Those who are unreasonable lose their right to expect others to be reasonable with them. Those who are intolerant lose their right to expect others to be tolerant of them. For years the Republican Party & the Far Right has flat out refused the pleas of President Obama and others on the Left to meet them halfway, to be reasonable and to work things out through genuine compromise where each side gives a little and gains a lot. It has always been their way or the highway; their way or nothing at all.
It is telling how after the debt limit standoff of 2011 Speaker John Boehner said "We got 98% of what we wanted." This is telling for this reason; Republicans/Conservatives define "compromise" as getting 95% to 98% of whatever they ask for. The problem is not so much that this is how these people really think but that we Democrats in general and we on the Left in particular have allowed them to get away with this way of thinking & attendant behavior for far too long; so long in fact that it would be unrealistic on our part to expect them to think any other way now.
We have historically caved, given in, whenever they have accused us of being unreasonable, of refusing to meet them "halfway" whenever we have refused to give them at least 90% of what they've asked for and I'm like what type of damn fools have we on the Left been?! Seriously, if the Republicans/Conservatives want to accuse us on the Left of being unreasonable or unwilling to meet them "halfway" because we and President Obama have finally come to our collective senses and realized that giving them 98% of what they want is not compromise but conquest, so what?
Let them scream, let them holler, let them throw all the tantrums they want but don't give another inch of ground. Compromise, real compromise, is a 50/50 split; it is straight down the middle and if they can't accept that then fine; we will be more than within our rights to demand 100% of what we want and not allow them to have anything because we have allowed them to get too much of what they've wanted for far too long. There comes a time when the only sane thing to do once you have your foot on an opponent's neck is not to lift it up but to keep pressing down on your opponent's neck until you feel that neck break.
That is where we on the Left stand in relation to the Far Right now. We must press our foot down on its neck until it breaks. Forget compromise, forget being reasonable; we must say to them what President Truman said to the Japanese in 1945 and that is that nothing less than "unconditional surrender" is acceptable at this point. We must mean it and we must act accordingly. Unconditional surrender is what we Democrats and those of us on the Left must demand of the Republican Party & the Far Right. Nothing else will do and in light of their history and current conduct, nothing less than unconditional surrender makes a damn bit of sense.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
I Have To Laugh ~ Ruth Ann Satchfield
My employee-insurance management company reported year-over-year double-digit percentage growth in operating income which was 30.0 percent, to $7.1 billion in third-quarter 2013. They made $16.6 billion in the first nine months of 2013. I want you to realize the size of the company we are talking about.
I have carried insurance on both my husband and myself for over 25 years. In January, they stopped covering my husband's bills. Why? A software glitch. They had changed companies for management of their insurance program. The new management company lost many dependents in the transfer. If my husband had not been a service-related disabled veteran, we would be up the proverbial creek. The company has been telling us not to worry, that he is covered, and that they will pay us back. This has been happening since January, 2013.
I just received my new packet of information, and it has "dependent" checked just as it should. The packet also includes information about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for younger employees, about saving money in the Marketplace established by ACA with this statement: "In the Marketplace, you could be eligible for a new kind of tax credit that lowers your monthly premiums." They left the choice up to each employee to decide what is best. This is a massive company that had good rates, but evidently our insurance advisers feel that at least the people on COBRA might do better with the provisions of the ACA.
When we hear the people in Congress posturing about the failure of the ACA website, I want to laugh. Many of these people never supported the ACA in the first place. When we hear them complaining about the failure of the website, I wonder where they were when the drug program (for seniors) became law. Did they not hear of all the problems that the program had? One more thing: the ACA is a lot more complex - with many more plans and options - than my employee benefits, and I have been waiting for 10 months to be reimbursed. So, when some say that the private sector could do it better, I have to laugh.
Income Inequality ~ Eric Smith
Today my friends I want to discuss income inequality; namely the difference in the amount of money a man earns and a woman who does the same job and works the same hours. Now it is generally understood that on the average for every dollar a man earns a woman only earns seventy seven cents. So forgetting deductions for taxes, Social Security etc; for every $10.00 a man earns a woman earns $7.70.
Now let's say the man and the woman work an eight hour day. In the course of that day the man will earn $80.00 whereas the woman will earn only $61.60 because remember the woman twenty three cents for every dollar she makes doing the same job and working the same amount of hours as the man and she is losing these twenty three cents not because the man is doing the job better but only because she is a woman. In short she is losing $18.40 a day for no other reason than that she's a woman.
Now let's go to the typical forty hour work week. A man earning $10.00 per hour working eight hours a day and five days a week will earn $400.00 because of course eight times five is forty. Now a woman who only earns only seventy seven cents for every dollar a man makes will earn what? Multiply $7.70 by 40 and you will come to $308.00. In other words a woman who does the same job and works the same hours as a man will earn $92.00 less than a man for no other reason than that she is a woman.
Now let's look at how income inequality stacks up over the course of a month. With a forty hour workweek you are talking about on the average four weeks so multiply forty by four and you come to one hundred and sixty. So a man who earns $10.00 hour will over the course of 160 hours earn $1,600.00. That will be his monthly taken. Now factoring in income inequality where the woman will only earn seventy seven cents for every dollar a man makes, what will be her take for the month? Multiply $7.70 times 160 and you will come up with $1,232.00. In other words with income inequality a woman who does the same job and works the same number of hours as a man will earn $368.00 less per month than the man not because she doesn't do the job as well but only because she is a woman.
Now let's top it off by looking at yearly income. A person works one hundred and sixty hours per month and there are twelve months per year. So to come up with the number of hours worked per year multiply 160 times 12 and you will come up come up with 1920 working hours per year. So a man earning $10.00 per hour will earn how much if he works 1920 hours per year? Multiply 10 times 1920 and you will come up with a yearly income of $19,200.00 for the man. Now a woman earning seventy seven cents for every dollar a man earns will make how much over the course of the year doing the same job and working the same number of hours. Multiply her $7.70 times 1920 and you will come up with a yearly income of $14,784.00. Now with income inequality how much less will the woman make per year solely because she is a woman. Subtract $14,784.00 from $19,200.00 and you will come up with $4,416.00.
So here is the deal with gender inequality. With a woman earning only seventy seven cents for every dollar a man makes who does the same job and works the same number of hours that the man does will earn $18.40 less per day, $92.00 less per week, $368.00 less per month, and $4,416.00 less per year than the man who does the same job and works the same amount of hours and earns $10.00 per hour, $80.00 per day, $400.00 per week, $1600.00 per month, and $19,200.00 per year!
That my friends is income inequality! Not only is it wrong and immoral; from a purely economic standpoint it is profoundly stupid since that lost income for a woman is taxable income; it is money that if paid could be used to help fund our schools, police & fire departments, among other things. It is taxable income that could be used to put additional funds back into Social Security to be used for higher Social Security payments upon retirement or in the event of disability. It is extra money that could be used to pay for food, clothing, housing; money that could be returned to the economic pot in the form of buying goods & other products; increasing the demand for them and necessitating the number of more people to help meet those demands and lower unemployment and pull more people out of poverty.
In short, income inequality based on gender ultimately shortchanges us all for it collectively lowers the quality of life for the nation, it makes woman economic second class citizens, and it starves our economy of needed funds in the form of additional taxable income. That is why it must be addressed and why it must be eliminated for income inequality has no place in a society that professes to be free for its existence denotes the absence of full freedom and is a sign of economic stupidity of the highest order.
Now let's say the man and the woman work an eight hour day. In the course of that day the man will earn $80.00 whereas the woman will earn only $61.60 because remember the woman twenty three cents for every dollar she makes doing the same job and working the same amount of hours as the man and she is losing these twenty three cents not because the man is doing the job better but only because she is a woman. In short she is losing $18.40 a day for no other reason than that she's a woman.
Now let's go to the typical forty hour work week. A man earning $10.00 per hour working eight hours a day and five days a week will earn $400.00 because of course eight times five is forty. Now a woman who only earns only seventy seven cents for every dollar a man makes will earn what? Multiply $7.70 by 40 and you will come to $308.00. In other words a woman who does the same job and works the same hours as a man will earn $92.00 less than a man for no other reason than that she is a woman.
Now let's look at how income inequality stacks up over the course of a month. With a forty hour workweek you are talking about on the average four weeks so multiply forty by four and you come to one hundred and sixty. So a man who earns $10.00 hour will over the course of 160 hours earn $1,600.00. That will be his monthly taken. Now factoring in income inequality where the woman will only earn seventy seven cents for every dollar a man makes, what will be her take for the month? Multiply $7.70 times 160 and you will come up with $1,232.00. In other words with income inequality a woman who does the same job and works the same number of hours as a man will earn $368.00 less per month than the man not because she doesn't do the job as well but only because she is a woman.
Now let's top it off by looking at yearly income. A person works one hundred and sixty hours per month and there are twelve months per year. So to come up with the number of hours worked per year multiply 160 times 12 and you will come up come up with 1920 working hours per year. So a man earning $10.00 per hour will earn how much if he works 1920 hours per year? Multiply 10 times 1920 and you will come up with a yearly income of $19,200.00 for the man. Now a woman earning seventy seven cents for every dollar a man earns will make how much over the course of the year doing the same job and working the same number of hours. Multiply her $7.70 times 1920 and you will come up with a yearly income of $14,784.00. Now with income inequality how much less will the woman make per year solely because she is a woman. Subtract $14,784.00 from $19,200.00 and you will come up with $4,416.00.
So here is the deal with gender inequality. With a woman earning only seventy seven cents for every dollar a man makes who does the same job and works the same number of hours that the man does will earn $18.40 less per day, $92.00 less per week, $368.00 less per month, and $4,416.00 less per year than the man who does the same job and works the same amount of hours and earns $10.00 per hour, $80.00 per day, $400.00 per week, $1600.00 per month, and $19,200.00 per year!
That my friends is income inequality! Not only is it wrong and immoral; from a purely economic standpoint it is profoundly stupid since that lost income for a woman is taxable income; it is money that if paid could be used to help fund our schools, police & fire departments, among other things. It is taxable income that could be used to put additional funds back into Social Security to be used for higher Social Security payments upon retirement or in the event of disability. It is extra money that could be used to pay for food, clothing, housing; money that could be returned to the economic pot in the form of buying goods & other products; increasing the demand for them and necessitating the number of more people to help meet those demands and lower unemployment and pull more people out of poverty.
In short, income inequality based on gender ultimately shortchanges us all for it collectively lowers the quality of life for the nation, it makes woman economic second class citizens, and it starves our economy of needed funds in the form of additional taxable income. That is why it must be addressed and why it must be eliminated for income inequality has no place in a society that professes to be free for its existence denotes the absence of full freedom and is a sign of economic stupidity of the highest order.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
It Sticks In My Craw ~ Eric Smith
It sticks in my craw that not one member of the Republican Party, not one member of the Tea Party, and not one member of the Libertarian Party called out that racist Texas yahoo who waved the Confederate flag and gave a rebel yell in front of the White House during the government shutdown; not one and I am seething over that. I remember calling my parents in New York to say goodbye to them in January of 1987 because I was half convinced that I was going to get killed when I participated in second Cummings GA march the following day and so did they.
I remember the Confederate flags being waved by racist lunatics who had shotguns clearly visible in the back seat. I remember seeing signs like "N*****s ain't got no God!" and of a little boy getting slapped silly by his parents after smiling and waving at me as I marched past. I remember the sharpshooters on every overpass as our bus made the 35 mile trip from Atlanta to Cummings and I recall being told by the marshal on board not to rest my head against the window for fear that a sniper would shoot it off.
I recall the sign "Welcome to Cummings!" right next to which stood three people holding a large flag of the Ku Klux Klan; the flag that had a cross with a drop of blood in the center. I remember entering the town square just at its edge and being pressed against National Guardsman who stood between us and a murderous mob. I remember my college roommate saying "E, you wanted to see a Ku Klux Klansman well there he is!" and then looking over and seeing one of those clowns in full white sheets & pointed hood waving the Stars & Bars.
Yet most of all I remember seeing those three helicopters hovering overhead, the lowest of which was no more than twenty five or thirty feet above us and telling folks nearby that if one of those racist yahoos managed to shoot it down or it crashed on its own accord we were all dead. I remember how after the demonstration was over and we began to make our way back to the buses along the route from which we'd come, I broke ranks and rushed to the aid of a woman who had fainted and then hearing loud screaming as I stepped away after realizing that she was okay; only to be cursed out by my roommate who said that in the commotion I had nearly backed into that very Ku Klux Klansman I had seen earlier and who had caused the Guardsman to lower their face masks and charge into the crowd after calling one of them the "n" word and trying to throw something, probably a panic bomb designed to trigger a fatal stampede, and of course I recall that guard ordering me to look away as the National Guardsmen began to make their charge and my responding "Hell no! If I'm to die here I'm determined to see who does what!"
So from where I sit, the fact that those in the GOP, the Tea & Libertarian Parties stood silent in the face of that atrocity in front of the White House tells me that they are complicit in it; even if it is only a complicity of silence. You see people were enslaved because of that flag; people died because of it, and our nation was almost destroyed because of it. I am not interested in hearing sugarcoated platitudes or excuses for that kind of hateful conduct; to me words of dismissive justification are empty because I almost lost my life opposing that flag and for standing up against the hate and evil it represents.
To me that flag and all those who support it for whatever rhyme or reason are my mortal enemies. There is no middle ground; no room for compromise, accommodation, or debate with anyone or any party that thinks it is in any way acceptable; even if that acceptance is conveyed through one's refusal to speak out against it. The Confederate flag is pure evil, period, and by either embracing or showing tacit acceptance of that flag through a refusal to condemn it, the GOP, and the Tea & Libertarian Parties are equally evil; evil not only in their embrace of a hateful symbol of slavery, segregation, and Judge Lynch but of treason as well for make no mistake, that flag was ultimately created for one reason and one reason alone; to keep human beings enslaved and to forever rip the United States of America apart and if that wasn't the essence of evil then I don't know what is.
I remember the Confederate flags being waved by racist lunatics who had shotguns clearly visible in the back seat. I remember seeing signs like "N*****s ain't got no God!" and of a little boy getting slapped silly by his parents after smiling and waving at me as I marched past. I remember the sharpshooters on every overpass as our bus made the 35 mile trip from Atlanta to Cummings and I recall being told by the marshal on board not to rest my head against the window for fear that a sniper would shoot it off.
I recall the sign "Welcome to Cummings!" right next to which stood three people holding a large flag of the Ku Klux Klan; the flag that had a cross with a drop of blood in the center. I remember entering the town square just at its edge and being pressed against National Guardsman who stood between us and a murderous mob. I remember my college roommate saying "E, you wanted to see a Ku Klux Klansman well there he is!" and then looking over and seeing one of those clowns in full white sheets & pointed hood waving the Stars & Bars.
Yet most of all I remember seeing those three helicopters hovering overhead, the lowest of which was no more than twenty five or thirty feet above us and telling folks nearby that if one of those racist yahoos managed to shoot it down or it crashed on its own accord we were all dead. I remember how after the demonstration was over and we began to make our way back to the buses along the route from which we'd come, I broke ranks and rushed to the aid of a woman who had fainted and then hearing loud screaming as I stepped away after realizing that she was okay; only to be cursed out by my roommate who said that in the commotion I had nearly backed into that very Ku Klux Klansman I had seen earlier and who had caused the Guardsman to lower their face masks and charge into the crowd after calling one of them the "n" word and trying to throw something, probably a panic bomb designed to trigger a fatal stampede, and of course I recall that guard ordering me to look away as the National Guardsmen began to make their charge and my responding "Hell no! If I'm to die here I'm determined to see who does what!"
So from where I sit, the fact that those in the GOP, the Tea & Libertarian Parties stood silent in the face of that atrocity in front of the White House tells me that they are complicit in it; even if it is only a complicity of silence. You see people were enslaved because of that flag; people died because of it, and our nation was almost destroyed because of it. I am not interested in hearing sugarcoated platitudes or excuses for that kind of hateful conduct; to me words of dismissive justification are empty because I almost lost my life opposing that flag and for standing up against the hate and evil it represents.
To me that flag and all those who support it for whatever rhyme or reason are my mortal enemies. There is no middle ground; no room for compromise, accommodation, or debate with anyone or any party that thinks it is in any way acceptable; even if that acceptance is conveyed through one's refusal to speak out against it. The Confederate flag is pure evil, period, and by either embracing or showing tacit acceptance of that flag through a refusal to condemn it, the GOP, and the Tea & Libertarian Parties are equally evil; evil not only in their embrace of a hateful symbol of slavery, segregation, and Judge Lynch but of treason as well for make no mistake, that flag was ultimately created for one reason and one reason alone; to keep human beings enslaved and to forever rip the United States of America apart and if that wasn't the essence of evil then I don't know what is.
The Old John Birch Society Born Again ~ Claire Conner Mork
Conventional D.C. punditry, says Ted Cruz, has destroyed the GOP's standing and made it possible for Democrats to take back the House. This is, in my opinion, pie in the sky.
Listen to this assessment of Cruz's impact on the GOP on Texas. "Just about every GOP candidate with aspirations to statewide office in 2014 seems to be styling himself or herself after Cruz. In tight formation, they are moving hard to the right and looking for the next big populist rallying cry — secession, rolling back the state’s liberal immigration laws, impeaching President Obama, amending the Constitution to end the direct election of U.S. senators."
Look at the list of ideas these folks are touting:
1. Secession.
2. Rolling back immigration laws.
3. Impeaching the president.
4. Getting rid of the direct election of senators.
These folks are not humbled. These folks are not swayed by polling. These folks are revolutionaries.
By the way, the John Birch Society is pushing the idea of nullification (a popular idea in Dixie before the Civil War). The John Birch Society is anti-immigration reform. The John Birch Society led the push to impeach President Clinton. The John Birch Society opposes the direct election of senators.
Ted Cruz and his Texas fans are the old John Birch Society born again in red cowboy boots, waving their Lone Star flag and demanding the destruction of the federal government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ted-cruz-returns-to-texas-as-a-hero-who-is-reshaping-the-state-republican-party/2013/10/23/449c5a76-3b6a-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html?hpid=z4
Listen to this assessment of Cruz's impact on the GOP on Texas. "Just about every GOP candidate with aspirations to statewide office in 2014 seems to be styling himself or herself after Cruz. In tight formation, they are moving hard to the right and looking for the next big populist rallying cry — secession, rolling back the state’s liberal immigration laws, impeaching President Obama, amending the Constitution to end the direct election of U.S. senators."
Look at the list of ideas these folks are touting:
1. Secession.
2. Rolling back immigration laws.
3. Impeaching the president.
4. Getting rid of the direct election of senators.
These folks are not humbled. These folks are not swayed by polling. These folks are revolutionaries.
By the way, the John Birch Society is pushing the idea of nullification (a popular idea in Dixie before the Civil War). The John Birch Society is anti-immigration reform. The John Birch Society led the push to impeach President Clinton. The John Birch Society opposes the direct election of senators.
Ted Cruz and his Texas fans are the old John Birch Society born again in red cowboy boots, waving their Lone Star flag and demanding the destruction of the federal government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ted-cruz-returns-to-texas-as-a-hero-who-is-reshaping-the-state-republican-party/2013/10/23/449c5a76-3b6a-11e3-a94f-b58017bfee6c_story.html?hpid=z4
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Kings Who Take Money From Those Who Are Not Christian Enough ~ Claire Conner Mork
I had to post a huge segment from this piece or you would scoff at my note. Yes, Ted Cruz's father is a big evangelical preacher and he sees his son as one of the "anointed ones." This ought to give every one of us the creeps. But, there's more. The old Cruz calls for America to have a king who will take money from those who are not Christian enough and give that wealth to preachers (and their anointed sons.
Here's the article, "The father of right wing Texas Senator Ted Cruz, the most visible leader of the now-ended government shutdown, is seen in recently uncovered videos calling for America to be ruled by “kings” who will take money from anyone who is not an evangelical Christian and deliver it into the hands of fundamentalist preachers and their acolytes."
"Megachurch preacher Larry Huch suggested that Rafael Cruz’s own son, Ted, is one of those “kings.” And in fact, at a ceremony this past July Ted Cruz was “anointed” by a group of fundamentalist preachers in a special blessing ceremony."
During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama was accused by conservatives of advocating “redistribution of wealth” from the wealthy to the needy. But in his speech given last year, Rafael Cruz calls for “a great transfer of wealth.”
The difference is, in Cruz’s scheme, the transfer will occur through a war against “the wicked” led by Christian preachers who will take the wealth from nonbelievers.
“The wealth of the wicked is stored for the righteous,” said the elder Cruz at an Irving, Texas megachurch in August of 2012. “And it is through the kings, anointed to take dominion, that that transfer of wealth is going to occur."
“I know that's why God got Rafael's son elected - Ted Cruz, the next Senator,” said Huch, pastor of the New Beginnings megachurch, introducing Rafael Cruz’s speech.
"Kings who are anointed for a totally different reason than priests,” Rafael Cruz went on to say. "Kings who are anointed to take dominion. Kings who are anointed to go to war, win the war, and bring the spoils of war to the priests.”
Sounds like King David and company from the Old Testament.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/rafael-cruz-father-ted-cruz-wants-great-transfer-wealth-hands-evangelicals-himself
The self-inflicted SABOTAGE of Obamacare ~ William Boyle
Whether it was deliberately included in order to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, or whether it was inadvertently left in because of carelessness, there is one BIG item that is presently implied by the law that may sabotage the ENTIRE Affordable Care Act.
This toxic item is the mandatory reduction in adjunct (part-time) college professors' working hours due to the ACA.
So, why is this item toxic?
It is because the majority of college professors are, in fact, part-time faculty. Colleges do this to reduce the costs of faculty (Some estimates indicate that nationally, some 70% of all college professors are adjuncts!)
And, it should be noted that most adjunct professors are barely getting by.
Reducing their working hours -- and their salary! -- is not likely to make these adjunct professors very happy.
If the majority of college professors are not happy with Obamacare -- What are these professors going to tell their students about Obamacare?
And, because to make the economics of the law work, it is necessary that a majority of young, healthy citizens sign up for insurance through the exchanges -- The young, healthy citizens that are most likely sign up for insurance through the ACA exchanges are college students.
So, just what do you think is going to happen to the implementation of the ACA, if young, healthy college students DON'T sign up for health insurance, because of the negative impression of Obamacare that they are getting from all of their college professors that are being HURT by this apparently obligatory aspect of Obamacare?
If this was intended as a deliberate sabotage of Obamacare, it is very cunning and crafty...
Are the people in charge of the rollout Obamacare aware of this toxic aspect of the law?
Yes, the intent of the law was to provide this segment of the population with health insurance.
However, in my particular case, I have been told that I will NOT be employed starting this coming January, because of Obamacare.
And it is particularly ironic, that President Obama spoke to promote the ACA at my college (Prince George's Community College) less than a month ago, on September 26...
However, my question is not, "How do I pay for health insurance come next year?"
My question is, "How do I pay for rent then? -- or even for food?"
(Also, as an "education worker" I am not eligible for unemployment compensation!)
...And, how many other adjunct professors are there in my same situation?
And -- what will happen if this problem is not solved right away?
See for example:
Honey, They Shrunk My Job
http://www.nationalreview.com/
ObamaCare List Hits 313 As 54 Colleges Cut Adjunct Hours
http://news.investors.com/
Under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the average income of an adjunct has fallen to $2,700 per course, less than $25,000 per year, and this is to prevent colleges and universities from having to provide benefits.
http://www.collegian.com/2013/
Obamacare trainwreck: bankrupting, hurting and killing America
http://
This toxic item is the mandatory reduction in adjunct (part-time) college professors' working hours due to the ACA.
So, why is this item toxic?
It is because the majority of college professors are, in fact, part-time faculty. Colleges do this to reduce the costs of faculty (Some estimates indicate that nationally, some 70% of all college professors are adjuncts!)
And, it should be noted that most adjunct professors are barely getting by.
Reducing their working hours -- and their salary! -- is not likely to make these adjunct professors very happy.
If the majority of college professors are not happy with Obamacare -- What are these professors going to tell their students about Obamacare?
And, because to make the economics of the law work, it is necessary that a majority of young, healthy citizens sign up for insurance through the exchanges -- The young, healthy citizens that are most likely sign up for insurance through the ACA exchanges are college students.
So, just what do you think is going to happen to the implementation of the ACA, if young, healthy college students DON'T sign up for health insurance, because of the negative impression of Obamacare that they are getting from all of their college professors that are being HURT by this apparently obligatory aspect of Obamacare?
If this was intended as a deliberate sabotage of Obamacare, it is very cunning and crafty...
Are the people in charge of the rollout Obamacare aware of this toxic aspect of the law?
Yes, the intent of the law was to provide this segment of the population with health insurance.
However, in my particular case, I have been told that I will NOT be employed starting this coming January, because of Obamacare.
And it is particularly ironic, that President Obama spoke to promote the ACA at my college (Prince George's Community College) less than a month ago, on September 26...
However, my question is not, "How do I pay for health insurance come next year?"
My question is, "How do I pay for rent then? -- or even for food?"
(Also, as an "education worker" I am not eligible for unemployment compensation!)
...And, how many other adjunct professors are there in my same situation?
And -- what will happen if this problem is not solved right away?
See for example:
Honey, They Shrunk My Job
http://www.nationalreview.com/
ObamaCare List Hits 313 As 54 Colleges Cut Adjunct Hours
http://news.investors.com/
Under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the average income of an adjunct has fallen to $2,700 per course, less than $25,000 per year, and this is to prevent colleges and universities from having to provide benefits.
http://www.collegian.com/2013/
Obamacare trainwreck: bankrupting, hurting and killing America
http://
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)