Well, despite all that, I'm curious why they cannot simply open a satellite office in virtual space and employ their foreign workers remotely. What exactly is so unique about working for an internet site that you have to ignore the entire premise of the internet and be somewhere in person?

I think you need to put the bong down and stay away from it for a while. It is rotting your mind to the point you might actually believe these delusions.

first off it means buisnesses can't 'manipulate' cash strapped people to make artificial job growth or contraction simply by hiring more or less people for the same total work hours.

despite clear evidence that Obamacare has actually caused full time people to become part time and most of the hiring for unskilled labor (the working poor) has been part time, what exactly benefits companies doing this as you think they are?

this no longer works when you are required to provide heathcare then they have no choice but to give people the hours wages needed to live a good life, instead of making them work to boost or contract the economy.

You see, reality doesn't seem to match your misconceptions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

The only reason companies hire part time instead of full time is to control costs. They have no direct impact on the economy or for the most part intent to manipulate it outside of being able to sell their goods and services for a profit.

prior to obama care the working poor had only quacks peddling fake insurance houses constantly shifting locations and doing many unscrupulus methods to keep the poor from being able to pay for care via insurance.

Bullshit. Insurance is one of the heaviest regulated industries in the country before and after Obamacare. If these fly by night operations actually existed, the states would have arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned the scam artists behind it. And yes, it's pretty easy to track them down because there always has to be a place to send the payments and then collect them else they don't benefit from the scam.

Thanks for the correction. I worded it badlybut didn't realize just how bad until i read your reply.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

In my home town, the one hospital demanded that another not be opened up in the townships surrounding it citing they would be unable to maintain a profit and have to close down. The second hospital was to be placed near a busy highway about 25 minutes from the original hospital and the through was that it could shave 20 minutes off the transport time and save lives.

Anyways, the other hospital was defeated and the zoning board wouldn't let them build. So the local hospital decided it needed to expand and promptly purchased all the property on the block and started building on to the hospital. The issue about the travel time came up again and another hospital from out of town wanted to open one. Well, the main hospital kicked up a storm again until the outside hospital agreed to only be an emergency room and outpatient surgery hospital and somehow, the two ended up going in as partners. But they located it a little further out but still near the busy highway so transport is still quicker from the highway but you are basically looking at another 30 minutes or so if you drive by the old hospital in order to go to the new one.

This was about 15 years ago. People in government has changed since then but I think this type of protectionism will still happen today if someone wanted to open another hospital. The new one had been expanded as part of the old one since it's inception.

lol.. Are you but hurt or something? Where in there have I criticized the ACA? It's the administration and their handling/management styles that is being discussed. The ACA could be 100 times better had any other administration been in office.

I just want to point out that all of your citations are from before the enrollment deadline. I think your latest post was from April.

They are all from april 3 or later. The only deadline they were before is the unofficial expansion Obama gave to april 15 because of the failures in the rollout.

How about something a little more recent?

Here is something a little more recent but the open enrollment window is lapsed so your emphasis of more recent is a but misleading.

In fact, if you follow the website attacks on Obamacare based on the number of people enrolled, you will find a deluge of articles leading up to April of 2014 and then...silence. You'll still find other attacks, but none based on the number of newly enrolled.

That is likely because the open enrollment window closed officially march 31 but was extended to april 15 or something like that for people who started to enroll but didn't finish on time because of the roll-out problems. I would assume the reason for a rash of articles discussing the coverage numbers would be relevant more around the time the enrollment window ended and not 5 months later when you have to either lose coverage otherwise obtained or turn a certain age requiring coverage.

Then, in May, you see a lot of articles saying, "Well, OK, a lot of people enrolled, but how many actually paid?". And then, based on insurance company data, it turned out that the people signing up for exchanges actually paid at a higher rate than the general population signing up for health insurance.

Yes, it is funny how people progress their questioning along the time lines of something in order to reflect the current timeline and complaints get brought up as they appear in the time lines. Go figure.

There are good reasons to criticize the ACA, but the number of people who have gotten coverage for the first time because of the law is not one of them.

Umm.. I never criticized the PPACA in these posts. I corrected a deluded person who didn't buy into reality. The numbers themselves seems to be what you think is criticism. I seriously think that any other president than Obama, and this entire situation would have had 10 times better of an outcome.

Do you really not understand what "project" and "estimate" means?

Really, and you are complaining about Forbes as a link? Well, Forbes was not the only link I provides and the Forbes link was more kind in regards to what was said. I shouldn't even have to post a link because an internet search is just as easy to find the same numbers. Also, if you look on the Forbes link, you will see updates and foot notes where the author actually takes in criticism and corrects himself and the article- and then notes it.

But please, by all means, tell us where the Forbes article is incorrect, misleading, or somehow worthy of your dismissal other than your political bias which obviously is filling your head with misinformation and making it necessary for you to forget well defined words like project and estimate.

It's news only because die hard liberals or should I say Obama supporters refuse to accept he or his team is anything less than stellar. It's all Bush's fault or those damn republicans keep blocking or someone other than himself. And when Obama and his supporters started blaming everyone else and anything else as the problems happened, it was blamed on someone else again.

but more importantly, it appears this broken management and failed project is still being run with broken management but it's being hidden from public view.

Umm.. The numbers are not even close to 12 million.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...

Obamacare seems to have only helped a little under 3% of the people who did not have coverage previously. Even now, there are still problems with it as one of the largest insurance companies in Minnesota is pulling out of the exchange.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...

Now before you get all pissy, this isn't a swipe at obamacare, it's the facts surrounding it that you seem to have missed and evidence of the GP's statement that "they simply do not have any clue to anything that they are involved with". Evidently, neither do you unless you were listening to them.

There seems to be cities in which are somewhat majority muslim. Dearborn Michigan I think is one of them. Youtube that and you will see a lot of videos posted by people protesting it.

But I think the original poster is thinking of the mosque that the boston bombers attended has produced many radicalized muslims and keeps being investigated but ignored by the FBI.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro...

Around in this context means next to and including.

The subjects over lap somewhat but do not completely encompass the concept.

Holy shit! It's now racist to hate one black person, not for being black, but for any reason at all?

Yup, it's been that way since 2008. Where have you been that you did not get the memo?

hmm.. Condi does work at drop box. I guess I should open an account.

BTW, Condoleeza Rice is not now and never has been a war criminal. At least to anyone who is not insanely stupid. Stop being a racist.

And put controls back in the video player. WTF is this facebook?

There is more to it than that. Buying and selling car between commercial entities is highly regulated. For instance, you need a special license to open a new or used car lot, even if that lot is your driveway. Many states even have laws that consider you to be a commercial sales entity if you purchase and sell more then so many cars in a year (5 or 6 in my state).

But you also need special licenses if you want to purchase junk cars, salvaged vehicles and so on. The regulations by the state goes well beyond dealerships getting burned by the manufacturers. Its because the public was harmed- salesman lies about condition of car or the car is a lemon- warranties voided for not being serviced at a specific location or using a specific branded product- selling car with leans on the titles so the new owner ends up getting them repossessed by third parties. There are lots of reasons, even the little old lady who only drove it to church on Sunday stems reasons.