Jump to content
Dan, no it is not incorrect, just slanted. I am sure that every survey or poll that any of us can find are all slanted. I can match you poll for poll all day long but that won't really prove much, will it?
Bottom line is that all the Republican scare tactics about the ACA keep being proved wrong. I ask again, will you ever admit that some of the Fox News headlines over the last 4 years about the ACA (aka Obamacare) we flat out wrong?
I am not trying to say that I buy into this law lock stock and barrel. It is too big, too complicated and still allows some of the abuses that caused the problems in the first place. If would do many things differently, but somehow the politicians did not listen to me, go figure.
Joe, I DID answer you question, you just don't happen to like my answer. You asked:
"In order to distill the discussion of the ACA, or collectivism in general, down to basics, I have a question: Is it right to take from one person against their will and give these proceeds to another?"
I answered your question in the context of the ACA as requested. The Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment and called the ACA a "tax". I realize that you do not like that decision but you do not get to override the Supreme Court no matter how strong your beliefs and just like I have to live with the Citizens United decision, you have to live with the fact that the ACA is a tax.
The Constitution says:
"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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
The Supreme Court also ruled that Healthcare falls under the general welfare clause and is therefore legal and constitutional so your argument that:
Is null and void because the Supreme Court said so. End of Story,
I agree and would add term limits and campaign finance reform. These politicians have a nasty habit of spending their campaign contributions on personal expenses and maintain a large account to attack anyone that runs against them.
We should make ALL candidates start with fresh fundraising 1 year prior to the election and any unspent campaign funds should revert to the Gov't agency that the candidate was running for with the sole purpose of reducing debt.
Happens every day Joe. Whether it is the sales tax I pay to the City of Steamboat for Services I cannot even use because I live in the county to the FICA tax I pay with every check. What makes the ACA any different than the variety of other taxes that US Citizens pay? You can call it "gun to your head" if it makes you feel any better, but taxes are and will continue to be a fact of life. This one is no different than the rest.
Ken, better check that source, the CBO actually shows that the ACA is reducing the debt, not increasing it.
Insurance rates are actually better in states that fully participate:
Yes, I know you want to complain about increased premiums and it is all Obama's fault. I get that. Funny thing is that none of you seem to remember that insurance premiums have been climbing at double digit rates for over 20 years with individuals and small companies bearing the brunt of the costs. If you check your history this has been going on for over 30 years.
The ACA is actually projected to reduce and contain healthcare premiums (again per the CBO)
spin it however you want, but will any of you admit that you were wrong when the law works?
And yet the overall rate of people who do not have insurance is actually dropping.
You can keep telling yourself how bad it is, but the actual facts tell a more mixed story. As one of the people who actually received one of those letters, it came coupled with a new insurance policy that was remarkably similar. Hmmmmm, not quite the horror story you would have us believe. I do agree there are problems that need to be addressed, but overall the law seems to be working.
Insurers are planning on increasing their participation:
This is not the trainwreck you all have been predicting and sooner or later you are going to have to admit it! I don't expect any of you to like it, that is a different question,
This has nothing to do with approving of MJ use. It has everything to do with a 17 year old girl that made a huge mistake. The questions revolve around what an appropriate response should be given the circumstances.
How many of us would want our 17 year old child barred from ever graduating High School for making a mistake of similar nature. I am sure that there are many parents in this community that have dealt with similar issues without Mr Meeks ever being involved. I would be equally sure that none of those parents approve of the MJ use and would further surmise that most of those children went on to become productive adults.
I personally sent Mr. Meeks an email discussing my feelings on the matter and have yet to receive any acknowledgement at all that he even received my correspondence. Yes, I believe he is power hungry, violated the trust placed in him by the community and needs to be removed. The sooner the better at this point.
Well Spoken Jim. I completely agree.
I am sure they will both fall over in shock, but I have to agree with Mark and Fred on this topic. If any private employer showed the public a picture with an employee in this situation, OSHA would be calling and quickly.
I am not sure I see any sense in one Gov't agency fining a different agency, but someone should sit these people down and discuss some basic safety issues. This picture clearly shows a dangerous stunt that should not have happened. That little safety rope was not going to help save Nick's life in the event of a sudden collapse.
If money = free speech then I have absolutely no problem with anyone that wants to donate to the candidate(s) of their choice Union, corporation, rich people or Rhys (sorry Rhys, had to throw that out there :) makes no difference to me.
I think that we the public deserve to know how our politicians fund their campaigns and I would couple unlimited donations with complete transparency. The public deserve to know where the money comes from. That knowledge is the only way we have to base our decisions about who will represent our views as citizens. If you do not know who is paying for Candidate X, how can you decide whther to vote for candidate X or candidate Y.
I have posted before, please join me in calling for:
No fundraising until 1 year prior to the election
No War Chests.
Once the election is over all excess campaign funds go to the Gov't entity that the candidate was running for. Each and every election cycle start the fundraising anew with no bank balance to start with.
Anyone that is still paying Comcast deserves the service or lack thereof that they receive. Is is not obvious by now that Comcast does not care about the little people in Steamboat?
Vote with your checkbook and send Comcast back to the drawing board so they can learn something about customer service. Their service will NOT change until you as the customer force them to by refusing to pay.
Dan, Kill it now and get Zirkel, I promise you will be happier with both the service and the support.
Last login: Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.