KevinG

Still not nearly enough IMHO (and not the close to the 1400 that was originally quoted. Here is the link to the article for more information: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/13/news/economy/obamacare-penalty/ Good way to put it. Personally I don't like the mandates. It is stupid. I would just rather have single payer healthcare. But the ACA system will only work, thus the mandate. It really is a pro-insurance company law.

Well ultimate form of capitalism is probably a bit of a stretch. But it is using the free market of insurance in order to decrease the overall costs to everyone who pays into the system. It is not the government take over that the Right seems to want you to believe it is.

But again you make it sound like the only place to get insurance is through your employer. Which is not true. ACA has set up health insurance exchanges for you to buy private health insurance. https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-health-insurance-marketplace/. I am not sure what you mean by "unaffordable." But there is a calculator out there if you want to give it a try. http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/ Which can figure out the costs of your premiums per year and then any tax credits you would get. Basically a single person making 30K a year would pay about 300 bucks

No offense to you lamrod, but this is the kind of stupidity and misinformation that is spread about ACA. So the requirement that employers with more than 50 people have to provide health insurance has been delayed until 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/white-house-delays-employer-mandate-requirement-until-2015/ Also the fee for not having health insurance is $95, not $1,400. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/01/readers-have-questions-about-obamacares-penalties-we-have-answers/ But it does appear that they will still charge a tax

It will all be about how it is spun, not how it is actually hurting/helping people. Unfortunately we are beyond public perception but more on what does the right/left media tell us what to think about it.

You likened the discussion of 2016 to honey boo boo. But again if you don't like the discussion try to change it. That is all, I welcome the change. I tried to talk about 2014 which is far more pressing and interesting in my mind than 2016, but no one cared. I don't expect a grand discussion from this thread but at times I am surprised. This is the internet not the rostrum in the Roman Senate.

No one is forcing you to participate in any discussion here. I awhile back found the gun conversation dull and derivative, so (less one minor freak out awhile back) I stopped. I skipped over anything with guns and didn't respond. More often I tried to move conversation elsewhere (sometimes successful sometimes not). That is all you can do. But people are gonna post what they want to post. You can scream about how we should be better angels and talk about something more substantive, but right now there s no alternative. Basically if you want a more constructive conversation start one, a

If you have read this thread most anything is an acceptable topic. It is my hope that if you want to talk about something at least be intelligent about it (not to say that you aren't but it is my hope for everyone on everything). I personally agree with bjorn the election cycle never ends. There were stories about 2016 even before 2012 election was done. Also and more importantly the mid terms are coming up. There is a lot of factors coming into play especially with the new voter restrictions that have been passed (with the help of the supreme court IMHO). More than likely the GOP wil

If you got something you would like to talk about go for it. We could always talk about guns again. But then again let's not.

I really don't know what to believe anymore. I am not taking anything for granted. But in general yes he had cancer. Though I am having my doubts that it came back. knowing the little I do about chemo and cancer I don't think he could be doing what he does if he was going through that. BTW this is awesome: http://lego.gizmodo.com/finally-a-breaking-bad-lego-set-that-you-can-actually-1115406010

I think it has been hitting a lot of people in minor ways. Not a big massive thing as was predicted. I have some friends who are facing furloughs and pay reduction as well.

I never seem to believe the cancer thing. It seems he is pretty healthy for going through cancer treatments. But hey that is just me. I can't wait until the final episode and Walt wakes up in bed next to Jane Kaczmarek and says he had the strangest dream.

I can't remember, are we for sure that the cancer came back? Or was he just trying to wiggle out of Hank going after him?

Admittedly it has not been the long lines and not meat scenario that I and many others predicted. It seems to be more of a slow burn as discussed in this Politico piece. I believe that it has had a detrimental affect on our nation and will do so for the foreseeable future. It is more than likely hampering our fragile economic recovery. I don't see how it could be helping.

Especially when I stick my dick in people's ears.

Never said I was trying to end hypocrisy, just pointing it out and the inconsistencies of the right was all am trying to do. I have posted several times in this conversation that I was not signaling out tweedling but using his comments as a spring board. I think it important to point out hypocrisy in all forms. I would hope others do the same. Hypocrisy is not ok.

Well this is Sci-Fi so I wouldn't count on that. Remember her consciousness is in the Library and can be brought back (as it was in The Name of the Doctor). For me I think her story arch is pretty much done. Though I would watch the hell out of the Captain Jack and River Song spinoff they keep talking about.

It is so ridiculous that an acceptable way to defend something is, "well the other guys do it too so it is ok." It is childish. Yes I understand it is human nature to be hypocritical. I know the left does it all the time and the right. But does that make it ok? No. The point I am trying to make is that I wished there was some intellectually constancy with what people say and the actions they take. Simple as that. I admitted I used Tweedling comments as a straw man to bring up the point of the hypocrisy of the right on this issue and pointed the finger directly at him (which was n

It is not that, and I guess my frustration is not with tweedling it is with right in general. Admittedly I used him as a straw man, which was wrong of me. But my original point stands. The right sits there cracking jokes about this current threat, even some going as far as saying it is a made up distraction. But if there was an attack you know that right would be calling for PBO's head because he didn't do anything. It smacks of hypocrisy.

I like the choice, I think we are going to see a very different doctor. Gravitas was used in the special, which is good. I would bet he will be closer to hartnell more than any other doctor.

Your posts here prove what I said. In the post 9/11 (and Benghazi) world shows that caution is best course of action. But yet you make light of the actions of the administration. So yes I will go with that.

It is comments like this that show just how hypocritical the right can be. You would be the first to point the finger at the administration if an attack happened and nothing was done. But I guess when you think everything PBO does is bad, I would expect any other type of comment.

I have said the same thing, but on a broader scale. Anyone who has given Bill Clinton and other politicians embroiled in sex scandals a pass, they have to do the same with Anthony Weiner. Also I don't get this thing with asking him to get out of the race. 1) Other than the Weiner thing the campaign isn't particularly ugly 2) the democratic candidate who comes out of the primary will win the mayoral race 3) Weiner is unlikely to win as he is now 10 points down. So what damage is he doing (other than to himself)? Why not let the people of NYC decide if what he did and his record and

I was wondering that same thing about tweedling's post. From all my research I can't seem to find a corroborated source, or something that actually is from the USDA. You would think something like this would be picked up a more mainstream media. So either 1. the media is covering it up as part of their liberal agenda or 2. It is untrue. As a note I searched on glenn beck's theblaze.com and they didn't even have this story (though some others that were similar)

Not only are people going to say it is restrictive to eligible voters, IT IS RESTRICTIVE to eligible voters. That is a fact. There is no debate. Well you can think that, but you would be wrong. I mentioned before you can get a drivers license if you a legal immigrant and then you could use that to vote. Again you are willing and complacent to disenfranchise thousands because of a few number suspected voter fraud.