TheMadCap

I think you meant to say "will cause thier previously acceptable and desirable level of insurance to decrease in coverage and explode in premiums". I know mine will, I've looked on the exchanges, and buddy, let me tell you, it's enough to even make my wife, who's father blames the GOP for every problem the world has, who has NEVER voted for anyone other than one with (D) after their name, to see the light...

Cause that's what we need from him at this point: more speeches, more promises, more blame...

Then you probably **** yourself with rage at Battle 360: USS Enterprise. Half the time their ****ty CGI was prewar markings, the other half jumped from 1945. At least they never showed her in Measure 33 dazzle...

This is a myth that needs to die already. The weather hasn't been an advantage for the Bills in about 20 years...

That's actually more than I thought it would be...

Just got it straight from the company CEO (we are a Fortune 500). Our health plan meets the requirements of the law (good), but since it is what is considered a "Cadillac Plan" by Washington, IF the law takes effect as written, two years from now the excise tax on these types of plans are 40% of the total cost. To cover as many employees as we have, it seems HIGHLY unlikely that even we can or would be willing to eat a 40% increase. So long story short, if the law remains unchanged, it's likely that we will have to join the exchange in two years. Since there seems to be no way to make this law work unless most Americans are enrolled, I have to conclude that this was by design...

So what's the Dems end game here? I understand that some Dem senators have proposed a "if you like your health insurance you can keep it" bill, as have some Republicans. So they delay it, sY we are trying to fix it and still come out on top? Does Clinton and the rest of the Dems do what they should do to survive and throw Obama under the bus for the good of the party? Will Obama do the right thing for the party and go under the bus, or will he be too arrogant to go down quietly? If the GOP fight against the Dems trying to delay their way past the 2014 mid terms, do they pay the high political price?

This is a very touchy subject, one I know all too well. I am a transplant recipient. There are a few of us here and there on TBD. It is very personal and should be each person's decision. All I ask is that the requests, if not decided well in advance, are done with great caution. Worst thing anyone can do is start in on a grieving family member who just lost thier loved one. This has been shown (here on TBD in the past as well) to not go over well, and undermines the entire process. I encourage everyone to find out for themselves what the best course of action is for them and their family...

I hearby nominate you for the "Completely Understands Women Award". Bravo!

I'll take that deal, my friend. I never, and would never have lumped you in with that lot in any case. Not sure how to address your question regarding carbon. CO2 isn't going to prevent warming, it will definitely cause increased heating in the atmosphere. I suspect it's more twisted information from that ****ty article. It is sad and disheartening to see some in the "scientific" community resort to anything they can for political gain. Science is the search for FACT, not TRUTH, they should remember that and keep it in mind at all times. I'll ask my colleauges next time I see them what they think about this, most likely, they will want to read the actual, published work and not some political puff piece.

well you could have helped me by just saying that first post! ASS! All true, but this is a science discussion. Most of what he was mocking seemed to be more of the politics of the debate. Bottom line is anyone who says either Global Warming is a FACT or Global Warming is a complete fabrication is a hack. It cannot be shown to be either at present...

Damn it OC, you made me have to read that piece of **** article! I have no idea what the hell these clowns are talking about when they infer that "the Oceans are taking up increased amounts of heat". Maybe the actual report will make more sense, or the person writing the article got it wrong. Without the actual report, I can't support or refute thier claims, but it sounds like their models don't work because they don't have enough data yet to understand the real situation. It sounds like they have assumed they understand all the variables, which should clue anyone WITH a clue in that they don't. And about the pollution, I did not say carbon (CO2), my example was ozone. But what I can tell you is that small amounts of CO2 are needed by plants, massive amounts of it in the atmosphere is generally not a good thing, because we don't understand the Earth's mechanisms of elimination very well. Anything we can do to reduce it is a good thing, if it's done responsibly. So in closing, I'll have to give this article the DC Tom treatment, call them all idiots and call it a day. That article is a shitsmear of a disaster and makes absolutely no sense. No wonder people are confused by it. I will say this though: don't lump all climate scientist in with this political agenda BS these Germans are apparently trying to pull. The people I know and work with are honest people trying to understand how Earth works, not make some political statement. It wouldn't be fair to the real scientists to have these clowns drag them all down...

Yeah, but it does seem straight out of the 1980's doesn't it?

You are right, this subject is way to political. I agree with your basis that the left needs this argument for thier political purposes. As far as the science aspects, I can't tell if you are serious or not. "Hiding at the bottom of the ocean" is an overly simplistic and dramatic. The carbonate system is quite complex in natural waters, CO2 from the atmopshere is thought to dissolve in cold ocean waters and precipitate into CaCO3. I suspect you did not really read what I wrote. "pollution" can be just about anything based on WHERE it is located. Again, ozone is not generally considered a pollutant gas in the atmosphere, as it has a necessary and important purpose there. But when it is formed close to the ground it is absolutely a pollutant. The same is true of ejecta from a volcano. These are scientific principals that have much data behind them. It is unfortunate that political hacks try and twist the information to further their agendas. The information is out there. I'm not reading a political puff piece written by some hack with a politcal agenda to push. I work closely with actual scientist who do this for a living...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distinguished_Gentleman

Sounds like a crappy Eddie Murphy movie from the late 1980's...

Pretty scary that just about every predicition made prior to this law being passed is coming true in alarming fashion. One story I can tell you from my point of view, I have had two of my long term specialist doctors retire this year. These are guys who are awesome at thier job with years and years of experience. Both of them are retiring because of the way the new law will prevent them from operating the way they want to do things. I can only shake my head and remind people who are stunned, left with thier sheep's mouths hanging open, "you get the government you deserve"...

You've been here long enough, albeit in another screen name no doubt, to know that the proper term is "right-wing gangbang". I expect you to do better...

This is my prediction as well. No way to they allow themselves to get slaughtered in the midterms over this when they can say it's still not ready to go yet...

Not anymore. She's an old battleax these days, the glamour is way gone for her...

know what would be AWESOME? Some old, dusty, far right doofus gets the nomination (yet again) for the GOP in 2016, and Christie goes rogue and gets an Independant nomination from some other party! Can you say fireworks?

Another piece of data. More evidence that we don't understand climate over long periods of time. It no more disproves "global warming" than would the ice sheet melting prove it. What most people don't understand, is that by the time something changes globally, it is usually too late to do anything about it. In other words, if one day "global warming" IS proven to be due to humans, it will be late to really do anything other than ride it out...

Which is probably correct, sadly for them. They really have no friggin clue...

It's almost thier best play to delay the ACA implementation until AFTER the mid term elections. Take it out of the equation...

I don't see how the Dems CAN vote for this and not admit failure...