Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Covered California officials note that at least 570,000 of the 1.9 million people who buy their own insurance should be eligible for subsidies that will reduce their premiums.
Even those who don't qualify for the tax subsidies could see their rates
drop because Obamacare doesn't allow insurers to charge people more if they have pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and cancer, he said.
People like Marilynn Gray-Raine.
The 64-year-old Danville artist, who survived breast cancer, has purchased health insurance for herself for decades. She watched her Anthem Blue Cross monthly premiums rise from $317 in 2005 to $1,298 in 2013. But she found out last week from the Covered California site that her payments will drop to about $795 a month.
[
Now you have pissed off the guy who sells dressage horses.
Romney does not pull any ones health coverage. In fact the people in Massachusetts seem to be happy with the health care plan Romney put in place when he was Governor. Now we have Obama screwing up the health care system in the entire country.
Anyone who teaches a horse how to dance should be flogged for cruelty to animals.
Oh, yeah, and Romney's plan is the same as Obama's. You wingnuts only hated the idea when a Black Guy did it.
[
The problem is the so-called 'fair-share' keeps moving up until it becomes an unfair share.
Horseshit. From FDR to Ike, the Rich paid a top marginal rate of 93%. We never had greater prosperity. From JFK to that IDIOT Ray-Gun, the rich paid 70%, and it was still pretty fucking awesome.
[
It isn't your or the governments money to run them out of. Taking someone's money or property by force is a felony.
Yeah. Explain that to the IRS, but I'm sure every April 15, you compliantly file your forms.
[
Not only that, when you take all the rich folks money, you just put all of the people who make and sell the expensive stuff they buy out of work.
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. Frankly, I'd rather spend that money on roads and schools and parks, things working folks use and we'd create more jobs providing them.
[
The rich never, or almost never, paid 70% or 93% tax rates.
Translation:[
The rich never, or almost never, paid 70% or 93% tax rates.
True enough. They usually had to prove they were doing something useful with their money that created jobs and contributed to the general good to get down to the still pretty reasonable 45% tax rate most of them did pay.
It was still the principle of the thing, however, that was important.
Today. Meh. First they used to argue that the wealthy should pay less because they would create jobs and the wealth would trickle down.
They don't even bother to claim that anymore. Now they claim, "This is my money and you socialists keep your hands off!"
Seriously. Fuck rich people.
Wow, Dave, you must be bored to dig up old threads to whine about me.
Oh, if you want to get rid of free stuff, let's start with your military pension.
Wow, Dave, you must be bored to dig up old threads to whine about me.
Oh, if you want to get rid of free stuff, let's start with your military pension.
Free? I earned that, with 20 years of uniformed service.
I know you can't comprehend the concept of earning something. You want everything for free.
How pathetic is that?
I had a contract with the government: I give them 20 years, they give me a pension.Wow, Dave, you must be bored to dig up old threads to whine about me.
Oh, if you want to get rid of free stuff, let's start with your military pension.
Free? I earned that, with 20 years of uniformed service.
I know you can't comprehend the concept of earning something. You want everything for free.
How pathetic is that?
You were paid for that service at the time you did it.
Had you mustered out at 19 years, you wouldn't have gotten it.
Point is, anyone getting an "entitlement" can argue that he is "entitled" to what he is getting just as well as you are.
This is why I don't take you budget hawks seriously. You never list the thing YOU benefit from you are willing to cut. You want to cut the OTHER guy's stuff.
Well...let's add military pensions to the LONG list of things Joey knows little or nothing about! An honorably-discharged service member will get a pension after serving more than ten years.
I had a contract with the government: I give them 20 years, they give me a pension.Free? I earned that, with 20 years of uniformed service.
I know you can't comprehend the concept of earning something. You want everything for free.
How pathetic is that?
You were paid for that service at the time you did it.
Had you mustered out at 19 years, you wouldn't have gotten it.
Point is, anyone getting an "entitlement" can argue that he is "entitled" to what he is getting just as well as you are.
This is why I don't take you budget hawks seriously. You never list the thing YOU benefit from you are willing to cut. You want to cut the OTHER guy's stuff.
Of course, military-hating Commies like you think that's a terrible idea.
Tough shit for you, huh?
What is it about progressives that they believe people merely breathing is enough to earn money, and a person who dedicates twenty years of his/her life in uniform doesn't deserve the pension the government contracted with him for?Well...let's add military pensions to the LONG list of things Joey knows little or nothing about! An honorably-discharged service member will get a pension after serving more than ten years.
Well, it was 20 when I was in... if they changed the rules to get guys to go along with four deployments to Afghanistan, it's news to me.
But my point was, Dave will scream ALL DAY about how them welfare people don't deserve food stamps because we are broke, but dammit, Dave damned well better get his pension check every month.
You are completely unable to comprehend the notion of "earning", aren't you?I had a contract with the government: I give them 20 years, they give me a pension.You were paid for that service at the time you did it.
Had you mustered out at 19 years, you wouldn't have gotten it.
Point is, anyone getting an "entitlement" can argue that he is "entitled" to what he is getting just as well as you are.
This is why I don't take you budget hawks seriously. You never list the thing YOU benefit from you are willing to cut. You want to cut the OTHER guy's stuff.
Of course, military-hating Commies like you think that's a terrible idea.
Tough shit for you, huh?
I don't think it's a good or bad idea. I just think it's hilarious you whine about people living off the government when you are living off the government.
What is it about progressives that they believe people merely breathing is enough to earn money, and a person who dedicates twenty years of his/her life in uniform doesn't deserve the pension the government contracted with him for?
Explain this rationally, Pinko. If you can. I'm betting you can't.
You are completely unable to comprehend the notion of "earning", aren't you?I had a contract with the government: I give them 20 years, they give me a pension.
Of course, military-hating Commies like you think that's a terrible idea.
Tough shit for you, huh?
I don't think it's a good or bad idea. I just think it's hilarious you whine about people living off the government when you are living off the government.
Most progressives are. It's why they don't think stealing is wrong.
So...you think the government should back out of the terms of the contract it signed with me...because it hurts your feelings.What is it about progressives that they believe people merely breathing is enough to earn money, and a person who dedicates twenty years of his/her life in uniform doesn't deserve the pension the government contracted with him for?
Explain this rationally, Pinko. If you can. I'm betting you can't.
For every year of those 20 years, you got a paycheck, you got subsidized housing, you got free food or subsidized food, you got professional training and subsidized education. In short, when you were doing the work, you were compensated for it, just like every other person who works. Probably far better than most people.
Yet you think something more is deserved because you worked there for 20 years. Frankly, people get let go from places after 20 years without so much as a severence check. I've seen it happen.
And, yes, in a humane society, we don't let children starve because their parents are poor. I know this HORRIFIES you to no end, and you'll scream about communism and stuff.
But here's the thing. That child can't really change his situation. You are more than capable of working.
Just not seeing how you are more deserving than that child is of government largress.
I don't think so, either.You are completely unable to comprehend the notion of "earning", aren't you?I don't think it's a good or bad idea. I just think it's hilarious you whine about people living off the government when you are living off the government.
Most progressives are. It's why they don't think stealing is wrong.
When the Poor Steal it's called "Crime".
When the Rich Steal, it's called "Profits".
I'm still wondering what those AIG Executives who got their government subsidized bonuses did to "earn" them. I don't think you should reward people for defrauding consumers and wrecking the economy.
MILLOY: EPAs illegal human experiments could break Nuremberg Code
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says no law empowers any judge to stop it from conducting illegal scientific experiments on seniors, children and the sick.
That astounding assertion will be tested Friday, when a federal district court in Alexandria decides whether it has jurisdiction to hear claims made by the American Tradition Institute that EPA researchers are exposing unwary and genetically susceptible senior citizens to air pollutants the agency says can cause a variety of serious cardiac and respiratory problems, including sudden death.
Although the lawsuit only addresses ongoing, purportedly illegal experimentation being carried out at an EPA laboratory on the Chapel Hill campus of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, EPA researchers and grantees have carried out dozens of similarly shocking experiments over the past 10 years at UNC and other schools, including Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, University of Rochester, University of Southern California and University of Washington.
During that time at those university laboratories, EPA-employed or -funded researchers have intentionally exposed a variety of people to concentrated levels of different air pollutants, including particulate matter (soot and dust), diesel exhaust, ozone and chlorine gas the latter substance more recognized as a World War I-era chemical weapon than as an outdoor air pollutant.
--
Rather than defending itself against the serious allegations made by the institute, the EPA instead has said it is essentially above the law and the federal court has no business hearing those serious charges.
The EPA claims the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case under the Clean Air Act (CAA): Nothing in the CAA provides a meaningful standard to evaluate what air pollution EPA chooses to study or how. To the contrary, the CAA gives EPA broad discretion in the subject matter of its research program. Congress broadly mandated that EPA study the health effects of air pollution.
Of course, Congress most likely thought the EPA would conduct such research in a lawful manner.
The EPA also says because no judicially manageable standards are available for judging how and when [EPA] should exercise its discretion in deciding what research to undertake, EPAs decision to study the health effects of [particulate matter] using controlled human exposure studies was a decision committed to the EPAs discretion and immune from review under the [Administrative Procedures Act], the general law governing the conduct of federal agencies.
The EPAs view, then, is that because Congress has not enacted a law that expressly forbids the agency from violating the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations governing human testing or that expressly guides judges in evaluating the conduct of agency researchers who experiment on their fellow human beings, the agency has unfettered discretion to do as it pleases with the young, old, sick and anyone else who falls into its clutches.
Disgusting.
MILLOY: EPAs illegal human experiments could break Nuremberg Code
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says no law empowers any judge to stop it from conducting illegal scientific experiments on seniors, children and the sick.
That astounding assertion will be tested Friday, when a federal district court in Alexandria decides whether it has jurisdiction to hear claims made by the American Tradition Institute that EPA researchers are exposing unwary and genetically susceptible senior citizens to air pollutants the agency says can cause a variety of serious cardiac and respiratory problems, including sudden death.
Although the lawsuit only addresses ongoing, purportedly illegal experimentation being carried out at an EPA laboratory on the Chapel Hill campus of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, EPA researchers and grantees have carried out dozens of similarly shocking experiments over the past 10 years at UNC and other schools, including Rutgers University, the University of Michigan, University of Rochester, University of Southern California and University of Washington.
During that time at those university laboratories, EPA-employed or -funded researchers have intentionally exposed a variety of people to concentrated levels of different air pollutants, including particulate matter (soot and dust), diesel exhaust, ozone and chlorine gas the latter substance more recognized as a World War I-era chemical weapon than as an outdoor air pollutant.
--
Rather than defending itself against the serious allegations made by the institute, the EPA instead has said it is essentially above the law and the federal court has no business hearing those serious charges.
The EPA claims the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case under the Clean Air Act (CAA): Nothing in the CAA provides a meaningful standard to evaluate what air pollution EPA chooses to study or how. To the contrary, the CAA gives EPA broad discretion in the subject matter of its research program. Congress broadly mandated that EPA study the health effects of air pollution.
Of course, Congress most likely thought the EPA would conduct such research in a lawful manner.
The EPA also says because no judicially manageable standards are available for judging how and when [EPA] should exercise its discretion in deciding what research to undertake, EPAs decision to study the health effects of [particulate matter] using controlled human exposure studies was a decision committed to the EPAs discretion and immune from review under the [Administrative Procedures Act], the general law governing the conduct of federal agencies.
The EPAs view, then, is that because Congress has not enacted a law that expressly forbids the agency from violating the Nuremberg Code and federal regulations governing human testing or that expressly guides judges in evaluating the conduct of agency researchers who experiment on their fellow human beings, the agency has unfettered discretion to do as it pleases with the young, old, sick and anyone else who falls into its clutches.
Disgusting.
Oh No....Say It Ain't So.
You mean you went to Conservative Website, for a Conservative Paper and found an article by a Conservative Slamming the EPA.
How was that?
Well...let's add military pensions to the LONG list of things Joey knows little or nothing about! An honorably-discharged service member will get a pension after serving more than ten years.
Well, it was 20 when I was in... if they changed the rules to get guys to go along with four deployments to Afghanistan, it's news to me.
But my point was, Dave will scream ALL DAY about how them welfare people don't deserve food stamps because we are broke, but dammit, Dave damned well better get his pension check every month.
