Français : Robert Redford au festival de Cannes. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As we were saying, whom you hang with is the key to who you are.

The Company You Keep is flawed by major lacunae in time and space; the characters are, sorry, too old to be portraying the characters of the mid-70s, and that makes the entire fabric of the narrative rickety, as one kept assessing them today minus 30–the decades they are reputedly separated from their earlier rebel anti-war, collateral killings of innocents, and building-blowing-up selves–still putting them substantially beyond the real ages of the radicals. These are people who have been hiding from the law since the lawlessness of their youths did some unsocial destruction and incidental murder. The FBI is all choked up trying to uncouple them from their new identities, loci and professions.

Details of technology–cell phones vs. very ancient computers on some of the newspaper’s desks, brand names that are too new to have appeared when the film is supposedly occurring, bother one on a subliminal level (unless, as with me, they bothered on a top-surface level).

NYC did not look like NYC. Details were wobbly and not realistic, and there were plot holes throughout that stuck out…also, for a longtime admirer of Julie Christie, I was struck by how poorly director Redford chose to light and shoot her–none of the close-ups were flattering.

None of the framing was particularly insightful or telling, and the film needed a lighter hand than it evidently got. The 11-year-old daughter is too naïve, playing too young for the advanced annoying sophistication of such a privileged child.

Even the daughters’ age(s) bothered, as Redford, obviously in his 70s, was supposed to have had a child in his early 60s, we are asked to believe. His wife died some decade earlier, at 48. While we know of such folk, particularly among the Rodeo Drive privileged who forget how normal people live, it is still far-fetched and needed some reference to explain or defend. We know that they are not young, and every shot of Redford gave a jolt of discomfort, as did the scenes with Sarandon. Nolte fared better than his accomplices, but he is a bit younger to begin with. The rationalizations in the text, and the stance of the film itself, were laughably ridiculous and untenable, and yet the film, created and sustained and developed by a slew of semi-anarchistic and left-wing former red rads and hippies, really tested one’s patience. We were hit over the head with their untenable, puerile philosophy, and even then, the ending betrayed the “thinking” extolled and massaged throughout the film.

How much resonance does this terrorist era of American druggie nutcases have today, for today’s introverted, isolated youth and desperate, fiscally stressed adults?

In fact, I would wager that Mimi/Christie would NOT have given herself up though importuned to by the Redford character–the selfishness of the characters was well known. It was a pleasure to see Richard Jenkins, and LaBoeuf acquitted himself well. Anna Kendrick, a favorite, was under-used, ignoring her gifts for fretfulness and ditz. Brendan Gleeson did Boston very well, as he does everything. The FBI just edged out self-caricature, Keystone cops-style, which I object to, and Stan Tucci had not enough to do. Chris Cooper is sufficiently skeevy. The ending left me cold. It ought to have gone into more depth as to what transpired with some of the loose ends of the other characters.

All in all, this project, though it would still have been irritating and subtly offensive, was meant to come out 20 years ago, when the political climate would not have been so polarized, and this story would not have blared out so false in its particulars. Or relevance.

If anything, one can analogize this little entry in nostalgia sweepstakes as a vanity press production–Redford’s clout and cash paved the way for what, under an unknown, would not have migrated onto the silver screen. It will have a run for its money, but there are many more deserving entries for your Heritage tomatoes.

Most such films, packed with beloved stars and featuring picturesque venues in the West and East, are not so … disappointing.

On the other hand, title is prologue: Robert and company keep their own, and forget to take the temperature of those not enbubbled as they are in the weltanschuuang of Hollywood & whine.

English: Oprah Winfrey at the White House for the 2010 Kennedy Center Honors (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Disgraced cyclist apologizes to staff amid reports of a forthcoming tell-all interview.

AUSTIN, TX: Lance Armstrong has apologised to the staff of this foundation, Livestrong, prior to the release of an interview with TV’s Oprah Winfrey where it is being speculated he will admit to all doping charges levied against him.

The 41 year old cyclist, who was stripped of his seven Tour-de-France titles by the sport’s governing body last year, ceased fighting charges in August that he had partaken in doping, but has always maintained his innocence. Armstrong also received a lifetime ban from governing body the International Cycling Union (UCI) and the US Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) and was reportedly close to tears during his meeting with his staff.

“He had a private conversation with the staff, who have done the important work of the foundation for many years,” Foundation spokeswoman Katherine McLane was quoted by Reuters.

“It was a very sincere and heartfelt expression of regret over any stress that they’ve suffered over the course of the last few years as a result of the media attention,” she added.

At the weekend, Armstrong told the Associated Press: “I’m calm, I’m at ease and ready to speak candidly.” He declined to go into further details before heading to an interview with America’s favourite ‘Agony Aunt.’

The recording took place on Monday and is scheduled to broadcast on Thursday. Following completion of the recording, Winfrey tweeted:

Just wrapped with @lancearmstrong More than 2 1/2 hours . He came READY!

National Arts Club, at 15 Gramercy Park (South), Manhattan, New York, formerly the home of Samuel J. Tilden, Governor of New York and Presidential candididate in 1876. Calvert Vaux, one of the creators of Central Park, designed the house in 1874 from two houses built in 1845. The Club took over the building in 1906. It was named an U.S. National Historic Landmark in 1976. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Theatre has a hard enough time when it’s a full-length 2- or 3-act affair, nicely bankrolled, and plush with actors you know and respect.

But like short films of less than feature length, which have to make do with “fill-in” spots between traditionally timed programmes or last-minute plugs for a hastily withdrawn feature, shorts have a tough time getting a head of steam to hit any of the Broadway boards.

Yet they are often great fun, beguiling in different ways, and a good aperitif, to be followed by animated discussion with attendees and even some of the stars in the intimate settings they do find purchase.

At the genteel Gramercy Park venue of the National Arts Club, across from the Gramercy pocket park on the East Side, Rich Orloff, tabbed in the playbill as “one of the most popular unknown playwrights in the country,” is no newcomer to the stage. He’s had more than a dozen full-lengths staged up and down the East Coast, New York to Key West, Phoenix to Milwaukee (not the East Coast, but how to describe that in a two-word kenning?) and has over 70 short plays (mostly comedies) to his credit. It shows.

The two comedies stage-performed (no blocking, just chairs and great acting) homed in on a subject matter not seen very often on the stage or TV: Elder sex.

The first, Mourning Glory, stars Louise Lasser (first wife of the Woodster, and much-liked star of “Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman,” back in the 70s) is a 2-character (but for a  walk-on by the niece of Louise’s character, Aggie). It takes place at the shiva of Aggie’s husband, and is attended by his “best friend” of 46 years, Milt (Michael Citriniti) (who is frankly, as I told him, a bit too handsome to play the role of a 70-ish/80-ish guy; he laughingly told me he tried to “ugly-up before the play, but it didn’t take”). Long dormant, their innate mutual attraction flowers even amid all the food of the funeral, peppered by nonstop laughs throughout. While Lasser is an hilarious Aggie, a deadpan widow with an acrid tongue, she is not the Lasser of long ago, and it takes a little getting used to.

The second play, Getting Lucky, also offers many laughs, but far more serious considerations of the do-si-do of older people embarking on a sexual liaison after many years and a couple of spouses are long in their permanent rest. Lucky stars the formidable and ever-hilarious stage and screen vet Olympia Dukakis, who is happily much the way we remember her from her Golden Globe-winning turn as Cher’s straight-talking mother in Moonstruck. And dozens of films and theatrical productions since, of course.This play examines the delicate edges of mutual-consent erotica by two decided adults, starring Louis Zorich as Jack, her long-time buddy now interested in…more. (“Long-time,” here is four months, BTW.)

What is refreshing is playwright Orloff’s sensitive exploration of so many of the themes that keep older people frightened, alone, apart, when they yearn for love and comfortable partnering. The direction of both playlets, which might seem a trivial matter but isn’t, by David Glenn Armstrong, evoked the unwavering involvement and laugh-filled attention of the packed audience, most of whom seemed to be of a certain age, themselves.

Cookies and punch followed. But the evening was just as sweet without the carbs.

Almost alone worth joining the National Arts Club for such exemplary and warmth-filled evenings.

Quentin Tarantino at the Berlin Film Festival 2009 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Stars: Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Christoph Waltz, Kerry Washington, Don Johnson, Jonah Hill, Amber Tamblyn, Zoe Bell, James Remar, Walter Goggins, Robert Carradine, Bruce Dern, James Russo, Michael Parks, Franco Nero, Tom Savini, M.C. Gainey, Tom Wopat

Briefly, former dentist Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), now turned lucrative bounty hunter, buys the freedom of slave, Django (Jamie Foxx), training him in finding, hunting and killing the wanted villains he has been hired to bring to heel. The intent is to deputize Django, an expert marksman, as his aide de camp bounty hunter. Schultz is instead soon led to the site of Django’s enslaved wife (Kerry Washington) who is living under the ruthless domination of Calvin Candie, a high-living Machiavellian plantation owner.

Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained is a Weinstein avatar. It features the requisite sloppy buckets of scenic splatter, sometimes multiple draughts from the same “fire wall,” a dead body that serves as a guardway against a rifle and 30-06 barrage for the protagonist, Django “Freeman,” plus the dispatch of every white person to appear on screen for longer than a cigarette draw, excessive evidences of modern-day sensibility back-retro’ed into 1848 (“two years before the Civil War,” we are legended pompously), a tapestry of evil over-depiction of the ills and debaucheries of the slave period. The PC Weinsteins and zealous blood-lusty Tarantino miss not a trick for the audience, amused and titillated by the winsome Christoph Waltz (the very same from the film this most resembles, Inglorious Bastards), for its untruthfulness.

We are again, under a different director, being toasted over an Oliver Stone goblet of faux history. History as rewrite by nihilist jokers with an agenda. No gang of do-gooders rode in “to kill nazzies,” as Brad Pitt drawls in Bastards, just as no Django vision of justice and retribution rode the South astride a palomino, toting a Remington, with a perplexingly adorable German dentist-cum-bounty hunter. Sensitive viewers are equally revolted by the excesses of polite rich company, represented by the arrogant-effete plantationer Leo DiCaprio and the noblesse not obliged Don Johnson as Big Daddy.

Samuel Jackson, his skin darkened at least three degrees, as a snowy-haired, wizened major domo slave retainer, is outstanding, as is the crusty Bruce Dern, and the kaleidoscopic Christoph Waltz.

There is a funny if anachronistic scene where precursors to the KKK ride out to the range in homemade bags with eye holes that do not fit the 30 men bent on burning out our heroes.

Funny.

But again, no crowning posse of evil-wishers threw down their wife-crafted hoods because their eye-holes didn’t fit and they could see nothing as they galumphed along to rid the South of an uppity black “valet” and his mystifyingly gentlemanly dentist protector, played by the perfect-pitch Waltz.

At 2 hours 45 minutes, it does not bore. Does it entertain? Sure does. But it cannot be said to elevate.

The movie is full of colorful language more common to today’s ghetto and hip-hop palaces, but never mind. No one spent a long fortnight researching curse words of the mid-19th century. In the face of endless incantations of the sour [Negro] word, the audience endures endless violent lard, along with the half-grunt inarticulateness of Caucasian ranch-hands who are barely above the Pleistocene for primitivism. Django, the freed slave who helps his mentor kill the wanted criminals of the Southern veldt, is quickly svelte and super-civilized—reading, and speaking, and tipping his felted hat to those that need be appeased before they are shot in a lightning splatter. Did slaves shed their tempi and timorousness in a few days?

No baddie escapes. No goodie gets an untimely end (except one). However cleverly scripted, nodding to our contemporary sensibilities—an easy grab, no big adherence to the truth of 150 years ago in language and mores—this is an orgiastic spill of negativity and self-loathing.

The acting of all concerned is as spectacular as the vision is consistently, reliably gory. Tarantino does not spare the pyrotechnics and the multiple-massacre scene staple. Blacks will feel an atavistic delight at the earned retribution. Whites will feel the guilt and disturbance of we-told-you-so rue. As in the current Lincoln, also untrue in the main, the blacks are all good; the whites, save for Christoph’s bounty-hunter/savior, are all bad.

Not a good movie for the start of another fairly difficult and strictured presidential tenure. It’s a too-easy clutch at convulsive payback. It celebrates the uglier parts of our inner equilibrium. We know we are being manipulated to love that guy, hate this guy, delight in the suffering and well-deserved comeuppance of the hero. We’re supposed to cheer for the wrenching murder of ourselves. It’s worse than Avatar.

Watching it will re-ignite the angers stoked by previous such barely-veiled revenge dramas as were Amistad and the previously referenced Bastards. If you like this sort of thing, you’ll like this sort of thing.

Unlike most screenings, this one ended with dozens of the SRO critic-audience discussing the film outside in knots of 3 and 4 people for close to half an hour afterwards.

Harry Reid (D-NV), United States Senator from Nevada and Majority Leader of the United States Senate (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been making its way under the radar in Washington, D.C..  A Senate vote on ratification of the worldwide disability treaty has been scheduled for Tuesday, December 4.

Leading the way for the Obama administration is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and an band of UN-supporting Democrat senators.  They have all expressed strong support for the widely criticized treaty, which claims the definition of disability is evolving.

Those opposed to the treaty cite the facts that the United States already has among the most comprehensive protections for handicapped citizens anywhere in the world, and the idea that Americans need direction from the UN on this issue is way out of line.

The treaty, purports to grant governments broad  powers to intrude on family life.  This intrusion is supposedly to ensure disabled children are being cared for according to the UN’s dictates.

Article 18 – Liberty of movement and nationality

1. States Parties shall recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with others, including by ensuring that persons with disabilities:

a. Have the right to acquire and change a nationality and are not deprived of their nationality arbitrarily or on the basis of disability;

b. Are not deprived, on the basis of disability, of their ability to obtain, possess and utilize documentation of their nationality or other documentation of identification, or to utilize relevant processes such as immigration proceedings, that may be needed to facilitate exercise of the right to liberty of movement;

c. Are free to leave any country, including their own;

d. Are not deprived, arbitrarily or on the basis of disability, of the right to enter their own country.

2. Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by their parents.

For those of you in the know, the U.S. Constitution does not grant the federal government any such authorities.  Therefore,  the treaty would appear to be unconstitutional on its face, according to experts. However with those currently in the Obama administration and their reputation for brazenly ignoring constitutional limitations, opponents say it is crucial to oppose the treaty.

An ongoing argument in support of the treaty is that, “Well if the U.S. ratifies the treaty, other countries will do so as well.”  The supporters go on to state that ratification by all countries will make it convenient for disabled Americans to travel in those countries.  Unfortunately the supporters argument is completely unsupportable, and overall the ratification of the treaty will do nothing for American’s, disabled or not.

Given the current state of financial affairs of the federal government, that the Senate is spending any amount of time on this issue is ridiculous on its face.

Health (Photo credit: 401(K) 2012)

The state of Tennessee is in the news regarding the possible formation of a State Health Insurance Exchange, as outlined by  The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Earlier this month, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam, said that the lack of information coming from the White House on questions raised by him and his fellow Republican Governors, has delayed his decision for Tennessee.

Halsam’s questions include:

• Will family members participating in different plans will be covered by the same provider?
• Will the state be able to avoid being double-charged when seniors transition to Medicare?
• Will the state will be able to access health care information stored in the federal database?
• Will states be able to create wellness-based incentives to encourage healthy behavior?

These and other questions raised by Governors have been rebuffed by the White House which has stated that there is no need for them to answer the questions raised by the Governors.  The only response to the Governors from the Obama Administration has come from Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who put out a letter extending the state exchange decision deadline until December 14, 2012. According to Sebelius, additional guidance would be released soon.  She went on to say, “Our team will do everything possible to answer questions and provide technical assistance to state leaders.”

Following the money trail, it appears that Tennessee has intended for a while now to implement a State Health Insurance Exchange.  Tennessee has already accepted more than $9 million in Federal Government grants toward the implementation of a State Health Insurance Exchange the majority of which was applied for and received by Haslam.

• September 30, 2010 – $1,000,000 (State Planning Grant under former Governor Bredesen)

• November 29, 2011 – $1,560,220 (Establishment Grant Level One under Haslam)

• February 22, 2012 – $2,249,945 (Establishment Grant Level One under Haslam)

• May 16, 2012 – $4,300,000 (Establishment Grant Level One under Haslam)

The elephant in the room that no one seems to want to discuss is the matter of PPACA exchanges being illegal in Tennessee.

“It is declared that the public policy of this state, consistent with our constitutionally-recognized and inalienable right of liberty, is that every person within this state has the right to purchase health insurance or to refuse to purchase health insurance, unless purchase of health insurance is otherwise a condition of employment. The government may not interfere with a citizen’s right to purchase health insurance or with a citizen’s right to refuse to purchase health insurance. The government may not enact a law that would restrict these rights or that would impose a form of punishment for exercising either of these rights. “No public official, employee, or agent of this state or any of its political subdivisions shall act to impose, collect, enforce, or effectuate any penalty in this state that violates the public policy set forth in this section.” – Tenn. Code Ann. § 56-7-1016

An important note to the Tennessee Health Freedom Act, is that,  the legislation was signed into law In March 2011,  by none other than Governor Haslam.

There is another problematic issue with the entire issue surrounding PPACA and the State Health Insurance Exchanges.  According to the law as written, PPACA can’t coerce anyone to participate in PPACA, however a State Health Insurance Exchange can.

“No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act … or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act … and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.” – PPACA 42 U.S.C. § 18115.

It appears that the federal government is relying upon the states  and their exchanges to be the enforcement tool in the overall PPACA implementation.  If enough states, currently 20, stand up to the take over of health insurance by the Federal Government, there appears that there will be an opportunity for real health care reform.

English: The flag of the United Nations, flying at United Nations Plaza in the Civic Center, San Francisco, California, United States of America (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Agenda 21. what is it?  I’ve seen passing mentions of this topic and have done some initial investigations on the subject and until now, haven’t really thought much about it.  This morning Agenda 21 arrived 90 minutes up I-25 in Cheyenne, Wyoming, at a town hall meeting.

According to the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs; Division for Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 is:

“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.  Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.”

Agenda 21 a non-binding United Nations document signed by the U.S. and more than 100 other countries in 1992, has been mostly under everyone’s radar, the appearance  of a foothold into local city planning documents has brought the U.N., and it’s plan front and center again.

Cheyenne resident Brad Harrington spoke at the town hall meeting.  He detailed to the county commissioners the link, intentional or not, between Agenda 21 and the city and county’s planning document,  PlanCheyenne,  and the Unified Development Code approved by the Cheyenne City Council.  In reviewing the language of the documents, Harrington said the city introduced and thereby made the non-binding international document law on the local level.

This is not the first time Agenda 21 has made its way into local politics and city planning.  In march of 2011, Agenda 21 policies of advancement of sustainable development as defined by the United Nations Division of Sustainable Development, found their way into the Cobb County, Georgia, Comprehensive Plan.  Politically correct phrases such as,  Sustainable Development and Smart Growth have become the rallying cry of the growth or lack thereof in our cities.  Those promoting these policies insist that we must change our lives, give up driving, and live in crowded multi-use buildings, and travel by train and bus lines, in order to save the planet from the scourge of global warming.

Our elected officials, both Democrat and Republican, have, for the most part become spokespeople for this type of change.  Lest we forget, President Obama stated in a campaign stop in 2008, “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Now four years later it appears that transformation is beginning to take hold.

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is moving forward one of the next questions is where are you going to find a Primary Care Physician, if you have that need?  If the estimates are correct and there will be some 30 to 50 million currently uninsured Americans looking for health insurance coverage, where will they find it?

A recent study by Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) finds that the group of primary care physicians who are likely to accept new patients may in fact not be doing so.  Why?  With the plethora of new rules and regulations, and government oversight, coupled with the pending increased demand for health care services doctors may not choose to expand their current practice.

Current primary care physicians and their associated hospitals have new Medicare regulations with which to contend.  In October, Medicare  began levying financial penalties against 2,217 hospitals it says have had too many readmissions.  307 hospitals will receive the maximum punishment, a 1 percent reduction in Medicare’s regular payments for every patient over the next year, federal records show.

Not only will the current physicians not be taking new patients, also, there is an upcoming shortage of available physicians graduating from medical schools.  The Association of American Medical Colleges, is predicting that there will be a shortage of approximately 90,000 doctors in the next eight years.

With the pending double whammy of not enough new doctors, and those currently not accepting new patients, emergency rooms will see a marked increase in visits by those looking for health care.

Much of the anticipated increase in the need for doctors and and health care services is built into PPACA.  While the estimated numbers of people who are currently without health insurance will decrease as a result of PPACA, the reduction will occur as a result of expanded eligibility for Medicaid. It is estimated that this shift will increase the number of Medicaid enrollees by about 20 million in 2019.  Not only will the numbers of program participants increase, but the associated costs will increase significantly as the Medicaid rolls begin to swell beginning in 2014.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report finds that PPACA will cost $1.93 trillion and yet leave 30 million without any health care coverage.  The CBO report goes on to report that reduced reimbursement rates to both Medicare and Medicaid, providers will endanger, seniors access to health care.  Further Medicare cost cutting will be dealt with by the 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

Given the lack of primary care physicians, lack of health care availability, and PPACA’s economic impact with the loss of 800,000 jobs, according to the CBO, the road ahead for health care is a rocky one.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the

English: Jay Carney giving a press briefing. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”- Joseph Goebbels

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is doing his best to channel or at least take direction from Goebbels, during a press conference on The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or what we’ve come to know as Obamacare.

According to Carney, “The Affordable Care Act reduces the deficit considerably,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters today. “I would simply point out to you that the Supreme Court has spoken, the American people have spoken, congressional leaders of both parties have spoken, and we’re going to continue with implementation.”

Given that there are currently 18 states who have indicated they are opting out of creating the State Health Insurance Exchange for their state, the money is going to have to come from somewhere.  There are yet another 11 or 12 states that are leaning towards opting out as well that would make more than half of the country that the federal government is going to have to be responsible for in the creation of the exchanges.

Financial experts have estimated that state exchanges will cost anywhere from $10 million per year and higher depending on the state and their individual insurance regulations.  The scenario might look like, half of the states opting out of the creation of their own exchange.  Taking a plausible cost of $50 million for the creation of the exchange the feds are looking at a $1.25 billion cost in the first year alone.  This also doesn’t include the missing $716 billion that President Obama is cutting from Medicare.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows nothing but increasing costs for PPACA as they are finding out more and more about the president’s plan.  President Obama promised a $0.9 trillion cost for PPACA.  The CBO is estimating, as they find out more about the plan and its details, anywhere from $1.4 trillion to $2.6 trillion in the cost of health care as this plan moves forward.

Of course we’re putting our faith in a government to deliver world class health care.  That faith might be a bit suspect when you stop to also consider that this is the same government who is in charge of  the daily delivery of our mail, and states who are in charge of our division of motor vehicles.

English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Business’s of all size’s are now basking in the glory of Black Friday and yet another successful start of the Christmas shopping season.  In the background however is the new year and the pending regulatory nightmare formally known as The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).  After all is said and done, it is now simply known as and referred to as Obamacare.

Looking at small business’s and their contribution to both local and the overall U.S. economy, the onset of Obamacare is causing them to pause as they look towards the future of their business.

In our nations capital more than 150 of D.C.’s small businesses have expressed their opposition to the D.C. Health Exchange Authority’s unanimously approved plan.  The District of Columbia (D.C.) has begun to create their own Health Care Insurance Exchange.  D.C., moved forward on the creation of the exchange, in spite of their consultants admonition against the exchange.  For those small businesses within the beltway, if you’re happy with your current insurer and insurance, you’re out of luck.   Your business must switch to the untested, and currently unknown, government run system.  For those who are self employed and currently uninsured, Obamacare requires you to purchase health insurance.

The Obama administration is moving forward with implementation of their health care initiative despite the backlash from small business owners and the public at large.  Karen Mills, head of the government’s Small Business Administration, is claiming ignorance of any issues  with Obamacare and small business’s.

“You know, I travel all around the country, every week I go to a different part of the country. I’m with small businesses. And I’m not hearing that.”

It’s clearly evident that Mills doesn’t read any news reports or articles on the internet, otherwise she’d be well aware of the overwhelming apprehension towards Obamacare.

The 2012 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, estimates that the average individual employee cost of health coverage will rise 6.5 percent in 2013.   More than half of the employers surveyed plan to shift the cost increase to their employees.  Small business’s and their employees will see changes in their 2012 W2’s they receive in January of 2013.

Individual W-2s issued in January 2013 for wages paid in 2012 will for the first time include a line showing the benefit employees receive from their employer provided health care. This is an attempt to make health care benefits and spending more transparent. Small businesses may see an increase in their costs of W-2 preparation to cover gathering of the newly required information and the reporting thereof.

If you’re a small business that employs 50 people or more, you have a decision to make beginning in 2014.  Your business can sponsor a health plan for 100% of your workers  or pay $750 per worker in penalties to the federal government.  A business might opt to pay the penalty and do away with health insurance seeing as paying the annual penalty might be less expensive. This option would leave the employees uninsured, and for them to go to state health plan exchanges to buy health coverage might be more expensive.
Some small business analysts think that increased insurance costs will discourage business hiring in the next decade.  The reasoning?  The new reforms don’t put any caps on health insurance premiums. Therefore insurance companies have every reason to hike rates before the new health insurance exchanges appear in 2014 “to increase competition.”