text:
Flaws of Life in a Tube
Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Moderator: BioTeam
1)He's God. He doesnt come from anything. If He came from somewhere, or someone, or some primordial slosh, He wouldnt be God. He was existing before the beginning and He is here today.
He's God. He is the creator of all things, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is not created, but creator. Nothing created God. If he was created, He wouldnt be God.
What I tell you is fact. God is, and he was, and will always be. But you will probably dismiss this because you do not believe.
My favorite testimony of God is the true story of the sailor who smoked. He said to the ship's Chaplain: "God isnt real. Hey, if God's real, tell Him to make me stop smoking." Now it was known that this man smoked every day after lunch, and that he was used to the swaying ships enough that he didnt get sea sick anymore. The next day, he went out after lunch to smoke. He took a deep breadth and said "See. God doesnt exist." At that moment, he vomited over the side of the ship. The next day, he went out to smoke after lunch. He took a deep breath of the cigarette. "see. God doesnt exist." And again, he vomited over the side of the ship. Adn the third day, he went out after lunch. He took a puff of the cigarette. "See. God doesnt exist." And he vomited over the side of the ship.
How do we know the story? Because he came back the 4th day to the Chaplain, and believed on Jesus. The true story is written in the book by the very chaplain who was talking to this sailor. The book is called "A Man Called Peter".
Otherwise, besides this man's personal experience with God and smoking, he would have never believed on Christ. I can promise you this: take any part of the word of God and apply it, believe it. You will see that God is the God of miracles, and that He exists.
2)The above story is evidence that Jesus has these powers.
You know what Jesus did for every man that no other religion offers? Did any savior of any other religion ever die for their believers? None other exists. No other religion promises life after death, or the security of a good life after death. Apollo is one of the many gods of something called Greek MYTHOLOGY. When was the last time you've heard that Apollo, or any Greek or Roman god ever healed or done anything good for anyone? Never. In fact, the Greek gods are described throughout mythology as a bunch of squabbling, selfish immortals.
Muhammad? He just offers a bunch of wisdom. Muhammad is dead, and he did not raise from the dead as Jesus did. He did not die for his people, nor offer any sacrifice to his people. Muhammad does not give his life or his mind or love, peace, joy, and mercy that Jesus has. Muhammad cannot answer the question of how this world and the universe came to be.
3)I know plenty about evolution. Its just that I think it is not possible. We both know of the primordial slosh, divergent evolution, life in a tube, speciation, coevolution, genetic drift, mutations as the evolutionary engine, evolutionary time scale, geographical isolation, divergent evolution, punctuated equilibrium, genetic correction over time, common ancestry, and geological timescale. I know plenty on how it works.
I know that there is NOT ONE SINGLE fossil of a common ancestor. I know that the modern human "appeared 40,000 years ago", and that if you grow that population from then by applying the correct observed rules, you do not get todays population but a number with 90 digits. I know that the probability of cell development from primordial slosh is 0.000000009%, or 1 in 104,478,296, which is practically impossible. Evolution can explain at an impossible stretch the formation of an organism, but cannot explain the appearance of the genetic code. I know that no trace of the primordial slosh has ever been found. I know that in the primordial slosh, evolutionists do not account for the fact that there are ocean currents that disrupt collections of elements in order to combine into higher forms, and that evolutionists do not account for the fact that a slosh of many elements could lead to elements interfering with the formation of higher elements. Such as amino acids that try to combine to form DNA or proteins, but are somehow uninterrupted by another random element in the slosh.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
Contradiction much?
I'm not impressed. How do you know this story (along with others in the Bible "demonstrating" Jesus's powers) is true? Any scientific backing? Any historical evidence?
Hmm... so your belief in Christianity is based on how spiritual and supposedly how kind your prophet is rather than how much evidence there is to support your beliefs? Sounds like an irrelevant appeal to me.
1. Look in the fossil record.
2. The human population does not grow exponentially.
3. The probability of cell development from "primordial slosh" is not 0.000000009%, it is close to 1, because it can be demonstrated in the lab.
4. The earth's atmosphere is no longer reducing, so abiogenesis does not spontaneously occur in the present.
5. Ocean currents near deep sea hydrothermal vents?
6. What "random element"?
Actually your second point reminded me of this comic:
Re: Flaws of Life in a Tube
1)I dont think you understand. God didnt come from a primordial slosh. He is the God of this universe, existing before time in the spirit realm. He is not bound by the rules of this world. In fact, He makes the rules of this world.
God didnt come from anything. He wasnt made from anything. He is creator, not created, and not randomly formed from a mesh of chemicals.
If he was created from something, He wouldnt be God.
2)Historical evidence? History is what is in the past, yes? Well that IS history. It actually happened. Those events are recorded in the book "A Man Called Peter". This actually happened. Im not making up a story. Im recounting to you actual events.
What happened to that man was especial proof to him because it happened to him. It is his, what I call, human experience. And human experience is undeniable, especially to the people that experience it personally. But to those around that person, it may be ignored simply because you do not want to believe.
3)There's a saying I heard from a pastor: Its not designed to make sense, its designed to make faith.
Faith in God that is. It is based on belief. However, the bible is scientific.
Do you know of the red sea crossing? The bible describes where Israel crossed the Red Sea as a place where they could only go forward or back and where the bottom of that sea is sandy in order to allow crossing. There is such a place in the Red Sea called Pi-Hahiroth. There, the bottom is sandy and there is a thin path in the mountains where the Israelites could not go left or right. Also, the bible sais that the Egyptian army went after the Israelites. Therefore, the chariot wheels would be in the bottom of the sea, right? In only one spot in the whole sea, and one spot only, right where the mountain path leads, there are chariot wheels at the bottom of the ocean.
The most convincing evidence is that human femurs have been found at the cite. Before you question me about it: yes, it has been confirmed that they are human femurs.
1)There are the McFall and Tailor trails where dinosaur footprints have been found on the surface. Dinosaurs are supposed to have existed, at their last point in history, 65 million years ago, and are not supposed to be found in the surface. And yet footprints are on the surface. This shows recent existence. Evolution's geological timescale does not conform to this.
Also, there are no intermediate fossils of any kind, at all. I was in my AP Environmental class, and we watched a video on evolution, which was full of evolutionary scientists and only evolutionary scientists. They admitted to the nonexistence of intermediate fossils.
However, the explanation for this was rapid evolution, which has never been known to occur.
Also, do not make claims. Evidence please. Only evidence, not claims without base. You are an evolutionist and would know the best examples of this. Please show them to me, because I have seen none. However, I have seen the fossils claimed to be intermediate, and there are flaws in these. But nonetheless, please show them that we should debate them here.
2) Look at any chart of a population's growth and you will see that populations grow exponentially. This is not my assumption or conjecture: populations grow exponentially. This is a fact. Its not my fact, but a fact which has been observed throughout history. Look it up anywhere in google. You will clearly see that populations grow exponentially.
3)In no lab has there been the replication of the development of the cell. Life in a Tube has flaws, especially in the fact that he ran a constant stream of electricity to simulate a sporadic event with a large time period in between each event. No cell has ever been produced from a organized, isolated assembly of the right elements, which make up the cell, in a tube. Experiments do not take into consideration that the primordial slosh had a host of elements, which does not allow elements to be isolated. For example, amino acids are not the only element in the primordial slosh. Life in a tube is not an accurate representation of this.
4) I looked into abeogenesis. I do not understand how a shrinking atmosphere has to do with the formation of the cell from simple chemicals.
5)There are ocean currents near deep sea hydrothermal vents. They are called upwellings. Upwellings are currents from the bottom which bring up nutrients and CO2 to the top level of bodies of water. These are necessary to the survival of species, as CO2 is pumped to the surface for algea (freshwater) or plankton (saltwater) to use, and nutrients are most plentiful at the bottom.
Also, the building blacks for amino acids would be far to diluted in water. Also, there are
6)Doesnt the primordial soup contain more than just the simple building blocks of amino acids? Or has the theory been composed to say that the primordial soup did not contain anything else besides the building blocks of amino acids?
Also, I find it very unlikely to the point of impossibility that amino acids would accidentally combine to form just the 20 proteins necessary for life, especially because of upwellings. Also, there are 10^130 different combinations of amino acids. I find it hard to believe or find it possible that just 21 combinations would happen to form out of the many that are possible.
Also, the minimum number of proteins that are needed for life are 456.
The argument in TalkOrigins is that the number of 256. Their source, the second link, shows that the reason for the reduction is that those genes subtracted are harmful to the organism (parasite specific, functional redundancy). However, this is not proof that it is not necessary to life, but that those genes are harmfulor redundant.
Also, in reference to the comic: a low blow, but I see the comical intent and value none the less. Although, not to be rude or sardonic, I am not laughing.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
Re: Flaws of Life in a Tube
Hmmm... why did this thread turned into a debate regarding God?
If you believe in god so much why do you have to try and convince other to believe the exact same way as you do. I think the beauty of humans is the diversity in thinking. We don't have to believe in the same way, it would be a very grey world if we did.
Re: Flaws of Life in a Tube
Nice fact, what about some proof?
I like the book about third world war. I think it was called Red storm. Since it was written on paper, it must be truth, right?
So, if the God exist, why doesn't he make us believe in him?
And if you kill lots of unbelievers, you will be rewarded even more, right?
What about some evidence for God?
It's growing exponentially now, because we have enough food and stuff to live from.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
I came here to debate facts and Flaws of Life in a Tube, which still stands. I looked back on the comments, and it was actually JackBean who mentioned that
[quote="JackBean"]So, it's hard for you to believe that nothing formed into something, but you believe that nothing formed everything. Quite interesting.[quote]
And from there, it was a debate. It seemed that JackBean used starting a religious with me as a cop out for admitting that Life in a Tube is not an accurate representation of the supposed "primordial slosh". I argued the evidence, and when properly argued, it did not stand up for evolution. Thus, a cop out.
I honestly dont feel the need to convince others. As I said above, I wasnt even the one who brought it up. JackBean began that conversation. I came here to debate the viability and evidence of the theory of evolution. And as I said, I debated this to the end with JackBean, and at least in my mind proved him wrong, and he switches over to a religious cop out.
But I appreciate the debate. Although, I will never be able to convince this man over the Internet. I have given him several examples, even on different threads, about Gods power and proof of His existence. Honestly, all I can do is pray that the holy ghost will move on his heart, for I could never convince him of my own ability. When a heart is hardened, it takes God to bring it back.
1)I have told several accounts of God. The sailor who smoked. You know the example already. You quoted it. It is a true account only explained by God's power, which was able to stop this man from smoking.
Another is the man who went to hell.
Another man published it in a book called "A Place Called Heaven"
2)If you want something on paper, read the Bible. Its filled with how God works. And if you honestly want to see if God is real, pray "God, make yourself real to me."
3)You are taking that WAY out of context and adding to that. I think both of us know that you are doing this. Let me make this clear: whatever stuff you're talking about when you say "kill lots of unbelievers", I dont believe in that. I am a Christian, not an Islamist. No where in the Bible does it say to kill unbelievers.
4)It disproves the theory, so you're making excuses. Population have and always will grow exponentially.
5)What you believe drives your search. As one that has had direct experience with both creationism and evolution, I have found that creationism makes much more sense. Life comes from a alive creator rather than a dead chemical. Evolution actually contradicts itself in this when it sais "Life comes from life."
But we are all in out own ways biased, and will not look at things objectively. Actually, I have known evolutionists to ignore evidence and attempt to shut down the debate.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
1)Do you remember when you attempted to shut down the debate in Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution? about22923.html You should read the facts. Get back to me when you read them.
Also, this thread is proof against theory of evolution. There are facts here. Go to page one, read, then debate or move on.
2)Further evidence against the theory of evolution is the fact that it has not been replicated in the laboratory, observed in nature, or shown in the fossil record.
3)There is evidence claimed to support evolution, and I do not claim to know all of that evidence, but the "evidence" which has come across my path has been insufficient.
4)I'm surprise you survived that head vs rock bashing.
My offer still stands.
You know of "evidence" for evolution that I dont.
Present it for debate or debate the facts I have here.
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
Re: Flaws of Life in a Tube
Debating with ignorant and closed minded creationists is futile. Your facts are nonsense to educated people.
Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY. (Part 1 of 37, and counting)
You want to prove your theory or what?
Apparently not. You want to laugh at creationists? Dont choke on that fly while you do. It hasnt fully evolved yet and it hasnt learned not to fly into open mouths.
I would appreciate if debate could return to this thread. Does ANYONE want to debate facts here?
-facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© Biology-Online.org. All Rights Reserved. Register | Login | About Us | Contact Us | Link to Us | Privacy Policy |


text:
Fall 2014 Class Descriptions
Tax I (Miranda Perry Fleischer, Howard Abrams)
3 credit(s), Standard Letter Graded
Concentration(s): Taxation (MSLS), Taxation (LLMC)
Tax I provides students with an understanding of the basic principles of federal income tax, including gross income, deductions, tax accounting, capital transactions, and income shifting. Required for upper-class students.
Tax II (Victor Fleischer)
3 credit(s), Standard Letter Graded
Concentration(s): Taxation (MSLS), Business and Corporate Law (MSLS), LLM in Taxation (LLMT), Taxation (LLMC), Business and Corporate Law (LLMC), LLM in Business and Corporate Law (LLMB), Business and Corporate Law (JD)
Prerequisite(s): Tax I
The course involves a study of the basic concepts of federal income taxation of C corporations and their shareholders, including organization of corporations; cash and stock dividends; redemptions of stock; partial and complete liquidations; sales of corporate businesses and reorganizations. Taxation of corporations is compared with taxation of partnerships, limited liability companies and S corporations. The emphasis is on careful analysis of Code provisions, Treasury Regulations, other administrative materials and important judicial decisions in relation to problems that are frequently assigned in advance of class discussion.
Note: This is a required course for the Business and Corporate Law Concentration (JD).
Tax Research & Communication (Susan Shaler)
3 credit(s), Standard Letter Graded
Concentration(s): LLM in Taxation (LLMT), Taxation (LLMC)
Prerequisite(s): Tax I
This course involves an intensive examination of federal tax research techniques, including an evaluation of legislative history and administrative authorities. Students are required to research and prepare complex tax documents such as protests, opinion letters, memoranda of law, and Tax Court petitions. The course may not be counted toward the LLM if the candidate elects to write a thesis. Enrollment is limited to 12 students (no JDs) with priority to 1) December graduates and 2) full-time students.
Note: This class is restricted to LLM students only.
Taxation of Anti-Money Laundering (Sanford Horowitz)
1 credit(s), Standard Letter Graded
Concentration(s): Taxation (MSLS), LLM in Taxation (LLMT), Taxation (LLMC)
Prerequisite(s): Tax I
This course examines the Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture laws utilized to dismantle ongoing criminal enterprises. We will review the various money laundering offenses under Title 18, anti-money laundering programs under the Bank Secrecy Act, and civil and criminal asset forfeiture. We will also review various defenses available to defendants and federal sentencing guidelines. Prerequisite: Tax I. Grade determined by final exam held on Friday, October 24, 2014.
Note: This is an advanced tax course with priority enrollment for LLM in Taxation students.
Taxation of International Finance (John I. Forry)
3 credit(s), Standard Letter Graded
Concentration(s): Taxation (MSLS), LLM in Taxation (LLMT), Taxation (LLMC)
Prerequisite(s): Tax I or Corporate Finance
Taxation of Property Transactions (Phillip L. Jelsma)
2 credit(s), Standard Letter Graded
Concentration(s): Taxation (MSLS), LLM in Taxation (LLMT), Taxation (LLMC)
Prerequisite(s): Tax I (LLM students may take this concurrently)
This course examines practical planning opportunities involving closed sales, open sales, deferred payment reporting, installment sales elections, imputed interest, cost recovery reporting, two-way and three-way real estate exchanges, all-inclusive trust deeds, subordinated financing, midpoint refinancing, and negative basis. Considerable emphasis is placed on understanding interest concepts such as mortgage annual constant percentages, lump sum and annuity present value analysis, and real rate of return (after inflation) analysis.
Note: This is an advanced tax course with priority enrollment for LLM in Taxation students.
Tech Entrepreneurship Law Clinic (Ted Sichelman)
3 credit(s), P/F Graded
Requirement(s): Skills
Concentration(s): Intellectual Property Law (LLMG), Intellectual Property (LLMC), Business and Corporate Law (LLMC), LLM in Business and Corporate Law (LLMB), Intellectual Property (JD), Business and Corporate Law (JD)
This course places students at local law firms to provide legal assistance to local technology startups in the areas of intellectual property prosecution and licensing, corporate formation and transactions, contracts, employment, and related areas. Students will be supervised by attorneys at local law firms as well as the professor. The course will begin with 5-6 weeks of class sessions covering the core types of transactions encountered in technology startups. There are no scheduled classes during the remainder of the semester; instead, students will work with the companies and supervising lawyers each week, and meet one-on-one with the professor on a regular basis. An application process will be used to select students for the course. Students who registered for the course during 2012-13 or 2013-14 may not apply for the course for 2014-15. Students may only begin the course in the fall semester, and may continue in the spring semester, but are not required to do so. Students interested in IP issues may apply to both the Technology Entrepreneurship Clinic and the IP Law Clinic, but will be selected for only one clinic. The course application and additional course information will be emailed no later than Friday, April 2, 2014. Students who do not receive an application by then, or who have questions about the course after reviewing the application, may email Professor Ted Sichelman, email@example.com. The deadline to submit an application for this course is Friday, April 25, 2014.
Note: There are limitations on JD concentration eligibility. Please check the JD concentration web pages for more information. Contact Law Student Affairs to find out if your work in this clinic qualifies for the concentration.
Additional Information:JD Concentrations Web Page, Email Law Student Affairs
Torts (Staff)
4 credit(s), Standard Letter Graded
An exploration of the principles involved in determining whether an injured person should be compensated for harm caused by another, including such diverse topics as intentional harms, negligence, and strict liability.
Trademark Law (Lisa P. Ramsey)
3 credit(s), Standard Letter Graded
Concentration(s): Intellectual Property Law (MSLS), Intellectual Property Law (LLMG), Intellectual Property (LLMC), Intellectual Property (JD)
This course provides an overview of trademark and unfair competition law. We will discuss the purpose of these laws, the requirements for trademark protection, and the scope and enforcement of trademark rights. Specifically, we will cover the concepts of distinctiveness, functionality, and use of a trademark; the procedural and substantive aspects of trademark registration; geographic limits on trademark rights; trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting, counterfeiting, false advertising, false endorsement, and the right of publicity; and defenses and remedies in trademark actions.
Trial Advocacy (Linda L. Lane)
3 credit(s), H/P/L/F Graded
Requirement(s): Skills
Concentration(s): Criminal Law (LLMG), Criminal Law (LLMC), Criminal Litigation (JD), Civil Litigation (JD)
This is an upper class course focused on the skills of case analysis and oral presentation of those cases to judges and juries on civil or criminal trials. The course also includes developing skills used in the discovery phase of civil cases, especially depositions. The course is specifically designed to expand the skills introduced to the student in Legal Research & Writing. The course methodology combines lectures, demonstrations and individual student performances in small groups with extensive critique and feedback by small group instructors who are experienced practitioners. The course culminates in a mock trial. The course is graded on a 4-tier Pass/Fail basis.
Note: Students may only elect this course or Practicum--Civil to count toward the Civil Litigation Concentration (JD).
Trusts & Estates (Adam Hirsch)
3 credit(s), Standard Letter Graded
This survey course provides an introduction to non-tax aspects of estate planning and the law of gratuitous transfers, including inter vivos gifts, intestate succession, wills, will substitutes, trusts, fiduciary administration, and future interests.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The new health care reform law offers companies with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees a choice: They can play by offering their employees affordable employer-sponsored health care, or they can pay a penalty not to.
It sounds straightforward, but making that decision involves complexities and factors that vary depending on the size of the company and the type of workforce. Since the Supreme Court upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in June, many employers have been weighing their options and preparing for the consequences of paying or playing. Others are waiting to see the outcome of the Nov. 6 election because Republicans, should they gain control of both the White House and Congress, have pledged to repeal or at least overhaul the PPACA.
But time is running out. The so-called "employer mandate" takes effect Jan. 1, 2014, meaning employers who currently offer health care coverage but need to make changes in order to comply with the law, or who want to drop health care and pay a penalty instead, have just a few months to put those plans in place. The situation is even more critical for employers who currently do not provide health care benefits but will be required to do so, or face penalties, under the new law. For all, the decision goes beyond a simple cost analysis.
"The answer to whether it makes sense to pay or play is not something you can paint the answer to with a broad brush," says Sheldon Blumling, a partner at Fisher & Phillips. "Most employers would say, 'If I pay $2,000 per employee in penalties and I am paying a lot more per employee for health care coverage, it looks like a no-brainer.' But the devil is in the details."
On the following pages, we look at some of those details that are driving employers' play-or-pay decisions.
Large employers traditionally have offered health care coverage, and most will continue to do so, at least in the short run. A General Accounting Office review of 19 employer surveys on the topic found the percentage of employers who said they planned to drop coverage ranged from 2 percent to 20 percent, with many studies indicating the smaller the employer, the greater the chance of abandoning coverage.
"That's not surprising because most large employers have never considered leaving their employees without health care coverage," says Steven Friedman, a shareholder at Littler Mendelson. "Even if they are considering it, no one wants to be the first one. There may be a cat-and-mouse game going on, where employers in certain industries are waiting for the first company to drop coverage, or waiting for it to become commonplace."
Patricia Cain, a partner at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, summarizes the factors that go into the play-or-pay decision as the three Cs: culture, cost and competitiveness.
The culture issue involves the employers' view of his responsibility to provide employee benefits. "For many, health care is a core benefit," she says.
The cost analysis gets more complicated. First, the penalty imposed for not offering health care coverage is not tax deductible for the company, while the cost of providing benefits is. The penalty is $2,000 per employee (excluding the first 30 employees) if coverage is not offered to anyone, including executives. Second, the law contains a nondiscrimination provision, meaning if coverage is offered to some employees, the same coverage must be offered to all. If some employees can't afford that coverage, the employer must pay a $3,000 per employee penalty for everyone who goes to the state-run exchange for insurance and qualifies for subsidized coverage. Under current regulations, to be considered affordable, individual coverage under the plan cannot cost an employee more than 9.5 percent of his household income, defined as his W-2 wages for the year, regardless of whether there are other wage earners in the household. That might be an easy standard to meet for executives, but a tough one for low-wage workers.
"A lot of employers are trying to project costs going forward and looking at their contribution to see if they will be able to provide coverage that is affordable," says B. David Joffe, a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings. "If you provide coverage with minimum value and the employee does not have to contribute more than 9.5 percent of household income, you don't have to worry about the penalty."
Joffe adds that the nondiscrimination provision will be problematic for employers with an array of employees at different salary and responsibility levels. "It's hard to do one-size-fits-all," he says.
One example is the restaurant industry, in which management typically has health care coverage but waiters and kitchen staff don't.
"You can get out of the $2,000 per employee penalty by offering everyone access to coverage, but to get out of all penalties, you have to offer it at 9.5 percent of household income. That's a pretty low threshold for servers or shift cooks," says John McGowan, a partner at BakerHostetler. "The business will incur some meaningful costs it doesn't have in the budget right now."
Cost considerations also are tricky because while an employer can calculate current costs versus the penalty, no one knows how the law will impact the future cost of health care coverage. To qualify, plans must fully cover the cost of preventive care and contraceptive services for women, eliminate lifetime caps on benefits and remove pre-existing condition exclusions. Free preventive care is intended to eliminate the need for costly treatment later, and new regulations on providers aim to reduce the soaring costs of health care, but some are skeptical about the law's overall impact on costs.
"[The PPACA] mandates certain types of coverage be provided and mandates preventive coverage be provided at no cost, all of which are good for employees. But it doesn't appear to take an aggressive stand toward lowering costs, and that's what troubles employers," Friedman says.
If health care costs rise substantially after the new health care system takes effect in 2014, the incentives for dropping employee coverage will grow. "Everyone thinks they will keep health care, but it certainly is feasible if we are still in an era where companies are struggling to make a profit that they will see no other way," [than dropping coverage] Friedman adds.
The competitive environment is another major factor in the pay-or-play decision. Large employers in industries such as high tech, where competition for highly skilled employees is fierce, have a much stronger incentive to maintain health care benefits than those in industries with unskilled workforces that are easier to replace. The economy may play a role: A continuation of high unemployment would make it easier to drop health care coverage without worrying about finding good job candidates. But Cain points out there are still predictions of a labor shortage going forward that could prompt employers to maintain health care coverage in order to attract the best employees.
Unions also will play a role: Management of a manufacturing plant in which a union is seeking a foothold may well decide that keeping health care is an important element in keeping out a union, and those with unions may find removing employer-based health care is a deal-breaker in negotiations.
Michael Sheehan, a partner at DLA Piper, sees dropping health care as a "huge employee-relations issue," particularly for less-educated workforces who would feel insecure with the idea of buying health care on their own, even if pay is increased to help cover the cost.
"Think about a plant in the middle of Iowa where there have been union-organizing drives," Sheehan says. "The leaders of the union may seize on employer-provided health care coverage in their campaign. Even if dollar-to-dollar it made sense for the rank-and-file employee [to buy his own coverage], the employer would have to look carefully at whether this could become an issue."
Beyond the three Cs, employers are concerned about whether the new health care system will offer viable alternatives to employees who lose company-sponsored insurance. Because the law's individual mandate requires everyone to have health insurance or pay what the Supreme Court dubbed a tax, those employees would likely buy coverage through one of the new health care exchanges, which the states are supposed to run. But no one knows yet how the exchanges will work, what providers will participate and how much the coverage will cost.
State governments have a Nov. 16 deadline for submitting their exchange plans, but in some states where opposition to the PPACA is high, officials are refusing to develop exchanges. The law calls for the federal government to run exchanges where the states fail to do so.
"The big unknown is whether the exchanges will be a viable alternative to employer coverage," says Michael Tomasek, a partner at Freeborn & Peters. "How good will the quality be? Will they function well? Will they be administered well? We just don't know that yet. Until we know what the alternative to employer coverage is, it's impossible for employers to make a rational choice about play or pay."
Multistate employers may find significant differences in what is offered from one state's exchange to the next.
"In some states, the exchange may function perfectly well, and in some it may be highly dysfunctional, if it is functional at all," McGowan says. "So I don't know what I am going to be seeing if I am a multistate employer."
These exchange uncertainties are a major reason why some employers considering dropping health care coverage are taking a wait-and-see attitude. They are concerned that even if they give employees a raise or subsidy to help them purchase coverage on the exchange, employees will be unhappy with the choices offered.
"There may be a whole second wave of employers who decide to pay [the penalty] a year or two [after 2014], once we see how exchange coverage works and what it looks like," Blumling says. "It may only take one to make the bold move, and everyone will feel empowered to do it."
Sears Holding Corp. and Darden Restaurants Inc. appear to be paving the way for large employers to drop coverage. They announced in late September that they are replacing their self-insured health plans with a defined-contribution plan, giving their employees money to buy group insurance on a private, online exchange. Private exchange operators say they offer employers more predictable costs, as well as potential savings gleaned from workers' voluntary choice of lower levels of coverage than the employer was offering and competition among insurers offering plans on the exchanges.
The defined contribution approach and the private exchanges aren't part of the PPACA's design. But they could provide a model for employers once the public health care exchanges go into operation in 2014.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (PPACA) biggest impact will be on employers who traditionally have not offered health care to their workers, or who have offered mini-med plans with very limited benefits that don't qualify as minimum essential coverage under the new law.
The PPACA's requirements that employers with more than 50 full-time employees offer coverage or pay a penalty will hit particularly hard in the service sector, according to John McGowan, a partner at BakerHostetler, because those high-turnover industries haven't felt the need to offer health care in order to attract employees.
"This changes the economics of those businesses substantially," McGowan says, estimating that the cost will be the equivalent of a $2 per hour increase in the minimum wage. He notes that single outlet restaurants, motels and retail stores with fewer than 50 full-time employees will be exempt from the PPACA and therefore will gain a competitive advantage over their competitors that are part of national chain and bound by the law's requirements and penalties.
The law also hits the service sector by defining full-time employment entitling employees to health care benefits as 30 or more hours a week, whereas most employers previously have defined it as 35 or more hours per week. Industries including hotel, restaurant and retail chains rely heavily on part-time employees who don't receive benefits.
"The problem arises when you have a workforce where your criteria [for receiving health care benefits] was 35 hours per week, and now the threshold is 30," says Patricia Cain, a partner at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg. "If you have a lot of employees working 30-plus hours but less than 35, your choices are to cut them back to under 30 hours, pay the penalty tax or offer coverage. That is the area where the greatest concern is expressed."
That is leading some companies to consider restructuring their workforces to avoid the costs of playing or paying. As a result, "the day of the 32-hour-a-week waiter may be gone," Blumling says. "He may have his hours capped at 25 hours per week and work two jobs."
Small Company Considerations
Employers big enough to fall under the employer mandate—those with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees—but with fewer than 100 employees who currently offer health care coverage have different considerations than large employers.
Sheldon Blumling, a partner at Fisher & Phillips, says companies with 50 to 100 employees have fewer options for health care coverage than those with more than 100 employees, who can often shop around for a better deal based on the demographics of their employee population. If the small employer pays a higher cost per person to provide employee coverage, dropping coverage and paying the penalty becomes more attractive.
Another factor is that the $2,000 penalty does not apply to the first 30 full-time employees, a provision that makes the per employee cost much less for the small employer. For example, an employer with 60 full-time employees would only pay the penalty for 30 employees, making the penalty effectively $1,000 per full-time employee.
In certain industries such as financial services, companies with a small but highly educated workforce may find the option of dropping health care while increasing compensation palatable to employees, according to Michael Sheehan, a partner at DLA Piper.
"I could see a small office of a private equity group, hedge fund or trading company where the workforce is acclimated to making cost-benefit decisions not being offended or unsettled" by the idea of shopping for their own health care coverage on a state exchange, Sheehan says.


text:
Farm programs are being put on a diet with President Obama's fiscal year 2014 budget, while expanded user fees will fund much of the increase in the Food and Drug Administration food safety budget.
The $4.7 billion fiscal year 2014 budget for the FDA includes a nearly $300 million increase in food safety programs, funded mostly with new user fees for food facility registrations, inspections and food importers, according to a news release from the FDA.
The White House budget was still being processed by industry lobbyists April 10, but Robert Guenther, senior vice president of public policy for the United Fresh Produce Association, Washington, D.C., called the proposed user fees a "non-starter."
Hitting agriculture hard, the White House budget proposes to eliminate direct farm payments, reduce crop insurance subsidies and slim conservation programs in order to save $37.8 billion from agriculture spending over 10 years. Discretionary spending for the U.S. Department of Agriculture is projected at about $22.6 billion in fiscal year 2014, about the same as 2012.
The White House document said USDA pest and disease programs at the USDA are scheduled to take a $19 million reduction, from $817 million in fiscal year 2012 to $798 million in fiscal year 2014. Among programs eliminated from the 2014 White House budget are the USDA's Microbiological Data Program and the Pesticide Recordkeeping Program, according to the budget document.
The White House budget proposal calls for a $295.8 million increase in the FDA's food safety budget, with $252.4 million (94%) of that total funded by new user fees and $43.4 million added in new budget authority. New fees are proposed to support the Food Safety Modernization Act and boost the agency's oversight of imported food, according to the FDA release.
The budget proposed new fees for food facility registrations, inspections and food importers. The FDA's budget also calls for a $10 million increase in its budget to conduct food and drug safety inspections in China.
The FDA's justification to appropriators for the budget numbers is found online.


text:
Please help me welcome the arrival of my bouncing baby book.
I haven't been this excited since I found out that Nutella came in little snack pack serving sizes!
As if that isn't fabulous enough (I mean the book release, not the Nutella), let me tell you about a couple of really cool things that are going on:
First of all, tonight at 9pm is my Official Book Launch Twitter Party! Use hashtag #LostinSuburbia and "Ditch the Mom Jeans and Get Ready to Get Your Cool Back" with me, my friend Holly Rosen Fink of Culture Mom Media, and our Book Launch sponsors, Theraderm, SpaFinder, Office Candy and Living Fresh! We will be giving away copies of the book, a skin care gift package from Theraderm, A cool home office gift from Office Candy, and a $150 wellness gift certificate from SpaFinder.
It's just like the one I write about in my book! What? You don't know about the Ducky Bathrobe? You can read about it here!! Or better yet, go buy the book and get the whole story there!
Now for part two…
A couple of months before I started this whole book promotion thing, I asked a bunch of amazing blogger friends if they would help me promote my new book on their blogs. The outpouring of support from these wonderful writers was truly overwhelming and I am so honored and touched by their willingness to help me get the word out about "Lost in Suburbia: A Momoir."
Every day for the next six weeks, I will post a link (or sometimes several links) to the reviews, Q & A's, giveaways, and blurbs they are posting on my behalf. There will be opportunities to win some free copies of my book as well as some other fun surprises!
To start things off, I did a guest post at Elizabeth Parker's terrific book review blog, "Books I think You should Read." Check it out here!
Then I hopped over to my friend DJ Paris' site, Thoughts from Paris, where we did a podcast for his other fun blog, "Bloggers are Weird." DJ is giving away a copy of my book over at Thoughts from Paris, so make sure to check it out!
My wonderful friend, humorist, and dad blogger Jim Higley posted an excerpt from my book on his site Bobblehead Dad.
The lovely Amiyrah Martin who writes the blog 4 Hats and Frugal outs me as a cougar but gives my book a big thumbs up!
Over at All in An Iowa Mom's Day, my friend Sara Broers admits she also drives in her pajamas, like me, but she is giving away a copy of my book to prove that women who drive in sleepwear are still very cool.
My friend and fellow Erma Bombeck Humor Writer Barb Best did NOT interview me for her blog. She interviewed my dog Monty. I don't feel slighted. He's actually funnier than I am. You can read Monty's interview here.
There's a also a nice mention of my book over on Mom Trends, and on Metro New York, as well as a great review from Jacqueline Cutler for the New Jersey Star Ledger.
But wait… there's more!
If you live in New Jersey, please come out to see me Wednesday night in Haworth at the Haworth Library (300 Haworth Ave.) where I will be speaking and doing a book signing, or Thursday night at BookTowne in Manasquan (171 Main Street) for a Mom's Night Out!
There are lots more events to come, so check back here often!!


text:
Susan E. Vinson, Janesville (1948-2013)
November 20, 1948 - October 21, 2013
Susan E. Vinson, age 64, of Edgerton, left her body, and went to heaven on Monday, Oct. 21, 2013, at UW Hospital, Madison. She was born in Cleveland, OH, on Nov. 20, 1948, the daughter of Joseph and Alma (Geisler) Anderson. She married Dennis Vinson in Rockton, IL, on July 18, 1976. Susan had been employed by the Janesville and Beloit School Districts as a school social worker, and retired after 35 years due to health reasons. She was a member of Dream Girls, and loved boating, traveling, shopping, and spending time with family and friends. She was inspirational, brave, and fierce in her desire to live through her multiple battles against cancer.
Susan is survived by her husband, Dennis Vinson; two children, Matthew (girlfriend, Emily) Vinson of Kenosha, and Sarah (significant other, Beth) Vinson of Madison; sister, Diane (Kevin) Zokan of New Berlin; nieces, nephews, other relatives and friends. She was preceded in death by her parents; and sister, Virginia "Ginger" Niccoli.
A visitation will be held at SCHNEIDER APFEL SCHNEIDER & SCHNEIDER FUNERAL HOME & CREMATORY on Sunday, Oct. 27, 2017, from 1 until 4 p.m. followed by a funeral service at 4 p.m. In lieu of flowers, memorials may be made to Gilda's Club, Middleton, WI. For on-line condolences and registry: www.schneiderfuneraldirectors.com
We would like to thank the doctors, nurses, and support staff that provided loving care for her during her hospitalizations at UW Hospital in Madison. We also would like to express our gratitude to Sue's many friends who so generously provided encouragement and needed assistance over the years.


text:
Judge grants evaluation for man in attempted murder case
ELKHORN—A doctor will evaluate a Whitewater man accused of sexual assault and attempted murder after his lawyer raised concerns about his competency.
Larry Shannon, 43, 310 S. Janesville St., Whitewater, was charged last fall with 11 felonies and three misdemeanors after assaulting and stabbing two young girls, then leading authorities on a high-speed, two-county chase, according to court documents.
Shannon's attorney, assistant public defender Travis Schwantes, wrote in a letter to Walworth County Judge David Reddy that mental illness might have rendered Shannon unable to assist in his own defense.
Reddy granted the motion at a hearing Wednesday. He ordered a doctor's examination before the case can proceed.
Shannon's case was scheduled to go to trial less than two weeks from now, but the evaluation has pushed that back.
Shannon is next due in court for a competency hearing on Oct. 15, Schwantes said.
In the meantime Shannon will remain in custody at the Walworth County Jail, where he is being held on a $1,000,000 cash bond.