WilliamCody

I'll state them, but I'll be damned if I mark them.

Or, are we seeing the ramifications of actually having talent on the roster? And what does it matter if we think of Smith as a 4th QB or a 6th WR. Most would have thought we were going to keep a 6th WR anyway. And, with Potter, his touch backs, guaranteed, will save this team from at least one injury and likely more than one. So you could make the argument that Potter is actually a roster asset because his kicking abilities mean we may not have to shuffle the mid-season roster as much due to injury.

I could use some wine to erase the crippling sadness.

Yep, that's my old high school. No joking. I played basketball for the Allen Eagles from 1996-1998.

If you want all economies to contract heavily and everyone on earth to endure extreme hardship for a generation, sure.

He's also right about that. If seven rookies make your team, you don't have a lot of talent. We now have talent and are cutting rookies. It's a sign of improvement.

We now have enough talent on this team that others are claiming our cast-offs. It's a nice feeling. Best of luck to Asper.

This has happened too far away from the election to have any direct connection. But there is a good chance the TEA Party is energized.

Of course it is. As I have said at least once above, regulations provide a matrix within which corporate decisions must be made. I'm actually inclined to think the real question would be who can we hire to help us get around said regulation.

Not at all. But to suggest that it is the government's fault is simplistic. A corporate board must ultimately make its own decisions.

This guy really sounds like he has a clue.

Right. But government policies don't dictate corporate policies. They set parameters.

The bolded are a result of CORPORATE policy, not government.

Yes, it might work as a political stunt. But in terms of generating meaningful action or debate it would be a failure.

It was a serious question. Were there any provisions for the use of the tax in the bill?

Laws gain meaning as they are interpreted and applied, not written.

The point is that it's not going to pass the Senate or veto until November, and maybe not even then. So yeah, it's useless right now.

Mind posting that here or providing a short synopsis?

This is a big problem and one of the things I hope gets work out either by Congress or by the insurance companies themselves.

Which may or may not have the fund to support them because this program is being scaled back all over. My ultimate question is does the "tax" or "penalty" or whatever you want to call it ultimate go towards providing healthcare for someone or does it get simply lost in the government's money pile?

Is there any provision within the law that streamlines that money directly into subsidies for hospitals who serve the un-insured or does it go into the general fund? Anyone know?

In decision, Roberts Warns Against Regulating ‘Inactivity’ portion of his opinion

To be fair, this forum or thread is not an accurate cross section. It represents those who care enough to debate on the issues in a sustained way. Demographically speaking, this is a fractionally small minority of the population.

Completely useless until November. More distractions.

Time will tell. The reverse is that people will get tired of beating a dead horse now that the case has been decided. And I'm not sure its a clear majority. Have any non-partisan polls to back this up?