 2012 and again in 2013 rebates were sent out, but Obama has pitched this as Americans receiving checks in the mail. This year, in a July 18 speech, he talked about “millions of Americans” opening letters from their insurers and being “pleasantly surprised with a check. In 2012, 13 million rebates went out, in all 50 states. Another 8.5 [million] rebates are being sent out this summer, averaging around 100 bucks each.”
    But most of the money went directly to employers who provided the policies to their workers. Of the 8.5 million benefiting from this provision in 2013, 2.7 million are on the individual market, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, meaning the rebate would go directly to them. In 2012, 4 million of the 13 million benefiting were on the individual market. Those with employer plans could still see a benefit, as savings are passed along in some way to them. But, as the Department of Labor, which spells out in its guidance on the matter, says, employers who pay part of the premium are entitled to part of the rebate.
    “Obama Overhypes Health Savings,” July 19
    “Romney, Obama Uphold Health Care Falsehoods,” June 28, 2012

    Medical Care

    Claim: You won’t be able to choose your own doctor.
    Claim: The government will be between you and your doctor.
    FactCheck.org says: False.
    These claims are variations on the fear that the government will be taking over health care — choosing your doctor, telling him or her what treatment to administer, etc. But the law doesn’t create a government-run system, as we’ve said many times. It actually greatly expands business for private insurance, by about 12 million new customers, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. And individuals will choose their own doctors, just as they do now.
    These type of fear-mongering claims appear to have quieted a bit in 2013 — along with the more extreme death-panel-type hysteria — but they’re still percolating. A TV ad this summer from the conservative Americans for Prosperity featured a mom named Julie, gently asking, “If we can’t pick our own doctor, how do I know my family’s going to get the care they need?” And: “Can I really trust the folks in Washington with my family’s health care?”
    docpatientIt turns out, Julie doesn’t really mean that she might not be able to select her doctor herself. Part of the group’s support for the claim is the small net decline, as estimated by the CBO, in those who get insurance through their employer, a drop of 7 million people by 2018. (A total of 158 million are expected to have employer-sponsored coverage that year.) The CBO has said that those losing coverage would mainly be low-wage workers who could get subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges. And, certainly, there’s a chance the doctor a worker had been seeing won’t be in the network of providers on a new plan. Some exchange policies could keep prices low by limiting those networks. But no one will choose policyholders’ doctors for them. They simply won’t be guaranteed that a new plan would have the same network of doctors, just as there’s no guarantee of that now (more on this in a minute).
    As for the government-coming-between-you-and-your-doctor claim, the law’s regulatory provisions are more like putting the government between you and your insurance company — and in a way that brings added benefits to consumers. The law says insurers can’t have caps on coverage, turn down customers based on preexisting conditions (or charge them more), and can’t spend more than 15 percent or 20 percent on non-medical-related costs (see Obama’s rebate claim above).
    Republicans also have attacked the Independent Payment Advisory Board as some kind of rationing board. But the IPAB — which is made up of medical professionals, health care experts, economists and consumer representatives — is charged with slowing the rate of growth of Medicare spending, and limited in how it can go about doing that. The law says the board’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums … increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”
    “False Assumptions on the Health Care Law,” July 11
    “Romney, Obama Uphold Health Care Falsehoods,” June 28, 2012
    “Romney’s ‘Gross’ Exaggeration on ‘Obamacare,’ “May 10, 2012

    Claim: If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
    FactCheck.org: Misleading.
    Obama has repeatedly made this claim, and the White House continues to use the line on its website. The law doesn’t force Americans to pick new plans or new doctors, but the president simply can’t make this promise to everyone. There’s no guarantee that your employer won’t switch plans, just as companies could have done before the law. And if you switch jobs, your new work-based coverage might not have your doctor as an in-network provider, either.
    As we mentioned above, some employees won’t have an offer of insurance and will look for a new plan on the exchanges. Some small businesses could drop their current plans and join the exchanges, too. Grocery store chain Trader Joe’s, for instance, announced that it will direct its part-time workers (less than 30 hours per week) to the exchanges for health coverage and provide them with $500 to help purchase it, as of Jan. 1, 2014. The company, which has provided coverage to such workers, said “many crew members should be able to obtain health care coverage at very little, if any, net cost.”
    “Romney, Obama Uphold Health Care Falsehoods,” June 28, 2012

    And There’s More …
    Claim: Those applying for federal subsidies can lie about their income without facing verification.
    FactCheck.org says: False.
    The Obama administration gave the insurance exchanges some leeway in how they verify income eligibility for federal subsidies in the first year. That prompted Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt to claim that the administration had “waived the income verification requirement” and that applicants can “say what you think your income’s going to be with no way to verify that.” Not true. The exchanges will compare applications with federal information — such as previous tax returns — and ask for additional information if the person has no previous tax filings.
    Here’s where the administration’s new rule comes in: For applications in which stated income is more than 10 percent below what’s listed in government data, current income information isn’t available, and the additional information from the applicants is insufficient, a sample of those applications will face further requirements in 2014. Initially, all of these suspect applications were to face more scrutiny, but the exchanges will only have to verify a sample for the first year of operation.
    So, if you’re the gambling type, you do have better odds of lying about your income and still getting a subsidy. At least for a while. But all income claims will be checked against 2014 tax filings, and the IRS can recoup at least some of the money. There are also IRS perjury penalties, and civil monetary penalties spelled out in the Affordable Care Act for providing fraudulent information.
    “Blunt Wrong on Income Verification,” July 15

    Claim: Congress is exempt from the law.
    FactCheck.org says: False.
    Several versions of this claim have been circulating since before the Affordable Care Act was passed. But no matter how many different ways the critics spin it, Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges. capitoldome
    This “exempt” nonsense first percolated before that provision was added to the law through a Republican amendment. Before the amendment, the legislation said that Congress — as well as federal employees, employees of large companies, and those who get insurance through Medicare or Medicaid — wouldn’t be eligible for the exchanges, which were created by the law for those buying their own insurance and small businesses. But that certainly didn’t make Congress “exempt” — lawmakers were treated like any other worker with employer-provided health insurance. They were required to have coverage or face a penalty.
    The claim has persisted even after the provision requiring Congress to get insurance from the exchanges became part of the final law. Fast forward to spring 2013, and the assertion surfaced again when there was concern among lawmakers that the transition to exchange plans — particularly the transfer of the federal contribution toward premiums — wouldn’t go very smoothly. Politico published a piece on April 24 on lawmakers talking about changing the exchange requirement because of this. The headline on the story: “Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption.”
    On Aug. 7, the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the FEHB Program, issued a proposed rule saying that the federal government could continue to make contributions toward the premiums of lawmakers and their staffs on the exchanges. The federal government has long made such premium contributions, as other employers do for their employees. OPM said the contribution couldn’t be more than what it is under the FEHB Program. That ruling, perhaps predictably, sparked new — and still bogus — claims from Republicans of Congress being “exempt” from the law.
    “Congress Exempt from Health Bill?” Jan. 20, 2010
    “Congress and an Exemption from ‘Obamacare’?” May 3, 2013
    “No ‘Special Subsidy’ for Congress,” Aug. 30, 2013

    We’re happy to report that one of the most paranoid claims about the law — that all patients would be implanted with microchips — appears to have died off, judging by the viral emails our readers send to us. But the law isn’t immune from new government-conspiracy-type claims. One of the latest is that the law includes forced home inspections. That wild distortion actually refers to grants for voluntary state home-visiting programs to help expectant and new parents. Forty-six states had such programs in fiscal 2010.
    – by Lori Robertson

My Information

Member Title:
06 Best Avatar Award / N.O.P. GUARD
27 years old
August 14, 1987

Contact Information

Click here to e-mail me


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  1. Photo

    MikeGangGreenFan2 Icon

    11 Jul 2013 - 20:38
  2. Photo

    MikeGangGreenFan2 Icon

    11 Jul 2013 - 20:38
  3. Photo

    SecondHandJets Icon

    27 Jun 2012 - 16:46
  4. Photo

    SecondHandJets Icon

    27 Jun 2012 - 16:46
  5. Photo

    Hey Coach Icon

    12 Apr 2008 - 17:25
    rain delay!
  6. Photo

    Hey Coach Icon

    29 Dec 2007 - 00:31
    Homo :)
  7. Photo

    kobeskool Icon

    31 Jul 2007 - 18:35
    jetson, he aint black
  8. Photo

    Hey Coach Icon

    04 Jul 2007 - 17:23
    Hey Harlem. New name?
  9. Photo

    jets0n Icon

    21 Jun 2007 - 02:09
    You're black? WTF?!?!
  10. Photo

    jets0n Icon

    20 Jun 2007 - 09:47
    So you got a name change.... are you getting a sex change too?
  11. Photo

    jets0n Icon

    13 Jun 2007 - 14:30
    That new avatar is great.
  12. Photo

    vilmatime51 Icon

    02 Jun 2007 - 23:49
    mang i met +44 again yesterday at a free autograph signing at a Best Buy in NJ..and mark remembered me from nyc..it was amazing..u shoulda went!
  13. Photo

    JetsOhFive Icon

    16 May 2007 - 01:23
    Who is you prople, Mr. Imus?
  14. Photo

    jets0n Icon

    06 May 2007 - 18:23
    Finally! Rangers out.... bye bye horseshit sig.
  15. Photo

    Hey Coach Icon

    03 May 2007 - 22:08
    Sox win again KHID
  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3