jclalor

Does not even cover hospital stays? Sounds like shitty insurance that would leave tax payers on the hook if they end up staying in the hospital overnight. What a joke. Exactly. Which is why they will not be available under Obamacare. Plans that do not meet the minimum requirements for coverage will serve no purpose. Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand but very true. The topic is whether employees who have employer based coverage (which was not that article) will be forced to drop that coverage they currently have (which by and large meets the min. req.) and pick up a new policy. The answer is no. Unless their employer decides to STOP offering health benefits to their employees none of those employees are 'forced' to make any sort of decision. Employers already pay a HUGE fraction of the premiums for their employees. That helps to make them competitive, and attract hard-working, talented people. The notion that employers will stop offering health coverage (as a majority) ignores the huge competitive advantage benefit packages offer. It's a terrible business decision. Lets pose this hypothetical: RushMC is a college graduate. I know but stay with me... He goes out to interview, 2 spots...Google and Apple. Both are paying pretty good, let him nap in little contemporary balls and shit, have cool spots etc. One has employer based health coverage and is relatively affordable One doesn't, and Rush will have to pay ~75% more (about what the company covers on average) What does Rush do? Hes a smart, problem solving, go getter (remember this is hypothetical)...so what does he decide? I would argue that the employer who offers a comprehensive coverage package along with a competitive salary has a much higher chance of getting the cream of the crop, retaining talent, and producing a higher overall margin. The vast majority of Americans will never even notice a change when the Affordable care act takes place. My insurance isn't changing. When the vast majority of people don't even know what the affordable care act is, like the OP, they will believe anything they hear from Limbaugh and Hannity. Some people here have a much bigger desire to see Obama fail, than to be honest with themselves. The fact is, the employers of low skilled workers have seldom provided health insurance, they let the tax payer pick up the tab. Repeat the lie the often enough, and soon it becomes the truth.

*** Simply being an American does not qualify one to be President, you must be a "natural born American", that is born on American soil. No one ever claimed that Obama was not an American, that was the whole birther argument, he may have been an American, but he was not a natural born American. Cruz was born in Canada, to an American mother and a Cuban father, who had permanent Canadian residency. Canada bestows it's citizenship on the children of those who have permanent Canadian residency, thus meaning Cruz has dual citizenship.

I can't wait to see the nutter right tell Cruz he is ineligible to run for President, as he was not Born in the US. http://news.msn.com/us/sen-cruz-releases-birth-info-amid-talk-of-2016-run

If by getting out much, you mean going to a lot of rodeos, no, I guess I don't get out much. Not sure who said it was racist, as I don't believe that's a crime. I was just always under the impression it's stupid to make any joke about bombs at airports and also about joking about the Presidents well being. Next time your in a theatre, scream fire. Before they haul you off, just tell them; "Free speech baby" and see what that gets you.

If you can't keep up, perhaps its better if you sit this one out.

Does not even cover hospital stays? Sounds like shitty insurance that would leave tax payers on the hook if they end up staying in the hospital overnight. What a joke.

The real question you should have ask is what are they accused of? And why are we spending so much money to fight low level drug users/dealers. Both parties are starting to see the futility of the drug war and the crazy amount of money we spend to fight it. When the profit motive is gone from drugs, there will be no need to shoot up the competitions neighborhood.

It happens yearly. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

Citing a UN report about firearms in the US on DZ.com? Prepare for a great wailing and gnashing of teeth.

***I disagree with this. I don't think they had "best intentions" at all. They knew that the sheep were scared and would agree to intrusions on their civil liberties that would not have been allowed otherwise. They further took advantage of that fear and started the war with Iraq. Obama and the anti-gun crowd tried to do the exact same thing this past spring. Take advantage of the sheep being afraid of the scary black rifles and get them banned. Fortunately, it didn't work. I'm not normally in the business of defending Bush, but I really don't think that he was trying to figure out a way the government, 15 years down the road, could start snooping on Americans from 30,000 ft. I think the price of the technology started to really drop over the years and then it began to be realistic for domestic use. I agree 100% with you on Iraq. Taking the "scary black rifles" away was never even a serious proposition, at most they tried for universal background checks and banning large capacity clips, and that was never even seriously considered.

This is priceless, tens of thousands of gun deaths a year and all we hear is "That's one of the prices we pay for our 2nd amendment rights" Then out of the other side of the mouth comes the belief that minorities should be stopped at complete random and searched. Don't you ever want to be just a little consistent with your beliefs? I wonder how popular random searches would be at your local tea bagger gathering?

Not most likely, it has been going on for almost 100 years, the technology is just advancing at an unbelievable pace. After 911, The Bush administration accelerated the pace, they did so with the best of intentions, it was a scary time. Everything seems much more spooky if you toss in Obama's name.

Now a person with pre-existing conditions can buy insurance without having to pay $1,500 a month. People who cannot afford insurance will receive help from the Government, this will also keep them from going to the ER for the flu and save everyone money. Obamacare was an invention of the right, personal financial responsibility they told us was everyone's business. The Last GOP presidential candidate loved it before Obama was elected. It's really not rocket science, the US has the lowest life expectancy in the western world, while spending more of our GDP on healthcare than anyone else. There will be some snags and flaws along the way, there always are, but as people start getting use to the benefits, their gonna like it. The provision now in place that allows children up to the age of 26 to stay on their parents policy seems to be popular. I have yet to see one Republican say they will not insure their child to make a political statement.

That's about what I thought, its difficult sometimes to be your own man.

So after 5 years I fuck up my first clicky? BFD. You just find it convenient to dodge the subject.

I'm curious to hear what suggestions some would make on this issue before Obama makes a decision on what he will do. It must be tricky to take a position knowing that you may end up agreeing with the President. http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/military/iraq-seeks-help-from-us-amid-growing-violence/nZRRY/

What's even dumber than wanting a federal investigation? Being a dumbass who thinks that even joking in front of a crowd about harming a sitting POTUS is funny, he's a fucking dumbass But seriously, A small state chapter of the NAACP is enough to get you guys all frothy, that's some funny shit.

BDIF Even you find his actions indefensible...that's what I thought. What actions? You tell me what would be good policy right now in Egypt. (Outside of siding with the radical Muslims) Follow the law, withdraw aid, let them fight it out and then support the next government as long as they are duly elected by the people. Did I mention, follow the law? Duly elected? You must mean governments like Hamas and the Muslim brotherhood. Do you remember the crap Obama received when he called Morsi after his election? Do you remember how the right said the Obama administration was infiltrated by the Brotherhood? And now you say he should support them? http://islamicantics.wordpress.com/ All those back flips... you have to be dizzy by now.

BDIF Even you find his actions indefensible...that's what I thought. What actions? You tell me what would be good policy right now in Egypt. (Outside of siding with the radical Muslims)

Funny... When it was your guy it was never an issue.

What's best for the Democrats? That's one of the dumber things I have heard, since when does doing the right thing become a selfish act? I never realized stopping Militant Islam was partisan, It sure must get confusing when that Islamic Kenyan starts acting out of character. I think taking a step back and surveying the situation before taking drastic steps is a good idea. It sure must get confusing having to take a contrary position to EACH and EVERY position that Obama takes.

I don't know you, but I would offer in love and friendship that you please repent for this really unsavory remark. I'm not (Although I could) going to quote scripture that would reveal the most unsavory types of punishment that WILL be administered if you do not tell God your sorry. I will pray for you myself. Theres only one sin that's UNFORGIVEABLE, and that's blasphemy, there is no recompense for this. please, for your own sake, give this matter some thought. God loves you, he always has, and always will. Take Care, Be Safe. My Very Best- Richard It kind of reminds me of this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk&feature=youtube_gdata

“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one” George Bernard Shaw

Congress could very easily take up the issue of Egyptian military aid, but they would rather not get involved, it's easier too sling dirt at the President. There are times when the least of two evils are the only options, and continuing military aid seems to be the least of the two options at this time. An argument could also be made that the coup was a popular uprising, supported by the military, perhaps not a good one, but an argument none the less.

Mubarak was a dinosaur, he was the one thing that the whole country of Egypt could agree on... He had to go. For better or for worse, the days of us propping up our dictators are over. We always tout the virtues of democracy, until we don't like the results. Before this whole thing started, pundits on the right would have had Obama pandering to the MB, declaring that the military unjustly seized power (Remember, the MB had secretly infiltrated the Obama administration) and would have demanded that the MB be put back in power. He has now done the complete opposite. What type of stand do you want him to take? Declare the the current Egyptian government is not legitimate and the result of a military coup? Please explain what he should be doing.