The Truth About Obamacare

[Shady]

The Wright Brothers new so-called flying machine crashed on its first three attempts! What a joke! Anyone who thinks this fying business is ever going to work is a loon!

People not wanting to sign up for a program they don't like isn't tantamount to the Wright brothers or flying.

[Shady]

You mean like deciding what drugs are safe to go on the market, collecting taxes, reining in polluters, that sort of thing?

BTW, because of a fluke the federal courts are still operating. They had money for two weeks. One week from now the courts stop operating. But hey, there's still Judge Judy!

All those things are great. I just want only essential personnel doing those jobs. If 95% of the employees are the Department of Education are considered non-essential. Perhaps it's time to look at exactly how big the Department of Education should be, and how many people they employ. It's pretty logical and reasonable. At least to everyone that isn't a big government statist.

[waldo]

More interesting facts regarding Obamacare and his online exchanges. Looks like they're more than just health insurance exchanges...

‘WARNING: No Explicit or Implicit Expectation of Privacy’

User info ‘may be intercepted, monitored, recorded … and disclosed’ to government personnel

http://freebeacon.com/kentucky-marketplace-warning-no-explicit-or-implicit-expectation-of-privacy/

Whatevs though right? I mean, Republicans shouldn't concern themselves with such minor details and just fund the entire government asap, no questions asked.

if nothing else that wording was somewhat 'boiler-plate'... only someone fully intent in stirring-the-pot would reach any other conclusion than the website was a government entity that hosted sensitive information, along with a warning against improper access and unauthorized use of the data within. Does this revised wording now appearing on the Kentucky state website meet yourShady requirements?

WARNING

This website is the property of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. This is to notify you that you are only authorized to use this site, or any information accessed through this site, for its intended purpose. Unauthorized access or disclosure of personal and confidential information may be punishable by fines under state and federal law. Unauthorized access to this website or access in excess of your authorization may also be criminally punishable. The Commonwealth of Kentucky follows applicable federal and state guidelines to protect the information from misuse or unauthorized access.

[Argus]

All those things are great. I just want only essential personnel doing those jobs. If 95% of the employees are the Department of Education are considered non-essential. Perhaps it's time to look at exactly how big the Department of Education should be, and how many people they employ. It's pretty logical and reasonable. At least to everyone that isn't a big government statist.

The Education department is actually pretty small, but it coordinates and helps distribute tens of billions in federal money for education to states and muncipalities across the country.

[cybercoma]

People not wanting to sign up for a program they don't like isn't tantamount to the Wright brothers or flying.

People had a say when they voted Republicans out of their seats, voted Obama in for the presidency, and voted for the judges that approved of the Affordable Care Act. Now you're not going to sit here and tell us that the US government is undemocratic are you? Because what the people want is expressed through their representatives in government and through its various institutions. So a given individual doesn't want to sign up? Too bad. The society that they live in has determined peacefully and democratically that this is the way they want things done.

[guyser]

People not wanting to sign up for a program they don't like isn't tantamount to the Wright brothers or flying.

Except they overwhelmingy love it and want it. Damn.....that narrative must hurt.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-20131001,0,4909537.story

[Guest American Woman]

People had a say when they voted Republicans out of their seats, voted Obama in for the presidency, and voted for the judges that approved of the Affordable Care Act.

What judges would those be?

[bleeding heart]

Except they overwhelmingy love it and want it. Damn.....that narrative must hurt.

Yes, but there's an insane, indoctrinated lefty part of the country that doesn't know how to think: comprised of Democrats, minorities, young people, women, public schools, universities, the entertainment industry, artists, liberal Christians, atheists, agnostics, and some conservatives.

You can't trust this fringe groups' opinion on anything.

Edited October 7, 2013 by bleeding heart

[guyser]

What judges would those be?

The same ones who upheld the Act.

Semantics is a childish game.

[cybercoma]

The same ones who upheld the Act.

Semantics is a childish game.

Her comment wasn't even worth replying to.

[Guest American Woman]

Her comment wasn't even worth replying to.

What does "semantics" have to do with it? You said "People had a say when they ... voted for the judges that approved of the Affordable Care Act." I'd still be interested to know what judges you are referring to, but if the question's too difficult for you, so be it.

[cybercoma]

Stop trolling, AW. It's against the rules.

[Guest American Woman]

Stop trolling, AW. It's against the rules.

Since when is asking for clarification of a comment trolling? If you believe it is, then report it. Sorry if the question was too difficult.

[cybercoma]

Clarification for what? That the Affordable Care Act passed a court challenge?

[Guest American Woman]

Clarification for what? That the Affordable Care Act passed a court challenge?

You said: People had a say when they ... voted for the judges that approved of the Affordable Care Act.

I asked: What judges would those be?

It's not clear to you want I'm asking you to clarify? Seriously??

[cybercoma]

The judges that ruled on the Affordable Care Act. They're appointed democratically by elected representatives of the people.

Edited October 8, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

The judges that ruled on the Affordable Care Act. They're appointed democratically by elected representatives of the people.

In other words, judges that people didn't vote for, as you claimed.

[cybercoma]

What difference does it make? The courts are democratic. That was my point. Your nitpicking is yet again completely irrelevant.

[Guest American Woman]

What difference does it make? The courts are democratic. That was my point. Your nitpicking is yet again completely irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all since you thought it was relevant to make the (incorrect) statement.

[cybercoma]

Do you have a point to make that's actually relevant to my argument or are you just trolling?

[Guest American Woman]

Do you have a point to make that's actually relevant to my argument or are you just trolling?

Since when is pointing out a claim that was made is incorrect "trolling?"

I'll try to spell it out for you. You said, in response to Shady's comment about "People not wanting to sign up for a program they don't like ..." that "People had a say when they voted Republicans out of their seats, voted Obama in for the presidency, and voted for the judges that approved of the Affordable Care Act."

But people didn't vote for said judges as you claimed, and since Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, they aren't 'a sign of the times' as the sitting president/present congress, who are voted in by people for limited terms, are.

Edited October 8, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Yes. SCOTUS judges aren't elected directly. You've already said that and I've already acknowledged it. You care to explain how this is relevant to what I'm arguing at all? It's nice that you want to play your stupid semantic games, but the point is that the judiciary is a democratic institution. Judges aren't appointed by their peers or some non-government body. They're appointed by democratically elected presidents and the democratically elected senate, regardless of how long they sit.

Your pathetic semantic nonsense aside, the point is that the Affordable Care Act was not only passed by the legislative branch and the executive branch of your government, but it has also passed a constitutional challenge in the judiciary. People get their say in what laws are passed by voting for representatives to speak for them. Those representatives have spoken by passing the Affordable Care Act and the justices that were appointed by elected officials, which is the way the courts are made democratic, also cleared the Affordable Care Act. So my point, which you're conveniently not addressing is that people have had a say in the process. They had a say in the elections that put the representatives, senators, president, and judges in place.

[Guest American Woman]

Your pathetic semantic nonsense aside,

The difference between "appointed" and "elected" is not a matter of semantics. They are two different things. It's a matter of a statement being correct or incorrect. I already explained why the difference is relevant in regards to the argument you were making.

[cybercoma]

So you have nothing to add to the actual point I'm making and are just trolling. Got it.

[Shady]

USAToday editorial board...

Obamacare exchange launch turns into an inexcusable mess.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/07/health-care-insurance-exchanges-obamacare-editorials-debates/2940207/

The train wreck continues!!!