1 - 5
One commentator on a network news show called it ironic Republicans will sue to require enforcement of a law they bitterly opposed. The reasons for the lawsuit involve structure of government, but particular harm does arise from shifting the burden for healthcare mandates from employers to individuals. Congress passed a law that required companies with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance. Obama - by executive fiat - abrogated that law in favor of a mandate that requires employees of companies with more than 50 employees to buy their own insurance or pay 2.5% of their income as a penalty. Congress did not approve a law requiring employees of companies with more than 50 employees to buy their own insurance or pay 2.5% of their income as a penalty. Obama made up such an executive rule outside the rule of law. If those taxpayers were exempted from the penalty as long as their employees were also exempted, a situation would arise where people employed by companies with fewer than 50 employees would pay a penalty while those working for larger companies would not. That would deny employees of small business equal protection under the law - a violation of the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment.
If the server crashed, they would have logs of employ time spent recovering from the crash. If the local computer stored two years worth of e-mails and was backed up by a tape that recorded the local computers' hard drive for the past six months, that six month backup would include 2 years worth of data stored on the tape, which is kept for six months and which would be used to recover from the crash.
We can't blame townhall for Rasumssen's flawed poll, but what does it mean to "fix" and which of the myriad Obamacare problems are considered to be fixable? In software development, an adage says "that's not a bug, it's a feature." So it is with Obamacare. Closing the health insurance market for several months out of the year was not a problem - it was the plan. A penalty of several thousand dollars for married couples compared to two individuals cohabitating is not a problem to be fixed, it is the plan. Sending tax bills of several thousand dollars to unemployed workers who bought into subsidized health insurance then found a job is not a problem to be fixed - it was the plan. What are the problems to be fixed? Reporting anyone who entered an e-mail address in healthcare.gove as one of seven million who allegedly signed up for healthcare? Not, that's not a problem to be fixed it is water under the bridge in the flood of partisan rhetoric that daily gasses out of Washington D.C. As best we can tell, the singular problem to be fixed was that everytime anybody tried to access healthcare.gov, it almost always said "not now, later." No, we don't expect that to be fixed. We expect the politicians that foisted this insurance scheme on the public under the false claim of health care will instead use it as a device to train Americans that it is our job to stand in line just as long as the government says we should stand in line. It is a shelter-in-place "request" that carries a not-so-veiled threat of force if we don't comply. Health care? Right. It will be healthy for most people to shut up and do what they are told to avoid the risk of joblessness, homelessness, prison or starvation for those who dare ask questions.
Obama claimed she told him a while ago she was leaving. A plausible reason for transition now is so someone can be blamed for difference between 7 million people who entered an email address in a Web site and the small fraction of that number that might eventually pay for a health insurance policy - many of whom were replacing policies arbitrarily cancelled because the did not provide maternity care for elders or other such nonsensical reasons.
Mary and wife are right that this is a black or white issue, but probably didn't mean it the way it really is black and white. Until the past century, marriage was not a state matter. State issued marriage licenses were instituted in the Jim Crow era to provide a legal means to enforce laws against inter-racial marriage. If gay people want to climb on the Jim Crow bandwagon, that's nothing new for Democrats, which have been the party of slaveholders all along. Democrats these days perpetuate the pre-emancipation claim that slaves would be happy in their roles if only we treat them well - now it's subsidized healthcare and the right to get a state-licensed same-sex marriage. Anyone who truly believes in marital freedom would demand an end to state marriage licenses and require courts to adjudicate all dissolution of domestic partnership according to fair, equal standards that look at individual's mutual contribution to shared wealth -- including contributions to the domestic community that facilitates accumulation of wealth. Marriage is the domain of ceremony - partnerships are the domain of law. It's not likely many so-called libertarian conservatives will dare break rank with the religious cultural identities we've used to provide a stable reality in changing times to face the facts that the state has only been in the marriage business for a short while, and only got into the marriage game to institutionalize racial hatred - not for love.
1 - 5