Why are Republicans so afraid of Obamacare? The answer may surprise you.

cruzpaulOver and over and over again Republicans have tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, saying that it would be a catastrophic blow to the US economy and our jobs market. But if the GOP (specifically the Tea Party) actually cared about the economy, would they really push forward legislation that tied increasing the debt ceiling to defunding the Affordable Care Act? If Obamacare was something that would kill jobs and send us into a downward spiral, wouldn’t they have the strategic sense to just let it happen and then campaign on the aftermath?

I’m willing to admit that the Affordable Care Act is confusing to many. Because of how massive the bill is, most people have not read it, nor do they understand it. I’ll even wager that even most of the people who are railing against it don’t understand it either. They’ve claimed that it will cause companies to slash benefits and push their employees onto the public dollar, but isn’t that what companies like Wal-Mart have been doing for years now?

Under this legislation, people cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. My daughter who suffers from severe asthma can be on my private insurance policy instead of relying on Medicaid, which was the situation before. If I were to have a horrific illness that required months of hospitalization, they cannot drop me citing a lifetime maximum. Healthcare insurance companies are held to the 85% payout rules, something I recently heard Blue Cross and Blue Shield specifically mention in an advertisement on a local conservative talk radio show, acting as if they were somehow a great insurance company because of that payout – while completely omitting the fact that it was a piece of the Affordable Care Act.

I’m not a politician, but I know how to play checkers, and I also know how to play chess. It’s quite clear that the GOP doesn’t know how to play either. Instead, they’re playing this political game like a desperate cheap Scotch-soaked Las Vegas card player pushing all in on the worst poker hands at 3 in the morning, hoping their bluff will pay up. They’ve sunk millions of dollars into social media campaigns and TV spots trying to convince us that death panels exist, or that we would be forced off our current insurance plans into healthcare shortages similar to the empty supermarkets of Communist Russia. They fight against individuals receiving subsidies for healthcare while fighting for subsidies for Big Oil and other corporate interests. It makes absolutely no sense in a real world argument. Seriously, if Obamacare is truly as bad as they claim it would be, why not let it happen and then ride the fallout and public anger into huge gains in the House and Senate in 2014, as well as the White House in 2016?

They doubled down on fighting legislation that will likely be held in high regard as a piece of President Obama’s legacy, while presenting not one piece of memorable legislation that has passed since 2010. The GOP has done absolutely nothing to present a better or even viable alternative to something that was once their own idea. I can only conclude that they know what good will come out of this for millions of Americans, and they’re willing to shut down the government in order to play their final bluff.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • ShoreBudMike

    In short, the Republicans are acting like spoiled children who have realized they’re not getting their way, so they create a complete ruckus. And, as we know, children lie as easily as they breathe when they have to cover their asses.

  • cyril

    That ad for protecting the 2nd amendment that came up when I looked at this article is very important. We have to read and understand the 1st 2/3rds of the 2nd amendment instead of just quoting the last 3rd of it. It is only 1 sentence after all.

    • Pipercat

      … and now for the irony of the day, Antonin totally agrees with you!

    • Charles Vincent

      DC v Heller says you’re wrong here is the majority decision;

      The Supreme Court held:[44]

      (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
      firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
      traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
      Pp. 2–53.

      (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does
      not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
      The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an
      individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

      (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of
      the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
      capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
      feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to
      disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a
      select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to
      abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that
      the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

      (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous
      arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
      followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

      (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
      interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that
      unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

      (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and
      legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late
      19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

      (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.

      Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor

      Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation.

      United States v. Miller,307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to
      militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the
      right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use
      for lawful purposes.

      (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
      It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
      whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons
      prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
      The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
      prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally
      ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
      such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions
      and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that
      the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
      finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of
      dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

      (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
      self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on
      handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire
      class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful
      purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the
      Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition –
      in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self,
      family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster.
      Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be
      disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens
      to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence
      unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.
      C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and
      capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer
      for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he
      is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the
      District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a
      license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

      The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by

      Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy,

      Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[45]

      Issues addressed by the majority

      The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an

      individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.
      The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its
      finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals;
      more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court’s opinion that the “people”
      to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who
      enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: “‘The Constitution was
      written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used
      in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.’

      United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden,
      9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an
      idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings….”

      • martin woyzeck

        How come lietarians like charles vincent, can never use their own words, they constantly bombard threads with links to what others say. Is that a sign that they really can’t explain it themselves and they truly don’t comprehend it themselves?

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s how you debate you use facts I copy pasted the facts in stead of going off half cocked and spouting some emotional tirade like this comment and ad hominem attack of yours to try to nullify my argument by saying I am stupid.

        “Is that a sign that they really can’t explain it themselves and they truly don’t comprehend it themselves?”

      • charles vincent sucks

        uh no retard.people don’t win arguments with copy and paste. only uneducated monkeys that cant form a genuine thought do that. Ill bet you would do great in school….thrown out first day for copying and pasting others peoples work and pretending its your own. The work of a retard. You sir are a monkey, devoid of understanding pretty much any social issue i have seen you argue. go copy and paste yourself out of existence. thanx for the good laugh, cuz you know, thats all we do is laugh at you lol

      • Charles Vincent

        No people like you who troll and think calling names and insulting people wins arguments give people who lean to the left a bad reputation.

        “thrown out first day for copying and pasting others peoples work and pretending its your own.”
        Wrong I give proper citation to anything I take from any source. You’re a fool and a troll keep crying your tears fuel my happiness machine.

      • Pipercat

        Dude, you have a groupie!!! 🙂

      • Charles Vincent

        I would call them stalkers. You have any input on this debate? or are you recusing yourself haha.

      • Pipercat

        Excusing actually!

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t blame you one bit. Its a pity you missed charles vincent sucks’ twin charles vincent blows, his post was deleted because he posted a link in it. Not sure if they were twins or the same guy/girl masquerading as two people.

      • Finnsmom1

        they google, cut and paste. very little reading and comprehension is involved.

      • martin woyzeck

        I don’t understand that charles, could you explain in your own words? Btw, that happens to be one person,heller’s argument, that doesn’t make it fact. Loontarians have a problem with understanding what is interpretation and what is fact. And the libtrns version of the 2nd amendment is the most bastardized, warped, deadly wrong interpretation I’ve ever heard. But the bottom line is, it doesn’t matter what the 2nd amendment says, even if it is what you think it is (which it is not), Americans have showns (especially those on the right) that they are immature and irresponsible with guns, that Americans, it’s not that America is a gun culture, it’s a violent culture. And because of that , no one should have a gun,except police and military. If your version is what it says, change it. What do you think the word amendment means? I know all of a sudden that’s sacriligeous to rightwingers. Laws were made to be changed, if needed. If you want to go strictly by the American by-laws, and they should never change, then women still should not have a vote, and Blacks can be slaves, as the original by-laws said. There also is an addendum to the 2nd amendment that you may have missed, which says ‘all men between the ages of 16-60yrs’…that means no women, men over 60 or boys younger than 16 can not have guns.

      • martin woyzeck

        Sorry for the typos. And didn’t mean Heller himself’s argument ,but the case for him

      • Charles Vincent

        Uh I posted the supreme courts decision and it flatly refutes pretty much everything you posted. As to your assertion here;
        “There also is an addendum to the 2nd amendment that you may have missed, which says ‘all men between the ages of 16-60yrs’…that means no women, men over 60 or boys younger than 16 can not have guns.”
        Women weren’t discouraged from bearing arms they just weren’t part of the militia.

        This portion is an attempt to obfuscate;
        “Americans have showns (especially those on the right) that they are immature and irresponsible with guns, that Americans, it’s not that America is a gun culture, it’s a violent culture. And because of that , no one should have a gun,except police and military. If your version is what it says, change it. What do you think the word amendment means? I know all of a sudden that’s sacriligeous to rightwingers. Laws were made to be changed, if needed. If you want to go strictly by the American by-laws, and they should never change, then women still should not have a vote, and Blacks can be slaves, as the original by-laws said.”

        As far as violence you should reference the CDC and Harvard reports they say in a nut shell that there is no link between more guns and more violence, and conversely where there are less guns crime rises and in particular violent crime they referenced Chicago and Washington DC if memory serves me correctly, Chicago had some 700 gun shooting deaths. And if you look at the FBI violent crime statistics you will find that deaths by firearm have been declining steadily for the last ~25 years and overall violent crime has been declining for even longer.

      • enkelin

        Maybe if Scalia had read the Militia act of 1792 he might have realised what the 2nd was actually referring to when it mentioned “a well regulated militia”. The USA did not field a standing army and relied on the state militias to put down insurrection like the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays Rebellion. The 2nd was to protect the government FROM the citizens and not the other way around.

  • Keith

    GOP: I cannot wait until the entire country can see you for what you really are! Keep on making fools of yourselves, you bunch of clowns. How proud your children will be (NOT) when you go down in history as the worst GOP ever. You are an embarrassment to the good citizens of this country.

    • Kingminnie

      That would be nice but it will never happen. Have you ever seen the comments some make on articles like this? They are incorrigible and feel absolutely, as we do, positive in their opinions. And that socialistic Obamanocare must go! (words I read tonight somewhere) I would love, love it if these constituents’ representatives would explain to them how much better things would be for them, but that will not happen, as the most important thing is making sure that anything President Obama does is defeated.

      • Charles Vincent

        This is from an article by Forbes magazine on 9/4/13;
        Nine of the 13 states are reporting increases and of the

        five states showing a decrease only three are seeing a

        meaningful decrease.

        “Most states are seeing rate hikes; some will see reductions

        While these mostly-blue states will see an average premium increase
        of 24 percent, the impact of Obamacare is highly variable. Nine of the
        states will see increases on average, and five will see decreases on
        average. New Mexico, Vermont, South Dakota, and Connecticut will see the
        steepest rate hikes: on average, 130, 97, 83, and 59 percent,
        respectively. Three states will see meaningful declines in rates:
        Colorado (34 percent), Ohio (30 percent), and New York (27 percent).

        A number of blue states have heavily-regulated individual insurance
        markets that, in the recent past, have driven healthy people out of the
        market. Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

        New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington have all experimented

        with Obamacare-like regulations, such as community rating

        (forcing young people to subsidize the old) and guaranteed issue

        (requiring insurers to offer plans regardless of pre-existing conditions).

        Because Obamacare forces most Americans to buy health insurance, and
        subsidizes the purchase of that insurance for certain low-income
        populations, individual-market premiums in many of these
        highly-regulated states will go down. But in most others, rates will go
        up. If you want to know the details for a particular state, just click
        on the “State Rates” tab at the top, and then select the state you’re
        interested in.”
        I Sincerely hope some of you people on this and other liberal sites
        live in the states that posted greater than 50% increases in premiums.
        and I hope you choke on those premiums

      • maryinbama

        Just signed up for individual insurance under the new rules. My premiums went down by $60 per month. I also get to deduct my premiums on my taxes AND get a tax credit next April. That will bring the net cost to me closer to $300 less per month than I was paying.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re still in the minority and if the trend holds more people will see increases than decreases. So far 69% are seeing and increase.

      • William Carr

        If the trend before the ACA was passed, EVERYBODY would be seeing increases !

        Do nothing, costs go up.

        Do something, costs go up more slowly until the whole Law actually goes into force.

        Your preference: do nothing.

      • Charles Vincent

        NO my preference is not to spend money on something that’s so full of failure like the ACA and you conveniently want to ignore basic economics.

        I never advocated doing nothing your assumptions are incorrect.

        “Do something, costs go up more slowly until the whole Law actually goes into force.”
        You have no data to support this claim I have provided a source that not only shows some states reporting decreases but it shows States reporting increases something a left or right publisher never does because they want to slant it and in the case of this article it gives it a ring of truth.

      • Finnsmom1

        so you believe in Single Payer then?

      • Charles Vincent

        Well I think that obviously insurers need to stop excluding people for pre-existing conditions. other than that I have been researching the German healthcare model but that’s a recent development I came across on another article on this site.

      • enkelin

        Obamacare is modeled on the German Healthcare system. One of which I am familiar since many of my family live in Germany and are German citizens, It works VERY well for Germans and is very affordable.

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t know much about the German model as I have not yet had a good chance to look at it and their tax system. Although from what I have read people can opt out and as far as I am aware the ACA is modeled after the similar healthcare reform from the Hoover institute which was abandon.

      • Marcia

        how can it be “full of failure” yet? It hasn’t begun
        .

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually implementation has begun. The first major portion is set to start Oct 1.

      • Craig Brunetti

        Again, even if the Oct 1 date is right (and it’s not, really), how has that “begun”, it’s not Oct 1 yet?

        And this wild claim to failure isn’t new. it’s years old. And back then, it hadn’t begun either.

        Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?

      • Charles Vincent

        They have been implementing it since January mostly paperwork and stuff to get this part coming in October ready to launch(most notably tax laws concerning the ACA). I think there is a timeline posted for the ACA and each step of its implementation that i think finishes in 2016.

      • bob

        They said the samething when they started ss and medicare

      • Daddycool67

        I think ….. I think ….. I think.
        But I just KNOW it’s filled with failure!

        YOU DON’T THINK AT ALL!
        You listen to conservative talking heads and you react the way you’ve been instructed to react!!!

      • Martin

        Moron Charles, WTF did the GOP do for decades to fix the daunting mess within the Healthcare Industry…? NOTHING..and now you the House want to defund the ACA because they only care about protecting the interests of the insurances companies and like…get the hell out of here…moron..the GOP is despicable and immoral…

      • Charles Vincent

        No whats immoral is liberals using Government to force others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise choose to do under the guise of Its for your own good.

      • Linda Turner

        Yes, years old, since it was first introduced they’ve been predicting (and hoping for) failure. Forget the millions of uninsured Americans who will benefit. They just want the President to fail.

      • Daddycool67

        It’s still Sept.

      • BenjaminF

        @Charles Vincent: Implementation won’t be complete til 2014. I doubt that you or Forbes are qualified to predict the direction of costs so soon……You could say the value of the dollar historically decreases and the cost of Gasoline historically increases. And that’s a moot prediction. We’ve established nothing Mr. Vincent.

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s a logical fallacy and along the same line as the guy above who claimed that because I don’t have a masters degree I am not qualified to comment on history.

      • ShelleysLeg

        Exactly Marcia!! This guy’s ancestors probably declared ‘talkies will NEVER be accepted” the day after Warner Brothers introduced them. He’s a card carrying flat earther too.

      • Charles Vincent

        OOh I must be on to something the trolls are coming out of the woodwork and armed to the teeth with ad hominem attacks.

      • jnlfevr3i

        Ah, they’re not trolls, you are.

      • Charles Vincent

        So saith the anonymous poster.

      • langranny

        and you will never need more than 64K of ram in a computer…

      • Daddycool67

        He can’t tell you how it’s full of failure.
        He’s just sure that it is.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong I have provided ample information as to why I think its a failure, just because you refuse to believe it doesn’t mean I didn’t provide the information.

      • Linda Turner

        Because the right has been attacking it before it was even enacted. The parts now in place (no-copay prevention services, kids on their folks insurance longer, no pre-existing condition exemptions for kids) are things people like, so Republicans are getting desperate to scare people. They know that once people actually find out the truth, it will spread by word of mouth and expose them as liars. What do they care, we taxpayers are paying for their premium insurance policies.

      • Charles Vincent

        Since its passage in March 2010, many parts of the Patient Protection
        and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have already taken effect. However, 2013
        is a significant year for ACA implementation because of health insurance
        coverage expansions through Medicaid (in participating states) and the
        insurance exchanges take effect on January 1, 2014. In addition to those
        provisions, health plans, providers, employers, and consumers all face a
        variety of provisions that begin in 2013.

        The timeline below details provisions and deadlines scheduled during
        the 2013 calendar year. Not all dates are set by law and some are
        subject to change pending the regulatory process.

      • Darrell Waterman

        So if it was so terrible why didn’t the GOP come up with something better or offer amendments that would alleviate the horrible things that the ACA is supposed to bring forth? They did nothing but block and object while offering NOTHING in response.

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t know why but it seems that republicans are apposed to socialized healthcare perhaps as a result of the Hoover institute study they had done on a similar healthcare reform that the ACA was modeled on.

      • Linda Turner

        The Hoover institute is a rightwing think tank. Our only socialized health care is via the Veterans Administration, where doctors are paid directly by the government. Everything else goes through your standard insurance companies (like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, etc.). They’re the ones who “stand between you and your doctor.”

      • Charles Vincent

        Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

      • theabby

        The Hoover Institute?? Right, because they are so bipartisan 😛

      • Charles Vincent

        The ACA has its origins from the heritage foundation and the Hoover institute please keep up with the context of my post. I wasn’t saying anything about their political ideology.

      • theabby

        Oh, but they did! I recall Mitt Romney saying (on 60 Minutes) – “Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance. If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.”
        The more uninsured patients in the ER, the higher the bills to Medicare, which is paid from the general fund, which is created out of our taxes. Great plan!!

      • sharoncullars

        I’m still waiting on the Republican’s answer to the jobs bill they obstructed.

      • theabby

        They don’t have an answer! They don’t have a plan, except to obstruct everything the President tries to do.
        They simply do not care about the American people’s needs and they never will. I’m sick of the manipulation, the misinformation and outright lies spewed by Fox News, Breitbart, The Heritage Foundation and all those other crazy right wing extremist organizations; all they do is spread fear and loathing. They need to GO !

      • steeltown65

        charles, how can you or anybody predict what’s gonna happen with the ACA? nobody knows for sure if it will sink or swim. what we do know is that it is the law. and it’s gonna be implemented. for the republicans to call for the defunding of it based on spending is pathetic. republicans have spent more than democrats for as long as the two parties have been in existence. not one word one said by a conservative when bush charged two wars to the american people. the ACA is better than what we have had. and it’s at the very least
        a step in the right direction. since truman we have debated and fought over national health care. well we finally get a leader who said ” i’m gonna get it done” and he did it. and instead of appreciating one of the few times you will see a politician do what he said he’d do. all we hear is he’s a socialist, he hates america, he’s not an american, he supports the taliban. and on and on and on! you hang your hat on the right. that’s cool. just don’t pull it down over your eyes and ears. i don’t know if it’s gonna work out. but i do know that i can respect the man for having the balls to face these tantrum throwing conservatives head on! if for no other reason. you should be pissed that conservatives spent 60 million dollars of tax payers money trying to repeal a LAW that they never had a chance of repealing. not one chance in the world! that doesn’t sound very conservative to me. they should have to pay that money back. maybe even feed the hungry they just took food stamps away from. it’s so obvious who is right and who is wrong on this issue. and that is rare. for anybody to honestly believe otherwise. is just illogical!

      • BenjaminF

        @Charles Vincent–and your source doesn’t want to slant Obamacare ?! Forbes is a conservative periodical. Is it not ??

      • Charles Vincent

        See also the source from Reuters that I posted its numbers are projecting higher average increases in cost.

      • mre2000

        Wait a minute, you’re citing data to support your view on a law that is only starting to be implemented. For you to be considered right would require several years of the law in full effect with careful analysis of the results. Right now you got bupkis.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong the law has been under implementation since 2010 when it was passed.

      • mre2000

        No, YOU’RE wrong Einstein. A few provisions were implemented in 2010 but mostly tax breaks and credits for businesses. The points you are arguing about are current, not 2010. I notice you pick the timeline to bicker about ad ignore the rest of my point. Typical cherry picker. You can’t have a reasonable conversation because you don’t accept any facts but your own. And I can see rom all your fans here that you MUST be right. lol Adios.

      • Charles Vincent

        Since its passage in March 2010, many parts of the Patient Protection
        and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have already taken effect. However, 2013
        is a significant year for ACA implementation because of health insurance
        coverage expansions through Medicaid (in participating states) and the
        insurance exchanges take effect on January 1, 2014. In addition to those
        provisions, health plans, providers, employers, and consumers all face a
        variety of provisions that begin in 2013.

        The timeline below details provisions and deadlines scheduled during
        the 2013 calendar year. Not all dates are set by law and some are
        subject to change pending the regulatory process.

      • mre2000

        Yea I know how to google too. Good for you! You just proved my point though and you haven’t done anything to invalidate my comment that most of the early provisions were tax breaks and credits. If anything you just proved my point. But you have to be right, so fine, you’re right. Feel better now? Maybe that will shut you up. lol (nah) Keep on bashing the new law that hasn’t had a chance to work or fail yet. Your ignorance is shining through.

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s not just me bashing the ACA I have posted articles that show serious issues with the law including Kathleen Sebelius Obama’s adviser See also my post to Morrow concerning the FAQ she/he mentioned it backs up my position.

      • mre2000

        Yea I’ve seen your articles, in fact I read the news too. Imagine that! Difference between you and me, you cherry pick what you want out of your articles and spin it like your overlords want you to, I take all the information available and make my own decisions. Sebelius said SOME health care costs MAY rise. Charles Vincent reads ALL health care costs WILL rise. I don’t blame you for failing to gather all the info, ts probably just bad genes. GOP lawmakers talk about
        repealing the whole law, but then they’d like to keep its most popular
        provisions intact. They badmouth the law in public, but take money from
        it in private. Corporations are using it as a convenient excuse to
        reduce headcount while enjoying record profits and all time highs in
        their stock price. Its a colossal line of Republican bullshit that yiou and the rest of their
        lemmings are buying without question. Bravo.

      • Charles Vincent

        So since i chose nonpartisan data you’re now saying I am cherry picking in an attempt to nullify my argument…. The FAQ I eluded to earlier goes over things in more detail. and is directly Link to the Sebelius article hows that for you.

        “Corporations are using it as a convenient excuse to
        reduce headcount while enjoying record profits and all time highs in their stock price.”

        This is one of those unintended side effects I was referring to in another post to someone else on this thread.

        “I don’t blame you for failing to gather all the info, ts probably just bad genes.”

        “Its a colossal line of Republican bullshit that yiou and the rest of their
        lemmings are buying without question. Bravo.”

        Ad hominem attacks like these make you look as Ignorant as those you levy them against.Furthermore your vehemence towards people who are critics of your pet projects reminds me of what Bastiat said about the fate of Non conformists;

        If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.” If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations
        petitioning the government in this vein of thought:
        “That science no longer be taught exclusively
        from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry(facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice).That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect
        due to the laws now in force.” [1]

        Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions
        slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned.
        For how can it be mentioned without damaging
        the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy mustbe taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

        Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is
        that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

      • mre2000

        Ok well you’ve obviously gone full whackadoodle on me now so this is the end of the line for me. You didn’t use non-partisan data, you used an opinion. You used ‘ad hominem’ more in one day than I’ve ever heard it in my life. I’ll depart on my original point that you so eloquently refuse to accept – YOU DON’T HAVE ENOUGH INFO. Period.

      • Charles Vincent

        Says you and you’re only saying it cause it directly contradicts your belief that the ACA is good for everyone.
        You bet your bottom dollar I will call you everytime you use a character attack to refute an argument.

      • MorrowSorrow

        No, you did not read the entire FAQ – it says that the SOA study failed to consider reinsurance pools that offset the increase in claims for pools that attract sicker members, and fails to account for the impact of premium subsidies. Further, it clarifies that the SOA study does NOT point to an increase in premiums.

      • Charles Vincent

        It expounded on the article and had some details including what you’re saying here but it still supports that cost will rise just like the article I posted and at the end of the FAQ there is a link to the article I posted.

      • MorrowSorrow

        You say expound – I say refute with facts. The Kaiser article clarified that the SOA numbers were unreliable and why – if you call that “expounding”. And yes, Ms. Sebellius says that some costs for some people may increase. However, that is a far cry from saying that the average premiums overall will increase. All reputable sources I’ve found say the opposite, that average premium costs will remain stable or decrease.

      • Charles Vincent

        Here it is Direct from the FAQ your touting;

        Q: What’s predicted to drive up costs?

        A: Many of those seeking coverage in online marketplaces — known as exchanges — are expected to be older and sicker. They’ll have more
        incentive to buy policies, and they’ll tend to increase claims paid by insurers.

        On the other hand, “young and healthy people are less likely to be interested in insurance, because they’re less likely to find value,” said Kristi Bohn, a consultant for the Society of Actuaries who worked on the report.

        The penalty for not having insurance is likely to be far less than the cost of coverage. The fewer young or healthy people who sign up, the higher the costs per plan member.

        The authors also made assumptions about how many employers will cancel their plans. Companies with sicker workforces are predicted to be
        more likely to end employer-based coverage and steer people toward exchanges.

        Q: But if medical claims go up, shouldn’t insurance prices also go up? How much difference could there be?

        A: In the individual market designed under the health law, quite a bit, say supporters. The ACA limits insurer profits and also gives government regulators oversight of rate increases, both of which could hold premiums down.

        Even if sticker prices rise, an important feature of the health law is subsidies for people to buy insurance, through tax credits for those with lower incomes. So what many newly-insured people actually end up paying themselves won’t be the same as what the insurance company bills.

        Q: Does it matter where I live?
        A: Yes. The report found huge variability,
        based on geography. While the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California by 2017, in New York state, the report estimates claim costs would drop by almost 14 percent.

        Q: Does this mean costs in the health exchanges aren’t a concern?

        A: No. Many consumers will pay more in premiums to get more in benefits. The high cost of medicine could mean that, even for those getting big subsidies, affordability will be an issue. Many consumers “will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said this week.

      • MorrowSorrow

        Yes, very good. I see that you’ve omitted the Q&A about the reinsurance pools not being factored into the SOA study. Why is that one omitted?

      • Charles Vincent

        I posted them earlier and you still ranted about it.

      • MorrowSorrow

        Also, see the April 18, 2013 article by KHN, “Health Insurance Actuaries In the Hot Seat On ‘Rate Shock”

      • MorrowSorrow

        (I can copy/paste for you – to save you the trouble)

        Few aspects of the Affordable Care Act are more critical to its success than affordability, but in recent weeks experts have predicted costs for some health plans could soar next year.

        Now health law supporters are pushing back, noting close ties between the actuaries making the forecasts and an insurance industry that has been complaining about taxes and other factors it says will lead to rate shock for consumers.

        “Most actuaries in this country — what percentage are employed by insurance companies?” Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, asked an actuary last week at a hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

        The committee was discussing a study published last month by the Society of Actuaries (SOA) predicting that, thanks to sicker patients joining the coverage pool, medical claims per member will rise 32 percent in the individual plans expected to dominate the ACA exchanges next year. In some states costs will rise as much as 80 percent, the report said.

        The witness was unable to answer Franken’s question, but the senator made his point. Insurance is why actuaries exist. The industry and the profession are hard to separate.

        Using predictive math, actuaries try to make sure insurers of all kinds don’t run out of money to pay claims. Many actuaries also work for consultants whose clients include insurance companies.

        Undisclosed in the SOA report was the fact that about half the people who oversaw it work for the health insurance industry that is warning about rate shock. The chairman of society committee supervising the project was Kenny Kan, chief actuary at Maryland-based CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield.

        Others on the committee work for firms with insurer clients. The report included committee members’ names but not their affiliations.

        The SOA “portray themselves as this nonpartisan think tank when in fact everything about the study is by people who have a vested interest in the outcome of the study,” said Birny Birnbaum, executive director of the Center for Economic Justice, a Texas group that advocates on behalf of financial and utility consumers.

        To perform the research, the society hired Optum, sister company of UnitedHealthcare, the country’s biggest private health insurer.

        Society spokeswoman Kim McKeown said the project was overseen by credentialed actuaries “from a cross-section of industry organizations” and was “exposed for review and comment to the broad health care actuarial community.”

        Even supporters of the health act worry about premium increases next year, when many of its provisions take effect. But the debate fits into a larger discussion about actuaries’ public role. Actuaries are self-regulated, which some say makes them unaccountable.

        Their associations set conduct standards and investigate malpractice in confidential proceedings. During the previous two decades the Actuarial Board for Counseling and Discipline, which works with the Society of Actuaries, has recommended public disciplinary measures for fewer than two people a year, according to its annual report.

        Yet actuaries play many public roles. By calculating the adequacy of employer pension contributions they affect the retirement of millions. And they’ll act as virtual referees for important aspects of implementing the health act.

        “I have a great deal of respect for actuaries,” said Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University and health law expert. “But I do think they often end up in … situations where the interests of the public and of their employers might be in conflict.”

        While the Obama administration has developed a calculator plans must use for determining whether insurance plans meet the health act’s standards for benefits and value, recently finalized regulations give insurer-employed actuaries the power to override it by substituting one benefit for another.

        Insurance company actuaries calculate rates when plans file with states, which act as the industry’s primary regulators. Charged with making sure the prices are justified, state insurance departments often have far less actuarial expertise at their disposal than the insurers.

        The Vermont Department of Financial regulation “does not have actuaries on staff,” a spokeswoman said. “We outsource our review of rate filings.”

        The situation in 2011 was the same in a dozen other states, according to information compiled by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

        Health-act supporters complained that that the actuary society’s study predicting a 32 percent increase in claims didn’t account for key factors, including the potential for competition to lower prices, the subsidies people will receive to buy the coverage and the fact that next year’s plans will be more generous than this year’s.

        Often actuaries’ predictions are not significantly better than, say, those of the Weather Channel. Recent premium increases of 50 percent and higher for nursing home insurance reflect a previous under-calculation of costs by actuaries. Actuarial models didn’t work especially well at calculating subprime mortgage risk a few years ago, either.

        A settlement in New York last month revealed cases in which actuaries overestimated liabilities and a mortgage insurer paid out as little as 20 percent of collected premiums in claims.

        Jost and Birnbaum want representatives of consumers and state insurance departments to be included on the actuaries’ discipline board. In proceedings at the insurance commissioners’ group, consumer advocates also want the board to state that actuaries’ first duty is to the public whenever they furnish calculations to state or federal regulators and to tighten conflict-of-interest standards for firms producing work relied on by both insurers and regulators.

        “There is always room for improvement in everything,” said Karen Terry, an actuary for State Farm and the vice president of professionalism at the American Academy of Actuaries, an umbrella group that works with the discipline board and groups such as the SOA that represent professional subspecialties such as health or pension actuaries. “We’re open to that dialogue.”

      • Charles Vincent

        That Information is courtesy of;

        http://www DOT chrt DOT org/public-policy/policy-papers/aca-2013-implementation-timeline/

      • Charles Vincent

        Updated February 12, 2013

        Since its passage in March 2010, many parts of the Patient Protection
        and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have already taken effect. However, 2013
        is a significant year for ACA implementation because of health insurance
        coverage expansions through Medicaid (in participating states) and the
        insurance exchanges take effect on January 1, 2014. In addition to those
        provisions, health plans, providers, employers, and consumers all face a
        variety of provisions that begin in 2013.

        The timeline below details provisions and deadlines scheduled during
        the 2013 calendar year. Not all dates are set by law and some are
        subject to change pending the regulatory process.

      • Charles Vincent

        Breaking news here.

        House Defunds Obamacare, Keeps Govt Open

        Friday, 20 Sep 2013 11:27 AM

        The U.S. House voted to finance the
        federal government through mid-December and choke off funding for President
        Barack Obama’s healthcare law, setting up a showdown with the Senate and the
        White House.

        The Republican-controlled House today passed, 230-189, a stopgap measure to fund
        government operations after current authority expires Sept. 30. The bill
        preserves across-the-board spending cuts at an annual rate of $986.3 billion
        and permanently defunds the Affordable Care Act.

        “The fight to delay Obamacare doesn’t end next week. It keeps going on until we
        get it,” Representative Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and his party’s 2012
        vice presidential nominee, told reporters today in Washington.

        The spending measure now will be sent to the Senate where it will pass without
        defunding the healthcare law, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said
        yesterday. Obama administration officials said the president would veto the
        House bill if sent to him by Congress.

        If the Obama administration and lawmakers can’t agree on the stopgap funding,
        most, though not all, operations would come to a halt in less than two weeks.
        Republicans are using the stopgap spending bill as a vehicle to try to choke
        off funds for the health program the party has opposed since 2009.

        Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and chief Senate opponent of the health
        law, said he’s willing to do “everything necessary and anything possible,”
        including holding a filibuster, to block action on the spending measure as a
        way to end funding for the health-care law.

        The Senate is expected to start considering the legislation on Sept. 23 with
        goal of finishing by Sept. 26.

        Procedural Tactic

        Democratic leaders are considering a procedural tactic that would put Cruz and
        his allies in an awkward spot and upend their efforts.

        Under Senate rules, they could have a simple majority vote that would strip the
        health-care defunding language once they end debate on the House measure.

        House Republicans haven’t decided how to proceed once the Senate passes the
        measure after stripping out the health language. If Boehner allows the Senate
        bill to proceed, he would need enough Democratic votes join Republicans to pass
        it and avoid a government shutdown.

        House Republican leaders also could decide to continue revising the measure and
        send the amended version back to the Senate for a vote, complicating the
        process and raising the risk of a shutdown as time runs out.

        Debt Ceiling

        The House spending measure also includes a provision directing the Treasury on
        how to prioritize payments if the debt ceiling is breached.

        House Republicans said today they’d start working next week on legislation to
        raise the nation’s debt limit and attach a one-year delay in the health law,
        cuts to entitlement programs and approval for the Keystone XL pipeline.

        “The next 10 days are very important for our country,” said Representative Tim
        Graves, a Georgia Republican, who has pushed for defunding the health-care law.
        Ryan of Wisconsin said the measures Republicans will attach would reduce the
        U.S. budget deficit in the long term. The legislation will look “at debt over
        the long term and that is what matters the most,” Ryan told reporters today.

      • Marcia

        Wow. What a crock.

      • Charles Vincent

        Crock as in false, or crock as it you cant believe they voted to defund the ACA?

      • Seth Williams

        Of course the moron house voted to defund obamacare…again. It won’t pass the senate though.

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s not just contained in our legislature its nationwide. In my opinion whats happening is putting out a message that a large group of people don’t want anyone government or otherwise telling them how to choose to live their life. This concept originates from the founding of our country and in general a persons natural tendency to live how that person chooses not how someone else thinks they should.

      • Sherilyn

        Then why are panels of GOP men allowed to make decisions on issues concerning women’s healthcare?
        Oh, I get it, it’s OK as long as THEY are the ones making the decisions.

      • Charles Vincent

        I never implied that you’re obfuscating.

      • Darryl Dickens

        Well the crybaby led GOP do a lot of obfuscating. Give me a break

      • Charles Vincent

        So do the whiners in the Democratic Party. Call politics for what it is and acknowledge both sides of the equation.

      • gemma liar

        both side lie,,,no doubt, my complaint is the tea bag shit party inevitably says JEEEESUS is on their side

      • Charles Vincent

        That doesn’t excuse the lies the democrats tell, or the fact that they stereotype all Christians and religious whacko’s.

      • gemma liar

        would that include the democrats who are Christians???

      • Charles Vincent

        eh it includes us all generally, every one lies. Lies aren’t discriminatory they are truly equal opportunity.

      • nick

        or maybe because they are representing other women who don’t agree with your ideas on women’s healthcare. that’s the whole point of representation because there are other views than just your opinion.

      • Maggie Alcantara

        nick you are not a woman so STFU till you grow a vagina and pop out a kid YOU have no place talking bout women’s health neither does G.O.P or any other man that thinks they have the right to

      • Jennifer Baugher Recktenwald

        I AM A WOMAN! I FIND YOUR COMMENTS HIGHLY INSULTING! My representatives are voting the way I elected them to do. Just because we don’t agree with your decisions does NOT mean we are dumb or ill-informed. Actually it’s the exact opposite!

      • Carol Jenkins O’Neill

        Why should your point of view dictate what options are available to me? No one will force you to have an abortion or even pre-natal care or annual mammograms or Pap tests. All we want is for these choices to be available for those who need or want them.

      • Jennifer Baugher Recktenwald

        That’s the problem, the choices are being taken away by Obamacare! I personally believe in choice. I believe that my dr. and I should determine my healthcare choices, not government or insurance companies! More and more choices are removed saying those products/services are no longer covered. Yet we are paying a heck of a lot more!

      • merl1

        i imagine that you believe a lot of fairy tales, that doesn’t make them true.

      • Nicholas A Kocal

        Without Obamacare your insurance company was ALWAYS between you and your doctor (unless you can afford healthcare on your own).And the insurance company will ALWAYS choose making money over your health. The problem is that people like you are too stupid to understand the actual reality.

      • sdsue

        Just in case this is not understood. There still are insurance companies. The ACA is not a President Obama or government run personal insurance company that is going to make decisions for you.

      • gemma liar

        why are U laying facts upon those who WILL NOT see???

      • sdsue

        That’s not true.

      • gemma liar

        don’t be dissin poor nick,,,he evidently has no weenie or balls either

      • Charles Vincent

        Did he forfeit them when he married you? And do you keep them in a Box or on the dresser to taunt him?

      • gemma liar

        hey micropenile CV,,,,,, Im a guy: MORE than well equipped enough to be ejaculating in slender BIG chested ( natural of course) women all of my life. You are ( im willing to wager BIG money) a smallish alopecial creep who is NOT is excellent physical shape ( thus highly onanistic) and wishes he could even GET women to glance at him in anything other than ridicule. Wish this format allowed me to send photos of me,,,my properties (2) cars (3) and my 5’6 133 lb American indian /French girlfriend with her deeee-lightfully tanned “DD” chest,,,,,, but U would find some rightwing fox news way of saying it is ” cut-and-paste” so I wont bother. U keep going to your house of superstitious tithing( church) and keep eating frozen meals and watching football. I will continue to live a well-funded and debaucherous ( and drug/alcohol free) south florida lifestyle. au revoir mini man

      • Charles Vincent

        Really? And I am just suppose to believe what some random “guy” says about his love life on the Internet? Your screen name is also gender non specific perhaps you could have avoided that mistake by choosing a better name more inline with your gender. Just because your a guy doesn’t exclude the possibility of your marriage to Nick I don’t post fox stuff and saying its right wing doesn’t make it wrong. When can I expect my subsidy from you MR 1%er? I need my OBAMACARE YOU KNOW. I promise to call you sugardaddy if they are on time in the mail. I will also not tell Nick about us….Oops secrets out sorry.

      • gemma liar

        hey kreskin: im not in the 1%,,,not even close– just well off. gender? so– U cannot “figure” out my username so U know (??) my gender by your inability to apply? well: I will edify thy room temperature IQ…… GEMMA VOZZA is an EX who is a CHRISTIAN who I caught in a few lies…… the best one? “I cant see U as You ( me) aren’t a Christian” ( that non yoked stuff),,,,then not too long after,,,she is calling me and coming to see me at work with kisses and telling me how great I look, GEMMA VOZZA,,,,,, Hollywood FLA- look her up on facebook. great body,,,average face,,,and she CUT HER TITS from a DD to a C for NO REASON before I met her 14 yrs ag0- that’s why her CHRISTIAN husband left her,,,,,, and that’s main reason I was done with her after 19 months,,,,but kept sexing her in her SECOND marriage to GARY DAVIDSON( another Christian) ,,,so she is a typical fake Christian screwing me and spending garys money on me ,,,,,anything; mr jealous and cannot get any pussy Charles????????

      • Charles Vincent

        “hey kreskin: im not in the 1%,,,not even close– just well off.
        gender? so– U cannot “figure” out my username so U know (??) my gender
        by your inability to apply? well: I will edify thy room temperature
        IQ…… GEMMA VOZZA is an EX who is a CHRISTIAN who I caught in a few
        lies…… the best one? “I cant see U as You ( me) aren’t a
        Christian” ( that non yoked stuff),,,,then not too long after,,,she is
        calling me and coming to see me at work with kisses and telling me how
        great I look, GEMMA VOZZA,,,,,”

        Sorry my crystal ball is broken so I couldn’t have had any foreknowledge of this. I really do not care where you got your name or why. It’s still gender non specific.

        “mr jealous and cannot get any pussy Charles????????”
        So your ready for another round of lets poke gemma liar with a stick I see. Let the poking begin then.

      • gemma liar

        funny how I showed U to be incorrect– complete with verbose edification– and U can only come back with THAT??????? U arent any fun anymore

      • Charles Vincent

        I lose IQ points every time I reply to you, you’re like a black hole you just suck everything in. How are your two boy toys treating you anyway?

      • gemma liar

        love such a luminary reply,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, transposing your own ostensible lack of sexual gratification ( with nubile females),,,,,, “lose I Q points,,,,ETC” … please attempt to come up with something beyond that 8th grade diatribe,,,PLEASE!

      • Charles Vincent

        You should take your own advice gemma, just saying.. Also I am not bitter I just have a flare for the obvious.

      • qcubed

        Amusing you have to brag on a forum about things that are not able to be confirmed. Sad. Almost Sadder than Charles.

      • gemma liar

        hey schmuck,,,,,go to Victor Wiley on facebook- my main photo is my pet argentine red TEGU eating large knight anole lizard,,,,,then look at MY pohotos ( NOTE: 6’2 1/2 210 well proportioned lbs from surfing,,,basketball and weights) ,,,THEN go to my friends list and ask veronica velasquez,,,,ask Claire rose,,,,ask my CURRENT girlfriend Katherine Hale ( and PLEEEEZ check out all of THEIR bikini photos) ask them if I indeed have (over time) frequented their buxom yummie bodies,,,and how often! I can prove what I do and whom I am– also U will hate this: Im a self employed CHEF who- since 1989– has contracted autonomously adult strip clubs in the south florida area. U can maybe imagine how many of those socially inept but aesthetically proper females I have ravished. NOW— I wish thy smootish reply her

      • Charles Vincent

        Sweet an epeen contest on the INTARWEBZ LIKE THIS HASN’T EVER HAPPENED BEFORE. I SEE A LOVE TRIANGLE DEVELOPING BETWEEN GEMMA, NICK AND QCUBED…..OOOH THE POSSIBILITIES THERE MIGHT BE A TV DOCUDRAMA HERE. HOWS DRIVING SOUTH FLA SOUND FOR A TITLE?

      • gemma liar

        as chuck de Vincent spanks his monkey again,,,and again,,,and again,,,,,,,,,,,,, the insufferable “CV” has risen to speak!!

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re jealous cause you didn’t get to spank it for me, But I wouldn’t be a part of your little luv triangle gemma I am a one woman man and I hate to share my stuff.

      • gemma liar

        sorry,,,,,,,,,,,,I don’t do “miniatures”….. but I suspect your offer (??) will be appreciated by the canards on FOX “news” as I see that the guys on there don’t get laid and the women are skanky and flat- so U will be guaranteed success upon thy onanistic endeavor

      • Charles Vincent

        Why would anyone endeavor to try to get laid by a fox news anchor, its much easier to get laid right at the local level. miniatures eh me thinks the lady doth protest too much….

      • gemma liar

        ennui Charles,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, et tu ennui

      • Charles Vincent

        If that’s how you feel stop posting replies.

      • gemma liar

        and lose the entertainment value U give???? no way! besides: I luv seeing IU spin like a broken gyroscope

      • Charles Vincent

        Cool story Bro… how long did it take you to formulate such a craptacular retort?

      • gemma liar

        brilliant reply,,,,, also: hows that collapse of your beloved regressives in the house doing? get used to it– America is tired of crybabies such as teddie bear cruz and you

      • Charles Vincent

        How do your feet taste? I happen to despise all the asshats running this once great country into the ground. On a side note if I am lucky that 17 trillion dollar debt will fall on idiots like you and the dumb shits in the legislature and do what nature should have done a long time ago and rid the gene pool of progressive do gooders, democrats and anyone else that can’t operate inside a budget.

      • gemma liar

        but of course when GW and friends were sending a balanced budget to financial disaster ( see: 2 wars/ tax breaks for those who DONT need it/housing bubble/ overfed military) you crybabies were NOWHERE to be seen. my feet? I don’t know- not my “fetish” yet evidently it has leaked out that MAYBE U have a foot fetish. terrific….. I am quite set financially; physically and emotionally ( sexually also as slim big chested women have ALWAYS added to my “deficit”) You may now reply with your boorish and predictable aspersion

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re a sad “little man”, anyone that has to boast about how pretty their woman is or how good they are in bed is exactly the opposite of what they claim. You sir have foot in mouth disease more that any person I have seen on this site. Even liberals on this site called you on your obvious line of bullshit. And yet George Bush spent less than half(in 8 years) than what Obama spent in only 4 years and you still like climbing under his desk hell if Obama stops really fast you’d break your neck. All the money in the world wont help you when that debt falls on you and that already worthless paper shows its true value as hyper-inflation blows up the economy.

      • gemma liar

        go to veronica velasquez on facebook,,,,,look up Victor Wiley- on her friends list: that’s me,,,, 6’2 210- and she is a FORMER flame of mine that I broke up with ( we still close enough ) and when U see ME and the ladies on MY page ask them– including Katherine hale ( my current fem fatale) how little I am,,,, and pleeeeeeeeeeez notice that ALL my lady friends ( intimately) are ALL slim and sexy with BIG natural boobs. Now U may go jerk your weenie- because that about all losers such as thee are capable of- no foot in mouth here— I back up ALL I claim with indisputeable facts

      • Charles Vincent

        With someone else’s Facebook page you’re a joke sure I could call you vulgar or profane names but that’s base, besides its much more fun to insult your intellect in ways you don’t understand. On a side note you might want to look into a new key board a few of your letters seem to be sticking for some “unknown” reason.

        Also this is another way to attempt to explain why all your “money” will not save you when the debt falls on you;

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=4WsjF8t1uCM&feature=share

        Enjoy it Mr. Flacid Whelp

      • gemma liar

        dear dear alopecial chuckles: nothing is “sticking” ‘cept my ability to annoy your crybaby poor genetic self. Go to Victor Wiley – my facebook page–OOOPs…… ( note the “STOCK” period button for emphasis) you cannot view me as I only allow FRIENDs to do so- do go to Ronnies page ( and marvel at the type of females I lay claim to. don’t believe? ask her as U are a “testarudo” anyways.) The only thing flaccid in my life is my recognition that crybabies such as you are equal in intellect.

      • Charles Vincent

        /yawn predictable, you’re a tool and everyone knows it hahaha if brains were dynamite you couldn’t blow your own nose. I know your awesome super studly that’s why Nick and Jchastn are in your little circle jerk with you hope you’re not dry docking it bro. Tip of the day CAPS is cruise control for cool so don’t be a tool.

      • gemma liar

        chuckles,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thats the BEST U can do? ” if dynamite,,,,ET AL” ????? I was hoping for SOME creativity. looks like U win just as archie bunker did–in HIS mind only!

      • Charles Vincent

        I have better things to use my creativity on than the likes of you. You’re quite frankly not that important, and therefore I tailor my comments accordingly.

      • gemma liar

        your “creativity remains highly banal- ergo your lack of tailoring ‘skill’

      • Charles Vincent

        Keep telling yourself that, I’m sure everything is always your way in that bubble you’re in.

      • gemma liar

        my bubble is delightful! self employed chef and making ( avg for past 8 yrs) 88K-tax free as my business is 100% cash– nice buxom slim girlfriend( s)….. basketball/weights and surfing in ft.lauderdale/pompano area,,, ( native) and my being 6/2 1/2 210 lbs I do luv being a prick to sullen “wanna be’s” such as your decrepid loathsome self………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. OK! send back your magnanimous retort!

      • Charles Vincent

        qcubed gemma liar

        • 22 days ago

        Your name is LIAR. Therefore…it’s all bullshit.qcubed gemma liar

        • a month ago

        Amusing you have to brag on a forum about things that are not able to be confirmed.

        sandre gemma liar • 13 days ago
        And THIS, folks, is the modern, liberal, “progressive” American male. Bragging about ejaculating in women (ONLY slender and big breasted (naturally) though!!!!!!!!) all his life, comparing his girlfriend to his other material possessions, and enumerating her features the way one would would enumerate the features on a luxury yacht. Charming.

        So your ready for another round of lets poke gemma liar with a stick I see. Let the poking begin then.

      • gemma liar

        as the great cassius clay said ” it aint braggin’ if its fact”
        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,enjoy your UNeventful Asexual life chuckie,,,,,
        ( and I own no yacht- 3 cars but no yacht. Condo ( gated ) 1 block from atlantic ocean in pompano bch FL,,,but no yacht. caddilac,,,,work van ( self employed chef needs to purchase provisions) and a 1972 MACH 1 mustang ( French’s yellow mustard color) with a keith craft 568 Hp/ 560 ft lbs racing motor. Don’t beeeee-lieve? call keith craft in Arkansas and ask him about Victor in FT.L motor I bought. wanna see the car? all over my FB,,,but I suspect U don’t wanna cry more than a “normal” regressive white trash neurotic will; ergo your ongoing failure as a so-called “man”. NOTE- se my lady friends there also. NAAAH- don’t: send more CREATIVITY here for my jocular imagery

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t know what’s funnier your over the top attempt to prove how great you are or the fact that you don’t get how much of a non factor you are. No one cares bro you’re not that important. In fact I submit that if you were to die tomorrow it would have absolutely zero effect on 99.999% of this countries population no one would lose sleep or even know you were gone. As for me I wouldn’t even miss your lack of comments or your atrocious vernacular and on the off chance I did somehow know my immediate reaction would be to comment “Good riddance to bad rubbish” or “Sweet one less defective gene in the human gene pool”.

      • gemma liar

        sadly I am not great—just happy and productive and delighted to place bugs under the skin of crybabies such as you- and if no one loses sleep upon my demise I don’t care as I will be dead– unlike trash such as you who probably believe in a life after with that nice jewish carpenter U superstitious creeps pay good money to “pray” (SEE: beg) to.
        NOTE: I don’t know how to clinically compare my genes to anroid perfection (?????) such as you but if U looked as I do at 55 with a full head of hardly greying hair/ still playing basketball ( fairly well; but haven’t dunked since I was 42) AND having younger women I work with flirt a lot I suspect my genetics are doin’ me jes’ fine. Enjoy the message and cry me back soon

      • Charles Vincent

        Thanks for proving my point you’re only important in your own mind, and everything you keep spouting proves that point.

      • Charles Vincent

        also this;

        https://www DOT facebook Dot com/photo.php?fbid=10151617939186792&set=a.10151158509251792.439630.178869296791&type=1&theater

      • gemma liar

        best part? My girl and my employee are reading all of this laughing at u,,,,,, but shes a 300 lb trailer park trash and my employee is a coyote

      • Charles Vincent

        Again I could care less about you, your life, or your so called peeps. You’re a low skillcap troll with limited faculties.

      • gemma liar

        as opposite your balding no money non sexual “life” crying profusely. Please send back another message(s) as Im done……. you truly are no fun

      • Charles Vincent

        You were done a long time ago when you had your little nerd rage internet tantrum melt down that you seem to be dragging out. I submit that you are mad and are “taking your piss poor excuse for a life home” like the juvenile you truly are.

      • gemma liar

        ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

      • Charles Vincent

        Yep don’t let the door smack your crack on the way out bro.

      • gemma liar

        …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

      • Charles Vincent

        Yep don’t let the door smack your crack on the way out bro.

      • gemma liar

        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      • Charles Vincent

        Yep don’t let the door smack your crack on the way out bro.

      • gemma liar

        ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

      • Charles Vincent

        Yep don’t let the door smack your crack on the way out bro.

      • Charles Vincent

        “as opposite your balding”
        God only made a few perfect heads the rest he covered with hair, true story bro…

      • qcubed

        Your name is LIAR. Therefore…it’s all bullshit.

      • gemma liar

        hey brainiac,,,,,,,,,,,,its mocking a Christian women named gemma who lied. want to try again?

      • Charles Vincent

        Birds of a feather flock together.

      • sandre

        “hey micropenile CV,,,,,, Im a guy: MORE than well equipped enough to be ejaculating in slender BIG chested ( natural of course) women all of my life. You are ( im willing to wager BIG money) a smallish alopecial creep who is NOT is excellent physical shape ( thus highly onanistic) and wishes he could even GET women to glance at him in anything other than ridicule. Wish this format allowed me to send photos of me,,,my properties (2) cars (3) and my 5’6 133 lb American indian /French girlfriend with her deeee-lightfully tanned “DD” chest,,,,,, but U would find some rightwing fox news way of saying it is ” cut-and-paste” so I wont bother. U keep going to your house of superstitious tithing( church) and keep eating frozen meals and watching football. I will continue to live a well-funded and debaucherous ( and drug/alcohol free) south florida lifestyle. au revoir mini man”

        And THIS, folks, is the modern, liberal, “progressive” American male. Bragging about ejaculating in women (ONLY slender and big breasted (naturally) though!!!!!!!!) all his life, comparing his girlfriend to his other material possessions, and enumerating her features the way one would would enumerate the features on a luxury yacht. Charming.

      • gemma liar

        it aint braggin ‘ if its FACT ( muhammed ali)…and it IS easier showing off well built females as they point to my doing MANY things correctly., mainly: they STAY with me as I treat them PROPERLY: equally and intimately. I am somewhat “sorry” U don’t have the physical ( or mental/social/emotional) attributes to find and KEEP a ridiculously sexy woman,,,, but your deep shade of green envy is roaring in your nugatory reply. My woman IS my possession as I am hers. welcome to the REAL world; sorry you’ve seen it and weren’t qualified. to quote desiderata: ” with all its sham and drudgery,,,its still a beautiful world. strive to be HAPPY”

      • TonyC

        Typical Republican. Resorting to name calling when his argument is debunked. What a stand up guy.

      • Charles Vincent

        Who did I call Names? I can point to probably 50% of the replies to my post calling me names so much for your typical liberal/democrat/progressive heroes.

      • qcubed

        You must mean the women who are placated by their CON husbands.

      • Peggy Richards

        big unlikely maybe

      • TakeActionWAHM

        It doesn’t matter if he’s representing ‘other women’ who don’t agree with me – it’s still other people (Republicans, in this case) who are trying to impose their beliefs on me, telling me how to live my life.

      • Craig Brunetti

        Unless you’re a collegiate historian, I cannot believe you know anything about the founding of our country.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well when you read history it has a funny way of painting a picture specially when you read writings from the people who founded the country most notable are the federalist papers.

        This is well asinine;
        “Unless you’re a collegiate historian”
        What exactly does that have to do with me knowing history are you saying only a college history professor knows these things?

      • Craig Brunetti

        Some people’s history is just that. Painted pictures. Not truth.

        And yes, only a professor/master. There’s no way your knowledge of such history is credible without that qualification, most especially in today’s climate of spewing “founding father” knowledge.

      • nick

        This is probably the dumbest comment on here. You don’t have to be a professor to understand basic events in American history.

      • steeltown65

        nick you’re right. but if you have not studied it and practiced those studies of it. don’t be surprised when people don’t sink their teeth into what you put on the plate.

      • Mom of 3

        However history IS written by whoever “wins” the war. There is no way that any understanding of history is unbiased unless and until studied in depth with a source other than Beck, Limbaugh or fox “news” talking heads doing the interpreting of the “facts” as they see them.

      • Charles Vincent

        “And yes, only a professor/master. There’s no way your knowledge of such history is credible without that qualification, most especially in today’s climate of spewing “founding father” knowledge.”
        It’s is utter nonsense you’re putting forth a logical fallacy by saying people cannot learn history from a teacher or reading books on history.

      • Devil_Dinosaur

        I could tell that the quote ended when the punctuation ended.

      • jchastn

        This is about the ACA. How can dreamy mental images about “founding fathers” and their beliefs have anything to do with modern healthcare. The “founding fathers” HAD NO real healthcare. This was not a public issue in their time. Nobody knows how they would deal with some industry that everyone needs taking more than half the gross national product. A huge part of the cost of healthcare is for “uncompensated” care. People who have no insurance who’s only source of healthcare is a desperate visit to the ER when they are so sick they have no choice. Young people with no job who have an accident or get a serious illness and cant afford care and have no coverage drive up medical costs for everyone. Universal coverage is the only solution.

      • Charles Vincent

        They believed people could do for themselves and that they were fully capable of tending to their own needs with out the government interfering in those decisions.

      • DC

        Ah… the Romney health care plan for everyone who can’t afford insurance: don’t get sick. Look, back in the Founder’s day,even the most effective medicines and procedures were primitive; remedies were cheap, physicians were your neighbour who would accept livestock or a good hot meal for their services, or else were religious who would tend to people out of the goodness of their own hearts. Now, medical care and pharma are big business and cost astronomical amounts of money. In addition, people recognize the necessity of preventative care, which means it’s important to see the doctor more often than just when you get sick. All this is self-evident. Times have changed. The only way to make health care equitable is to regulate or socialize either the medical care providers, or to regulate or socialize the insurance companies. And given that insurance companies were originally built along socialist models (everyone pays into the pot so that whoever needs care can afford it), I say we lay down hard on the insurance companies.

      • Charles Vincent

        It isn’t a comment on their medical technology its a comment on the fact that they thought government should stay out of peoples lives and meddling in the healthcare industry is most definitely meddling in peoples lives.

        “Times have changed.”

        The only thing that has changed is there are more people that think they know how to better make other peoples decisions for them and they use government force to accomplish those immoral ends.

        “And given that insurance companies were originally built along socialist models (everyone pays into the pot so that whoever needs care can afford it),”

        Yes and before now this was a voluntary endeavor, now its a forced contract enforced by the government and administered by the IRS.

      • TropicDave173

        “The only thing that has changed is there are more people that think they know how to better make other peoples decisions for them and they use government force to accomplish those immoral ends.”

        I’m sure George Washington would have thought just that while driving down I-95 while on his way to get an MRI while listening to news via satellite radio and receiving a text from Thomas Jefferson on his iPhone; because TJ found an interesting article while surfing the Internet at a Starbucks via a wifi node, and he e-mailed James Madison and Alexander Hamilton about it too…

        Nothing’s changed. Just technology that would seem like magic to Americans of 200-plus years ago…life spans close to doubled…radio and TV, the Internet, cars, trains, aircraft, space travel (we have a probe that’s essentially in interstellar space, for goodness’ sake…). Cultural attitudes that are light-years beyond what the Founding Fathers knew. Communications in seconds, not weeks. Travel in hours, not months. I don’t need to go on.

        No, nothing’s changed…

      • Charles Vincent

        “Nothing’s changed. Just technology that would seem like magic to
        Americans of 200-plus years ago…life spans close to doubled…radio
        and TV, the Internet, cars, trains, aircraft, space travel (we have a
        probe that’s essentially in interstellar space, for goodness’ sake…).
        Cultural attitudes that are light-years beyond what the Founding Fathers
        knew. Communications in seconds, not weeks. Travel in hours, not
        months. I don’t need to go on.”

        Really? Is that why our best scientist can’t figure out how the Ancient people built the pyramids or the statues on Easter island or how Leonardo DaVinci had drawings of planes and helicopters centuries before they were “invented” or perhaps how the Inca built Machu Picchu the list goes on but you get the picture.

      • bob

        Thats why the papers didn’t work

      • Charles Vincent

        What papers didn’t work?

      • BenjaminF

        @charlesvincent:disqus The founding fathers writings, and intents, of those papers; are open to interpretation. Supreme court justices interpret the letter of the law conservatively or liberally….Did you say “history has a way of painting a picture…when you read writings from…the [founders]”? This is well gobble-de-gook sir.

      • Heaven Northrop

        A collegiate WTF are you talking about maybe you shouldn’t be talking about the founding of our country

      • bob

        But yet I need to buy car insurance when I buy a car get a lic to drive a car… dont tell me that the government cant tell you what to do….such bs

      • Charles Vincent

        That is a separate and irrelevant issue and no you do not have to have them to travel there are court cases backing this I will not address them here but If you want I can post them somewhere else so this discussion stays on topic.

      • steeltown65

        okay chuck, you opened this can of worms. so where do you stand on abortion? how about recreational drug use. how about automotive insurance? we are forced to carry that.how about same sex marriage? how about gay and lesbian couples adopting? just answer them either for or against. be honest now. and we’ll see if you stand behind the whole ” we don’t want to be told how to choose to live our lives”.

      • Charles Vincent

        “so where do you stand on abortion?”
        Not my choice to make that decision.

        “how about recreational drug use.”
        legalize and regulate like alcohol/tobacco.

        “how about automotive insurance?”
        For commerce yes, for personal travel unconnected with commerce no.

        “how about same sex marriage?”
        To each their own, what they do in their own private life is their business.

        “how about gay and lesbian couples adopting?”
        That’s their prerogative more power to them, there are plenty of kids that want and need a parent(s). Being gay or straight has absolutely zero effect on how good/bad of a parent one will be.

      • steeltown65

        So Charles you are convinced that the article or articles you are referring to are the know all tell all. Everybody else is wrong. And the articles just happen to back up all the hype the right is screaming about. Charles you haven’t taken one step back from your position. And I could respect that if all the FACTS were in. But they aren’t Charles. And that is what bothers me about your position. You have made your mind up on a huge issue. And the FACTS have not been accessible to anybody. My point is that if you looked a little left from center. ( the same amount you looked a little right) you will find numbers that would debunk the others. The truth is. The only way we will ever know is to move forward with the ACA and see how it plays out. You seem like an intelligent person. And if I’m right about that. You already know I’m right about letting it play out.

      • Charles Vincent

        One of the articles I reference did lean left Kathleen Sibelius is obamas adviser on health. I will let it play out but I will not ignore data that’s relatively in the middle and has data from both left and right sources. There are also more reason outside of those articles that fuel my objection to the ACA or any other similar program.

      • steeltown65

        Charles I can’t say this enough. NOBODY AND I MEAN NOBODY! Has any hard facts that can legitimately determine how the ACA will play out. And this is no different than when women fought to vote. One side said it will make everything better. The other said it will ruin life as we know it. Same when the slaves were freed. Same with same sex marriage. Charles a if we are to be the biggest and baddest country in the world. We have got to quit entering these dick measuring contest with each other. Obama was elected to his second term and he ran on obamacare. He won huge. His policies should be given the chance to sink or swim. If it’s that bad it won’t be around long. But if it works. We will all be glad we let it play out. I personally think the only way to move forward now. After all this bullshit. Is for us to grab our nuts. And go all in.

      • Martin

        Amen…end of this conversation…Two thumbs up Steel…

      • thetruth2014

        EXACTLY…Steel…If its that bad NO ONE including democrats will stand for it.

      • Charles Vincent

        Also disappointed that my answers to your query on the can of worms.

      • steeltown65

        I expected your answers to be exactly what they were. And I actually could stand right beside you on them. But those the issues hat get my blood boiling. I see why politicians are all over the ACA. there’s money in it. But when they intrude on how people can feel or who they can live or if they decide to bring a kid into this world. I get “HULK SMASH PISSED”

      • BenjaminF

        @ Charles Vincent
        That’s right-wing propaganda – Tea Party jargon – There is NO government pressure to live your life one way or the other. I have Cigna insurance; I’m going to keep it; my daughters will be covered until age 26 ! They are now 19, 21, & 24 respectively. I choose how to live my life. I find your concept insulting to many Americans….For shame.

      • Jennifer Baugher Recktenwald

        Must be nice! Our insurance is being changed drastically because of Obamacare. We now have to pay twice as much for the premiums, not as many products and services are covered, and our deductible went from $1000 to $5000! Every month we get a letter: due to compliance with the Affordable Care Act, (fill in the lastest change/rate increase of some sort). Every month we get screwed more! How is that “affordable”? The law only helps those who worship Obama and makes everyone else pick up the tab. We are not rich by any stretch of the imagination. Friends are having to sell their houses so they can afford this rotten healthcare. This is ridiculous!

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        You know what – you are being screwed & it isn’t by the ACA it is because of YOUR insurance company. CHANGE INSURANCE COMPANIES. Shop around. Nothing says you have to stick with the same insurance. If it is a company policy then the COMPANY is screwing you around. Someone may be getting rich, but it isn’t Obama’s fault. You & your friends are in charge – buy different healthcare.

      • Charles Vincent

        It is the ACA that’s screwing them the ACA instituted a massive amount of regulations that drove their cost up. and its not just them, people in my state are getting those letters as well and in some cases their plan was completely canceled due to regulations imposed by the ACA.

      • Margaret Mills

        Your insurance company is stealing your money, not the ACA. if the company is that bad, get insurance from another company on the state exchange. That’s one of the great things about the ACA. You aren’t forced to stay with a company that is screwing you over.

      • RevEggplant

        I don’t understand the reasoning here. You’re already told you must pay taxes from your income to fund the government, to keep up our public infrastructure, and and to fund your retirement healthcare already — income tax, social security tax, and FICA tax. All that’s being asked is that everyone participate in a healthcare plan. The government will give most folks a break on it, and will pay up to 95% of the premium for you if you’re not financially well off. I’m not sure where the “telling you how to live your life” comes into play here at all, but it’s the silliest argument I’ve heard.

      • Charles Vincent

        Government is force and taxation is theft through government force. Read The Law by Frederic Bastiat.

      • RevEggplant

        Operations of government cost money. Find a way to do it without taxation and someone will declare you a fucking genius.

      • Charles Vincent

        My suggestion is to return to the Ideas that were laid out by our founding fathers and that they intended in the realm of taxation to support a small government. The Government we have now has become a boated bureaucracy that is growing ever larger and as it grows is becoming less and less sustainable through taxation and they are far outspending all revenue our citizenry generates.

        I remind you that they viewed government as a necessary evil. I do not think as a culture we have become enlightened enough to implement a truly government free society and I am not sure we ever will be.

      • Martin

        I bet you are getting the news from “Fixed News”, government has been decreasing for the last two years..and you keep repeating the crap that Fixed News, Rush and Hannity tell his ignorant brainwashed audience – one in its path to extinction…

      • Charles Vincent

        http://research DOT stlouisfed DOT org/publications/review/06/01/GarrettRhine DOT pdf

        Government is, growing at a high rate.

      • qcubed

        LOL…government growth has been slower under OBAMA than ANY RECENT PRESIDENT. EVEN your god…RONALD W Reagan.

      • Charles Vincent

        Reagan isn’t my GOD as you assert I was not fond of his gun control stance. No its been growing at a fairly steady pace. Obama had added the ACA and more IRS employees to “administrate” the aca.

      • jchastn

        That would mean a return to a total lack of healthcare and a average life expectancy of about 45. If you were injured, you died. If you managed to survive the injury, and couldnt work, you would starve. If you were not a land owner, you could not vote or participate in any decisions of your community. Women were property. You could be jailed for not going to church. What a lovely golden age that was.

      • Charles Vincent

        Way to totally exaggerate what I was saying By implying I said something I didn’t.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        But basically THAT WAS the way things were when the constitution was written. She didn’t say anything that wasn’t true. Those things kind of go along with what you said. It is just like the 2nd Amendment & the right to bear arms…they wrote that because there WAS no army & no protection.

        You may have not thought you advocated for these things but in essence you did. You cannot have it both ways.

      • Charles Vincent

        Which reply are you referring to there are so many now I want to get the right response to your post.

        ” It is just like the 2nd Amendment & the right to bear arms…they wrote that because there WAS no army & no protection.”
        There was an army and they have the second amendment so citizens can effectually defend themselves from any aggressor.

      • gemma liar

        why do all the regressives “forget” the FIRST part of 2nd amendment??? ” well- REGULATED militia”???

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re a real GEM you have to understand that the part after the well regulated militia is the operative clause and with out the people being able to bear arms the militia couldn’t exist;
        Well Regulated

        The Random House College
        Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions
        for the word “regulate,” which were all in
        use during the Colonial period and one more definition
        dating from 1690 (Oxford English
        Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:
        1) To control or direct by a rule,
        principle, method, etc.
        2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for
        amount, degree, etc.
        3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
        4) To put in good order.
        [obsolete sense]
        b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

        1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise
        that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

        The project of disciplining all the militia of the
        United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it
        were capable of being carried into execution. A
        tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often asmight be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.


        The
        Federalist Papers, No. 29.

        Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of ‘disciplining’ which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

      • gemma liar

        excellent!!! how about YOU send this to all the right wing regressives who CRYcryCRY alllllll about the “second amendment right to bear arms” when they NEVER ever mention the FIRST part,,,,,,,,and see how much is included from then on in??? NONE– they are akin to Christian trash: cherry picking the parts ( bible; constitution) which fits THEIR–and ONLY their–agenda

      • Charles Vincent

        Cry more the Heller decision says the same thing that the second amendment protects the Individuals right to bear arms.

      • maryinbama

        Laws can be changed. The federal government has federal police power that can overrule fundamental rights if the safety and well being of the country is at stake. If people continue to die in such large numbers from guns, they could exercise it in the future.

      • Charles Vincent

        I seriously doubt any of the bill of rights will be changed or repealed.

        ” If people continue to die in such large numbers from guns, they could exercise it in the future.”
        This is also a fallacy, the FBI Crime statistics show that not only violent crime in general being on the decline for the last 40 years or so but homicides and specifically homicides involving firearms are declining and have been for the past 25 years.

      • maryinbama

        Oh I doubt it would happen either. However that does not mean that the federal government could do it with sufficient justification. They certainly have the right to regulate it (just as free speech is regulated). And…32,000 deaths from firearms each year is NOT insignificant. Gun deaths are projected to overtake automobile deaths by 2015. Yet we require insurance, a license and a test to drive a car. That license can also be stripped if we break the rules.

      • Charles Vincent

        “32,000 deaths from firearms each year”

        This is false FBI statistics put that number at this;

        http://www DOT fbi DOT gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

        This is a flat out lie;

        ” Gun deaths are projected to overtake automobile deaths by 2015.”

        “That license can also be stripped if we break the rules.”

        If you’re a commercial driver/operator this is true as a private citizen traveling or doing anything not connected to commerce no the government cannot tforce you to have a license,

      • maryinbama

        Actually the government could. They have just not chosen to do so.

      • Charles Vincent

        No they can’t there has to be a national emergency for them to declare Martial law.

      • maryinbama

        I think you misunderstand the concept of police power. It is a constitutional right of the government to expand power over the states or individuals if the health, safety and general welfare of the country is at risk. It does not necessarily mean military intervention. It typically takes the form of legislation (although at the federal level the courts refer to it as balance of power). For example, if we were suddenly hit by some fatal virus that could be stopped with a vaccination, the government could order that everyone be vaccinated or if they refused quarantined. All rights under the Bill of Rights can be regulated if the balance of power favors the good of the entire country in a crisis. Freedom of speech is regulated all of the time – treason, fomenting to riot, defamation, etc. The courts have held that states can regulate the right to assembly (i.e., protests) in the interests of protecting the larger community. Regulation does not mean banning. Although it can take that form. It typically manifests as restriction.

      • Charles Vincent

        “I think you misunderstand the concept of police power.”

        Police are bound by the law just as much as everyone else.

        ” It is a constitutional right of the government to expand power over the states or individuals if the health, safety and general welfare of the country is at risk.”

        You’re statement here is incorrect here is why;

        “The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction—the limitation of federal power—eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
        According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare. Alexander Hamilton maintained that the clause granted Congress the power to spend without limitation for the general welfare of the nation. The winner of this debate was not declared for 150 years.
        In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
        Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison’s philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton’s interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress. In its opinion, the Court warned that to challenge a federal expense on the ground that it did not promote the general welfare would “naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.” The Court then obliquely confided,”[H]ow great is the extent of that range … we need hardly remark.” “[D]espite the breadth of the legislative discretion,” the Court continued, “our duty to hear and to render judgment remains.” The Court then rendered the federal agricultural spending program at issue invalid under the Tenth Amendment.”

        The hierarchy of power is;

        1) The People

        2) The State

        3) The Federal Government

        The founding fathers of this country wrote the Constitution to limit government, not the other way around.our rights natural rights come our creator ( whom ever one believes that to be). Our constitution only enumerates some of our natural rights.

        “fomenting to riot, defamation, etc.” these things damage an individuals liberties.

      • maryinbama

        Constitutional Police Power has nothing to do with state or local police!!! It is a constitutional empowerment construct!!! Unless you have studied Constitutional Law, then just spouting off portions of the constitution is useless. Some cases have stated there is no federal police power as opposed to state police power (which again has nothing to do with law enforcement agencies), but the federal government does have that same power, they just call it something else (balance of power and the necessary and proper clause). In fact, a case decided in June of this year spoke to the possibility of a federal police power through the necessary and proper clause (Scalia dissented and Roberts and Thomas issued concurring opinions with cautions, but the majority affirmed that federal right). You have to understand the case law that has interpreted different parts of the constitution. The necessary and proper clause gives congress the ability to carve out implied powers that are not enumerated in the constitution. The Necessary and Proper Clause was included in the Constitution to account for issues that might arise in the future that enumeration did not foresee. The founders most certainly did not envision a limited government. That was the entire debate between drafting a constitution and continuing under the Articles of Confederation. They knew a weak federal government could not stand as a nation. Congressional powers are extremely broad, especially in conjunction with the necessary and proper and the Interstate Commerce Clause. As almost any activity we engage in is at least tangential to the ICC, the federal government can regulate almost anything.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Unless you have studied Constitutional Law, then just spouting off portions of the constitution is useless.”

        this comment is odd coming from you considering you didn’t know some of the real details of the Heller decision or the origin of the 2nd amendment.

        You’re granting something the necessary and proper clause doesn’t cover the powers your saying it has doesn’t match what SCOTUS states even under Hamilton’s broader meaning;

        “The specific powers and duties of the U.S. Congress are enumerated in several places in the Constitution. The most important listing of these powers is in Article I, Section 8, which identifies in 17 paragraphs the many important powers of Congress. The last paragraph grants to Congress the flexibility to create laws or otherwise to act where the Constitution does not give it the explicit authority to act. This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, although it is not a federal power, in itself.

        The Necessary and Proper Clause allows
        Congress “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the [enumerated] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18). It is also sometimes called the “elastic clause.” It grants Congress the powers that are implied in the Constitution, but that are not explicitly stated. That is why the powers derived from the Necessary and Proper Clause are referred to as implied powers.
        The correct way to interpret the Necessary and Proper Clause was the subject of a debate between Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton argued for an expansive interpretation of the clause. His view would have authorized Congress to exercise a broad range of implied powers. On the other hand, Jefferson was concerned about vesting too much power in any one branch of government. He argued that “necessary” was a restrictive adjective meaning essential. Jefferson’s interpretation would have strengthened States’ Rights. George Washington and James Madison favored Hamilton’s more flexible interpretation, and subsequent events helped to foster the growth of a strong central government. Their debate over the Necessary and Proper Clause between Hamilton and Jefferson came to a head in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, mcculloch v. maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

        McCulloch v. Maryland was the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court applied the Necessary and Proper Clause. Some constitutional historians believe that the opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland represents an important act in the ultimate creation of the U.S. federal government. The case involved the question of whether Congress had the power to charter a bank. At first, this question might seeminconsequential, but underlying it are larger questions that go to the foundations of constitutional interpretation. To some extent, they are still debated.

        The First Bank of the United States was established in 1791, but it had failed in 1811 due to a lack of support from Congress. Inflation in the years following the War of 1812 compelled President James Madison and Congress to establish a new national bank, which was chartered in 1816. The new bank established branches throughout the states. Many state-chartered banks resented the cautious policies of the Bank of the United States.Their directors sought assistance from their state legislatures to restrict the operations of the Bank of the United States. Accordingly, Maryland imposed a tax on the bank’s operations, and when James McCulloch, a cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, refused to pay the Maryland tax, the issue went to court.

        The questions before the U.S. Supreme Court involved whether the state or national government held more power. Central to this issue was the Court’s interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Court held that the state of Maryland could not undermine an act of Congress. The states were subordinate to the federal government. This ruling established that Congress could use the Necessary and Proper Clause to create a bank even though the Constitution does not explicitly grant that power to Congress. Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion not only endorsed the constitutionality of the bank, but went on to uphold a broad interpretation of the federal government’s powers under the Constitution. The case quickly became the legal cornerstone of subsequent expansions of federal power.”

        The ICC clause only allows congress to regulate commerce;

        http://legal-dictionary DOT thefreedictionary DOT com/Commerce+Clause

      • maryinbama

        When you confused constitutional police power with martial law and law enforcement agencies, I knew you did not have a clue what you were talking about. Any law student with one year behind them would know the difference. If you do not understand just how reaching the ICC is, then you have not studied law. The ICC is VERY broad. It was used to enforce the civil rights laws on businesses. The court stated that if even one thing used in that business had come from out of state, the federal government had the right to regulate. If the paper you print your menus on comes from out of state, your business is subject to ICC.

      • Charles Vincent

        I do understand ICC law but you’re but ascribing it more power that it has. Federal agents require cooperation of local police/sheriffs. Sheriff Mack proved this with his law suit. the difference between those two agencies are are Police chiefs are politically appointed and sheriffs are elected.

        “When you confused constitutional police power with martial law and law enforcement agencies”

        I didn’t confuse them i stated there has to be an emergency for the POTUS to declare martial law that speaks not to their respective powers. You’re also deflecting and trying to spin the table. and my original assertion that you didn’t know the details of the DC v Heller case and how it effected the 2nd amendment or gun crime Statistics still remain glaringly obvious.

        “The court stated that if even one thing used in that business had come from out of state, the federal government had the right to regulate. If the paper you print your menus on comes from out of state, your business is subject to ICC.”

        The ICC can only regulate commerce that my original assertion of me traveling do a destination unconnected with commerce cannot be regulated by the state through the ICC nor can a private sale of private property by me to another individual as the courts have ruled that this is not commerce. The ICC however can regulate any business regardless of whether they cross state lines as they are conducting commerce they use the roads to obtain or ship product for business activities directly related to commerce.

      • brian

        I know as more rules and regulations get into place it has started to help… imagine if gun nuts would of noticed

      • Charles Vincent

        Actually the CDC report Obama ordered shows no correlation between more gun laws and less gun crime. In fact it shows the opposite where gun laws are stricter there is more crime and were there are less gun laws there is less crime.

      • maryinbama

        The militias evolved into state National Guards. Unless every single adult person can be called up with no notice to military action, then the point is moot. Also, requiring every adult to be on call for military action would not be very well regulated would it (without consistent training).

      • Charles Vincent

        The militia is separated in to two categories Organized(The national guard) and Unorganized(the traditional meaning of militia) below are the basics of how the militia works and how state or federal government can call up the militia.

        Every state in the union has a militia.[8] Laypersons know the militia as the ‘National Guard,’ an inaccurate and oversimplified rubric for an institution that has several different personalities depending on the laws under which it is operating.[9]
        Theoretically, a state’s militia is an independent military force. It is a part of the executive department
        of the state and may be used for police augmentation, civil disturbance control, natural disaster relief, or any other lawful purpose pertaining to security of the state and its citizens.[10] The governor is the commander-in-chief of the militia and is generally responsible for its operations.[11]
        The United States also has a militia.[12] With the exception of exclusively federal reserve units,[13] the federal militia is composed of the militia of the states when properly called into active federal ser-[Page 330]vice in times of war or national emergency.[14] To understand how this system has evolved requires an understanding of its constitutional, legislative, and military history.
        The militia[15] is an institution older than our Constitution.[16] Prior to 1787, it was a product of English
        common law and colonial and military custom.[17] Since 1787, and increasingly in modern times, the militia has
        been a product of federal and state statutes enacted pursuant to a division of powers and responsibilities embodied
        in Article I of the Constitution.[18] Although the modern militia system is a product of the Constitution and statutes,
        the federal courts have rarely addressed the broad range of constitutional issues which it presents.[19]
        A. The History of the Militia Clauses
        The constitutional basis for the modern militia system is found in Article I, section 8, which states:
        The Congress shall have Power . . .;
        . . .
        [(clause 15)] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections
        and repel Invasions;
        [(clause 16)] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of
        them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment
        of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
        . . .
        To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying [Page 331] into Execution the foregoing Powers.[20]

      • Darlene Pearch Edwards

        The 2nd Amendment was ratified on December 17, 1791 along with the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.
        While it is a very short amendment, its exact meaning in terms of what
        types of weapons are protected is still in contention today.

        Text of the 2nd Amendment

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
        State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
        infringed.

      • Charles Vincent

        Hey you might want to read the DC v Heller decision before you put your other foot in your mouth lady, specifically the part about prefatory and operative clauses and the part about common use firearms for self defense. You know what I will save you the time here it is;

        “Decision

        The Supreme Court held:[44]
        (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediatelyfollowed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

        (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

        (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition –in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

        The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[45]

        Issues addressed by the majority

        The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

        The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court’s opinion that the “people” to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same “people” who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: “‘The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.’ United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings….”

        With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

        The Court applies as remedy that “[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.” The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: “Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not ‘have a problem with … licensing’ and that the District’s law is permissible so long as it is ‘not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.’ Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners’ issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement.”

        In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”[46]

        The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the “in common use at the time” prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”), which may not by itself protect machine guns: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”[47]

        The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: “[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” The Court states, “If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.”[48]
        Also, regarding Justice Breyer’s proposal of a “judge-empowering ‘interest-balancing inquiry,'” the Court states, “We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.”[49]”

      • maryinbama

        Actually, the main reason behind the 2nd amendment was to placate the slave owners. They wanted to be able to protect themselves from a slave revolt without having to call up an Army that might be hundreds of miles away. It would take a while for them to get there even on horseback.

      • Charles Vincent

        This is a fallacy this article explains why;

        http://blog DOT independent DOT org/2013/01/30/the-second-amendment-was-not-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

      • Guest

        and as cretins of your ILK always ignore: ” a well-regulated militia”

      • Charles Vincent

        DC v Heller read it and shut your pie hole dipshit;
        (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
        firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
        traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
        Pp. 2–53.

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does
        not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.
        The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an
        individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of
        the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically
        capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists
        feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to
        disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a
        select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to
        abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that
        the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

        (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous
        arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
        followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

        (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious
        interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that
        unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and
        legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late
        19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller,
        307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to
        militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the
        right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use
        for lawful purposes.

      • merl1

        Sure he can, all right wingers are experts in Doublethink.

      • Maggie Alcantara

        we cannot be enlightened when there are republicans among us as long as they continue to spew their hate and ignorance we’ll never get there unless we start getting all their asses outta office

      • Charles Vincent

        Yeah the democrats can clearly run a government ask Detroit they have been run by democrats since the 1950’s and they are not only bankrupt but 47% of the populous is functionally illiterate clearly a pinnacle of democratic policy.

      • gemma liar

        OHNOOOOOO— Detroit!!! Benghazi,,,! hey CHUCK,,,,, how about Clinton with a NON war surplus? 23 million jobs created? all I see is Reagan with iran contra and quadrupling our DEBT,,,, his allowing the mass exodus of OUTSOURCING jobs –and our debt- overseas,,,, the 1st bush doing nothing ( cept raising taxes when he said he wouldn’t) and GW bush and his wonderful 8 yr fiasco. ” DEEEEEE-TROIT”!!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        1) You’re full of bull Detroit has been declining since the 50’s learn your history. All I see are Eisenhower and FDR multiplying our Debt 16 fold from 1930-1950.

        “the 1st bush doing nothing ( cept raising taxes when he said he wouldn’t)”
        Congress 2/3 overrode his veto of new taxes, namely the democrats.

      • gemma liar

        hey kreskin,,,, ike : repub….. FDR best president ever ( out ofTHE depression–caused by repub policies/ win WW2/ enter new age as biggest power on planet),,, and as the TAX increase was on BUSHs watch he gets “credit” for it just as Obama gets credit for killing bin ladin – and most of his top scumdogs- as well as ” credit” for LOSING our AAA rating . Try to remain consistant or my so-called name calling will zenith at your oligophrenial expense. NOTE: again ’tis quite humorous how U neatly side stepped my edification upon GW policies crushing our country with TWO unpaid wars,,,no job creation,,,, housing destruction(NEE bubble) and that silly little 9/11 event,,,, or REAGAN quadrupling debt and beginning the HUGE outsourcing of our DEBT and american JOBS overseas to insure wealthy getting wealthier…

      • Charles Vincent

        You really need to learn history this countries economic slide wasn’t cause by bush no matter how loudly you shout it.

        Except for about a year during 1835–1836, the United States has
        continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went
        into effect on March 4, 1789. Debts incurred during the American Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation
        amounted to $75,463,476.52 on January 1, 1791. From 1796 to 1811 there
        were 14 budget surpluses and 2 deficits. There was a sharp increase in
        the debt as a result of the War of 1812.
        In the 20 years following that war, there were 18 surpluses. The United
        States actually paid off its debt entirely in January 1835, only to
        begin accruing debt anew by 1836 (the debt on January 1, 1836 was
        $37,000).[2][3]

        Another sharp increase in the debt occurred as a result of the Civil War.
        The debt was just $65 million in 1860, but passed $1 billion in 1863
        and reached $2.7 billion by the end of the war. During the following 47
        years, there were 36 surpluses and 11 deficits. During this period 55%
        of the national debt was paid off.

        The next period of major increase in the national debt took place
        during World War I, reaching $25.5 billion at its conclusion. It was
        followed by 11 consecutive surpluses and saw the debt reduced by 36%.

        Social programs enacted during the Great Depression
        and the buildup and involvement in World War II during the F.D.
        Roosevelt and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and 1940s caused the
        largest increase – a sixteenfold increase in the gross public debt from
        $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950. When Roosevelt took office
        in 1933, the national debt was almost $20 billion; a sum equal to 20
        percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). During its first term,
        the Roosevelt administration ran large annual deficits between 2 and 5
        percent of GDP. By 1936, the national debt had increased to
        $33.7 billion or approximately 40 percent of GDP.[4] Gross debt relative to GDP rose to over 100% of GDP to pay for the mobilization before and during World War II.

        After World War II

        U.S. federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP, from 1940 to 2012.

        The debt burden fell rapidly after the end of World War II, as the US and the rest of the world experienced a post-war economic expansion.
        However, growth rates in the western countries began to slow in the
        mid-1960s. Beginning in the mid-1970s and afterwards, U.S. government
        debt began to increase faster than GDP.[5][6] In 1974 Congressional Budget Act
        reformed budget process in order to allow Congress to challenge the
        president’s budget more easily and as a consequence deficits became
        increasingly difficult to control.[7] Debt held by the public as a share of GDP increased from its post-World War II low of 24.6% in 1974 to 26.2% in 1980.[8]

        From 1981 to 1989, nominal debt held by public nearly tripled. On the one hand, President Ronald Reagan
        increased military spending and lowered tax rates. (Reagan slashed the
        top income tax rate from 70% to 28%, although bills passed in 1982 and
        1984 later partially reversed those tax cuts.)[7][9] On the other hand, congressional Democrats blocked attempts to reverse spending on social programs.[7][9]
        Because of the budget deficits that resulted, debt held by the public
        as a share of GDP increased from 26.2% in 1980 to 41% by the end of the
        1980s.[8]

        Debt held by the public had risen to nearly 50% of GDP in the early
        1990s, but fell to 39% of GDP by the end of the decade. The public debt
        burden during the presidency of Bill Clinton between 1993 and 2001, fell due in part to decreased military spending after the end of the Cold War, 1990, 1993 and 1997
        budget deals, gridlock between White House and Congress, and increased
        tax revenue resulting from “the booming economy and huge gains in the
        stock markets, the so-called Dot-com bubble.”[10][11][12]
        The budget controls instituted in the 1990s successfully restrained
        fiscal action by the Congress and the President and together with
        economic growth contributed to the budget surpluses that materialized by
        the end of the decade. These surpluses led to a decline in the debt
        held by the public, and from fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the
        debt-to-GDP measure declined from about 43 percent to about 33 percent.[13]

        Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in
        the early 21st century. From 2000 to 2008 debt held by the public rose
        from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the end of fiscal year 2010.[14] During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[15]
        due to decreasing tax rates and two wars. Federal spending under
        President George W. Bush remained at around 40% of GDP during his two
        terms in office. Public debt increased in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the late-2000s recession. Public debt increased to 63% of GDP by the end of 2010, mainly due to decreased tax revenue, and the stimulus and tax cuts enacted in response by President Barack Obama.[16] By February 2012, public debt had increased to $15.5 trillion.[17]”

      • gemma liar

        again,,,,thank U for bolstering my inquiry: where were U giraffes when bush crushed this country>>> ??? no where because he is a white “Christian”….. now U vermin swarm when a KNEEEGROW is in white house. Reagan? best pres? read what U asked me to read. the economics– according to your above stats,,,,show CLINTOn had country in HUGE upswing– so I again ( rhetorically) asK; what happened next?

      • Charles Vincent

        Obama happened next.

        http://www DOT policymic DOT com/articles/15723/obama-and-the-national-debt-president-misleads-public-on-his-role-in-exploding-the-national-debt

      • Charles Vincent

        ” Try to remain consistant or my so-called name calling will zenith at your oligophrenial expense.”

        Is that suppose to scare me into something?

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        I will give you points for using zenith & oligophrenial…..

      • Charles Vincent

        I didn’t use them gemma did.

      • threenotch23

        There is really no need in getting worked up about all of this. The ACA will remain in force it will be a program embraced by a very large majority. The Govt will be funded and all will continue pretty much as it has except the GOP will lose a TON of credibility and it will become the party of the nucking futs and be pretty much irrelevant for the next 8 to 12 years or more.

      • gemma liar

        thou art correct-a-mundo!!! but whats even better? watching the “testarudo” rightwing trash TRYING to say how they are GROWINg in popularity as OBAMA and the progressives are ruining America. Im dying with glee watching them slowly –and UN intelligently- atrophy and implode

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        So, who is going to pay for the roads? the schools? the hospitals? Are the states? So, you will have states that have good healthcare, good roads & excellent education & then you will have pockets where people die regularly because they don’t have healthcare, the roads are non-drivable & people are as dumb as stumps. I am sure this is how YOU see the founding fathers….kind of like God – HE/They believe JUST like you do & you are sure of it.

      • Charles Vincent

        Roads and schools are paid for through excise taxes, the tax on gasoline pays for roads for example the states already pay for road work and education its where some of the state tax revenue goes.

        “So, you will have states that have good healthcare, good roads & excellent education & then you will have pockets where people die regularly because they don’t have healthcare, the roads are non-drivable& people are as dumb as stumps.”
        This is a complete exaggeration.

        ” I am sure this is how YOU see the founding fathers….kind of like God- HE/They believe JUST like you do & you are sure of it.”
        They are brilliant and are far more intellectually competent than most people now anyone that has read any writing they have done knows this I suggest you read the federalist papers and bring your Dictionary when you do. and when you do you might want to read the works of lord Blackstone, and John Locke etcetera the founding fathers drew from these peoples work when they conceived this country.

      • gemma liar

        and don’t forget their complete disdain/distrust of RELIGION IN GOVERNMENT

      • Carol Jenkins O’Neill

        Can’t turn the clock back that far! The world has evolved since the Constitution was written and so have we.

      • gemma liar

        funny how gerbils of your ilk were strangely silent when bush made our govt huge and intrusive,,,,,and set record setting deficits,,,,, wont bring up the other HUGE policy transgressions. Now U expect our country to BELIEVE GOP and their idiotic atavistic policies ( or NO POLICIES; only CRYING??)

      • Charles Vincent

        Funny how in 4 years Obama not only matched the total 8 year debt from bush in 4 years he surpassed it. no i expect you to stop drinking the koolade that the democrats are serving , then stop viewing the other side through that lens of bigotry. and finally I would highly recommend growing up since name calling is childish at doesn’t help your argument.

      • gemma liar

        first,,,if U are going to use the OLD FOX “news” colloquialism of KOOL-AID please TRY 2 spell it correctly. second: much of his DEBT was residual from the BUSH era and BUSH singing FIRST stimulus package. OUR DEBT has been shrinking on a spending-per-capita basis. don’t believe/wanna cry?? check the CBO( not FOX “news”) and corroborate. AGAIN– where were U shriveldicked scumbag TA PARTY white trash when BUSH spent us to near oblivion for NOTHING????? U trash were sucking dick in a white dogmatic tax free house of superstition ( SEE: church) enjoying what U hoped was infinite status quo for all of U non sexual white old fat bald scumbags….name calling??> OHYEAH BABEEEEEE…. U trash are done- enjoy the PROGRESS our country is in even with the obstruction of crybaby white trash rednecks. It moving forward as all mankind is in SPITE of crybabies such as you,,,,, NOTE: IM a 55 yr old WHITE male ( straight) living as a SEL EMPLOYED chef in south FLA……. so now please send back your lachrymose reply

      • Charles Vincent

        ON the contrary I credit bush with 2009 not Obama. and he still created more debt in 4 year than bush did in 8

        “NOTE: IM a 55 yr old WHITE male ( straight) living as a SEL EMPLOYED chef in south FLA……. so now please send back your lachrymose reply”
        Irrelevant and makes you sound desperate.

        “OUR DEBT has been shrinking on a spending-per-capita basis. don’t believe/wanna cry?? check the CBO( not FOX “news”) and corroborate. AGAIN”

        Our debt is expanding under the CBO projections

        http://www DOT cbo DOT gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011-03-18-APB-FederalDebt_0 DOT pdf

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        This is not true. You can keep your statistics because you can basically make them do anything you wish.

      • thetruth2014

        Give the exact dollar amount of each of Obama policies that added to the debt during his term and then total them.

      • Charles Vincent

        Public debt increased in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the late-2000s recession. Public debt increased to 63% of GDP by the end of 2010, mainly due to decreased tax revenue, and the stimulus and tax cuts enacted in response by President Barack Obama.[16] By February 2012, public debt had increased to $15.5 trillion.[17]

      • thetruth2014

        So you cant answer my question then. Didnt think so.

      • Charles Vincent

        I answered your question and you didn’t like it even though it came from the CBO also known as the Congressional Budget Office.

      • thetruth2014

        No you didn’t. You have to be the densest idiot I have ever met..

      • Charles Vincent

        See now I know I am right you’ve resorted to name calling.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Obama and the National Debt: President Misleads Public on His Role In Exploding the National Debt”
        This article also answers your query. It is on poilicymic.

      • thetruth2014

        Charles. You are a sad little idiot.One last time. Give the exact dollar amount of each of Obama policies that added to the debt during his term and then total them. OR STFU

      • Charles Vincent

        Why does it matter? He has 5.7 trillion in debt to his name period. I could care less about which of Bush’s policies cause his debt or Obama’s. The fact is its debt and it doesn’t matter where it came from and trying to say name the policies is obfuscatory and irrelevant to the case the CBO along with many other media sources List Obama’s debt and if its so important for you to know which policies go research it yourself

      • thetruth2014

        Ok if it doesnt matter who did it then why did you bring it you effin idiot? I know all the answers…you dont know sh8t as you have proved over and over again.. so just STFU baldy

      • Charles Vincent

        1) Nobody has all the answers you’re arrogant for thinking you do.
        2) Our Debt does matter and the fact that Obama is adding a large chunk of debt is certainly matters just as much as any other president that ballooned this countries debt.
        3) No I wont shut up and nothing you say or do will shut me up period.

      • thetruth2014

        listen you dumb piece of trash…waahhhhh you cant make me shut up waaah…everyone on this thread thinks you are a dumb POS…and they are right

      • Charles Vincent

        And yet I still post and you cant stop me.

        “listen you dumb piece of trash…waahhhhh you cant make me shut up waaah…everyone on this thread thinks you are a dumb POS…and they are right”
        This is the only crying I see, keep it up your tears fuel my happiness machine.

      • thetruth2014

        Charles…You have no idea wtf you are talking about and everyone on this opposes you…what does that tell you you dumb eff?

      • threenotch23

        So, what I hear you saying is- I don’t care about finding solutions to problems. I have no desire to make the world a better place. I feel like only my answers are worthy of any respect.
        With that you make a PERFECT Tea Party supporter but not such a good member of a democratic Republic.

      • Charles Vincent

        “So, what I hear you saying is- I don’t care about finding solutions to problems”
        You heard wrong i do want to see a solution I just don’t think the ACA or Obama’s policies are the solution.
        At least I try to find the answers or engage in discussions that might reveal possible answers most of the people here are Juvenile and can only hurl insults sort of like you are doing in the last line of your reply. Furthermore I would postulate that you are oblivious to what a republic would be like even if it fell from the heavens planted itself right under your nose and flogged you with a sign that said hey look at me this is what a republic looks and functions like.

      • Charles Vincent

        P.S. I don’t care what people think of me,
        And I have a Stick an I will continue poking you with it because it will create much enjoyment getting to watch you have a full on rage meltdown.

      • thetruth2014

        go back to playing world warcraft you bald toothless colorado white trash redneck

      • Charles Vincent

        Well right now poking you with this stick is way more entertainment. Historically speaking calling me a redneck is a complement.

        bald toothless colorado white trash
        right to left true or false
        Bald obviously-True
        Toothless-False
        From Colorado-True
        White trash-False

      • thetruth2014

        you dont poke me. You don’t elicit rage from me. I feel sorry for your dumb white trash idiot self.

      • Charles Vincent

        Poking with stick round three;

        “You don’t elicit rage from me. I feel sorry for your dumb white trash idiot self.”
        This whole sentence is a one big contradiction. translation You don’t make me mad. /rage you are an idiot white trash /RAGE end

      • thetruth2014

        You are dumb. That 15.5 trillion figure isn’t all caused by obamas policies. Medicare part D,Unfunded wars,recession,large aging boomer population.bush tax cuts plus more aren’t his.Instead of copying and pasting form wiki maybe you could do your own research and answer the question. Also you need to look at how much of the stimulus that has been paid back. One more time. Give the exact dollar amount of each of Obama policies that added to the debt during his term and then total them.

      • Charles Vincent

        Please reread that it says;
        “By February 2012, public debt had increased to $15.5 trillion.[17]”

        The debt was 10.7 trillion when Obama took office.
        which means he added ~5 trillion in debt. The article delineates the bush tax cuts from Obama’s tax policy after 2010 did you even read it?

      • thetruth2014

        damn you are really really dumb. His policies didnt all add up to that figure..carryover and circumstance moron. That 15.5 trillion figure isn’t all caused by obamas policies. Medicare part D,Unfunded wars,recession,large aging boomer population.bush tax cuts plus more aren’t his.Instead of copying and pasting form wiki maybe you could do your own research and answer the question. Also you need to look at how much of the stimulus that has been paid back. One more time. Give the exact dollar amount of each of Obama policies that added to the debt during his term and then total them.

      • Charles Vincent

        15.5 trillion is Total debt not Obama total debt . Please get your reading comprehension checked.

        “Public debt increased to 63% of GDP by the end of 2010, mainly due to decreased tax revenue, and the stimulus and tax cuts enacted in response by President Barack Obama.[16]

        Here is the source;

        ^ Tritch, Teresa (July 23, 2011). “How the Deficit Got This Big – NYTimes DOT com”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 28, 2011.

      • Charles Vincent

        During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[15]
        due to decreasing tax rates and two wars. Federal spending under
        President George W. Bush remained at around 40% of GDP during his two
        terms in office. Public debt increased in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and the late-2000s recession.

      • Charles Vincent

        The ACA is costing tax payers 1.1 trillion dollars up front and more in tax hikes to fund the subsidies for the people who can not afford insurance.

      • thetruth2014

        that doesnt add to the debt moron.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes it does its just less because its over 10 years. You don’t like it argue with the CBO about it they are the ones that said it was added to the debt.

      • Charles Vincent

        They don’t allow links man your post will be deleted but here is a portion from your link about how the ACA will add debt;

        “What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?
        Assuming that H.R. 6079 is enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2013, CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting that legislation would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period. Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

        What Major Components Result in the Net Increase in Deficits?

        Deficits would be increased under H.R. 6079 because the net savings from eliminating the insurance coverage provisions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending increases and revenue reductions:
        The ACA contains a set of provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage, which, on net, are projected to cost the government money. The costs of those coverage expansions—which include the cost of the subsidies to be provided through the exchanges, increased outlays
        for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for certain small employers—will be partially offset by penalty payments from employers and uninsured individuals, revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and net savings from other coverage-related effects. By repealing those coverage provisions of the ACA, over the 2013–2022 period, H.R. 6079 would yield gross savings of an estimated $1,677 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,171 billion.
        The ACA also includes a number of other provisions related to health care that are estimated to reduce net federal outlays (primarily for Medicare). By repealing those provisions, H.R. 6079 would increase other direct spending in the next decade by an estimated $711 billion.
        The ACA includes a number of provisions that are estimated to increase federal revenues (apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage), mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI)payroll tax and extending it to net investment income for high- income taxpayers, and imposing fees or excise taxes on certain manufacturers and insurers. Repealing those provisions would reduce revenues by an estimated $569 billion over the 2013–2022 period.

      • thetruth2014

        oh god HR 6079 is a repeal bill..THATS WILL CAUSE Specifically, we estimate that H.R. 6079 would reduce direct spending by $890 billion and reduce revenues by $1 trillion between 2013 and 2022, thus adding $109 billion to federal budget deficits over that period.

      • Charles Vincent

        My mistake I read it wrong.

      • thetruth2014

        and your wrong about ALL this…SO STOP

      • Charles Vincent

        No I am not wrong about it all.

      • thetruth2014

        STOP or I will embarrass you BAD

      • Charles Vincent

        get on it man

      • Margaret Mills

        Lies.

      • Charles Vincent

        Again what exactly are the lies you’re talking about?

      • Darryl Dickens

        It would still be taking our money to do what we may not want. And the founding fore thieves were just that thieves themselves. By the way they didn’t find what wasn’t lost either. People like you kill me with that one.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not even sure what you’re talking about…

      • merl1

        they’ve been dead for over 200 years. Who the hell cares what you THINK they meant?

      • Charles Vincent

        The supreme court does and that’s evidenced in the DC v Heller decision.

      • gemma liar

        the founding fathers never anticipated nuclear weapons,,,,, electricity,,,,,, internet easy access,,,,,,,,,and our GREAT country being stuck dealing with what the FOUNDING FATHERS wanted to avoid at all costs: religious interference.

      • Charles Vincent

        Nuclear weapons aren’t self defense, that notion is asinine they promote mutually assured destruction not self defense. Ben Franklin did several experiments with electricity he was a founding father. They didn’t want the government to endorse a state sponsored religion that’s totally different from what you’re asserting, which ties into the fact that they wanted government to stay the hell out of peoples personal business.

      • gemma liar

        I already know Charles is a genius. he is wile E coyote’s kid

      • Alexis Betancourt

        Oh my are you showing your Repub colors?

      • Alexis Betancourt

        No woman wants anyone other than her gyno up her private parts. If there are women out there that would like their Statesmen up theres, I feel for them. Must be their Repub husbands and boyfriends making them do it

      • Charles Vincent

        Apparently you haven’t read all my posts.

        But here is a summary;

        I am a registered independent.

        and for the piece De la resistance and what separates me from “republicans” and also a post on this very thread;

        “so where do you stand on abortion?”
        Not my choice to make that decision.

        “how about recreational drug use.”
        legalize and regulate like alcohol/tobacco.

        “how about automotive insurance?”
        For commerce yes, for personal travel unconnected with commerce no.

        “how about same sex marriage?”
        To each their own, what they do in their own private life is their business.

        “how about gay and lesbian couples adopting?”
        That’s their
        prerogative more power to them, there are plenty of kids that want and
        need a parent(s). Being gay or straight has absolutely zero effect on
        how good/bad of a parent one will be.

      • Kathleen Passalacqua

        Your views seem reasonable except I don’t understand how you could favor people not having automobile insurance, especially with the number of car accidents that happen daily in this country.

      • Charles Vincent

        It isn’t about favoring not having it its about government trying to regulate something outside of what the constitution allows them to regulate. The constitution grants them the power to regulate commerce not me traveling for vacation or to visit relatives etcetera.

      • Carol Jenkins O’Neill

        We did not have cars when the Constitution was written and I doubt our country’s founding fathers could have imagined the world we live in today.

      • Charles Vincent

        Tell that to Leonardo DaVinci who had drawings of airplanes and helicopters that wouldn’t be invented for centuries.

      • Carol Jenkins O’Neill

        You are assuming that the founding fathers were aware of DaVinci’s drawings.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am sure they were but that’s irrelevant, you seem to think they couldn’t possibly have imagined anything we have accomplished, need I remind you that our top scientist today can not explain how ancient cultures built the pyramids in Egypt or stone henge or how they moved the figures on Easter Island etc…

      • Margaret Mills

        Bullshit. They have figured out exactly how the Easter Island heads were carved and moved. I know there are some pretty good theories about the pyramids, but I don’t know that much about Stonehenge.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Bullshit. They have figured out exactly how the Easter Island heads were carved and moved.”

        What don’t we know still?
        One of the greatest mysteries: How the ancient Polynesians moved the moai at all. The giant statues weigh up to 86 tons, and the tallest rises over 30 feet. The roads, the researchers note, are concave, making transporting heavy objects even more of a challenge. Though legend has it that a king was able to make the statues walk, using divine power, “the truth,” says Richards, is that “we will never know.”

      • qcubed

        Leonardo DaVinci was far smarter than most voters today, and certainly far smarter than ALL pundits.

      • Margaret Mills

        irrelevant

      • Charles Vincent

        Nice great circular logic there. Our best scientists now can’t figure out Machu Picchu or the pyramids or how the heads on Easter island were made.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        So basically you also trust corporations to not pollute your air, land & water? It is everyone’s responsibility to make sure they are safe? If toys maim & kill it is the person who purchased the unsafe toy’s responsibility? If pet food companies use things in their food & your pet dies – not the companies fault? GEEZ. Your kind of independent could have every man, woman & child in America held hostage by the big companies….Eat at your own risk; drink at your own risk; swim in the pollution; buy a bubble so you can breathe….
        We definitely have different ideas about what the “Common Good” is.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re reading much to much exaggeration into my posts.
        I don’t think government should be involved, I said nothing about consumers or society being involved. You’re under the mistaken assumption that government can fix things and that they always do the right thing and never fail. This is an absurd notion.

        You want an example of free market regulating itself take a look at the better business bureau. they are nonprofit and were founded in 1913 and they exist to help protect the consumers from the things you mentioned.

      • gemma liar

        BBB is toothless and impotent

      • Charles Vincent

        How is helping consumers by collecting data and disseminating it toothless? Does it not help people avoid those evil capitalists that rob and pillage?

      • Kathleen Passalacqua

        Don’t states regulate auto insurance? What does that have to do with the Constitution?

      • Charles Vincent

        One must understand the big picture before delving into the details.

      • Guest

        do not claim independent when you show ignorance like the rest that’s insulting to those who ARE independent

      • Charles Vincent

        I R NOT IGNURANT YOU STOOPID.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        I am curious…so why not insurance for personal driving? Let’s say that you are on a wet road & you slam into a commercial truck. Your car is toast & you are injured. The commercial truck would be required to have insurance but you don’t…how are you going to pay for the liability damage you did to the truck (after all it WAS your fault, even if it wasn’t intentional) – a new car, since yours was totaled & all of your hospital bills? What about if someone runs into you & screws up your car & you? How do either of you get cars fixed & body parts?
        Seems like what you advocate would keep lawyers really busy & rich….

      • amaizeme

        I know this is a bit sidebar, but why can’t car insurance be attached to the person and not the vehicle. Then we could start to move towards a society of having at least some cars shared. My car sits in my driveway most of the time. Wish I had a neighborhood share program, but insurance won’t let us…

      • Charles Vincent

        I said it shouldn’t be regulated by government its not in their purview, that doesn’t mean I would not buy it. Like wise I don’t buy health insurance due to cost would I buy it if I could afford it, yes I would have insurance. I just don’t think the ACA will accomplish that affordable insurance it touts and government regulation on that is outside of its constitutional authority.

      • Margaret Mills

        I can’t wait for you and all the other idiots to be proven wrong.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well the only sure thing is, someone will be eating crow.

      • qcubed

        Independent these days means “closet republican”. Like it or not there is NO candidate you could back that could win against a Democrat or Republican, so you vote Republican.

      • Devil_Dinosaur

        Ah. That moment in a conversation where you discover that you’re dealing with an insane person.

      • gemma liar

        when they continue to chant arcane and idiotic verbosity which side steps the issue or topic at hand

      • Elizabeth Cox

        “Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do.” Romans 13:6 Keep in mind, that this letter was written to a church in pagan Rome, with an Emperor that claimed to be a god.

      • Charles Vincent

        Society doesn’t need government nearly as much as government needs a society to leech off of.

      • regina

        Part of the problem – religion has no place in goverment

      • qcubed

        Then move to Lichtenstein, dipshit.

      • Margaret Mills

        If you don’t like taxes, move to Somalia.

      • Charles Vincent

        It isn’t about that its about what the government can and cannot to according to the constitution.

      • Darryl Dickens

        So bitch about that, and I bet you still pay them too probably more than some super rich guy as well.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I think I will continue talking about the ACA since its going to add to the ~55 trillion dollars worth of unfunded liabilities we have now according to the CBO.

      • merl1

        Then why don’t you emigrate to another country? If you hate it so much, move. Just leave my country and take the rest of the malcontents with you. Somalia might take you, it is a Libertarian Paradise.

      • kpfoto

        Get a grip,…..

      • oldngrumpy1

        Welcome to society. Don’t like it? There are exits, and I’ll send you a free Mapquest to Samalia.

      • Charles Vincent

        If you’re going to mapquest it, it’s Somalia. And after you map quest it buy yourself a ticket an use it, because this country need less people like you whom are willing to not only your rights down the river but others rights as well.

      • Jennifer Baugher Recktenwald

        I know people that are being told that they can no longer get certain medicines and procedures that they have been having for years to keep various medical conditions in check. Now due to the Affordable Care Act those medicines and procedures are no longer allowed. What are these people supposed to do? That is politicians butting into people’s healthcare decisions and ruining their standard of medical care and quality of life. It is already happening. They are telling us how to live.

      • Darryl Dickens

        True considering all the things we are asked or told to buy into now. Like you stated for one taxes. I’m going to pass what you said along if you don’t mind.

      • gemma liar

        those two writings do not go 2gether,,,,(a) “reasoning” (b) Charles Vincent,,,,,,,, please make a note of that

      • MrRubble

        Bullshit. That is just the childish drivel lemmings claiming the Tea Party as their own are told to believe by Fox and the like.It’s funny that the most intrusive “government in your lives” programs are Republican brain children. Keep trying Charlie. It;’s obvious you live in the House of BeckLimbaugh. The majority of people opposing ACA have no idea what is in the bill, watch Fox and are pack lemmings.

      • Charles Vincent

        Nice Argumentum ad Hominem.

      • I Once Was Andrew

        You’re right that a lot of people are against Obamacare — mostly because of the absolute DELUGE of misinformation that they’ve been fed about it since before the law was even written. I guarantee you that if you ask anti-Obamacare people what the law actually DOES, 90% of them will have NO IDEA except “it makes everything like socialism and is going to bankrupt the government.”

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s a pretty gross generalization you can’t possibly know what that many people do or don’t know about the ACA.

      • I Once Was Andrew

        Yeah, it’s a generalization, but considering the low-information nature of conservative voters (and my anecdotal experience of dealing with them in person and online), it wouldn’t be surprising in the least to see the vast majority of them actually have no idea what the law actually does.

      • Charles Vincent

        This is another generalization you have no idea what they know or any real idea of how informed/uninformed any voter is anything you say to this is pure rhetoric and you know it.

      • I Once Was Andrew

        It’s well known that people who watch Fox News (that is, conservatives) are not as well informed as people who consume other media, and are actually less informed than people who watch no TV news at all.

        Not to say that there isn’t a perfectly huge population of low-information Democratic voters; there certainly is. But what they lack in information, they make up for in sanity.

        Further, studies have shown that conservatives are — as a group — less intelligent (Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact, Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri) and tend to believe very strongly in things that simply aren’t true.

        For instance: Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11; Barack Obama is a Muslim or a Kenyan; evolution doesn’t exist; global warming doesn’t exist; should I go on?

      • Charles Vincent

        So you are deeper into the rabbit hole of generalization.

        See here an article that picks apart the study you mentioned;

        “Low IQ & Liberal Beliefs Linked To Poor Research?”

      • I Once Was Andrew

        That unreadable drivel does a very poor job of supporting your point; it’s just a pile of nitpicking at the study’s methodology that’s largely quite easily dismissable. And you conveniently fail to address the many crazy beliefs held commonly by conservatives. The only “rabbit hole” here is the religious fundamentalism that dominates the Republican Party.

      • Charles Vincent

        Then pick it apart instead of just talking about it. You talk a god gam but then you fall short on the delivery of the facts you tout.

      • Andrew

        You have a great line in there: But what they lack in information, they make up for in sanity. Thank you from the UK. Made my day!

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        You forgot the over % majority of low information voters in Louisiana who believe that Barak Obama failed to act or was responsible for the aftermath fiasco during Katrina….

      • mre2000

        Oh yes you can. Here you go. Polls clearly show that Republicans like the ACA far more than Obamacare. These are all your educated buddies. 🙂

      • Charles Vincent

        What polls?

      • mre2000

        tried to post a link, guess I cant do that. go to nydailynews dot com and add /news/politics/republicans-affordable-care-act-obamacare-article-1.1459061

      • Charles Vincent

        It was also researched at the hoover institute and they both abandon the research.

      • Jerry Taggart

        You seem to be making some fairly sweeping generalizations yourself, sir….

      • Charles Vincent

        Like what? You say I make them yet you provide no examples.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        It is about the same generalization that you use when you say everyone is against it.

      • Charles Vincent

        When did I say that?

      • clr1390

        Republicans did the same thing with Medicare.

      • jchastn

        That is right. The Republican party spent public tax money on a mailer opposing Social Security too. They hated FDR almost as much as they hate BHO.

      • Charles Vincent

        They didn’t hate FDR so much as they disliked his social programs here is why from a historical perspective;

        “Social programs enacted during the Great Depression
        and the buildup and involvement in World War II during the F.D. Roosevelt and Truman presidencies in the 1930s and 1940s caused the largest increase – a sixteenfold increase in the gross public debt from $16 billion in 1930 to $260 billion in 1950.”

      • Jennifer Baugher Recktenwald

        I was independent, but because of Obamacare I am now a proud Republican! I do understand what it is doing and will continue to do. I am highly informed, NOT misinformed. I read a lot of the actual law, did you? Did you just let some media tell you what to think about it? I have been witnessing firsthand how this law is already screwing people over. I am disabled, and have many disabled friends and acquaintances I have made through various specialists, and therapies over the years. This law is hurting the very people it was supposed to help. Furthermore, I am witnessing the massive reduction in hours of all my “normal” friends. Many people are losing tons of hours so companies can avoid paying for insurance. How are these people going to pay their bills let alone insurance or fines? Those rebates, or grants aren’t going to be enough, and won’t come in time to be of any real assistance.

      • Stephen Tighe

        right. they don’t want the government telling them or anyone how to live their lives. which is why they pass laws or call for constitutional amendments against gay marriage, force women to undergo pointless vaginal probes before having an abortion, want to be able to bully gay, lesbian, and other kids “on religious grounds” with impunity, want to force prayer in schools and mythology into science classes, on and on and on. because they just want everyone to be able to live free of interference. what an amazingly dumb and self-congratulating comment.

      • Charles Vincent

        So it’s your assertion that because some do these ridiculous things all republicans are therefore evil bully’s? FYI i choose to not stereotype people perhaps that’s the disconnect for you in my case.

      • mark mccarty

        Then why isn’t marijuana legal nationwide ? To one extent or another every bit of legislation ever passed has something to do woth telling people how to live their lives . Sprurious logic .

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s now legal in Colorado and Washington, and the movement is towards legalization. People are prone to make mistakes and have errors in judgement hence there are laws that are well not good laws.

      • TropicDave173

        For over 80 years? Only other thing to say is to follow the money on this one.

      • Cedric James

        Charles, there are plenty of people who want to live their lives the way they think they should, however the reality is we all live in this country together. If we allow the free for all that was the insurance business to continue to fail at actually providing health insurance,to it ends up costing everyone. Yes it would be nice to navigate your own path without being told what to do, but ultimately that is Darwinian and in that scenario, only the rich benefit and get what they need and the rest of us end up with nothing. Keep in mind that the definition of insurance is simply: the losses of the few covered by the premiums of the many.”

      • Charles Vincent

        “Yes it would be nice to navigate your own path without being told what to do, but ultimately that is Darwinian and in that scenario, only the rich benefit and get what they need and the rest of us end up with nothing.”

        The latter part of this is untrue. You cannot Measure other peoples station by your standards.From their point of view their situation may have vastly improved over what they had previously and trying to have a one size fits all doesn’t work.

      • Yuri Bob

        unless you want to have an abortion, a gay marriage, smoke marijuana, or life without the govt spying on you. But live how you choose besides that. That’s the motto.

      • Charles Vincent

        I dislike Government spying on me like the NSA , patriot act, or the FISA court.

        This is a post I made on this very thread in regards to another posters query of a comment I made enjoy the taste of your own feet.

        “so where do you stand on abortion?”
        Not my choice to make that decision.

        “how about recreational drug use.”
        legalize and regulate like alcohol/tobacco.

        “how about automotive insurance?”
        For commerce yes, for personal travel unconnected with commerce no.

        “how about same sex marriage?”
        To each their own, what they do in their own private life is their business.

        “how about gay and lesbian couples adopting?”
        That’s their
        prerogative more power to them, there are plenty of kids that want and
        need a parent(s). Being gay or straight has absolutely zero effect on
        how good/bad of a parent one will be.

      • Devil_Dinosaur

        This isn’t about dictating to people how to choose to live their life. It’s about saving lives. How do you not understand that?

      • Charles Vincent

        And yet you are dictating to people that its the liberal edict that since they don’t know it’s good for them to buy insurance and can’t make simple decisions that you will get the government to mandate it. Your logic is brilliant…..

      • Martin

        Another brainwashed teabagger…what’s your IQ Sir?

      • Charles Vincent

        Probably higher than yours judging from your post.

      • dave

        so the founding fathers believed that concept held true for their slaves? some how i missed that part of american history. must have been those liberial teachers

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s off topic I was not talking about slaves nor was I talking about women’s Suffrage you’re trying to create a strawman argument.

      • Mark Schmidt

        Just shut the hell up, Charles Vincent. You have nothing to offer…Deport yourself.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        So it is OK with you if insurance companies deny people with preexisting conditions. If they drop you from insurance because you are sick. If they can put a lifetime cap on insurance coverage meaning that some 2 year olds have already used up their lifetime ability to be insured? What IS congress going to put in its place? NOT A DAMN THING. In my opinion, Congress is putting out a message that they cannot act like adults. They have told lie after lie about the ACA & the Koch Brothers have spent billions of dollars to help the Republicans defund something. This is beyond stupid. If you want to live with the possibility that one catastrophic illness would bankrupt you, maybe loose your home & make you homeless, more power to you. America IS NOT #1 in health care & it certainly won’t ever be with guys like YOU around.

      • Charles Vincent

        “So it is OK with you if insurance companies deny people with preexisting conditions.”

        If you had read through my replies more carefully you would see that this is one thing i think the ACA has done right.

        ” If they can put a lifetime cap on insurance coverage meaning that some 2
        year olds have already used up their lifetime ability to be insured?”

        They(our government) didn’t need to spend 1.1 trillion dollars on a new system to accomplish this or covering preexisting conditions.

        “What IS congress going to put in its place?”

        Something that remedies the problems in the existing health care system that is far less costly than reinventing the wheel, both up front and over the long haul.

        ” If you want to live with the possibility that one catastrophic illness would bankrupt you, maybe loose your home & make you homeless, more power to you.”

        This could happen insurance or no insurance and in the case of my cousins wife they had insurance ans still had to file for bankruptcy.

        “America IS NOT #1 in health care & it certainly won’t ever be with guys like YOU around.”
        I never claims we were number one and I don’t like the fact that do gooders like you think you can use government to force your idea of better on other people.

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        If you remember, Congress had 4 years of Pappy Bush; 8 years of Clinton, 8 years of Shrub b4 Obama…in all that time & the time that came before it, did Congress EVER tackle health care? NO. They were perfectly content to let people be bankrupt & for the insurance companies to gouge the American public. What makes you think that Congress (who promised jobs & have yet to pass 1 jobs bill) will do anything about health care? They won’t. They will just repeal it & not do squat. That would be better, how????

        I don’t want to force ANYTHING on anybody. I don’t like the idea that people such as yourself can undermine government & then claim they can’t do the job…You set government up to fail time & time again….Unemployment – well, no jobs bills…Republicans have yet to pass 1 & won’t even bring some of them up for a vote…they voted against every jobs bill that came down the pike – but then they complain that government isn’t working…Benghazi – they investigated the hell out of Benghazi – even making up stuff but failed to factor in the fact that they CUT funding for the embassies. They consistently talk about welfare but forget that there was a recession & that the banks failed & were bailed out but the people weren’t. They are unemployed…so they cut out people who assess things & they cut food stamps & other things & then complain that people are hungry & subsisting on food stamps….
        It is just shit like this that proves that some people want the government to fail – so they work to make sure it does. I may be a bleeding heart liberal but I am certainly NOT a do-gooder…

      • Charles Vincent

        “If you remember, Congress had 4 years of Pappy Bush; 8 years of Clinton,
        8 years of Shrub b4 Obama…in all that time & the time that came
        before it, did Congress EVER tackle health care?”

        Because its not in the governments authority to mandate that people buy health care. try researching the origins of the ACA and i bet you will get hits in the Hoover institution and the Heritage foundation Both conservative think tanks that worked on a health care reform that the democrats based the ACA on.

        “What makes you think that Congress (who promised jobs & have yet to pass 1 jobs bill) will do anything about health care? They won’t. They will just repeal it & not do squat. That would be better, how????”

        They didn’t need to spend 1.1 trillion dollars reinventing the wheel with the ACA all paid for by us and then a nice tax hike on top of that cost paid by us to fund the subsidies that the ACA need to help people who cannot afford insurance.

        ” I don’t like the idea that people such as yourself can undermine government & then claim they can’t do the job…You set government up to fail time & time.”

        Government is a THE poster child for in efficiency and wasteful spending they do not need anyone’s help to fail.

        “They consistently talk about welfare but forget that there was a recession & that the banks failed & were bailed out but the people weren’t.”
        Those bailouts were democrat led endeavors.

      • Matt D

        Really? The party that spends most of it’s time telling women what they can and can’t do with their vaginas?

      • Michael Siever

        You’re absolutely right! In fact, we should just take traffic lights and speed limits out, because that’s just the government trying to tell us how to drive, when we must stop and when we can go. Let’s just learn to drive like erratic assholes to the point where nobody will want to be within 500 feet of each other, and we’ll be okay without these silly things the government has been forcing down our throats for years!

      • Charles Vincent

        1) way to totally exaggerate and assert some thing I never said or implied. I do not need the nanny government to hold my hand and show me how to behave like an adult I had parents that taught me that.
        2) your flare for hyperbole is only matched by your apparent inability to read more that two words of any of the comments I have posted.

      • oldngrumpy1

        What we need is an enforceable waiver that people like you who choose ideology over reality can sign to waive any care above their ability to pay. While this might be fine for you, depending upon your income and savings, it certainly wouldn’t be attractive for most of the TEAhadists screaming about Obamacare taking away their “freedom”. These obese, and often addicted, trailer dwellers will be the first ones at the emergency room as soon as all that Budweiser and pizza catch up with their hearts. With such a waiver they could be wheeled into a quiet room where they can die with their family around them and not screw up the actuaries and costs for those more reasonable about their “rights”.

      • Charles Vincent

        Or how about we just carry insurance for catastrophic illness and pay out of pocket for everything else.

        “TEAhadists screaming about Obamacare taking away their “freedom”. These obese, and often addicted, trailer dwellers will be the first ones at the emergency room as soon as all that Budweiser and pizza catch up with their hearts.”
        Way to expose your stereotypical bigotry and narrow minded myopia.

      • gemma liar

        would that include forced ultra sound on women? lemme know– im not as smart as U are

      • Charles Vincent

        My arguments aren’t about your Intelligence nor are they personal attacks against you or anyone else I disagree with a policy and I am bringing the data I researched that lends to me the opinion I take on the policy.

        “would that include forced ultra sound on women?”
        I do not see where this is coming from. Explain what it is you’re trying to get at.

      • merl1

        So for the 43rd time, they failed.

      • Craig Brunetti

        One house of congress does not have a right to only fund part of their liabilities. What the House just passed is illegal, and has no chance of becoming law.

      • Charles Vincent

        I never said it did I just fund it interesting. And its legality is well irrelevant.

      • truehomeguy

        Ha! Ha! How funny. Did you ever see that episode of the Simpsons in which Lisa was performing a psychological experiment on a mouse that involved attaching an electric wire to the food dish? Bottom line result – the mouse learned after getting shocked a few times. Then she runs the same experiment on her brother Bart, attaching an electric wire to a cake on the kitchen table. Bart, just like the Republicans, just kept on trying to grab the cake the entire show – going “ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!” on and on. He never learned. The definition of insanity is doing something that does not work over and over and over and over and over…hilarious!

      • Collean

        The only failure of the new system will be that of the same politicians and their cronies who “forsee” doom, is the failure for them to rake in insane profits from our medical miseries.

      • Charles Vincent

        Remember that democrats are in there with the rest of the cronies.

      • Aloanstar

        I think you forgot to copy and paste the part where Obama promises to veto….I guess they will be going for appeal #43…

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s contained in the article I believe

      • satin8876

        What a surprise that the House voted this way. Not! They have been touting this for weeks and is just part of their bluff strategy. Do they really believe this move and shutting down the country will improve their single-digit approval rating?

      • Maggie Alcantara

        nope it sure won’t intelligent DEMOCRATIC senators knows what the people really want and the dumb repukes who want to shut down the government knows they are fighting a lost cause as Rand Paul said it himself

      • Charles Vincent

        I am not commenting on that nor have I.

      • qcubed

        So instead of trying to do meaningful work, to get the unemployed productive again, they waste time showboating for their base.

      • Charles Vincent

        or maybe they are representing the wishes of their base….

      • TropicDave173

        Jobs? Infrastructure repair? Somehow, I think not.

      • Charles Vincent

        In case you haven’t notice our government hasn’t been doing a very good job maintaining our infrastructure. And jobs well they haven’t been doing a good job with that either.

      • Margaret Mills

        Pure evil.

      • Charles Vincent

        What exactly is pure evil?

      • kpfoto

        Just a question for you,….what the f*ck do you care?? Really. Seriously. What difference in your life does it matter? None. So just shut up.

      • Charles Vincent

        Why I care is irrelevant. It makes a big difference in every-ones lives when government can so easily trample our rights, with the assistance of people who are oblivious to or are just apathetic to the world around them.

        “So just shut up.”
        No I wont shut up and I wont cow down to the likes of some anonymous internet poster either.

      • ✨OneBlessedChick✨ ✌

        Breaking news????? Not quite…

        Oct 2008: “You’ll never get elected and pass healthcare.”
        Nov 2008: “We’ll never let you pass healthcare.”
        Jan 2009: “We are going to shout you down every time you try to pass healthcare.”
        July 2009: “We will fight to the death every attempt you make to pass healthcare.”
        Dec 2009: “We will destroy you if you even consider passing healthcare.”
        March 2010: “We can’t believe you just passed healthcare.”
        April 2010: “We are going to overturn healthcare.”
        Sept 2010: “We are going to repeal healthcare.”
        Jan 2011: “We are going to destroy healthcare.”
        Feb 2012: “We are going to elect a candidate who will immediately revoke healthcare.”
        June 2012: “We will go to the Supreme Court, and they will overturn healthcare.”
        Aug 2012: “The American people will never re-elect you, because they don’t want healthcare.”
        Oct 2012: “We can’t wait to win the election and explode healthcare.”
        Nov 2012: “We can’t believe you just got re-elected and that we can’t repeal healthcare.”
        Feb 2013: “We’re still going to vote to obliterate healthcare.”
        June 2013: “We can’t believe the Supreme Court just upheld healthcare.”
        July 2013: “We’re going to vote like 35 more times to erase healthcare.”
        Sept 2013: “We are going to leverage a government shutdown into defunding, destroying, obliterating, overturning, repealing, dismantling, erasing and ripping apart healthcare.”
        Oct 2013: “WHY AREN’T YOU NEGOTIATING???”

      • Charles Vincent

        2010 federal budget ~1.4 trillion dollar deficit

        2011 federal budget ~1.3 trillion dollar deficit

        2012 federal budget ~1.01 trillion dollar deficit

        Because you and people like you cant understand how unfunded liabilities tank our already sinking economy and now you’ve managed to add yet another unfunded liability in the form of the ACA GG you should be a CPA ✨OneBlessedChick✨ ✌ you’re awesome at math. 46% of this country voted against Obama and I would bet that same 46% doesn’t want your stupid failure of a health care act either.

      • qcubed

        His preference is “Know nothing”. His party is trying to do something….destroy the economy and, with it, the US.

      • merl1

        I imagine that someone is paying him for his cut and paste jobs, most likely even he doesn’t believe his lies.

      • Finnsmom1

        Charles, you sound like Congress. You really don’t want ACA to work!

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong I don’t think it will work, that’s wholly different than not wanting it to work.

      • steeltown65

        do you want it to work charles? and if you do, why? and if you don’t, why not?

      • Charles Vincent

        I have no lean either for or against it working. The caveat here is that I believe this reform has so many unintended consequences we don’t see that it will end up doing more harm than good. On the face cheaper healthcare sounds great but more often than not when you get to the meat of it, it overall does more harm than good. Asbestos is an example of this it was the miracle material and in the end it caused more harm than good.

      • Arsenal

        Study long, study WRONG

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s your opinion but I provided ample data from several sources that are close in numbers, context and content to each other.

      • Seth Williams

        The only people seeing increases are the rich….

      • Charles Vincent

        This is in my opinion a result of government distortion of free market economy, due to government cronyism and subsidies to corporations in return for campaign finance to re-elect the aforementioned legislators.

      • enkelin

        There is no such thing as a “free market economy” never has been and never will be, It is a ruse to get stupid people to vote against their own interests all the while those in power strip you of what little you have.

      • bob

        So true

      • Charles Vincent

        That is incorrect our country was very close to free market economy through out a good portion of our history bastiat noted in 1850 that the only problem he saw with our country economically were tariffs and the protectionist policies that those tariffs derived from.

      • bob

        Again no such thing as a free market all market have rules out in place by men and run by law

      • Charles Vincent

        Who told you free markets didn’t have rules?

      • Darrell

        The rich are the ones who, since it was first introduced have been running multi-millions of dollars in negative ads against the ACA.

      • Craig Brunetti

        Charles, I don’t know where you’ve been for the past 10 years, but premiums have ALWAYS been increasing.

        it’s not that they increase, it’s by how much. We’re paying 200% more for the same care than what we had in 2000, and without this legislation there’s no vehicle to keep it from getting worse.

        Republicans hate this law because the people that pay them behind closed doors hate it, plain and simple.

      • Charles Vincent

        Or maybe they dislike it because of the 10 years of research done on the ACA’s predecessor at the hoover institute.

      • Darrell

        Jeez, you pulled that one outta your behind!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Are you saying you didn’t know that the Hoover institute had a healthcare reform that the democrats based the ACA on?

      • BenjaminF

        Me thinks thou protests too much !! You’ve managed to place 41 entries into this one discussion/topic: ACA. Are you familiar with the Koch Bros. or Rupert Murdoch ??! Any connection ?

      • Debbie McKeever

        Why is Romneycare working in Mass., but “Obamacare” is bad, bad, bad.

      • theabby

        Because it has the name “Obama” attached to it…

      • JuneBug

        As a business owner for the past 18+ years. Premiums increase about 10-15% on an average of 2 – 3 times a year, some years up to 35% increase. If an individual reaches a new age bracket i.e. “40 – 50 yrs old”. (They tend to have about 5 to 7 age brackets.) The older you get the BIGGER the increase. Then on top of those increases are the annual “updates” where they roll out what is no longer covered. We would get about 3-4 of those “notifications” a year. 15 years ago it cost us less than $600 to insure 2 adults and 3 children. 5 years ago it cost over $1600 a month to insure 2 adults and 1 child with a lot less coverage, bigger co-pay, more money out of pocket, less medications covered, the list goes on.

      • ShelleysLeg

        LOL….HOW is it an ‘increase’ when it doesn’t implement until next YEAR? Sounds like the cows rushing the gate at the last minute to me, NOT some actual figure.

      • Charles Vincent

        Ask the states that are reporting the increase/decrease.

      • steeltown65

        the increases could just as easily be explained by saying the insurance companies are grabbing all they can before the lid shuts on that cookie jar. it’s the red states that are seeing the increases the most. right? that would make sense. increase the rates there. get the right wingers and tea baggers are worked up. get congress to spout out all these numbers. and what have you got? a whole bunch of people being played like a drunk at a roadside carnival yelling ” them damn liberal, i’ll show them how to get this ring around that bottle, them liberals are ripping us off”.

      • Charles Vincent

        No it’s blue states that are seeing the largest increases at least according to the Forbes article. Please read the full article it’s posted here as well as an article from reuters that projects a larger over all increase than the Forbes article.

      • MorrowSorrow

        There you go again, citing a partisan study quoted at Forbes, and a misinterpreted SOA study quoted by Reuters. When you have something credible to cite, I’ll get back to you.

      • Charles Vincent

        Updated February 12, 2013

        Since its passage in March 2010, many parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have already taken effect. However, 2013 is a significant year for ACA implementation because of health insurance coverage expansions through Medicaid (in participating states) and the insurance exchanges take effect on January 1, 2014. In addition to those provisions, health plans, providers, employers, and consumers all face a variety of provisions that begin in 2013.

        The timeline below details provisions and deadlines scheduled during the 2013 calendar year. Not all dates are set by law and some are subject to change pending the regulatory process.

      • BenjaminF

        @Charles Vincent — Are you a still quoting Forbes ??

      • Charles Vincent

        What about this article?

        This article uses nonpartisan groups and they in some cases project a higher average increase than the Forbes article I fail to see your assertion as being fact;

        Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Implementation May Cause Some Health Care
        Costs To Rise

        * Sebelius says expects some shifting in the insurance markets
        * Independent study sees 32 percent average rise in premium costs
        * Key changes from Obama’s signature healthcare law coming next year

        By Jeff Mason and David Morgan

        WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s top healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to take effect next year.

        U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.

        “Everything is speculation. I think there’s likely to be some shifting in the markets,” she told reporters at the White House.

        The law, also known as “Obamacare,” eliminates discriminatory market practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with medical conditions.

        It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.

        “Women are going to see some lower costs, some men are going to see some higher costs. It’s sort of a one to one shift … some of the older customers may see a slight decline, and some of the younger ones are going to see a slight increase.”

        Insurance premiums could rise for some with individual plans, she said, as Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enhances the level of coverage and either eliminates or reduces the rate of price discrimination against people who are older, female or have preexisting medical conditions.

        “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” Sebelius said.

        But those who qualify for federal subsidies through state healthcare exchanges would still get a better deal, she said.

        Her remarks coincide with growing uneasiness about possible cost increases among lawmakers and executives in the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare industry.

        A new study released on Tuesday by the nonpartisan Society of Actuaries estimates that individual premiums will rise 32 percent on average nationwide within three years, partly as a result of higher risk pools. Changes would vary by state, from an 80 percent hike in Wisconsin to a 14 percent reduction in New York.

        Obama’s healthcare restructuring, the signature domestic policy achievement of his first term, is expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million people beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, both through the state exchanges and a planned expansion of the government-run Medicaid program for the poor.

        Subsidies in the form of premium tax credits, available on a sliding scale according to income, are expected to mitigate higher costs for many newbeneficiaries.

        But the insurance industry, which is set to gain millions of new customers under the law, is warning of soaring premium costs next year because of new regulations that include the need to offer a broader scale of health benefits than some insurers do now.

        That has raised concerns about people with individual policies not subject to subsidies and the potential for cost spillovers into the market for employer-sponsored plans, which according to U.S. Census data, cover about half of U.S. workers.

        ‘LITTLE IMPACT’

        Sebelius dismissed the idea of significant change for employer plans, saying that market segment was “likely to see very little impact.”

        Separately, a Democratic U.S. senator on Tuesday said the federal government has limited scope to help millions of people likely to remain without affordable health insurance under the new law.

        Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, released a report submitted to the panel by the administration that outlines an “employee choice” policy that would allow some employers to offer a wider range of coverage choices to their workers at reduced rates for 2014.

        But Wyden said the approach would not help many of the nearly 4 million worker dependents who may have to forego subsidized private health coverage as a result of an IRS ruling.

        “Even in the states that allow for employee choice, it will be limited to a small number of workers,” Wyden said.

        The law would have most people with employer insurance remain under their current plans. Workers can opt for subsidized coverage if their employer plan is unaffordable, but only according to a narrow definition of what is affordable.

        The IRS ruled in January that the cost of insuring a worker’s family will be considered unaffordable if the employee’s contribution to an individual coverage plan exceeded 9.5 percent of that person’s income. That rule ignores the fact that family coverage is far more expensive than individual coverage.

        As a result, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 3.9 million family dependents could be left unable either to afford employer-sponsored family coverage or to obtain federally subsidized insurancethrough an exchange.

        In its report to the Senate committee, Sebelius’ department said some employerscould claim a tax credit in 2014 to make coverage more affordable and offer workers a range of coverage plans through state-based exchanges. (Writing by David Morgan; Editing by Fred Barbash and Paul Simao)

      • Linda Turner

        You’re talking about people who have no insurance. Exactly what are you comparing their “exchange” rates to? To the insurance they might have once had through their employer at the job they no longer have? Group rates are always less expensive.

      • donethridge

        The credible source for this information is?

      • Charles Vincent

        For which information? Marijuana legalization?

      • jchastn

        As more people get into the exchanges, rates will go down.

      • Charles Vincent

        Q: What’s predicted to drive up costs?

        A: Many of those seeking coverage in online marketplaces — known as
        exchanges — are expected to be older and sicker. They’ll have more
        incentive to buy policies, and they’ll tend to increase claims paid by
        insurers.

        On the other hand, “young and healthy people are less likely to be
        interested in insurance, because they’re less likely to find value,”
        said Kristi Bohn, a consultant for the Society of Actuaries who worked
        on the report.

        The penalty for not having insurance is likely to be far less than
        the cost of coverage. The fewer young or healthy people who sign up, the
        higher the costs per plan member.

      • jchastn

        The penalty is set to start small, but steadily increase over 5 years until it is a large bite. Read the bill.

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s not five years it’s three, and it will continue to increase thereafter;
        What’s in the law
        The law’s individual mandate requires most adults in the U.S. to carry insurance coverage or pay a tax penalty. The tax is either a specific amount or a percentage of income, whichever is greater, and it’s phased in over time. Here is how the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation summarizes it:
        “Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5 percent of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1 percent of taxable income in 2014, 2 percent of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5 percent of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment.”
        At most middle-income levels, the percentage of income is greater than the flat fee. Here are a few examples of what the tax would cost:
        An individual with $30,000 annual income would pay a $300 penalty in 2014, $600 in 2015 and $750 in 2016.
        An individual with $50,000 annual income would pay a $500 penalty in 2014, $1,000 in 2015 and $1,250 in 2016.
        An individual earning $100,000 a year would pay a $1,000 penalty in 2014, $2,000 in 2015 and $2,500 in 2016.
        Married couples would pay double those amounts since the penalties are assessed per person. Families will eventually pay up to $2,085, or 2.5 percent of household income, by 2016. After 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment.

      • JNWesner

        Source, please Charles? So many of these statistics come from already discredited postings paid for by anonymous right-wing groups.

      • Charles Vincent

        http://www DOT forbes DOT com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/04/interactive-map-in-13-states-plus-d-c-individual-health-premiums-will-increase-by-an-average-of-24/

        And

        http://www DOT huffingtonpost DOT com/2013/03/26/kathleen-sebelius-obamacare_n_2959227 DOT html

        and the companion FAQ from Kaiser that got with this article.

        http://www DOT kaiserhealthnews DOT org/stories/2013/march/28/actuary-insurance-claim-cost-study DOT aspx

      • Mark Schmidt

        Charles, you are lying. We went through bankruptcy for nearly 1/4 million dollars of just medical bills, because my wife had a chronic illness that DEMANDED frequent care and hospitalization and our private paid insurance would not cover it. I had bypass surgery 10 years ago, and only 1 private insurance company in the US would cover anyone with open chest surgery at that time…Blue Cross…I paid them $800 per month for lousy coverage…just for me, my wife had a separate private policy AND medicare. The ACA WILL save many lives – it already is and the reason some costs have increased is that the GOP governors refuse to participate. The right in this country is trash, every damn one of them.

      • Charles Vincent

        Sorry to hear that. How am I lying? And how does your situation refute what I was saying? My cousin and his wife had to file bankruptcy on her med bills and even though they did they aren’t blaming the insurers or politician and they are now after about 10 years doing very well financially and they dislike the ACA.

      • Tim Anderson

        Of COURSE 69 percent are seeing an increase, because 40 percent of Americans have NO insurance and they’re going to be forced to buy some or get taxed…so any increase is going to be a positive number. The real question is what are the prices going to be for those with no insurance now? The working poor can’t afford to lose 2.5 or 6.5 percent of their income now so unless the govt. is going to subsidize this to a greater extent it is going to take a money out of some very poor people’s pockets and that is wrong. However, I am glad I’ll be able to afford some insurance because mine got too expensive in 2006 and I quit it. I’m worried every day that I’ll be hit with some catastrophic medical bill. Forcing people to buy insurance may be wrong, but the whole point of this is to stop the “freeloaders” from milking Medicaid into bankruptcy. If this works it will be genius, if it doesn’t and people refuse to sign up, medical bankruptcies will eventually leave the poor with no financial savings at all.

      • Charles Vincent

        Current estimates are that 30-44 million are currently uninsured that’s between 9 and 14 percent not 40.

        “Forcing people to buy insurance may be wrong, but the whole point of this is to stop the “freeloaders” from milking Medicaid into bankruptcy.If this works it will be genius, if it doesn’t and people refuse to sign up, medical bankruptcies will eventually leave the poor with no financial savings at all.”

        It is wrong to force people to purchase insurance especial when that insurance is mandated to carry certain things that they feel morally/ethically opposed to. Poor people already have no financial savings and are living paycheck to paycheck.

        “The working poor can’t afford to lose 2.5 or 6.5 percent of their income now so unless the govt. is going to subsidize this to a greater extent it is going to take a money out of some very poor people’s pockets and that is wrong.”
        This is true that its wrong but it is also wrong to take it from someone other persons pocket as well even if they can afford it. Two wrongs do not make a right.

      • highwaterjane60

        Well then I’m going to be in the minority, too! I’m paying $275/month and I have a $6000 annual deductible- making this essentially a catastrophic illness plan. In January, I’ll go onto my state’s “gold” program for less money (think about $100/month and much, much better coverage.

      • Charles Vincent

        First time anyone was ever happy to be a minority.

      • Darryl Dickens

        According to the GOP backed Forbes magazine or the ones that wrote that. What state are you in while were at it. And tell us the truth

      • Charles Vincent

        That answer is on this very thread read through and find it. It’s like an Easter egg hunt it will be fun and while your searching find the other article I used from Reuters.

      • merl1

        maybe in your world, but not in reality.

      • Charles Vincent

        What are you even talking about?

      • brian

        such a fallacy….. so with no Obamacare there would be no rise in healthcare costs? Healthcare costs were sky rocketing before Obamacare and that fact that in the first year he has slowed the increases and actually gotten 30% of the populations healthcare cost savings is amazing…. if you care about people and not politics

      • Charles Vincent

        “so with no Obamacare there would be no rise in healthcare costs?”

        I never said this nor did I imply it.

        “he has slowed the increases and actually gotten 30% of the populations healthcare cost savings is amazing….”
        What about the other 70% did they see an increase? If so I would call that a failure.

      • Heffs

        That’s probably because they are having to purchase health care now……….when they didn’t have any before. Those are the people who drive health care up, at charity hospitals, who have to write off the cost of service and pass it to the paying customers.

      • maxiemom

        They were increasing every year regardless.

        The ACA has limited the amount of the increases and brought them down, as well as causing decreases for many.

      • Charles Vincent

        Keep telling yourself that I have a 2500 page “reform” law and 20,000 pages (the first installment) of new regulations that says different. All we have “done” is trade one crappy healthcare system for another that will cost us 1.1 trillion up front and tax hike long term. Great plan Chief.

      • maxiemom

        Right. That’s why my doctors not only voted for the President, but are grateful for the ACA.

        Dream on, chief, and keep on spreading your bs. Too bad the Know Nothing Party no longer exists for people like you.

      • Charles Vincent

        I am not part of the Republican party and never have been and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the ACA is a poorly drafted law that will end up screwing us all hell even the Unions that were for it are now like holy hell this is a bad idea, as for you and your doctors I guess ignorance is bliss good luck with your dream law.

      • Not true.

      • Charles Vincent

        What isn’t true?

      • shsc82

        How did you already sign up? Also under the exchanges the credits are supposed to apply right then, no need to wait until April.

      • maryinbama

        Will not start before Oct. 1.

      • Treefrog

        Mine went down too, so did what I pay for prescriptions. On prescriptions alone I am saving $50.00 a month.

      • maryinbama

        I forgot about my prescriptions. My husband is on a medication that used to cost $50 per month. Now it is $10 per month. Just that medicine saves us nearly $500 per year.

      • Darryl Dickens

        Tell them again please….And the state your in

      • Carbonman1950

        I tried to confirm your source and the “States Rates” tab to which you refer, but Forbes’ articles are not available to us riff-raff so I cannot.

        But nowhere in your quotations does Forbes state the size of the increase, if indeed there is any. Ten cents a year would be an “increase” making your assertion technically truthful. But I am skeptical. Forbes is a far right publication and the unabashed mouthpiece of the richest 0.1% of our nation’s population and its estimates always seem to err in the same direction… in the direction that supports its right-whinge conclusions and justifies its audience’s fears.

        I always read it with the same level of skepticism that I used years ago when my assignment was to summarize an article in Pravda.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not sure if you found the article or not. here is thew articles in Forbes.
        Articles title
        Interactive Map: In 13 States Plus D.C., Obamacare Will Increase Health Premiums By 24%, On Average

        www DOT forbes DOT com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/04/interactive-map-in-13-states-plus-d-c-individual-health-premiums-will-increase-by-an-average-of-24/

        “not available to us riff-raff so I cannot.”

        I neither directly stated any such thing nor did I imply this. My posts are not and never have been personal attacks on anyone they are attacks on an argument nothing more nothing less. I try to vette the data I post if I see many articles across various media sources with similar numbers I considers the numbers to be more or less factual, have I been wrong most definitely. Am I wrong about the ACA possibly but I think the odds are that I am correct.

      • midroad

        Didn’t you say something about “you Liberals” choking on the premiums? Sounds a little like an attack on something more than just the argument.

      • Peggy Sue

        Believe me, Charlie is a tea party’s dream! Many of us have seen his rants on here time and time again! Don’t take him too seriously, he loves to incite us libs!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Nice assumption there. I am a registered independent.and calling the presentation of facts a rant is another tactic of the left to discredit/marginalize anyone that doesn’t share their ideology.

      • William Carr

        The problem here, is that you didn’t present FACTS.

        Right Wingers don’t understand facts. They don’t LIKE them.

        They do, however, like OPINIONS.

        You were quoting an OPINION based on skewed estimates.

        Don’t call that a FACT.

        Oh, and funny line about being a “Registered Independent”. You stole that from Hannity, right?

      • Charles Vincent

        You ASSuMe to much I don’t watch TV or news shows in general they are tedious and boring.I am a registered independent and was before Mr. Hannity was on TV. see how assumptions make you eat your own feet.

      • Finnsmom1

        you can be a registered independent and still be the Tea Party’s dream. ignorance is ignorance.

      • Charles Vincent

        I think both the tea party and republicans would dislike me for my views on legalization of illicit drugs and staying out of the bedroom of people in general and staying out of marriage. IMHO the people on the left and right have no solutions because they don’t understand the concept of compromise which is what happens when you meet in the middle which is where most healthy non destructive progress happens.

      • Justin Tierney

        The people who own our econonmy the bankers, businessmen and such are the only people that are gaining anything real in this economy and they are doing it under the pretense of being worried about jobs and the economy. If they were worried about that, they wouldn’t send all of the manufacturing jobs to nations that are less well to do than our own and rape them by giving out “loans” to which they can never pay back, and trading their natural resources for more “help”. More “help” puts them farther in debt and increases the profits that the corporations get while keeping the workers as low as ever. This is a perpetual cycle that can only lead to the collapse of society as we know it. Anyone who thinks they are republican because its helpful to society is bullshitting themselves as much as you are Charlie.
        Compromise? that’s not even an option…

      • Charles Vincent

        I never claimed it was an option I was commenting on and empirical observation. You forgot the congressmen.
        Our market economy now is based on corporate/government cronyism. I have no delusions that I can help the economy through government intervention in fact I would much rather they stay out of the market economy. Will that ever happen? Not until after the economy blows up.

      • rasslor56

        You don’t have any facts–you have estimates based on zero information. And you don’t speak for anyone but yourself. As for us “liberals” you’ve clearly forgotten the many things Liberals have done that you benefit from, so until you can find a balanced set of facts, you need to just stop trolling.

      • Charles Vincent

        Really what have you liberals done, I see no source data referenced in your post.

        “you have estimates based on zero information.”
        If you had bothered to read the whole article you would have seen all the data they used including the states that filed the paperwork now required by the ACA.

        I don’t need to do anything, You’re the troll here.

      • rasslor56

        That’s my point. You don’t need to do ANYTHING. But you insist on lumping people together as an insult. You opened yourself, sad and sorry as it is, to attack. You may say you’re independent, but your so-called facts are right-winger estimation which you’re supporting. If you don’t believe in either party, that’s fine. But when something is working even before its full strength opens, one has to wonder why you have such a negative opinion similar to TeaParty crybabies. You, at least have some command of grammar–but you’re a name-caller and therefore “troll” is the least of the titles you’ve earned here.

      • Charles Vincent

        I didn’t lump liberals together you did here is the quote;

        “As for us “liberals” you’ve clearly forgotten the many things Liberals have done that you benefit from,”
        I asked the question what have liberals done? But instead of you providing any instances to answer my query you again resorted to standard tactics of name calling and a poor attempt at obfuscation via the you’re a troll and that’s the best title comment.

        Its your choice to ignore the research in the Forbes article but that still doesn’t make the data in their article false or right wing or anything else.

      • rasslor56

        It’s you right to ignore the good that the act has done, as well. but it doesn’t make you correct. And as for ignoring the article, there’s also this old rule that says ‘consider the source’ or ‘take it with a grain of salt.” But when I see testimonials from people that AHCA has already helped, your complaints aren’t really worth anything but dismissal. As I am now dismissing this joke-of-a-conversation because I have people to take care of. You have a nice life, and I hope your insurance company doesn’t have a hissy fit if you get something serious.

      • Charles Vincent

        Classic rebuttal your wrong I am right your stupid. You’re giving people from your political ideology a bad name when you resort to posting this type of rhetoric, this shoe also fits those on the right that use this sort of rhetoric as well.

      • Darrell

        You do know who owns and controls Forbes? Right?

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        You totally blew off the where you can clearly thank liberals, in enkelin’s post to fight with someone else. You are trolling to fight w/o facts. He left out few more that you can thank a liberal for, and I am sure I will too. Thank a liberal for your lunch breaks, and breaks in between. Thank a liberal for Social Security. Thank a liberal for FMLA. Thank a liberal for maternity leave…

      • Charles Vincent

        No I haven’t I am not at home and posting on my iPad is a chore I will address them when I get home. Patience young padawan

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        Yeah right, I will be waiting with much patience. Just won’t be expecting much.

      • Charles Vincent

        Relax I have a lot of replies to my posts I’ll get to it. Well if you’re not expecting much you may be pleasantly surprised.

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        ROFLMAO!

      • Linda Pacheco

        here ya go, CHUCKLES>>>>>>THE GOOD THINGS LIBERALISM HAS BROUGHT OUR COUNTRY- –
        INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM-era: 1950’s-present
        Proposed by Roosevelt and erected by Eisenhower (a Republican), the
        Interstate system was a big government project. As much as anything else in the post WWII era, the Interstate is responsible for tremendous economic growth, prosperity, and has spawned an entire culture.

        GI BILL-era: 1950’s
        This act of Congress enabled millions upon millions of Americans to get
        college educations, something that most Americans had never had the
        opportunity to do previously. An entire generation of leaders, scientists,
        and business people owe their education to the GI Bill.

        LABOR LAWS-era: 1930’s-present
        An end to child labor, 40 hour work weeks, the right of employees to
        collectively bargain, overtime pay, workplace safety, all of the things we
        take for granted today are thanks to liberal laws passed in the first half
        of this century. It was the conservatives who fought tooth and nail against the end of sweatshops and exploitation.

        MARSHALL PLAN-era: late 1940’s-1950’s
        Foreign aid is a popular scapegoat these days. Those who would cut it should look back at the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt Europe, and is the major reason that Communism never made it past East Berlin.

        ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS-era: 1970’s-present
        The environment has gotten much better in the last 30 years thanks to
        liberals. Bald Eagles fly once again thanks to endangered species laws, most rivers and lakes are clean again due to anti-pollution laws, and frequent smog days are a thing of the past in most big American cities.

        FOOD SAFETY LAWS-era: 1910’s-present
        Today cases of food poisoning are rare, and consumers know that whatever they buy is safe to eat.

        WORKPLACE SAFETY LAWS-era: 1930’s-present
        Long hours in unsafe conditions are much rarer today than in the past.
        Tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist fire and child labor have been
        eliminated by liberal and progressive legislation.

        SOCIAL SECURITY-era: 1930’s-1970’s
        This program has provided three generations of Americans retirement
        benefits, and nearly eliminated poverty among the elderly. The program is
        weakening now, but for 50 years it did its job to a T.

        MEDICARE-Passed in 1965 despite the cries of socialism from Reagan and other conservatives, gave economic security and health care to people over age 65.

        ECONOMIC GROWTH-era: 1950’s-1960’s, 90’s
        Liberalism and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand. Unlike the pseudo-boom
        of the 1980’s and tinkle down economics, the 50’s,60’s, 90’s were a period of sustained and real growth for all sectors of the economy and all social classes. Taxes were fair, government worked, and America prospered.

        SPACE PROGRAM-era: 1950’s-present
        It was Kennedy who challenged us to make it to the moon, and it is under his and Johnson’s administrations that the space program took off, with numerous benefits to American industry and peoples’ standard of living, not to mention national pride. If you are reading this on a computer, thank the space program and the liberals who got it going.

        PEACE CORPS-era: 1960’s-present
        Kennedy inspired thousands of Americans to ask what they could do for their country, and the Peace Corps is his most visible and effective

        CIVIL RIGHTS-era: 1950’s-present
        Liberal ideals drove the biggest change in American society since the Civil War, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. All Americans who believe in freedom and opportunity cannot help but be inspired by the valiant struggles of MLK and others. Also recall if you will that the major opponents of civil rights were conservatives.

        THE TENNESSEE VALLEY PROJECT-era: 1930’s
        The Depression-era government program bought electricity to thousands of
        impoverished families in Appalachia, prevented floods, and created thousands of new jobs.

        WOMEN’S RIGHT TO VOTE-era: 1920’s-present
        Before 1920, half of America’s population could not exercise the essential
        duty of citizenship.

        UNIVERSAL PUBLIC EDUCATION-era: 1890’s-present
        The reason America is/was so strong economically is because we have a
        well-educated citizenry. Public schooling is the true melting pot of
        America, where every student, regardless of economic background can be
        taught the basics of citizenship. It is no coincidence that in the last 20
        years, as conservatives have greatly weakened the public school system, that American students have scored lower on tests and our civic society has started to unravel. (this might be attributed to talk radio, Fox news, and media in general dumbing down our society as well)

        NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE-era: 1930’s-present
        This is one of those things you never think about, but you are glad its
        there. Far from just forecasting the weather, the NWS also provides vital
        data to pilots and sailors, and the NWS satellites and observation posts
        provide the raw data that all other weather forecasting services (private
        ones too!) depend on.

        PRODUCT LABELING/TRUTH IN ADVERTISING LAWS-era: 1910’s-present
        “We take it for granted that if a claim is made publicly for a product, it’s reasonable to assume it’s true. Plus, every time we check the ingredients on a can or package of food, we should mentally call down blessings on the liberals who passed the necessary legislation over the anguished howls of the conservatives, who were convinced such info would be prohibitively expensive, and too big a burden on business.”

        PUBLIC HEALTH-era: 1910’s-present
        Government funded water and sewage systems are an important part of
        modernity. In addition, organizations such as the National Institute of
        Health and the Center for Disease Control play an important part in
        maintaining the national health and preventing epidemics through research,
        vaccination programs, etc. ….why not now add the PUBLIC OPTION!!!

        MORRILL LAND GRANT ACT-era: late 1800’s
        This act is the reason why nearly every state in the Union has a large
        public university. These centers of learning have educated untold millions
        of Americans. If you went to a school with a state name in it, then you were helped by liberalism.

        RURAL ELECTRIFICATION-era: 1930’s-1960’s
        This allowed remote, rural areas of the country the basic convinience of
        electricity. I am sure that those of us using computers on the internet,
        sitting in our air conditioned homes, under our electric lights consider
        electricity a basic necessity – one that the pure market would never have
        found profitable to provide to isolated farming communities.

        PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES-era: 1890’s-present day
        Put a college education within the reach of nearly every American. In
        addition to education, many of these institutions have played key roles in
        all kinds of scientific research and been a strong influence on our entire
        society.

        BANK DEPOSIT INSURANCE-era: 1930’s-present day
        About 1934, as part of extensive New Deal banking legislation, Congress
        created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to provide federal insurance for bank deposits.Ê This was instrumental in restoring confidence in our nation’s banks, and remains so to this day.

        EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT-era: 1970’s-present day
        Reduces the tax burden for working families who make under $28,500.00 You
        have to earn income to get it. It is not a handout. It’s a great incentive
        for families to stay off welfare. But Republicans had to find a way to pay for their capital-gains tax cut, and EITC was their ticket to success. So, the Republicans voted to cut this program by $29 billion over a certain time frame. Well guess what? They just raised the taxes on lower income working families.

        FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT-era: 1993-present day
        This is a program which mandates that you have the right to job leave to
        take care of sick family members, or to have a child. Many conservatives
        were opposed to this valuable piece of legislation. Perhaps they were
        opposed to family values?

        CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION-era: 1972-present day
        These guys regulate consumer products for safety. Everything from sharp (and edible) baby toys to flammable pajamas have been taken off the market due to the work of this commission.

        PUBLIC BROADCASTING-era: 1930’s-present day
        Millions of our children have learned from shows like Sesame Street, 3-2-1
        Contact, and Mister Rogers (and so many more). Millions of adults continue
        to learn from shows like Nova. Also, the best broadcast journalism is by far National Public Radio. PBS and NPR have served to enrich our national
        culture.

        AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT-era: 1990-present day
        Civil rights for disabled citizens. It is fair, just, and it is the law of
        the land. Credit where credit is due, former Senator Bob Dole helped push
        this through, a rare nod in favor of liberalism from Mr. Dole.

      • Charles Vincent

        OK your List is extensive and deserves time to research your claims On the surface its copy pasted from a heavily liberal site.(I have been dinged for using source data that’s not nonpartisan)
        The one that sticks out as possibly not true immediately is the 40 hour work week from ~1934. This was pioneered by Henry ford In 1924 I believe and he also paid 5 dollars a day(double the going rate) which weakens your minimum wage argument. I will research the rest and comeback to them later.

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        Henry Ford did start paying his employees more than the average because he wanted his employees to be able to afford the product they were putting out. Your only debate over that will be… Would others had followed his trend or would they not without the union? Most lean to not following his example as there were laws put in place for other manufactures because they would not pay better, continued child labor, unsafe working conditions along with many others that was brought to us by unions.

      • Charles Vincent

        The five-dollar workday

        Time Magazine, January 14, 1935.

        Ford was a pioneer of “welfare capitalism”, designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.[20]

        Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($110 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers.[21] A Cleveland, Ohio newspaper editorialized that the announcement “shot like a blinding rocket through the dark clouds of the present industrial depression.”[22] The move proved extremely profitable; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.[23][24]
        Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914, raising the minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts.Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[25] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week.[26] (Apparently the program started with Saturday being a workday and sometime later it was changed to a day off.)

        Detroit was already a high-wage city, but competitors were forced to raise wages or lose their best workers.[27] Ford’s policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy. Ford explained the policy as profit-sharing rather than wages.[28] It may have been Couzens who convinced Ford to adopt the $5 day.[29]

        The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives in a manner of which Ford’s “Social Department” approved. They frowned on heavy drinking, gambling, and (what today are called) deadbeat dads.The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to qualify for this “profit-sharing.”

        Ford’s incursion into his employees’ private lives was highly controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects. By the time he wrote his 1922 memoir, he spoke of the Social Department and of the private conditions for profit-sharing in the past tense, and admitted that “paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that consists in prying into employees’ private concerns is out of date. Men need counsel and men need help, often special help; and all this ought to be rendered for decency’s sake. But the broad workable plan of investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside. Without changing the principle we have changed the method of payment.”[30]

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        Now you have to actually read it!

      • Charles Vincent

        I did here the part that I was posing to you;

        “The profit-sharing was offered to employees who had worked at the
        company for six months or more, and, importantly, conducted their lives
        in a manner of which Ford’s “Social Department” approved. They frowned
        on heavy drinking, gambling, and (what today are called) deadbeat
        dads.The Social Department used 50 investigators, plus support staff, to
        maintain employee standards; a large percentage of workers were able to
        qualify for this “profit-sharing.”

        Ford’s incursion into his employees’ private lives was highly
        controversial, and he soon backed off from the most intrusive aspects.
        By the time he wrote his 1922 memoir, he spoke of the Social Department
        and of the private conditions for profit-sharing in the past tense, and
        admitted that “paternalism has no place in industry. Welfare work that
        consists in prying into employees’ private concerns is out of date. Men
        need counsel and men need help, often special help; and all this ought
        to be rendered for decency’s sake. But the broad workable plan of
        investment and participation will do more to solidify industry and
        strengthen organization than will any social work on the outside.
        Without changing the principle we have changed the method of
        payment.”[30]”

      • Charles Vincent

        Ford also hated unions FYI.

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        Well no sh$$! I never said he wanted better working conditions, just a better wage so his own could afford his product, hence… The UNIONS!

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        So you had time to cut and paste this, what about all of the other goodies that the unions have brought the American citizen? Hey while you are at it, thank a union worker for your job that you have today!

      • Charles Vincent

        I am not in a union and unions have done harm to workers as well try researching the origin of the Bacon Davis act it was nothing more than protectionist policy for northern unions to squash out lower bidding competition from the south.

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        You know, I have just got to say it. You are playing silly games and have not one real argument for the two idiots above! Your boy Cruz couldn’t even get a good hour of the “fake filibuster” before he handed it over to someone else. Please your words, ” calling the presentation of facts a rant is another tactic of the left to discredit/marginalize anyone that doesn’t share their ideology.” Their own are discrediting and marginalizing his stupid rant today! You can keep beating a dead horse. By now even you have to know their efforts are for nothing. Fat chance they even get invited to the neighbors kid birthday party now!

      • Charles Vincent

        Where did I mention anything about Ted Cruz?
        The Davis bacon act was a protectionist policy. here is the relevant portion of its history;

        Prior to the passage of the federal Davis–Bacon Act (abbreviated DBA), other jurisdictions in the United States had passed laws that required that contractors on public works projects pay the wage that prevailed locally. “In 1891, Kansas adopted a law requiring that ‘not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed shall be paid to laborers, workmen, mechanics, and other persons so employed by or on behalf of the state of Kansas’ or of other local jurisdictions. Through the next several decades, other states followed suit, enacting a variety of labor-protective statutes covering workers in contract production.” [3][4]
        In 1927, a contractor employed African-American workers from Alabama to build a Veterans’ Bureau hospital in the district of Congressman Bacon.[5]
        Prompted by concerns about the conditions of workers, displacement of local workers by migrant workers, and competitive pressure toward lower
        wages,[6] Bacon introduced the first version of his bill in 1927.
        Over the next few years, Bacon attempted to introduce variations on the prevailing wage bill 13 times.[7][8] Finally, in the midst of the Great Depression, with local workers complaining about cheap labor taking their jobs and Congressmen frustrated that their efforts to bring “pork barrel” projects home to their districts did not result in jobs (and therefore political support) from their constituents,[5] the Hoover Administration requested that Congress reconsider the Act once more as a means of preventing falling wages.[9] Sponsored in the Senate by former Labor Secretary Davis, it passed by voice vote and was signed into law on 3 March 1931.[3]

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        You can cut and paste….We all know this. The Bacon Act is only for construction and infrastructure. That does not cover all the unions we have in the US. It’s becoming hard not to call you names. I know it’s hard for your little mind to cram all of this into it, BUT THE ARTICLE WAS ABOUT CRUZ AND RAND and you felt sorry for them in your 1st post crying how the left had treated them so unfairly. They weren’t mentioned by name, but we all, well maybe not you, know who the writer is when he says “they”. You have carried on and on here and I have comeback to your first point. Because you have not cut and pasted anything I didn’t already know. But here spend some time and read my cut and paste. This will make about as much sense to you as you do to me.

        Are you frustrated, because you are surrounded by foolish people? Do you feel you will never be able to rid yourself of their company because they are everywhere? Do you feel they are a bad influence in your life? Do you wish they would stop coming around you, and so you can get some work done? Do you find that they interfere with your creativity and block you from living the life you want to live? Do they hold positions of authority and power and you don’t know how they got to that position because they are so mean? Do you get tired of having to explain yourself to a fool? Do you ever feel they tire you out emotionally, and bring bad energy into your life? Do a moral inventory as to why you picked to be around them in the first place. Do a moral inventory as to why you picked to be around them in the first place.
        Stop, to the best of your power, these foolish behaviors that the foolish people around you do and then you won’t have anything in common with them anymore and it will be easy as pie to disassociate with them, thereafter because you will then have nothing in common with them. Think about what attributes and characteristics make up a wise person by reading the bible and other good books. And make a list of these attributes and start practicing them.
        Set yourself up to live and work with wise people. That have good morals, and beliefs, surround yourself with sincere Christians. That are trying their hardest to live by the Word of God. If you fail and make a foolish decision again in the future…learn from it and don’t do it again. Don’t try to explain yourself to a person that is speaking and ranting foolishness and is hard-hearted and doesn’t want to hear the truth you’ll only waste your time, and you might end up angry and upset after the conversation. Some fools are mean and hide it with words, your common sense is your guide don’t let then incite you to wrath, because you might fall into sin and hit them or holler at them and curse them out and that is a sin. Stay quiet around fools because they tell your business to everyone. And you don’t want everyone to know your business. Follow your gut instinct about people. Fools will many times try to lie and confuse you and use you, never shy away from a fool that tries to ask you for too many things and favors aggressively look them right in the face and say no, I can’t do that. If you have to explain yourself firmly and then politely leave their presence or ask them to please get out of your home or wherever you are at the time.
        You are the fool I want away from!!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        Ok I haven’t ever mentioned Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. Yes I copy paste because they don’t allow links and it prevents misquoting and exaggeration on my part. You’re reading into what ever I posted, my posts are about the efficacy of the ACA not Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        It’s not only your cut and paste. It’s that you made such statements like ” unions have done harm to workers as well” and then siting some stupid Act. What harm have the unions done? IN YOUR OWN WORDS! Read what you want, give your own spin, let’s see if you even understand what you are reading? Really I don’t care what you think. If you would rather be getting paid $3.00 an hour and treated like your only worth that $3.00, then go ahead. Keep the rest of us out. Do you really think you are getting even the $7.25 min. wage because the corps. boards think you are worth it, you need to think again, It is straight from the unions setting a standard that losers wouldn’t take any kind of a stand for themselves!

      • Charles Vincent

        i am a middle of the road person and protective tariffs cause lots of harm the Davis bacon act is plain protectionism and the tariff was the forcing of the southern companies to pay higher wages to protect northern unions.

        “If you would rather be getting paid $3.00 an hour and treated like your only worth that $3.00, then go ahead. Keep the rest of us out. Do you really think you are getting even the $7.25 min. wage because the corps. boards think you are worth it, you need to think again, It is straight from the unions setting a standard that losers wouldn’t take any kind of a stand for themselves”

        This isn’t my argument and if it were I would cite government intervention in the market via subsidies and legal protections given to corporation by government legislators in exchange for campaign funding for reelection, this is corporate/government cronyism.

      • enkelin

        Have you ever earned overtime pay? Thank a liberal. Have you ever claimed unemployment insurance? Thank a liberal. Do you live in a community where when the economy turns down people dont starve on the street and people can maintain untill things get better? Thank a liberal. Do you make more than just subsistence wages? Because the minimum wage was instituted by liberals employers cant get away with slave wages and actually have to pay people for work., thank a liberal. Do you have the right to work in a safe workplace where you dont unnecessarily risk your life everyday? Thank a liberal. If you are a woman or person of color and have the right to vote and citizenship rights, thank a liberal. Do you like basic sanitation and safe food and drugs? Thank a liberal.

      • Peggy Sue

        I have seen far too many, (in fact, put a cork in it, why don’t ya), of your posts to say that I know a “rant” when I see one. I can’t stop you, so go ahead and keep on ranting, I am sure you amuse many of us libs!

      • Charles Vincent

        Hmmm let me think about that….. No, no I think I will keep right on posting. Levity is good for you.

      • Peggy Sue

        I am starting to think this is your full-time job, to post on these sites. I cannot believe how much time you have to go back and forth, and back and forth again on here. Are you retired, or are you supported by some independent party hopeful or something? 😀

      • Charles Vincent

        Nope I have odd work hours. And if I could actually get paid to do what you say I would be on that job in a New York minute.

      • JuneBug

        Don’t quit your job, there’s already plenty of homeless people.

      • Charles Vincent

        I submit that the homeless are better off than the bulk of our society.

      • Darrell

        Independent? haven’t seen that.

      • Charles Vincent

        Because I haven’t seen any topics on this site I lean left on. Legalization of illicit drugs immigration reform, gay marriage etcetera.

      • Peggy Sue

        So, let me guess? Hmmm, since you have so much time to spend on these sites, you are an unemployed, pot smoking, gay immigrant? If so, I am OK with all that, let’s just be truthful about it! 😀

      • standbehindtheyellowline

        That’s the biggest problem you are having…..You take what you have read from the far right and except it as facts!

      • RickinCleveland

        Chuck, so nice to admit you are a registered ignoramus.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yep I did and it still isn’t a personal attack it’s a generalization. For instance I didn’t say because they are retarded I hope the choke on it. See how calling them names changes the context?

      • rasslor56

        No, it’s an attack. Like me calling you a moron. And there are facts to support BOTH.

      • Charles Vincent

        Saying I hope People eat some crow isn’t a personal attack. Saying I hope you Choke on it isn’t an attack on someones Character nor is it an attempt at the first part of the definition.

        Here is the definition of Ad Hominem.
        ad ho·mi·nem [ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem, ahd‐]
        adjective
        1. appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
        2. attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

      • Lori

        His exact words were, “I Sincerely hope some of you people on this and other liberal sites
        live in the states that posted greater than 50% increases in premiums.
        and I hope you choke on those premiums” That’s not predicting harm – that’s wishing it.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I was saying I hope they eat crow over it, it was a euphemism.

      • midroad

        and I don’t think he made the “riff raff” comment because of something you said – I believe he was mocking the Forbes publication itself (it is pretty much a mouthpiece for the richest people in the country).

      • Charles Vincent

        And that makes their data less credible or accurate?

      • Justin Tierney

        actually it does, because their agenda has nothing in it to tell the truth and no will to change the status quo.

      • Charles Vincent

        Did you read the Article in its entirety? As far as facts go it was balanced and considering they got the information directly from those states who had reported lends to its credibility they are also waiting for more information from “Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius intends to release the data for the states participating in the federal exchange on September 19”
        there are other instances but don’t take my word for it read the article yourself and make a decision on it.

      • Justin Tierney

        The states that were reporting increases are also the states that would want to report increases. They get to skew the numbers the way they want to.

      • Charles Vincent

        Those are numbers from insurance providers not government officials, and;
        “Yevgeniy Feyman, the Manhattan Institute research associate who led our team of graduate-student number-crunchers, re-checked the Ohio data several times to make sure we hadn’t made a mistake. The difference between our numbers and the state’s appears to have to do with differences in our methodologies. The state looked at the average premiums for all plans offered in the state this year, vs. all plans offered in the exchanges under Obamacare. We, on the other hand, examined the five cheapest plans offered in each circumstance. While the average plan will be more expensive in Ohio, the Obamacare exchanges will offer a wider diversity of options there, including less-expensive ones.

        How is that bias it shows a red sate reporting an overall decrease in cost?

        Also I found this portion to be unbiased;

        “These additional plans, in several instances, resulted in lower rates than what Covered California had indicated. Also, insurers such as UnitedHealth and Aetna have withdrawn from the market, believing that they may not be allowed to charge premiums that will cover their costs. If Aetna and United are right, these changes will have the effect of artificially depressing premiums in 2014, but inflating them in 2015, as costs and premiums realign at a higher level.”

      • Justin Tierney

        you haven’t described where all of the numbers are coming from from each of the 13 states you are reporting from. Who knows the motivation behind the individuals performing the tests.

      • Charles Vincent

        The full article on the Forbes site has links to their source data and the other article from Reuter projects a higher average rise in cost than the Forbes and they used data from obamas top advisor Kathleen seebrus sorry on the spelling of her name I posted it here twice once for bob and once for morrow.

      • Debbie McKeever

        I live in Ohio. My premiums have not raised. I am now able to get my kids on our insurance due to no pre-existing conditions and I am a small business owner who couldn’t offer health insurance due to cost but now I can. So, I don’t know where they studied but they didn’t look at the numbers we are paying and we have had again NO premium increases.

      • Charles Vincent

        The article states that and that it was a surprise that they went down read the article its posted in full on this thread.

      • Randelamerican

        There are too many moving parts to the cost equation for an accurate prediction.

      • Charles Vincent

        Those are reports from those states. The map is not complete they update it as states report read the article in its entirety.

      • Justin Tierney

        those states are ran by people that don’t want it to work in the first place,so you don’t suppose their data might be just a little biased?

      • Charles Vincent

        These two states don’t fit your assertion. Vermont is a blue state and Ohio is a red state. Am I incorrect in that belief?

        “Most observers, myself included, expected Vermont to see rates go down under Obamacare, as more people were forced into the market, and others were subsidized into it. But instead, rates are going way up. 27-year-olds in Vermont will see average increases of 133 percent; 40-year-olds will see hikes of 104 percent; and 64-year-olds will see hikes of 55 percent. We see the same phenomenon, to a lesser degree, in Washington State.

        Ohio is a surprise in the other direction. In June, the Ohio Department of Insurance predicted that individual-market rates there would increase by 88 percent. In August, the state announced that premiums would increase by a lower amount, 41 percent. Our analysis finds that Ohio rates will actually decrease by an average of 30 percent.”

      • William Carr

        Yes, you obviously try to ‘vet” the data by comparing one RW estimate to another RW estimate.

        That’s like taking a poll in a Bar, among drunks, to find out if there should be a higher sales tax on beer.

        What outcome do you expect in that situation?

      • Charles Vincent

        Uh various media and I try to use media with as little political lean as possible.

      • bob

        That article was paid for the insurance companys

      • Charles Vincent

        What about this article?

        This article uses nonpartisan groups and they in some cases project a higher average increase than the Forbes article I fail to see your assertion as being fact;

        Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Implementation May Cause Some Health Care
        Costs To Rise

        * Sebelius says expects some shifting in the insurance markets
        * Independent study sees 32 percent average rise in premium costs
        * Key changes from Obama’s signature healthcare law coming next year

        By Jeff Mason and David Morgan

        WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s top healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to take effect next year.

        U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.

        “Everything is speculation. I think there’s likely to be some shifting in the markets,” she told reporters at the White House.

        The law, also known as “Obamacare,” eliminates discriminatory market practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with medical conditions.

        It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.

        “Women are going to see some lower costs, some men are going to see some higher costs. It’s sort of a one to one shift … some of the older customers may see a slight decline, and some of the younger ones are going to see a slight increase.”

        Insurance premiums could rise for some with individual plans, she said, as Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enhances the level of coverage and either eliminates or reduces the rate of price discrimination against people who are older, female or have preexisting medical conditions.

        “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” Sebelius said.

        But those who qualify for federal subsidies through state healthcare exchanges would still get a better deal, she said.

        Her remarks coincide with growing uneasiness about possible cost increases among lawmakers and executives in the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare industry.

        A new study released on Tuesday by the nonpartisan Society of Actuaries estimates that individual premiums will rise 32 percent on average nationwide within three years, partly as a result of higher risk pools. Changes would vary by state, from an 80 percent hike in Wisconsin to a 14 percent reduction in New York.

        Obama’s healthcare restructuring, the signature domestic policy achievement of his first term, is expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million people beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, both through the state exchanges and a planned expansion of the government-run Medicaid program for the poor.

        Subsidies in the form of premium tax credits, available on a sliding scale according to income, are expected to mitigate higher costs for many newbeneficiaries.

        But the insurance industry, which is set to gain millions of new customers under the law, is warning of soaring premium costs next year because of new regulations that include the need to offer a broader scale of health benefits than some insurers do now.

        That has raised concerns about people with individual policies not subject to subsidies and the potential for cost spillovers into the market for employer-sponsored plans, which according to U.S. Census data, cover about half of U.S. workers.

        ‘LITTLE IMPACT’

        Sebelius dismissed the idea of significant change for employer plans, saying that market segment was “likely to see very little impact.”

        Separately, a Democratic U.S. senator on Tuesday said the federal government has limited scope to help millions of people likely to remain without affordable health insurance under the new law.

        Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, released a report submitted to the panel by the administration that outlines an “employee choice” policy that would allow some employers to offer a wider range of coverage choices to their workers at reduced rates for 2014.

        But Wyden said the approach would not help many of the nearly 4 million worker dependents who may have to forego subsidized private health coverage as a result of an IRS ruling.

        “Even in the states that allow for employee choice, it will be limited to a small number of workers,” Wyden said.

        The law would have most people with employer insurance remain under their current plans. Workers can opt for subsidized coverage if their employer plan is unaffordable, but only according to a narrow definition of what is affordable.

        The IRS ruled in January that the cost of insuring a worker’s family will be considered unaffordable if the employee’s contribution to an individual coverage plan exceeded 9.5 percent of that person’s income. That rule ignores the fact that family coverage is far more expensive than individual coverage.

        As a result, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 3.9 million family dependents could be left unable either to afford employer-sponsored family coverage or to obtain federally subsidized insurancethrough an exchange.

        In its report to the Senate committee, Sebelius’ department said some employerscould claim a tax credit in 2014 to make coverage more affordable and offer workers a range of coverage plans through state-based exchanges. (Writing by David Morgan; Editing by Fred Barbash and Paul Simao)

      • Publius

        Actually, if you read the article, these rate increases are PREDICTIONS of rate increases by the author Avik Roy and the Manhattan Institute. Funny, they don’t say how they “crunched the numbers”. But given the long standing antipathy of these people to ACA, I would take their objectivity with a very large lump of salt. Their numbers are at significant variance from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Only time will tell whose predictions are correct, but you definitely shouldn’t consider the shouting from these partisan chicken littles to be facts.

      • Charles Vincent

        They do say how they crunched the numbers in a section of the article. And the other article I posted from Reuters has a 32% increase in costs that’s a full 8% more than the Forbes article and its from obamas own advisor and kaiser.

      • William Carr

        I tracked down an article using the same quote; it’s a setup.

        The author rejected using Congressional Budget Office estimates of healthcare costs, because it shows ObamaCare will work.

        He made up his own numbers based on guesswork.

        What Right Wingers don’t seem to get is that since the law isn’t implemented yet, it’s ALL estimates at this point.

        They prefer to make up their own estimates and cry “Doom and Gloom !”

      • Guest

        This map lacks a third column showing an increase in healthcare rates without the ACA. I think that bit of information would be helpful in determining the success of the ACA. Basically, how has the ACA, or how will it, slow the increase of health rates. Because we all know, nothing in this universe will cause healthcare rates to decrease.

      • Charles Vincent

        It talks about what you mention in the article read the whole of it it goes over pros and cons of the ACA. I posted the article in its entirety here on this thread.

      • MorrowSorrow

        Charles, you cite a study conducted by the Manhattan Institute, under the guidance of ALEC and the Koch Brothers. The non-partisan Rand corporation and Kaiser Health Foundation both say the Premium Increases being reported are vastly overstated.

      • Charles Vincent

        I hear a lot about these numbers but I have not seen anyone post them. Post the numbers, or are you going to simply start name calling as well?

      • MorrowSorrow

        That’s a knee-jerk reaction If I ever saw one. In any case, I’ve posted direct links for you, but they aren’t being approved. Rand Corp. “The Affordable Care Act and Health Insurance Markets” finds that “Once we adjust for age, actuarial value, and tobacco use, nongroup premiums are estimated to remain unchanged at the national level and in many states. Further, after accounting for tax credits, average out-of-pocket spending in the nongroup market is estimated to decline or remain unchanged in all states considered and in the nation overall.”

        In “An Early Look at Premiums and Insurer Participation in Health Insurance Marketplaces, 2014” by the KFF, they found that premiums were coming in lower than expected, and those previously expected premiums were already presumed to be stabilizing versus the status quo decades of increases before ACA legislation.

      • Charles Vincent

        This article uses nonpartisan groups and they in some cases project a higher average increase than the Forbes article I fail to see your assertion as being fact;

        Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Implementation May Cause Some Health Care
        Costs To Rise

        * Sebelius says expects some shifting in the insurance markets
        * Independent study sees 32 percent average rise in premium costs
        * Key changes from Obama’s signature healthcare law coming next year

        By Jeff Mason and David Morgan

        WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s top healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to take effect next year.

        U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.

        “Everything is speculation. I think there’s likely to be some shifting in the markets,” she told reporters at the White House.

        The law, also known as “Obamacare,” eliminates discriminatory market practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with medical conditions.

        It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.

        “Women are going to see some lower costs, some men are going to see some higher costs. It’s sort of a one to one shift … some of the older customers may see a slight decline, and some of the younger ones are going to see a slight increase.”

        Insurance premiums could rise for some with individual plans, she said, as Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enhances the level of coverage and either eliminates or reduces the rate of price discrimination against people who are older, female or have preexisting medical conditions.

        “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” Sebelius said.

        But those who qualify for federal subsidies through state healthcare exchanges would still get a better deal, she said.

        Her remarks coincide with growing uneasiness about possible cost increases among lawmakers and executives in the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare industry.

        A new study released on Tuesday by the nonpartisan Society of Actuaries estimates that individual premiums will rise 32 percent on average nationwide within three years, partly as a result of higher risk pools. Changes would vary by state, from an 80 percent hike in Wisconsin to a 14 percent reduction in New York.

        Obama’s healthcare restructuring, the signature domestic policy achievement of his first term, is expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million people beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, both through the state exchanges and a planned expansion of the government-run Medicaid program for the poor.

        Subsidies in the form of premium tax credits, available on a sliding scale according to income, are expected to mitigate higher costs for many newbeneficiaries.

        But the insurance industry, which is set to gain millions of new customers under the law, is warning of soaring premium costs next year because of new regulations that include the need to offer a broader scale of health benefits than some insurers do now.

        That has raised concerns about people with individual policies not subject to subsidies and the potential for cost spillovers into the market for employer-sponsored plans, which according to U.S. Census data, cover about half of U.S. workers.

        ‘LITTLE IMPACT’

        Sebelius dismissed the idea of significant change for employer plans, saying that market segment was “likely to see very little impact.”

        Separately, a Democratic U.S. senator on Tuesday said the federal government has limited scope to help millions of people likely to remain without affordable health insurance under the new law.

        Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, released a report submitted to the panel by the administration that outlines an “employee choice” policy that would allow some employers to offer a wider range of coverage choices to their workers at reduced rates for 2014.

        But Wyden said the approach would not help many of the nearly 4 million worker dependents who may have to forego subsidized private health coverage as a result of an IRS ruling.

        “Even in the states that allow for employee choice, it will be limited to a small number of workers,” Wyden said.

        The law would have most people with employer insurance remain under their current plans. Workers can opt for subsidized coverage if their employer plan is unaffordable, but only according to a narrow definition of what is affordable.

        The IRS ruled in January that the cost of insuring a worker’s family will be considered unaffordable if the employee’s contribution to an individual coverage plan exceeded 9.5 percent of that person’s income. That rule ignores the fact that family coverage is far more expensive than individual coverage.

        As a result, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 3.9 million family dependents could be left unable either to afford employer-sponsored family coverage or to obtain federally subsidized insurancethrough an exchange.

        In its report to the Senate committee, Sebelius’ department said some employerscould claim a tax credit in 2014 to make coverage more affordable and offer workers a range of coverage plans through state-based exchanges. (Writing by David Morgan; Editing by Fred Barbash and Paul Simao)

      • MorrowSorrow

        Society of Actuaries study is headed by Republican Lt. Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor, a critic of the ACA

      • Charles Vincent

        kaiser is no partisan and Kathleen Sebelius is Obama’s adviser your assertion still fails.

      • MorrowSorrow

        There you go knee-jerking again. There was no failure on my part, I don’t tend to make broad assertions like you. however you have failed to provide any non-partisan source that “projects a higher average increase than the Forbes article”. You make these claims and can’t support them with credible sources. By the way, Kaiser says the SOA study is flawed on its merits and has been horribly misinterpreted in the press (aside from just being flawed by partisan influence). See the March 28, 2013 article at Kaiser Health News, “FAQ On The Latest Study: Obamacare’s Impact On Insurance Claim Costs”

      • Charles Vincent

        It’s too early to know how much
        individual health insurance policies will cost once the online marketplaces
        created under the Affordable Care Act launch Jan. 1. But that hasn’t stopped
        experts and interest groups from making predictions.

        The latest analysis comes from the Society of Actuaries. It’s
        attracting attention because of the group’s expertise and nonpartisanship. What
        actuaries do for a living — predicting future expense based on multiple squishy
        factors — is at the core of figuring out what will happen under Obamacare.

        Thanks to subsidies and the
        requirement that everybody get insurance or pay penalties, the society
        forecasts that the number of people covered by individual polices will double
        to 25.6 million by 2017.

        Getting the headlines was
        the forecast that insurer costs — medical claims per policyholder — will soar,
        on average, 32 percent for the individual market in 2017, with wide variations
        among states. That’s not the same thing as saying prices consumers
        pay for policies will rise 32 percent. But if claims are higher, insurers
        generally charge more.

        Opponents of the health
        overhaul seized on the figure to
        suggest the law could really be called the Unaffordable Care Act. The Obama
        administration says the study leaves out factors that will restrain what plan
        members actually pay, including more competition among insurance
        companies.

        Kaiser Health News reporter Jay
        Hancock talked to experts to learn what it means for the consumers the health
        law was meant to help.

        Q: What’s predicted to drive up
        costs?

        A: Many of those seeking coverage in
        online marketplaces — known as exchanges — are expected to be older and
        sicker. They’ll have more incentive to buy policies, and they’ll tend to
        increase claims paid by insurers.

        On the other hand, “young and
        healthy people are less likely to be interested in insurance, because they’re
        less likely to find value,” said Kristi Bohn, a consultant for the Society of
        Actuaries who worked on the report.

        The penalty for not having insurance
        is likely to be far less than the cost of coverage. The fewer young or
        healthy people who sign up, the higher the costs per plan member.

        The authors also made assumptions
        about how many employers will cancel their plans. Companies with sicker
        workforces are predicted to be more likely to end employer-based coverage and
        steer people toward exchanges.

        Q: I get insurance at work. Were
        they talking about my insurance claim costs?

        A: No. This report was just about
        people who buy on the individual insurance market, currently under 10 percent of the country, though that’s
        expected to go up as the law kicks in. The vast majority of Americans get
        insurance through work or through government programs (Medicare, Medicaid, the
        military).

        Q: Does the study predict health
        insurance premiums will go up 32 percent by 2017?

        No. First, it’s only
        forecasting the individual insurance market. That’s where millions of Americans
        newly covered under the ACA are expected to find policies. The report says
        nothing about costs for employer-based health insurance.

        Equally important, the 32 percent
        forecast is for medical expenses paid by insurers, not what insurers will
        charge in premiums, and not what consumers will pay.

        Q: But if medical claims go up,
        shouldn’t insurance prices also go up? How much difference could there be?

        A: In the individual market designed
        under the health law, quite a bit, say supporters. The ACA limits insurer
        profits and also gives government regulators oversight of rate increases, both
        of which could hold premiums down.

        Even if sticker prices rise, an
        important feature of the health law is subsidies for people to
        buy insurance, through tax credits for those with lower incomes. So what
        many newly-insured people actually end up paying themselves won’t be the same
        as what the insurance company bills.

        Thanks partly to subsidies,
        “many people buying individual coverage today will see decreases in
        costs,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family
        Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the
        foundation.)

        Insurers who end up signing lots of
        sicker members will also be partly reimbursed for several years by a
        reinsurance pool designed to lower their risk. That will lower their expenses,
        and it wasn’t accounted for by the SOA study.

        Q: Does it matter where I live?

        A: Yes. The report found huge variability, based on
        geography. While the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California by
        2017, in New York state, the report estimates claim costs would drop by almost
        14 percent.

        Q: Will health plans offer the same
        coverage in 2017 that they do now?

        A: That’s another reason the
        32-percent headline could be misleading. Thanks to ACA minimum coverage
        requirements, benefits will be more generous starting next year. So what
        insurers pay in claims can expected to be higher, too.

        “The number of people who are
        underinsured has grown dramatically over the last decade,” said Sara Collins, a
        vice president at the Commonwealth Fund. “One reason claims might be a lot
        lower now is the benefit package is so crummy.”

        The health law was intended to
        shift spending into the commercial insurance system that is now outside it:
        high out-of-pocket costs for those in low-benefit plans; uncompensated
        emergency-room care; patients paying in cash, and so forth. Moving those costs
        under the insurance umbrella increases insurance-based spending.

        Q: The idea of the insurance
        exchanges is to create competition, isn’t that supposed to lower costs?

        A: Yes. The idea behind state health
        exchanges is that insurers will compete for business by pressing providers for
        discounts and passing part of the savings to members. The actuary study didn’t
        account for that kind of competition.

        “Every insurer I’ve talked to
        says they’re building lower-cost networks that they plan to use for their
        exchange plans,” said Levitt.

        Q: Does this mean costs in the
        health exchanges aren’t a concern?

        A: No. Many consumers will pay more
        in premiums to get more in benefits. The high cost of medicine could mean that,
        even for those getting big subsidies, affordability will be an issue.

        Many consumers “will be moving
        into a really fully insured product for the first time, so there may be a
        higher cost associated with getting into that market,” Health and Human
        Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said this week.

      • steeltown65

        jesus christ charles. just admit that you are a republican! come out of the political closet and embrace your natural instincts to be a jerk. yes i know i’m name calling. but there is not a person in this whole wide world who would stand by something they have read in an article this strongly and then debate with other informed adults while never once considering that the article could be bull$hit! i’m not saying it is or isn’t. because i don’t know. but i do know this. unless your agenda calls for the ACA to fail. you cannot logically endorse the opinions of those who are responsible for the article this strongly and never doubt the predictions and or speculations made by them. it’s just not how an op[en minded “independent” would react to this discussion. you seem like an intelligent guy chuck. but you’re either a republican or you’re a troll. a very lonely and bored republican or troll!

      • Charles Vincent

        Sorry pal registered independent and have been since I was 18. See my other post I used 2 articles and the other is from a nonpartisan group and it projects larger increases overall that the Forbes article.

      • Lori

        If they choke on them, at least they’ll be able to go to the ER and pay for it themselves, not stick the rest of us with the bill.

      • Charles Vincent

        They do stick us with the bill, you know those tax payer funded subsidies in the form of block grants to the state health exchanges to cover people that cant afford the insurance.

      • Charles Vincent, just another “Let ’em Die” Republican. That’s all he and all of his despicable Republican friends really need to say: “People who can’t afford health care because of no health insurance deserve to die.”

      • BenjaminF

        And you believes Forbes ?? Please tell us why !

      • Charles Vincent

        This article uses nonpartisan groups and they in some cases project a higher average increase than the Forbes article I fail to see your assertion as being fact;

        Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Implementation May Cause Some Health Care
        Costs To Rise

        * Sebelius says expects some shifting in the insurance markets
        * Independent study sees 32 percent average rise in premium costs
        * Key changes from Obama’s signature healthcare law coming next year

        By Jeff Mason and David Morgan

        WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s top
        healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the
        individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger
        people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to
        take effect next year.

        U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said
        definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year
        when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized
        coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.

        “Everything is speculation. I think there’s likely to be some shifting in the markets,” she told reporters at the White House.

        The law, also known as “Obamacare,” eliminates discriminatory market
        practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with
        medical conditions.

        It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while
        the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries
        and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher
        rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.

        “Women are going to see some lower costs, some men are going to see
        some higher costs. It’s sort of a one to one shift … some of the older
        customers may see a slight decline, and some of the younger ones are
        going to see a slight increase.”

        Insurance premiums could rise for some with individual plans, she
        said, as Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enhances the
        level of coverage and either eliminates or reduces the rate of price
        discrimination against people who are older, female or have preexisting
        medical conditions.

        “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for
        the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting
        into that market,” Sebelius said.

        But those who qualify for federal subsidies through state healthcare exchanges would still get a better deal, she said.

        Her remarks coincide with growing uneasiness about possible cost
        increases among lawmakers and executives in the $2.8 trillion U.S.
        healthcare industry.

        A new study released on Tuesday by the nonpartisan Society of
        Actuaries estimates that individual premiums will rise 32 percent on
        average nationwide within three years, partly as a result of higher risk
        pools. Changes would vary by state, from an 80 percent hike in
        Wisconsin to a 14 percent reduction in New York.

        Obama’s healthcare restructuring, the signature domestic policy
        achievement of his first term, is expected to provide coverage to more
        than 30 million people beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, both through the state
        exchanges and a planned expansion of the government-run Medicaid
        program for the poor.

        Subsidies in the form of premium tax credits, available on a sliding
        scale according to income, are expected to mitigate higher costs for
        many newbeneficiaries.

        But the insurance industry, which is set to gain millions of new
        customers under the law, is warning of soaring premium costs next year
        because of new regulations that include the need to offer a broader
        scale of health benefits than some insurers do now.

        That has raised concerns about people with individual policies not
        subject to subsidies and the potential for cost spillovers into the
        market for employer-sponsored plans, which according to U.S. Census
        data, cover about half of U.S. workers.

        ‘LITTLE IMPACT’

        Sebelius dismissed the idea of significant change for employer plans,
        saying that market segment was “likely to see very little impact.”

        Separately, a Democratic U.S. senator on Tuesday said the federal
        government has limited scope to help millions of people likely to remain
        without affordable health insurance under the new law.

        Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Senate Finance
        Committee, released a report submitted to the panel by the
        administration that outlines an “employee choice” policy that would
        allow some employers to offer a wider range of coverage choices to their
        workers at reduced rates for 2014.

        But Wyden said the approach would not help many of the nearly 4
        million worker dependents who may have to forego subsidized private
        health coverage as a result of an IRS ruling.

        “Even in the states that allow for employee choice, it will be limited to a small number of workers,” Wyden said.

        The law would have most people with employer insurance remain under
        their current plans. Workers can opt for subsidized coverage if their
        employer plan is unaffordable, but only according to a narrow definition
        of what is affordable.

        The IRS ruled in January that the cost of insuring a worker’s family
        will be considered unaffordable if the employee’s contribution to an
        individual coverage plan exceeded 9.5 percent of that person’s income.
        That rule ignores the fact that family coverage is far more expensive
        than individual coverage.

        As a result, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that
        3.9 million family dependents could be left unable either to afford
        employer-sponsored family coverage or to obtain federally subsidized
        insurancethrough an exchange.

        In its report to the Senate committee, Sebelius’ department said some
        employerscould claim a tax credit in 2014 to make coverage more
        affordable and offer workers a range of coverage plans through
        state-based exchanges. (Writing by David Morgan; Editing by Fred Barbash
        and Paul Simao)

      • Daddycool67

        Your rates would increase by 50% in 4 – 5 years without Obamacare. So your post is meaningless.

        Compare your rates 10-12 years ago to what they were last year. I’ll bet they’ve at least doubled in that time. But probably even more than that. And what did YOU get for the rate increase of the last 10-15 years?
        You got less service, fewer options, and higher co-pays! Plus 30 million of your fellow Americans remained uninsured.

        WITH Obamacare, rates might go up at the beginning (MIGHT). But 4 years from now … your rates will be lower than they are right now. I can guarantee it. Everybody will be competing for a share of a much larger market.

        And not that you care about anything but yourself and your precious dollars ….. but most of the country will have coverage.

      • MrRubble

        It is not a law set in stone. Adjustments can be made as it plays out. The problem is the Republican caucus, period. They have no intention of seeing this play out as their puppet masters won’t allow it. Cowards like you don’t have the ability to see this.And I hope your ass chokes on your own head

      • Spinnaker

        In the memorable words of one Teabilly Congressmen: “YOU LIE!!!”

      • Charles Vincent

        What’s a lie?

      • I Once Was Andrew

        That article from Forbes sources a right-wing think tank’s “research” for its information on rates going up, and even that so-called research was done on painfully insufficient data. Until you can demonstrate a nonpartisan review that demonstrates Obamacare is raising rates, don’t make unsubstantiated claims.

      • Charles Vincent

        What about this article?

        This article uses nonpartisan groups and they in some cases project a higher average increase than the Forbes article I fail to see your assertion as being fact;

        Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Implementation May Cause Some Health Care
        Costs To Rise

        * Sebelius says expects some shifting in the insurance markets
        * Independent study sees 32 percent average rise in premium costs
        * Key changes from Obama’s signature healthcare law coming next year

        By Jeff Mason and David Morgan

        WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s top healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to take effect next year.

        U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.

        “Everything is speculation. I think there’s likely to be some shifting in the markets,” she told reporters at the White House.

        The law, also known as “Obamacare,” eliminates discriminatory market practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with medical conditions.

        It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.

        “Women are going to see some lower costs, some men are going to see some higher costs. It’s sort of a one to one shift … some of the older customers may see a slight decline, and some of the younger ones are going to see a slight increase.”

        Insurance premiums could rise for some with individual plans, she said, as Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enhances the level of coverage and either eliminates or reduces the rate of price discrimination against people who are older, female or have preexisting medical conditions.

        “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” Sebelius said.

        But those who qualify for federal subsidies through state healthcare exchanges would still get a better deal, she said.

        Her remarks coincide with growing uneasiness about possible cost increases among lawmakers and executives in the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare industry.

        A new study released on Tuesday by the nonpartisan Society of Actuaries estimates that individual premiums will rise 32 percent on average nationwide within three years, partly as a result of higher risk pools. Changes would vary by state, from an 80 percent hike in Wisconsin to a 14 percent reduction in New York.

        Obama’s healthcare restructuring, the signature domestic policy achievement of his first term, is expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million people beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, both through the state exchanges and a planned expansion of the government-run Medicaid program for the poor.

        Subsidies in the form of premium tax credits, available on a sliding scale according to income, are expected to mitigate higher costs for many newbeneficiaries.

        But the insurance industry, which is set to gain millions of new customers under the law, is warning of soaring premium costs next year because of new regulations that include the need to offer a broader scale of health benefits than some insurers do now.

        That has raised concerns about people with individual policies not subject to subsidies and the potential for cost spillovers into the market for employer-sponsored plans, which according to U.S. Census data, cover about half of U.S. workers.

        ‘LITTLE IMPACT’

        Sebelius dismissed the idea of significant change for employer plans, saying that market segment was “likely to see very little impact.”

        Separately, a Democratic U.S. senator on Tuesday said the federal government has limited scope to help millions of people likely to remain without affordable health insurance under the new law.

        Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, released a report submitted to the panel by the administration that outlines an “employee choice” policy that would allow some employers to offer a wider range of coverage choices to their workers at reduced rates for 2014.

        But Wyden said the approach would not help many of the nearly 4 million worker dependents who may have to forego subsidized private health coverage as a result of an IRS ruling.

        “Even in the states that allow for employee choice, it will be limited to a small number of workers,” Wyden said.

        The law would have most people with employer insurance remain under their current plans. Workers can opt for subsidized coverage if their employer plan is unaffordable, but only according to a narrow definition of what is affordable.

        The IRS ruled in January that the cost of insuring a worker’s family will be considered unaffordable if the employee’s contribution to an individual coverage plan exceeded 9.5 percent of that person’s income. That rule ignores the fact that family coverage is far more expensive than individual coverage.

        As a result, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 3.9 million family dependents could be left unable either to afford employer-sponsored family coverage or to obtain federally subsidized insurancethrough an exchange.

        In its report to the Senate committee, Sebelius’ department said some employerscould claim a tax credit in 2014 to make coverage more affordable and offer workers a range of coverage plans through state-based exchanges. (Writing by David Morgan; Editing by Fred Barbash and Paul Simao)

      • I Once Was Andrew

        The study quoted here is very damning if it turns out to be true, but it’s all projections, not observations. It’s true that some people are seeing rises in premiums (for instance, me), while others are seeing drops, but the broader effect has yet to be determined, and there’s certainly data that shows premiums falling, too.

        In general, though, Obamacare isn’t the answer; it was, in the first place, what I thought was a completely ridiculous attempt to compromise with the Republicans. If the Democrats were going to try to ram any legislation through, it should have been universal, socialized healthcare instead of this pack of half-measures. Then at least the Republicans could scream “socialism!” convincingly.

        By the way, in the future, just links or a headline to google will do.

      • Charles Vincent

        The journey to socialism begins with but one small step.

      • I Once Was Andrew

        From your mouth to god’s ears, buddy.

      • The main article above was sourced from Forbes. Which is it dude? You can’t have your conservative Forbes and expect us to eat it.

      • Charles Vincent

        I posted a second article here it is again;

        This article uses nonpartisan groups and they in some cases project a
        higher average increase than the Forbes article I fail to see your
        assertion as being fact;

        Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Implementation May Cause Some Health Care
        Costs To Rise

        * Sebelius says expects some shifting in the insurance markets
        * Independent study sees 32 percent average rise in premium costs
        * Key changes from Obama’s signature healthcare law coming next year

        By Jeff Mason and David Morgan

        WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s top
        healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the
        individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger
        people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to
        take effect next year.

        U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said
        definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year
        when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized
        coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.

        “Everything is speculation. I think there’s likely to be some shifting in the markets,” she told reporters at the White House.

        The law, also known as “Obamacare,” eliminates discriminatory market
        practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with
        medical conditions.

        It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while
        the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries
        and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher
        rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.

        “Women are going to see some lower costs, some men are going to see
        some higher costs. It’s sort of a one to one shift … some of the older
        customers may see a slight decline, and some of the younger ones are
        going to see a slight increase.”

        Insurance premiums could rise for some with individual plans, she
        said, as Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enhances the
        level of coverage and either eliminates or reduces the rate of price
        discrimination against people who are older, female or have preexisting
        medical conditions.

        “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for
        the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting
        into that market,” Sebelius said.

        But those who qualify for federal subsidies through state healthcare exchanges would still get a better deal, she said.

        Her remarks coincide with growing uneasiness about possible cost
        increases among lawmakers and executives in the $2.8 trillion U.S.
        healthcare industry.

        A new study released on Tuesday by the nonpartisan Society of
        Actuaries estimates that individual premiums will rise 32 percent on
        average nationwide within three years, partly as a result of higher risk
        pools. Changes would vary by state, from an 80 percent hike in
        Wisconsin to a 14 percent reduction in New York.

        Obama’s healthcare restructuring, the signature domestic policy
        achievement of his first term, is expected to provide coverage to more
        than 30 million people beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, both through the state
        exchanges and a planned expansion of the government-run Medicaid
        program for the poor.

        Subsidies in the form of premium tax credits, available on a sliding
        scale according to income, are expected to mitigate higher costs for
        many newbeneficiaries.

        But the insurance industry, which is set to gain millions of new
        customers under the law, is warning of soaring premium costs next year
        because of new regulations that include the need to offer a broader
        scale of health benefits than some insurers do now.

        That has raised concerns about people with individual policies not
        subject to subsidies and the potential for cost spillovers into the
        market for employer-sponsored plans, which according to U.S. Census
        data, cover about half of U.S. workers.

        ‘LITTLE IMPACT’

        Sebelius dismissed the idea of significant change for employer plans,
        saying that market segment was “likely to see very little impact.”

        Separately, a Democratic U.S. senator on Tuesday said the federal
        government has limited scope to help millions of people likely to remain
        without affordable health insurance under the new law.

        Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Senate Finance
        Committee, released a report submitted to the panel by the
        administration that outlines an “employee choice” policy that would
        allow some employers to offer a wider range of coverage choices to their
        workers at reduced rates for 2014.

        But Wyden said the approach would not help many of the nearly 4
        million worker dependents who may have to forego subsidized private
        health coverage as a result of an IRS ruling.

        “Even in the states that allow for employee choice, it will be limited to a small number of workers,” Wyden said.

        The law would have most people with employer insurance remain under
        their current plans. Workers can opt for subsidized coverage if their
        employer plan is unaffordable, but only according to a narrow definition
        of what is affordable.

        The IRS ruled in January that the cost of insuring a worker’s family
        will be considered unaffordable if the employee’s contribution to an
        individual coverage plan exceeded 9.5 percent of that person’s income.
        That rule ignores the fact that family coverage is far more expensive
        than individual coverage.

        As a result, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that
        3.9 million family dependents could be left unable either to afford
        employer-sponsored family coverage or to obtain federally subsidized
        insurancethrough an exchange.

        In its report to the Senate committee, Sebelius’ department said some
        employerscould claim a tax credit in 2014 to make coverage more
        affordable and offer workers a range of coverage plans through
        state-based exchanges. (Writing by David Morgan; Editing by Fred Barbash
        and Paul Simao)

      • Of course many premiums will go up. Insurance companies have been running high profits selling insurance to those who are healthy and have a slim chance of costing them money. Of course this leaves many people looking for healthcare in the ER, or owing huge end-of-life expenses. Those costs are not a part of the old insurance costs, but they nonetheless end up being paid for by a public duped into believing the USA is getting good value. It just ain’t so. Insurance companies will eventually be forced to settle for reasonable rates/profits. It is the world leading costs of healthcare that will be reduced, as hospitals will not be forced to add the costs of the uninsured to your bill. Get it?

      • Charles Vincent

        SO the Bright idea is to create a totally new system paid for by tax dollars that will still not reduce costs? Which are still footed by the tax payer via government subsidies to states to support the new system….

      • Well… bottom line… here in Europe we receive high quality healthcare at a fraction of the costs in the USA. Now either we are more clever, genetically superior or you are getting ripped off!! Think about it.

      • clr1390

        So, the price of healthcare has been going up for the last 20 years. Going down 1 cent is better than the other.

      • Charles Vincent

        But its isn’t going down across the board its up some-places and its down in others and that’s the problem.

      • Mr Mike

        People, people, people! Stop arguing with this Charles Vincent idiot! He is so ashamed of his political ideology that he won’t even self-identify. He says he is an independent, but from the BS he spews he is obviously a libertarian, the political ideology of the selfish and/or feeble-minded. Some people’s ability to think in a rational manner does not progress after the age of about 15, these are the modern libertarians. They are intellectually deficient, although they act as if they are the smartest people in the room. This is only one of their many delusions. Their other big delusion is that government is bad, all the while taking advantage of all the things competent government provides – clean drinking water, proper waste treatment, public roads, public parks, police and fire protection, the list goes on and on. Don’t argue with him, he’s just plain stupid. And as a great man once said, “you can’t fix stupid!”

      • Charles Vincent

        Argumentum ad hominem;

        “People, people, people! Stop arguing with this Charles Vincent idiot! He is so ashamed of his political ideology that he won’t even self-identify. He says he is an independent, but from the BS he spews he is obviously a libertarian, the political ideology of the selfish and/or feeble-minded. Some people’s ability to think in a rational manner does not progress after the age of about 15, these are the modern libertarians. They are intellectually deficient, although they act as if they are the smartest people in the room. This is only one of their many delusions. Their other big delusion is that government is bad, all the while taking advantage of all the things competent government provides – clean drinking water, proper waste treatment, public roads, public parks, police and fire protection, the list goes on and on. Don’t argue with him, he’s just plain stupid. And as a great man once said,”

      • Charles Vincent

        I said this in a post to another person on this thread;

        “so where do you stand on abortion?”
        Not my choice to make that decision.

        “how about recreational drug use.”
        legalize and regulate like alcohol/tobacco.

        “how about automotive insurance?”
        For commerce yes, for personal travel unconnected with commerce no.

        “how about same sex marriage?”
        To each their own, what they do in their own private life is their business.

        “how about gay and lesbian couples adopting?”
        That’s their prerogative more power to them, there are plenty of kids that want and need a parent(s). Being gay or straight has absolutely zero effect on how good/bad of a parent one will be.

      • gemma liar

        forbes magazine????? hmmmmm,,,,,,,,not too rightwing regressive there is it? then WHY have some BIG NAME repub governors embraced OBAMACARE within THEIR states???/ mustve slipped past ol’ steve forbes and his cronies on that one

      • Charles Vincent

        This article uses nonpartisan groups and they in some cases project a
        higher average increase than the Forbes article I fail to see your
        assertion as being fact;

        Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Implementation May Cause Some Health Care
        Costs To Rise

        * Sebelius says expects some shifting in the insurance markets
        * Independent study sees 32 percent average rise in premium costs
        * Key changes from Obama’s signature healthcare law coming next year

        By Jeff Mason and David Morgan

        WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s top
        healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the
        individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger
        people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to
        take effect next year.

        U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said
        definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year
        when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized
        coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.

        “Everything is speculation. I think there’s likely to be some shifting in the markets,” she told reporters at the White House.

        The law, also known as “Obamacare,” eliminates discriminatory market
        practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with
        medical conditions.

        It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while
        the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries
        and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher
        rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.

        “Women are going to see some lower costs, some men are going to see
        some higher costs. It’s sort of a one to one shift … some of the older
        customers may see a slight decline, and some of the younger ones are
        going to see a slight increase.”

        Insurance premiums could rise for some with individual plans, she
        said, as Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enhances the
        level of coverage and either eliminates or reduces the rate of price
        discrimination against people who are older, female or have preexisting
        medical conditions.

        “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for
        the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting
        into that market,” Sebelius said.

        But those who qualify for federal subsidies through state healthcare exchanges would still get a better deal, she said.

        Her remarks coincide with growing uneasiness about possible cost
        increases among lawmakers and executives in the $2.8 trillion U.S.
        healthcare industry.

        A new study released on Tuesday by the nonpartisan Society of
        Actuaries estimates that individual premiums will rise 32 percent on
        average nationwide within three years, partly as a result of higher risk
        pools. Changes would vary by state, from an 80 percent hike in
        Wisconsin to a 14 percent reduction in New York.

        Obama’s healthcare restructuring, the signature domestic policy
        achievement of his first term, is expected to provide coverage to more
        than 30 million people beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, both through the state
        exchanges and a planned expansion of the government-run Medicaid
        program for the poor.

        Subsidies in the form of premium tax credits, available on a sliding
        scale according to income, are expected to mitigate higher costs for
        many newbeneficiaries.

        But the insurance industry, which is set to gain millions of new
        customers under the law, is warning of soaring premium costs next year
        because of new regulations that include the need to offer a broader
        scale of health benefits than some insurers do now.

        That has raised concerns about people with individual policies not
        subject to subsidies and the potential for cost spillovers into the
        market for employer-sponsored plans, which according to U.S. Census
        data, cover about half of U.S. workers.

        ‘LITTLE IMPACT’

        Sebelius dismissed the idea of significant change for employer plans,
        saying that market segment was “likely to see very little impact.”

        Separately, a Democratic U.S. senator on Tuesday said the federal
        government has limited scope to help millions of people likely to remain
        without affordable health insurance under the new law.

        Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Senate Finance
        Committee, released a report submitted to the panel by the
        administration that outlines an “employee choice” policy that would
        allow some employers to offer a wider range of coverage choices to their
        workers at reduced rates for 2014.

        But Wyden said the approach would not help many of the nearly 4
        million worker dependents who may have to forego subsidized private
        health coverage as a result of an IRS ruling.

        “Even in the states that allow for employee choice, it will be limited to a small number of workers,” Wyden said.

        The law would have most people with employer insurance remain under
        their current plans. Workers can opt for subsidized coverage if their
        employer plan is unaffordable, but only according to a narrow definition
        of what is affordable.

        The IRS ruled in January that the cost of insuring a worker’s family
        will be considered unaffordable if the employee’s contribution to an
        individual coverage plan exceeded 9.5 percent of that person’s income.
        That rule ignores the fact that family coverage is far more expensive
        than individual coverage.

        As a result, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that
        3.9 million family dependents could be left unable either to afford
        employer-sponsored family coverage or to obtain federally subsidized
        insurancethrough an exchange.

        In its report to the Senate committee, Sebelius’ department said some
        employerscould claim a tax credit in 2014 to make coverage more
        affordable and offer workers a range of coverage plans through
        state-based exchanges. (Writing by David Morgan; Editing by Fred Barbash
        and Paul Simao)

      • gemma liar

        until tea party regressives come up with a VIABLE alternative to this your argument is akin to amputating at the shoulder for a broken hand

      • Charles Vincent

        So we settle for amputation at the elbow instead? And when are people on the other side going to get that their way isn’t the best way for the middle and the right?

      • gemma liar

        im in the middle with a slight lean socially towards progress- I prefer the whole chicken wing thank u— and I see U had no answer for that which will NEVER happen. we can raise the dead and walk on water ( as well as arise 3 days into death) but an amputee???? sounds a bit communist to me

      • Charles Vincent

        “slight lean socially towards progress”

        This is great up until it damages another individuals liberties.

        “I see U had no answer for that which will NEVER happen.”

        What will never happen?

      • Charles Vincent

        And the Associated FAQ;

        Q: What’s predicted to drive up costs?

        A: Many of those seeking coverage in online marketplaces — known as
        exchanges — are expected to be older and sicker. They’ll have more
        incentive to buy policies, and they’ll tend to increase claims paid by
        insurers.

        On the other hand, “young and healthy people are less likely to be
        interested in insurance, because they’re less likely to find value,”
        said Kristi Bohn, a consultant for the Society of Actuaries who worked
        on the report.

        The penalty for not having insurance is likely to be far less than
        the cost of coverage. The fewer young or healthy people who sign up, the
        higher the costs per plan member.

        The authors also made assumptions about how many employers will
        cancel their plans. Companies with sicker workforces are predicted to be
        more likely to end employer-based coverage and steer people toward
        exchanges.

        Q: I get insurance at work. Were they talking about my insurance claim costs?

        A: No. This report was just about people who buy on the individual insurance market, currently under 10 percent of the country,
        though that’s expected to go up as the law kicks in. The vast majority
        of Americans get insurance through work or through government programs
        (Medicare, Medicaid, the military).

        Q: Does the study predict health insurance premiums will go up 32 percent by 2017?

        No. First, it’s only forecasting the individual insurance market.
        That’s where millions of Americans newly covered under the ACA are
        expected to find policies. The report says nothing about costs for
        employer-based health insurance.

        Equally important, the 32 percent forecast is for medical expenses
        paid by insurers, not what insurers will charge in premiums, and not
        what consumers will pay.

        Q: But if medical claims go up, shouldn’t insurance prices also go up? How much difference could there be?

        A: In the individual market designed under the health law, quite a
        bit, say supporters. The ACA limits insurer profits and also gives
        government regulators oversight of rate increases, both of which could
        hold premiums down.

        Even if sticker prices rise, an important feature of the health law
        is subsidies for people to buy insurance, through tax credits for those
        with lower incomes. So what many newly-insured people actually end up
        paying themselves won’t be the same as what the insurance company bills.

        Thanks partly to subsidies, “many people buying individual coverage
        today will see decreases in costs,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice
        president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Kaiser Health News is an
        editorially independent program of the foundation.)

        Insurers who end up signing lots of sicker members will also be
        partly reimbursed for several years by a reinsurance pool designed to
        lower their risk. That will lower their expenses, and it wasn’t
        accounted for by the SOA study.

        Q: Does it matter where I live?

        A: Yes. The report found huge variability,
        based on geography. While the estimated increase would be 62 percent
        for California by 2017, in New York state, the report estimates claim
        costs would drop by almost 14 percent.

        Q: Will health plans offer the same coverage in 2017 that they do now?

        A: That’s another reason the 32-percent headline could be misleading.
        Thanks to ACA minimum coverage requirements, benefits will be more
        generous starting next year. So what insurers pay in claims can expected
        to be higher, too.

        “The number of people who are underinsured has grown dramatically
        over the last decade,” said Sara Collins, a vice president at the
        Commonwealth Fund. “One reason claims might be a lot lower now is the
        benefit package is so crummy.”

        The health law was intended to shift spending into the commercial
        insurance system that is now outside it: high out-of-pocket costs for
        those in low-benefit plans; uncompensated emergency-room care; patients
        paying in cash, and so forth. Moving those costs under the insurance
        umbrella increases insurance-based spending.

        Q: The idea of the insurance exchanges is to create competition, isn’t that supposed to lower costs?

        A: Yes. The idea behind state health exchanges is that insurers will
        compete for business by pressing providers for discounts and passing
        part of the savings to members. The actuary study didn’t account for
        that kind of competition.

        “Every insurer I’ve talked to says they’re building lower-cost
        networks that they plan to use for their exchange plans,” said Levitt.

        Q: Does this mean costs in the health exchanges aren’t a concern?

        A: No. Many consumers will pay more in premiums to get more in
        benefits. The high cost of medicine could mean that, even for those
        getting big subsidies, affordability will be an issue.

        Many consumers “will be moving into a really fully insured product
        for the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with
        getting into that market,” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
        Sebelius said this week.

      • qcubed

        Forbes? That conservative rag?

      • Charles Vincent

        They predicted a smaller increase than the article Reuters did with the HHS director Kathleen Sebelius your point fails.

      • qcubed

        Until every state starts exchanges, or not, and the people start buying insurance it is unfair to talk about whether or nor people are paying more or less for insurance. Naturally, anyone that had NO insurance will be seeing infinite premium increases.

      • Charles Vincent

        Those increases aren’t just new purchasers its across the board averages. the Forbes article shows 13 states and Washington DC that have filed the paperwork and have exchanges ready to go come OCT 1 in some cases they reported increases and in some decreases.

      • Darryl Dickens

        So far New york has seen 50% drop Cali 35% and Illinois 25%…. so to hell with Forbes article. And who’s behind Forbes, yeah right!!

      • Charles Vincent

        The Sibelius article from Reuters says different and predicts higher overall average increase. FYI Kathleen Sibelius is obamas HHS head.

      • ✨OneBlessedChick✨ ✌

        Ummm, read much? It’s a PROGRESSIVE website =) How thoughtful of you to be so sincere in your hope that others might suffer. Wait…you’re Republican, aren’t you?? Yeah, it was your unsolicited hatred that gave you away.
        p.s. ever heard of karma??

      • Charles Vincent

        Does your foot taste good? Because I am not a republican. I think karma will get you before it gets me.

    • DownriverDem

      It’s sad that so many corps have announced that they will not provide health insurance anymore to their workers. Then again, maybe this will get us to single payer sooner. Employment should not be tied to your health insurance anyway.

    • gemma liar

      the entire country will NOT as we both know that even in the face of overwhelming facts many LEMMINGS will continue to shout from rooftops ala michelle malkin and sean ( puff tummy) Hannity as they get paid HUGE amounts of money pretending to be concerned with “keeping Americas greatness” “taking back america” et hoc genus omne,,,,,, just sit back with me and my fellow regressives and watch the forlorn regressive tea bag party implode/atrophy/ show true atavism regarding john birch and all the BS associated with e pseudo “christian” right white trash inbred middle americans who hate any change to the WHITE status quo ( note: im a 57 yr old self employed WHITE guy born in south florida)

  • Jerimiah

    I really hope the “moderate” Republicans can finally take over the GOP. They’re gaining ground and it’s promising though going up against all the complete nutjobs and Tea Party zealots currently running it will be a daunting task at best.
    Someone needs to pop that bubble they all live in pronto!

    • Justin Tierney

      moderate republican is another word for democrat

  • Bob Schneider

    Well-stated, Manny.

  • Pipercat

    Don’t forget, pay-for-performance initiatives.

  • Byron Butler Sr.

    They are against it because they KNOW what good will come out of it for millions of Americans? ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! I have held this belief for several months now! This is all about not wanting President Obama’s administration to enjoy any successes & to do everything humanly possible to cripple his administration! Exactly as they planned to do in that meeting they had at the Caucus Room Restaurant in Washington D.C. on the evening of President Obama’s first inauguration in 2009!

    • enkelin

      Oh so true, if Obama cured cancer they would be saying he was putting doctors out of work. The GOP has been so absolutely against ANYTHING this administration has tried to do for the good of the nation that now no matter what they say if the Gop is against something I am for it and if they are for something to me it means it is bad for Average Americans. They have shown their true colors about how they feel about the 47% which is actually the 95% and they have proven that they, the GOP, hate Americans.

  • David A Deal

    Their greatest fear is that people will actually figure out how the bill works and that it will work and benefit most people and in the long run that would be disastrous for Republican re-election efforts!

    • Chomper Lomper Tawee

      Republicans want President Obama to fail more than they want America to succeed.

      • Finnsmom1

        nothing more needs to be said.

  • Kim Roberts

    I thought it was because they (and their staffers) have to pay for their health insurance starting January 2014.

    • Clara Choochie Calloway

      They already pay for their health insurance just like all federal employees do.

  • They fight Obamacare because they know it will be successful and wildly popular which will destroy their brand.

    • Justin Tierney

      the only people that it isn’t eveident to are those that they try to focus on, the religious zealots, the centerists, and those that hate everybody that isn’t American. The last party that did that was the Nazi party. They have no semblance of being a political party and have all the makings of a facist regime.

  • Betty Eyer

    YUP. This is their last chance. People are going to start buying into the exchanges in January. People’s kids are already quietly signing up on their parent’s insurance while they finish college and start new careers. The middle class and under people are going to benefit and the GOP is going to look like the petulant children they are by 2016 if they don’t stop it now.

  • Jimmi Shrode

    They get free Health Care and free Prescriptions on the Tax Payer Dime. let them pay for their own health care.

    • Clara Choochie Calloway

      They do not get free health care and free prescriptions. They pay premiums for their insurance just like all federal employees do.

  • Tyler

    Ah yes, a bill so grand and so fabulous, that the very people who wrote it are asked to be exempted from it.

    Not to mention the hundreds/thousands of companies that are already laying off workers or reducing their hours.

    YES, Obamacare will be quite successful. NOT! Wake up Libs, Wake up!

    • Rhonda Painter

      They’re not exempted. That’s just another Republican lie.

  • SRNCOIC

    Why is the TEAMSTERS UNION so afraid of Obamacare? The answer might surprise you.

    Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

    When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

    Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

    Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

    Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

    Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios:
    First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.

    Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

    And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

    On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

    We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.
    We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.

    We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.
    James P. Hoffa
    General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters

    • Fuck Corprate America

      its the companies faults, not obamacare. these companies are greedy worthless pieces of shit. THEY ARE REDUCING HOURS WHILE POSTING RECORD PROFITS. obamacare didn’t make them lay off workers or reduce hours, their greedy asses did that all by themselves. Why do you people fight for the rights of a corporation that uses you? what we need is another workers revolt! let these greedy multi-billion dollar companies run themselves for a month then we will see them beg for the middle class worker to come back. but no, America is too pussy to actually fight for itself.

      • SRNCOIC

        Your union masters are gonna be so proud of you when they read this.

      • steeltown65

        absolutely right!

  • Paid Koch Troll

    Look at all the copy and pasted astroturfing! Good jobs guys! The Kochs are paying well for this!

  • GOP is evil

    Theres zero hope for the GOP. the younger generation coming up behind them are even worse. i saw that Cheney girl speak out about how she is against marriage equality. meanwhile her sister is gay. Her own sister. If they are willing to screw over their own family, what makes you think they will ever give a shit about us? they are all psychopaths hell bent on power and money for themselves. Thats all they will ever be.

  • Brett Taylor

    i just don’t know why the middle road republicans wouldn’t break off and create their own new republican party away from the far right tea party that have zero understanding of the constitution which most of them proclaim is being destroyed.

    then the crazy tea party can go where it needs to go, away.

    • SRNCOIC

      That’s because moderates are Democrat Lite. Americans don’t need anymore Democrats infecting government.

    • mre2000

      Because breaking away would split their voter base and cost them more elections / congressional seats etc. Simple as that.

  • “Because of how massive the bill is, most people have not read it, nor do they understand it.”

    HEY! Just like the Patriot Act of 2001!!

  • vwbtl99

    Let the republicans try to shutdown the government. That way we WILL get the house back in democrat control in 2014. They obviously forgot what happened in the early 90’s.

  • paulsilvan

    Not surprising; obvious.

  • Karla Ibsen

    Good point: If the law is so bad, why not just let it happen and reap the benefit of the fallout? The reason the GOP doesn’t take this approach is because they don’t really believe it’s bad. The real problem for them is that they’re going to look like fools when everyone realizes affordable health care is a good thing for the country and the people. The law is likely to end up being very popular, the GOP knows it, and it’s scaring them to death. Part of their fear is based on the potential popularity of the law. Another big part is they know people will realize the GOP has been lying about it. The GOP may not recover from this in our life times. Unfortunately for them, it’s too late for them to change course. They’re going to own this debacle of bad behavior for a very long time.

  • John1966

    Congratulations, you get a C+ for this 5th-grade essay. Now leave the adult debates to the adults.

  • John1966

    Obamacare is a beautiful thing for you liberals because it, and its consequences, are just too complicated for your comprehension. So you have a passionate opinion based on a superficial analysis. I don’t blame you because it’s the only universe you live in, it’s the best you can do. Ignorance is bliss.

    • standbehindtheyellowline

      Wasn’t it one of your boyz, Rick Perry that said, “There is no good reason for smart people to vote for conservatives”? I believe you fall in that of the dumber group.

  • Lyola M Roeske Shafer

    When will this issue start to focus on lives saved and health improved instead of the few dollars increase or decrease in premiums? Don’t buy the debased Republicasn “morality” that dolllars are more imporatant athaan lives. Don’t buy it. Refocus this argument.

  • Lyola M Roeske Shafer

    Stop focusing on the money angle. That is what the GOP wants you to do.
    It’s time to focus on the health benefits and to contradict the Republican lies.

  • Nikkiru

    I also can’t help noticing that Eric Cantor presented the current CR is being as “preserving the sequester savings.”

    Am I the only person in America who remembers that just a few short months ago, this same Eric Cantor was calling it “the President’s sequester,” trying to blame this act of Congress he’s now taking credit for as some kind of blessing on the president?

  • mymom51

    Not worth the time to read I want my time back

  • nick

    its like jumping off a cliff without a parachute, you don’t have to actually do it in order to know it’s not going to work out. For those of you who haven’t seen an increase in health care rates lucky you. This isn’t even taking into consideration all of the hours companies are taking away from their employees, but don’t worry, as long as you are taken care of you don’t care. It is funny how the people who are not affected by this are the only ones supporting it.

    • steeltown65

      and who are these people not being affected by this nick?

    • standbehindtheyellowline

      Hey Nick, I have a feeling that you are just trolling and won’t answer the questions that are asked of you. Here I go any way. Where is that those in the states that have already implicated the ACA have the prices gone up? Many companies such as The home Depot and Wal-Mart have been cutting hours for years and telling their employees that they are losing $200,000.00/monthly per store when they are turning record profits. If not the employees, who are getting those profits? It’s the red states that put less towards the federal budget, yet take more than they give, they are the states that are fighting to keep their own in poverty. Why is that, Nick?

  • Ily Michael

    I’m quite sure all of the ignorant ones against have not read any, much less all of the 900+ pages. They might actually learn something (like real facts) and see that it is a good thing and being republican, that would go against their racist ways and they would never admit that the black man in office is more intelligent than they are….because they would have to admit that or that it wasn’t his idea to begin with and they don’t like to admit their idiocy

  • Sarah Blackmun-Eskow

    The ‘Publicans hate Obamacare because they hate Obama because he is b—k. Oooh, there, I said it (almost). Their goal is to demonstrate that a b—k president cannot be legitimate.

  • gailillly

    Well I can tell all of you if it wasn’t for OBAMACARE I wouldn’t be alive today. Diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, needed surgeries. So went to one of the best hospitals in the country, ended up having to have a complete larynx, voice box and lymph nodes all removed, NINE DAY hospital stay. Sent home on feeding tube, visiting nurse daily, then the chemo and radiation started along with countless tests, x=rays, lab work and doctor appts. just about every day. This went on for 3 months, Now this entire time we live STRICTLY ON SS so we could afford NONE OF THIS. it was all covered and Thanks to the President and the good lord, I have been given my life back. I will now see my 15 grandkids grow up. Yes some days are hard, have to speak with an electro-larynex device, but I’M ALLIVE. I will always be under the care of 2 cancer drs the rest of my life and then I have my primary care dr. which you do NOT have to change and I don’t have to pay for any of this. Talk about a SAVIOR, WELL I had TWO, THE SAVIOR FROM ABOVE AND BARACK OBAMA THE SAVIOR HERE ON EARTH AND I THANK THEM BOTH EVERY DAY

  • Herb Blake

    I have read many of the post here on this site and must say that people on here clearly demonstrate the problem with our political system. The majority portray the closed minded idealism that they accuse our government of having. There is a lot of bashing and name calling. I have got to say that Charles Vincent has has presented himself more respectfully than most. He has stated that he has viewed multiple sources for his information but chose to site only one. While he has made statements on certain topics that I would disagree with, I find myself open to his views. I also find myself open to others views but have trouble following along when their context displays a tone of disrespect. I am personally in favor of affordable healthcare, but I find it hard to believe that it is presently being viewed for the impact on all members of society. This is where it becomes vital for all parties to be open to information from all sources. It is then, and only then, that a truly functional plan can be devised. A plan that can provide benefit for all members of society. The AHCA as it stands seems to be a one sided view without consideration for any valuable information from the other. This applies to BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans. We, just like our representatives, have become overwhelming divided. We savor a view that the only opinion that can be right is our’s. How can we expect our politicians to be any different than we are as a society.
    By the way, I consider myself to be the epitome of independent. I look for what I consider to be adequate information from both sides. In other words, what are the value points from both parties that could be incorporated into one good idea. I support both left-winged and right-winged ideas depending on how they apply. It is time for (not just our politicians), but society as a whole to start recognizing that it is the combination of our ideas that will lead to success. This will never be accomplished as long as we live in a society of closed minded individuals.

    • standbehindtheyellowline

      Funny how you call it. There is plenty of Democrats that find some of the ACA not perfect for all and have called upon their Statesmen to work on fixing the “problems” instead of killing it all together. Instead they are working with blinders on and have no intentions of working for the people or with this admin. You can say that goes both ways, you would also be seeing it with blinders on.

    • Mr Mike

      Charles Vincent is a paid troll spewing right-wing lies. All of his “sources” are right-wing websites or publications, who are all working together to make it seem that Obamacare is a failure. For example, the Forbes article he uses as “proof” that insurance rates are going up. What that article shows is that the states which have not accepted the medicaid expansion are seeing rate increases, but the states that have implemented all provisions of Obamacare, such as CA, NY, and MD are seeing large decreases in insurance premiums. Republican controlled states are seeing increases not because of Obamacare, but because their state governments are not implementing the law. The reason you see so much name calling is because people like Charles Vincent are doing a lot of harm by spreading false and misleading information. I can’t imagine you would want people to be polite to a murderer, so don’t expect people to be nice to people like Charles Vincent either, because people like him are promoting an agenda that will kill more people than any murderer.

  • Bob

    OMG….There is a Troll here….like I didn’t expect that to happen.

  • evanesemperor

    I have a feeling that this is going to be like prohibition or something. I *guess* good intentions, but it’s going to be disastrous when applied in the real world. I dunno.

  • Linda Turner

    Via Ezra Klein, 9/20/13: “If Obamacare is just going to be a total debacle, Republicans would let it take effect, ride the catastrophe to huge victories in the 2014 midterms, come back, use their massive Congressional majorities to repeal it…but they don’t want to do that. Because the GOP’s fear is not that the bill will fail, it’s that the law will succeed.” In fact, they are doing all they can to try to make it fail (at the expense of our uninsured fellow Americans), even going so far as to ask younger people to pledge not to enroll for insurance through the exchanges. Will Ted Cruz pay their hospital bills when they have an unexpected illness or accident?

  • Every time I hear “repeal and replace”, I shake my head because I know what is missing in the phrase. It’s “Repeal and replace (with something that looks exactly like Obamacare but we call something else.)

  • mike

    If it is so good, why don’t the politicians use it ? You should NOT be allowed to FORCE ppl to buy insurance or fine them if they don’t, and spend millions to enforce it.

    • Rhonda Painter

      They will be using it. Congress is specifically required in the bill to buy their insurance on the exchanges.

  • Mike Little

    Their worst nightmare is the knowledge that Obamacare (I hope the name sticks forever) will likely succeed.

  • Sal M

    The Fact alone, that about 30 million of our fellow Americans will now have access to health care is just lost upon these right wingers . Isn’t that sad ?? just sad ?? Hardly Christ like now is it? While Christ healed them for free, these people don’t even want 30 million + Americans to have access to healthcare even for a cost . tsk tsk tsk . Hillary 2016.

  • nattxn

    Charles Vincent is a t-potty troll.

  • Chris

    Where were all these repubs when Romney was passing Romneycare in Massachusetts?

  • satin8876

    Well said.

  • Barbara Ewart

    Charles Vincent cites an article from Forbes Magazine as definitive proof that Obamacare is not a good thing.
    FORBES Magazine is a REPUBLICAN party supporter. Their thoughts and opinions are in line with the party policies. In other words, what else would anyone expect to hear from Forbes? It’s just more of the same old GOP fear mongering.

    Steve Forbes, editor-in-chief of Forbes, was a Republican candidate in the 1996 presidential primaries and the 2000. He was markedly unsuccessful! He is the grandson of the founder of Forbes magazine and the son of Malcolm Forbes.

    An interesting note: Although Forbes magazine publishes the 400 wealthiest men and women in the US, he conspicuously absents himself from disclosure. sound familiar? In 1996, his net worth was listed as +$4 Billion!

    • Charles Vincent

      What about this article?

      This article uses nonpartisan groups and they in some cases project a higher average increase than the Forbes article I fail to see your assertion as being fact;

      Kathleen Sebelius: Obamacare Implementation May Cause Some Health Care
      Costs To Rise

      * Sebelius says expects some shifting in the insurance markets
      * Independent study sees 32 percent average rise in premium costs
      * Key changes from Obama’s signature healthcare law coming next year

      By Jeff Mason and David Morgan

      WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s top healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to take effect next year.

      U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.

      “Everything is speculation. I think there’s likely to be some shifting in the markets,” she told reporters at the White House.

      The law, also known as “Obamacare,” eliminates discriminatory market practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with medical conditions.

      It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.

      “Women are going to see some lower costs, some men are going to see some higher costs. It’s sort of a one to one shift … some of the older customers may see a slight decline, and some of the younger ones are going to see a slight increase.”

      Insurance premiums could rise for some with individual plans, she said, as Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act enhances the level of coverage and either eliminates or reduces the rate of price discrimination against people who are older, female or have preexisting medical conditions.

      “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” Sebelius said.

      But those who qualify for federal subsidies through state healthcare exchanges would still get a better deal, she said.

      Her remarks coincide with growing uneasiness about possible cost increases among lawmakers and executives in the $2.8 trillion U.S. healthcare industry.

      A new study released on Tuesday by the nonpartisan Society of Actuaries estimates that individual premiums will rise 32 percent on average nationwide within three years, partly as a result of higher risk pools. Changes would vary by state, from an 80 percent hike in Wisconsin to a 14 percent reduction in New York.

      Obama’s healthcare restructuring, the signature domestic policy achievement of his first term, is expected to provide coverage to more than 30 million people beginning on Jan. 1, 2014, both through the state exchanges and a planned expansion of the government-run Medicaid program for the poor.

      Subsidies in the form of premium tax credits, available on a sliding scale according to income, are expected to mitigate higher costs for many newbeneficiaries.

      But the insurance industry, which is set to gain millions of new customers under the law, is warning of soaring premium costs next year because of new regulations that include the need to offer a broader scale of health benefits than some insurers do now.

      That has raised concerns about people with individual policies not subject to subsidies and the potential for cost spillovers into the market for employer-sponsored plans, which according to U.S. Census data, cover about half of U.S. workers.

      ‘LITTLE IMPACT’

      Sebelius dismissed the idea of significant change for employer plans, saying that market segment was “likely to see very little impact.”

      Separately, a Democratic U.S. senator on Tuesday said the federal government has limited scope to help millions of people likely to remain without affordable health insurance under the new law.

      Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, released a report submitted to the panel by the administration that outlines an “employee choice” policy that would allow some employers to offer a wider range of coverage choices to their workers at reduced rates for 2014.

      But Wyden said the approach would not help many of the nearly 4 million worker dependents who may have to forego subsidized private health coverage as a result of an IRS ruling.

      “Even in the states that allow for employee choice, it will be limited to a small number of workers,” Wyden said.

      The law would have most people with employer insurance remain under their current plans. Workers can opt for subsidized coverage if their employer plan is unaffordable, but only according to a narrow definition of what is affordable.

      The IRS ruled in January that the cost of insuring a worker’s family will be considered unaffordable if the employee’s contribution to an individual coverage plan exceeded 9.5 percent of that person’s income. That rule ignores the fact that family coverage is far more expensive than individual coverage.

      As a result, the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 3.9 million family dependents could be left unable either to afford employer-sponsored family coverage or to obtain federally subsidized insurancethrough an exchange.

      In its report to the Senate committee, Sebelius’ department said some employerscould claim a tax credit in 2014 to make coverage more affordable and offer workers a range of coverage plans through state-based exchanges. (Writing by David Morgan; Editing by Fred Barbash and Paul Simao)

      • Barbara Ewart

        It’s all supposition at the moment because it hasn’t been implimented long enough for real numbers to be available. Republican scare tactics, without real proof are just more conjecturing. Suppose, after all is said and done, the healthcare policy actually works to the people’s benefit.
        The only people to whom the cost may increas, are those most likely to be able to afford decent healthcare to begin with. Meanwhile American citizens are being held to ransom by GOP posturing.

      • daclhill

        Once again you are missing the point. Like this article says, this bill is so massive and most have not read the bill let alone understand it and all the legal jargon within the bill. The Affordable Care Act is the law. Let them get it implemented. If the bill turns out to be as bad as the republicans say it is Then the people will force those elected to get rid of it or fix it. In the meantime quit spending money misinforming people about the bill. Those spending all that money to misinform the public are those that are the upper 10% of our economic structure here in the U.S. and the ones avoiding paying taxes. If it turns out bad then the republicans will have a hay day. My guess is they know it will work and are afraid that since they have put so much time and money into it that the people will like it and maybe want to expand it to include the public option
        Most people have not read the bill and have no idea about what the bill even says. All they are hearing is scare tactics and false information put out there by Fox news and the Heritage foundation, all supported by the Koch brothers.

      • Charles Vincent

        News Flash the ACA is based on the studies that the Heritage foundation and the Hoover institute had on healthcare reform. And its not just the republicans in congress they have constituents that are apposed to it and they want to stop the train-wreck before it happens. As the saying goes “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

        “Like this article says, this bill is so massive and most have not read the bill let alone understand it and all the legal jargon within the bill. The Affordable Care Act is the law.”
        This is exactly the problem not even the people in congress completely understand it. yes it is the law and but that doesn’t make it a good law.

  • ccaffrey

    1) they hate regulation of any kind 2) the insurance companies have only been competitive in a very narrow spectrum 3) the hospitals can’t routinely blame all their exorbitant costs on the uninsured 4) they are REALLY afraid it’s a stepping stone to a single-payer, Medicare for all system which has even far lower administrative costs than the ACA allows, 5) lots of pressure from the industry because they can’t boost profits by cherrypicking and dropping high-cost patients.

  • wally

    I think everyone wants affordable healthcare BUT If Obama Care is so good WHY did the President and Congress exempt themselves from it OR just ask your family doctor.

    • daclhill

      Wally, don’t you realize that ACA is the same thing that the President and Congress get, the only difference is that they have access to the public insurance sector also. The health care act had that provision in ti also until the republicans had that taken out. I would love to see the public option to have been in the act also but you can thank the republicans for that not happening. It can be added in a latter date when the people demand it.

  • DonEthridge

    It’s the money. The funding of Obamacare come, in part, from a 3.8% capital gains tax is you are a high income person or household. Since rich people earn most of their income from capital gains this cuts into their money. Republicans don’t care if the unwashed have healthcare, they just don’t want to pay for it.

  • Brando

    The republican party is a joke when looked at by other countries. They are ruining America even more.

  • Martin

    I bet most people on both sides don’t know much about the ACA, but for sure, one thing Republicans know: they are WHITE, and when in doubt, the watch Fox News…Hopefully, we will vote them out of the House in 2014

  • dougiefla

    Republicans cut the spending that was supposed to educate Americans about the law

  • JNWesner

    “They (Republicans have) present(ed) not
    one piece of memorable legislation that has passed since 2010.” I would have said since 1909. Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive Republican, was the last of that party with ideas to help the country. And he was anti-corporate power.

  • Mugsy’s RapSheet

    Shorter Ted Cruz: “I’ll destroy the economy if we don’t stop ObamaCare from destroying the economy!”

  • gailillly

    All I know is that I am alive today because of OBAMACARE and if I didn’t get it I would have died. Stage 4 cancer, needed surgeries, didn’t know hos much, chemo, radiation, countless tests, x-rays, lab work and doctor appts just about every day, After a NINE day hospital stay, sent home on feeding tube, needed visiting nurse daily, all this went on for 3 MONTHS. meanwhile we are living STICTLY ON SS. so there was not way we could have afforded all of this, but thanks to president Obama, I was able to have everything done and he gave me my life back so I now can see my 15 grandchildren grow up. THANK YOU MR. PRESIDENT AND THE GOOD LORD.

    • Terri Langley

      And lets thank the DOCTORS too.

  • qcubed

    Send all these clowns to a Gulag, in Alaska no less, and let adults decide the rules of the game.

  • Darryl Dickens

    By the way it’s a law not a bill anymore

  • Darryl Dickens

    So far New york has seen 50% drop Cali 35% and Illinois 25% to name a few…. so to
    hell with Forbes article. And who’s behind Forbes, yeah right!!

  • Darryl Dickens

    Someone tell Mr. Charles that he’s the minority on this comments page. Tough sledding pal

  • Bill

    I guess we will have to wait and see how it all pans out. I would just like to know the real truth sometimes!

  • Danny Cleaveland

    I am sick, yet I can not go to a doctor. Shut up already and let the corporations eat it. Also, recall all the fighting troops, (who unknowingly fight for the corporations.) Home, there is a few hundred BILLION dollars there. Second grow hemp, That would take us much closer to being independent from foreign oil. Lastly, the corporations run America not the President or the GOP or the Democrats or the Republicans. It is time for us to wake up and smell the lies…

  • merl1

    The traitor Reagan told the EXACT same lies about Medicare.

  • oldngrumpy1

    I believe the process involved here is as important to the TEAbaggers as the results. Sure, they don’t want Obamacare implemented. It will be a milestone in our government similar to Social Security and Medicare, perhaps larger, that signifies that the federal government isn’t the ferocious beast that must be caged lest it devour us all. However, there is another aspect of this blackmail that is playing out and President Obama is stepping right into it if he follows his past quests for “bipartisanship” and negotiation.

    There is a constitutional process to enacting, and repealing, legislation. That process says you should first win elections so that you have the support of the people being governed. Then, there is the roadblock of the separation of powers that says if you only marginally win elections, gaining only slim majorities or splitting power between the houses, then your road to getting what you want lies through the party of choice of a majority of the people. Note the common factor here, the people? The TEA party representatives don’t even have full support of their own party, but they have enough willing to subvert the democratic process in getting their way that they can use vital legislation, such as funding bills and the debt ceiling to create emergencies where the consequences of failing to act, or to hit deadlines, are dire.

    If Democrats, especially President Obama, allow this gang of rabble rousers to so subvert the constitutional process there will be no past legislation that is safe from these legislative terrorists. The more important the bill in question is to the well being of the country, the more leverage it affords them. The constitutional means for repealing Obamacare and effecting the other items on their list of demands have been exhausted, 41 times. By the constitutional framework, they lost. To give them any gain from this tactic will be fatal to our process of government.

  • shopper

    My old company just changed retirees health insurance eff. July 1 – giving 6 options to choose from instead of 1. We pay full amount and get reimbursed at $125/month/person. Net cost for my husband and I is now half for better coverage (both of us have pre-existing conditions). We know the new coverage will save us at least $5,000/year and maybe more. We’re thrilled and probably most of the other retirees are, too.

  • Devil_Dinosaur

    So… why are the Republicans afraid of Obamacare again? The answer surprised me, because it’s not in the article.

  • morningstar

    What is this rule I hear about only being able to see your docter on Medicare for one illness each visit that will cost more because of the office calls each time?

  • 365conservative

    “Now accepting apologies” – tea party