Congress has been at 9% for months. Bottom feeders....



This is the worst part...these folks who got cancelled can now keep their plan for 1 year. Great one would say but in 1 year they go through this again. Where is the fix??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??

Ya. Congress. Those 38-39% numbers for Obama probably included Congress and all the sub-leaches, clingers that buy his poo-poo.
:nope:

At those ratings? Thier gonna need bigger FEMA detention centers.
:haha:

Not a fix, just a gamble, hoping to distract sheep with other things.

It is not a fix Bubble. It is deferring at best. A band aid were sutures are required. It will not work. Folks have become wise to what is going on. Waiting another year for the inevitable is unacceptable. It was not you can keep your insurance if you like (caveat 1 year). Total BS sir.

And to add Privateer, I know plenty who are absolutely clueless of the ACA and anything else that goes on beyond their world of the Candy Crush and what's on the reality channel.

I'm thinking your speaking of those elected to represent us?
:hmmm:

Reading the last page or two, I was just reminded of something:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mw3DqpfR14

No, a few of my wife's family members.

I did reference the front door didn't I?
:D

I don't buy the whole FEMA Camp thing but We are approaching something very bad.
Those We elected have let us down and I don't see them saveing us without a great cost to the plain old Guy out there.

Hell. Most will probably be re-elected.
:nope:

Just signed up for my company's enrollment plan. Wow, the selection pool is a lot smaller.:down: They also smurfed around with the vision plan. On a side note, I signed up for one of those HSA. We'll see how that works out.

This whole thing is a clustersmurf. Hopefully, every politician that has their fingerprints on this gets booted from office.

Gotta love a DREAMER!
:haha:

This administration is horrible. Instead of working to fix the healthcare system the day was spent attempting to fix a law named ACA or affectionally named Obamacare. That's it. Save a legacy. Nothing more. Priorities in DC are themselves. The rule of law does not exist. It changes day to day as dictated from the WH. How can any individual or business owner make good financial decisions when there is no stability in DC? It's chaos. Congress should go home. They don't matter anymore.

Congress popularity ratings are useless.

Why should a Congresscritter from say Vermont care if a Californian doesn't like his job performance? Answer is he doesn't. All he cares about is the 700k or so people in his district. They are the ones he has to answer to.

And he or she only tells them what they want to hear.

Supreme Court upholds key Obamacare insurance subsidies

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sla...ediumlarge.png

I can see where not allowing a technicality to upend the whole mess makes sense. But the whole mess is still a mess.

Found this news item rather interesting since one rarely gets much background on the machinations of SCOTUS opinions:


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...tes?cmpid=yhoo


It must be rather chilly in the corridors of the SCOUTUS nowadays...


<O>

At least that is the hope of some port leaning people. :)

The first paragraph of this opinion piece to me illustrates one of the problems with the SCotUS.

I don't want a Conservative justice on the Supreme Court
I don't want a Liberal justice on the Supreme Court

I want a justice that will logically research constitutional law and render interpretations based on our evolving cultural/environment as a whole independent of a political party's agenda.

The whole idea of "he was appointed by a conservative president so he really needs to vote as a conservative" undermines the purpose of the Supreme Court. It is not, and should never be a politically motivated court. This is one really good reason why they are appointed for life.

Unfortunately/fortunately, justices of the Supreme Court are human and are appointed by politicians, which is a sub-class of human (:D)

I applaud any justice who votes based on their experience and knowledge of the law despite the political agenda of who appointed them... even when I disagree with how they voted.

I don't have to agree with the vote, but I should agree with the process of the vote. That's part of a representative democracy too.

the ruling is right in the mainstream of case law. It is standard to look at the context and object of the law when interpreting particular provisions, so nothing unusual there.

In a larger sense, what the Court is once again saying is that this is a political problem and it is up to voters and Congress to fix it, not the Supreme Court.

This is a narrow ruling, since it only applies to the interpretation of that section as written, Congress is, of course, free to amend the law to explicitely provide that no one will get federal subsidies in states that have not set up their own exchanges...if they so wish...:ping:

:yep:

I remember reading a long time ago a list of Justices who had disappointed the Presidents who put them there by actually ruling honestly. I wish I could find it again, because it was a fairly long one. I don't like Obamacare but found this ruling refreshing.