Rand Paul wants Obama to go after Colorado and Washington.

[Jhhnn]

That sounds almost as definitive as deciding not to enforce a law for now, and if we're lucky, maybe until his successor arrives. Yeah, we should forgo legislation requiring adherence to the mandates of the Constitution because we have this iron-clad guarantee to make us feel warm and fuzzy about ignoring the rest of the laws that he's decided don't need enforcing. You do realize, of course, that he is setting precedents for future Presidents to follow, some of whom you may not agree with quite as much?

Jesus Christ. I'm no fan of Bush, but do you even have the slightest idea what the average gas price was when Obama was inaugurated?

You're a smart guy, one I respect, particularly for all the help you've rendered here. OTOH, it's important not to project our fears onto the future.

What Obama's non-enforcement has given us in Colorado is a chance to show that legalization is sound policy. We've never had that opportunity in the past, and I'm confident that we will show the world that it is. Those of us who truly understand cannabis at all know that to be true. All we ever needed was a chance, and now we have it. It'll take some time for the truth to become firmly established, and to wipe away the lies of prohibition. People need to be shown that it works, and we're doing just that.

Barring some amazing bad luck, our success will be undeniable, and the urge to join us irresistible for many States. By the time 2017 rolls around, I figure it'll be an unstoppable bandwagon & that the classification of cannabis as schedule 1 a historical bad memory.

Really.

There are other practical considerations, as well. W/O State level assistance, federal enforcement against growing is basically impossible in Colorado. It's already way too big for that, short of the DEA becoming the Gestapo, something nobody is willing to pay for, anyway.

Given the way that A64 is structured, as part of the state constitution, Colorado won't be going back any time RSN, regardless of what the politicos want. It's what the People want, and we've made it so that it basically can't be undone unless we change our minds, not likely at all. Prohibition forces in Colorado might as well be yelling at the clouds for all the good it'll do them.

The situation in Washington isn't as clear, but if we're successful in Colorado it seems likely that prohibitionist bullshit won't be able to fly much of anywhere in this country.

 

[rives]

So if the president of the united states asked every member of ST6 to stand down, how many do you imagine would refuse?
Are you imagining that its different for any other member of the military? As commander in chief he can fire every single one of them, right?


Dieing of old age is a 'demise'. Whats your point? OBL's time just happened to be up when this 'lazy' black president was serving?
Bush had 8 years to get OBL and, in fact, can be quoted as saying it was not a priority for him. One can assume the same for his administration. Lack of focus of leadership has tangible effects. As does Focus. The current president did not have the same "don't spend much time on it" lack of care. That is the tangible difference.


Wait a minute. Is the President in trouble for enforcing the laws or not enforcing the laws? Can he simply decide to not enforce laws, or does he HAVE TO... but not the cali MJ shops? Your confusing me by calling him out on one hand then cursing him for coming out on the other.White guy calling the black President of the United States of America lazy...
I imagine you killed it at Harvard too...

I'll just address a couple of these that came up after I logged off for the night.

The commander-in-chief asking a field-level operative to stand down isn't going to happen, nor do I believe that he can "fire every single one of them". There are a select few at the top who he can, which was exactly my point with the DOJ - Holder and Haag serve directly "at his pleasure", which means he can get rid of them in a heartbeat, simply by asking. Not so with the the rank & file in the armed services.

Again, please inform me as to what policy change originating with Obama resulted in Bin Laden's death. As for Obama's dedication to spending time on important matters, you're kidding, right?

He's not "in trouble" in my mind for enforcing one and not the other. This example was meant to illustrate exactly how transient the current status of mj enforcement is, and how it can change either with the current president or a future one. Simply ignoring the laws may make him a great guy with certain groups of people - however, since the laws are still on the books, they can suddenly start being enforced at any time.

I didn't have my higher education bankrolled at Harvard, but I would happily compare my GPA from a California state university to his - of course, his record isn't available.....

The "lazy" comment had nothing to do with Obama's ethnicity and everything to do with the way that he chooses to execute his job. Pretty funny how the first place you guys jump is race. The simple fact is that Obama is incapable of getting any legislative changes done because he refuses to put the effort in that it would require. The current situation is precisely what the framers of the constitution had in mind to have the government reflect the will of the people - the country, as well as congress are divided and it would take a strong leader, working hard, to pull the various factions together and make progress in a given direction. It's far easier to pull out a pen and issue an executive order, or tell the head of some enforcement branch to ignore a given law. It's the lazy way out, which was my point, and capable of being reversed as quickly as it was implemented.

 

[RoadRash]

Rand the libertarian ?! /sarc

 

[bentom187]

It's not military rule. You can protest and arue against it, FYI. No you can't blatantly break the laws and expect no one to do anything. But talking and working and Voting against laws you don't like is the DEFINITION of different from military rule.?

Yes it is, and no you cant. The fact that 500+people are making laws for you to abide by means you are their slave. Voting is just mob rule, the majority wins,the lynch mob is a democracy too, you have no rights under that system or any system where people are giving you permission to do something.

H.R. 347 (112th): Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011

The slightest disturbance even if you don't know where you are or if a federal agent is around you are going to jail.This and the fact that "free speech" zones exist should tell you they don't want people protesting.

You are aware that the difference of degree is the definition of the difference?Wait, what? I am confused. Who is stealing what, and from whom? What are you even talking about??

No, try to be a slave and free, you are just a free range slave.You still have others 1,2, 500, or 330 million, to rule over you. There is no such thing as pick and choose freedom.
My second point is that politicians steal ,by legislation and taxation.They campaign on giving advantages to the people who vote for them which results in higher taxation or legislation that economically strangle the ones who don't. This is called organized crime or "protection".

So what you earn is yours, and any taxation is theft? But what about your use and exploitation of things you did not build# Like the roads and the educated work force and the infrastructure and grandma getting healthcare and not being dead# Your use if it without paying for it is theft# So you can make yourself a lot happier by just reminding yourself that you are not being stole from, but you are paying back a debt that you owe

No, you have it backwards they stole from other people to pay for things no one asked for or have proven to work at all#Even if someone else did ask for it, that is consenting for other people to absorb a debt or a duty, tell me where in your personal matters or dealings with your neighbors can you consent for anything for them?
Keep in mind the social contract lacks everything that makes a contract a contract therefore its wishful thinking#

But do you know that economics and societies actually work the exact opposite of the way you think they do? That a society that provides for the needy as a right actually makes that whole society stronger safer and healthier? you know we tried a system like you imagine for a long time# It was called the dark ages# You do know that we have literally given money to people who had less money and studied the effects time and time again and it literally worked miracles

Yes that's why we are so F'ed right now#Society I am not arguing against , its the idea that theft and redistributing the plunder is not some evolutionary jump for human beings and actual voluntary interaction as a society would be# Plunder makes everyone poor not rich#

Your confused You seem to think our health care was nationalized# It has not been# This is a common problem when people don't seek facts#
Not that 'medicare for all' would not have been way better than this republican disaster we have now

But yes# under the 'free market' health care costs have skyrocketed# Under this horrible Republican healthcare plan the RATE of those increases have dropped faster than any time in history# Showing that even a bad goverment intervention in a market is better than a "free market"

No the simple fact is if you are either going to pay a price for not participating, or participate and you cant afford it you are going to go broke especially the poor# Its a tax and since their is one national currency and taxation is based on the use of that currency then its nationalized# That's why any alternative currency is a threat to the government# By the way we use debt obligation as money , its not actual money that's why the national debt goes one way, up#So they print a debt obligation you work it off with the expectation it will be paid off, but you cant pay a debt with a debt, and you are now a debt slave#
So we have never had a free market we have always used the british mercantilist system#
A free market is one where you voluntarily decide what is money ,you interact voluntarily with others to conduct business, and there are no middle men involved unless you hire a escrow service or the like, and the terms of you interaction are between the people in the contract not hoisted onto the rest of society#
Cuts in increases are not cuts ,you still increase the spending ,meaning its still insolvent and more so than before#But it sounds good for political points#

sombody is not seeing something my friend.you are aware the lots of government have accomplished a great many things far before thier time and in some cases things that wear great for mankind and that may not have ever happened, right? Like some of us got to meet our grandmas cause they did not die, because our government helped them. And some of us got to get educated because our government helped them, and ...
Right, because a democratically elected government is just like a crime boss? Please review above to see how they are different. Your response?You are aware that many governments have government mechanisms that are designed to find problems in that same governmental systems? In the US they LITERALLY have a GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE. care to Google it's job?So governments have special mind powers that make people hate each other?I can't make heads or tails of this.

You keep stateing things that are not true as if they are true. For example "government is this' or 'government is that'. Its almost like you are quoting a scripture form a book I have never heard of. I find it hard to follow. Please slow it down and explain what you are saying. Cause you are sounding kinda crazy. And your not, right?

No if someone is stealing for you at the expense of someone else, that someone else will hate you for sending that third party to steal from them.
Now again if you just know that in a democracy the 51% is the majority and as long as they can stay the majority they can do what they want, you can reduce this to two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner. Please tell me that you understand what a mob is and why its bad. Have you ever seen a responsible mob ? the GAO is a joke. Just look up the term regulatory capture.

And about growing as a society and government spending for our benefit, that is called the broken window fallacy in economics, what you are not seeing is all the advances we could have made had we not gone to war in certain times,or promoting certain businesses like "green jobs" and corporate bailouts. Just please watch the whole video.

The Broken Window Fallacy
[YOUTUBEIF]gG3AKoL0vEs[/YOUTUBEIF]

Murray Rothbard - The Government Is Not Us
[YOUTUBEIF]kqoBZLSm1WA[/YOUTUBEIF]

If you still think theft and redistribution are the way of the future ,we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[oldhaole]

Glad to hear it's working for you and your family. Is it expensive or are you getting help with the payments?

Sorry...just saw your question.

In February, only my wife had great health insurance, which cost me a hair under 800/mo.

In March we both have the same great insurance for eight bucks more.

We get about a $500/mo tax credit from Uncle Sam. Now do the math. If both of us were paying privately we'd be looking at 1600/mo. But I'm dropping 800 and the ACA is kicking in five. By my math that 300 the insurance company is not making.

 

[Coconutz]

Whats funny is that even the examples on Faux of people hurt by the ACA are debunked.
Heres the latest debunked example


The Julie Boonstra saga continues. Boonstra is the star of the most deceptive of the Koch brothers' anti-Obamacare "horror stories," and the one that has had to be debunked the most times. Here's one more, from The Detroit News, and it turns out she's saving even more money than previous debunkings revealed.

Boonstra said Monday her new plan she dislikes is the Blue Cross Premier Gold health care plan—which caps patient responsibility for out-of-pocket costs at $5,100 a year, lower than the federal law’s maximum of $6,350 a year. It means the new plan will save her at least $1,200 compared with her former insurance plan she preferred that was ended under Obamacare’s coverage requirements.

Boonstra’s old plan cost $1,100 a month in premiums or $13,200 a year, she previously told The Detroit News. It didn’t include money she spent on co-pays, prescription drugs and other out-of-pocket expenses

By contrast, the Blues’ plan premium costs $571 a month or $6,852 for the year. Since out-of-pocket costs are capped at $5,100, including deductibles, the maximum Boonstra would pay for all of her cancer treatment is $11,952 for the year.

When advised of the details of her Blues’ plan, Boonstra said the idea that it would be cheaper “can’t be true.”

“I personally do not believe that,” Boonstra said.

How very Republican of her, refusing to acknowledge the facts because they disprove her beliefs. Because she doesn't personally believe she'll actually be helped by Obamacare, she refuses to recognize the fact that it's true. Speaking of Republicans, remember how the Kochs have used Republican activists in their ads in New Hampshire?

Boonstra is the ex-wife of Mark Boonstra, the former Washtenaw County GOP chairman whom Gov. Rick Snyder appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2012. Julie Boonstra said she’s never been a political person beyond advocating for lower-cost oral chemotherapy treatment in Washington.

Sorry, Ms. Boonstra, but I just personally do not believe that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpjyr1x7mC0&feature=player_embedded

Theres a long list of other people who claimed to be hurt by obamacare that would actually have saved money. In some cases their insurance company was trying to upsell them onto new plans, and even some cases where the insurance company was trying to change their plan to eliminate the grandfathered in liabilities upcoming on obamacare.
So it turns out, not only would they have benefit from obamacare, but it would also have prevented their insurance company from fucking them in the ass.
Oh the irony!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/04/obamacare-horror-stories-debunked

 

[resinryder]

Sorry...just saw your question.

In February, only my wife had great health insurance, which cost me a hair under 800/mo.

In March we both have the same great insurance for eight bucks more.

We get about a $500/mo tax credit from Uncle Sam. Now do the math. If both of us were paying privately we'd be looking at 1600/mo. But I'm dropping 800 and the ACA is kicking in five. By my math that 300 the insurance company is not making.

Thanks for the info.

 

[LayedBack]

Because most people are not one issue voters. If legalizing weed is someone's only motivation for voting. IMHO they should not be voting.

Oh by the way, here the medical marijuana charge is being lead by republicans. So you're premise is unfounded!!

But what if that's all we as voters can really have an effect on in the first place? The smaller citizens rights issues like marijuana legalization and gay rights etc. The politicians and corporations are in control of all the big stuff anyway. Both parties are fuckups. South Park said it best, we're voting between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. We just need to look for the one that stinks the least so we can try to grin and bear it and pretend everything is okay.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because most people are not one issue voters. If legalizing weed is someone's only motivation for voting. IMHO they should not be voting.

Oh by the way, here the medical marijuana charge is being lead by republicans. So you're premise is unfounded!!

They still have Democrats in Georgia? I thought Jimmy Carter was the last one...

Medical is one thing, providing the impression of being in control. Outright legalization is another story entirely, at least for CO Repubs. They've been predicting the end of the world.

You know things are different in Georgia, anyway, right?

 

[Jhhnn]

Tax credit my ass! Someone else is paying it! The insurance IS getting their $300 AGAIN someone else is paying from it! Seems like you take pride in stealing!?

Sigh. The old Libertarian saw about taxes as theft is so tedious, fits right in with your reading comprehension, too.

The total price for Old Haole & spouse is $1300/mo on the exchange. He pays $800, the govt pays $500. He projected that each of them would be paying $800/mo under the old system, a total of $1600/mo. The insurance carrier gets $300/mo less.

The govt share is paid for with taxes levied on large incomes. The fact that the taxes won't change their lifestyles at all should tell you just how large those incomes really are.

If Libertarians had their way, if everybody believed in their "principles", our world would degenerate quickly into the kind of wealth, income & power distribution of the Medieval period. I see the whole movement as chumps of the financial elite.

Just one guy's opinion, of course.

 

[Tokin-stone]

They still have Democrats in Georgia? I thought Jimmy Carter was the last one...

Medical is one thing, providing the impression of being in control. Outright legalization is another story entirely, at least for CO Repubs. They've been predicting the end of the world.

You know things are different in Georgia, anyway, right?

I'm not farmer. But I am from the same neck of the woods.

Democrats are still here, not the same democrats of old though. In fact, Jimmy's grandson is running for governor on the democratic ticket.

It's the same here about legalization. But it's not just the republicans, it's also the democrats who have expressed under no circumstances do they support legalization. I have also seen democrat opposition to legalization in other states. So for oldchuck to say "Why anyone would vote Republican I will never understand, especially someone who wants to see weed legal". Is very disingenuous, it's both parties who oppose legalization.

 

[Tokin-stone]

Sigh. The old Libertarian saw about taxes as theft is so tedious, fits right in with your reading comprehension, too.

The total price for Old Haole & spouse is $1300/mo on the exchange. He pays $800, the govt pays $500. He projected that each of them would be paying $800/mo under the old system, a total of $1600/mo. The insurance carrier gets $300/mo less.

The govt share is paid for with taxes levied on large incomes. The fact that the taxes won't change their lifestyles at all should tell you just how large those incomes really are.

If Libertarians had their way, if everybody believed in their "principles", our world would degenerate quickly into the kind of wealth, income & power distribution of the Medieval period. I see the whole movement as chumps of the financial elite.

Just one guy's opinion, of course.

I read and understood EXACTLY what he said. Maybe YOU should reread what he said. I was stating the insurance company isn't losing shit! That $300.00 is being paid by someone else!!!!! They are still getting that $300.00 on the back end. Just as you have admitted they STEAL from the large incomes and give it to him. The insurance company didn't help write and support a law that would lose them money!!

 

[oldhaole]

I read and understood EXACTLY what he said. Maybe YOU should reread what he said. I was stating the insurance company isn't losing shit! That $300.00 is being paid by someone else!!!!! They are still getting that $300.00 on the back end. Just as you have admitted they STEAL from the large incomes and give it to him. The insurance company didn't help write and support a law that would lose them money!!

BBZZZZ...wrong answer.

We have some lovely parting gifts for you! Thanks for playing our game! The correct answer was;

Since more of the population has insurance there are less people comming in without insurance. Since those damn uninsured just didn't do the Republican thing and die quietly....some one has to pay for them.

And that some one is everyone.

Bigger pool of insured, less uninsured, means bigger profits for the insurance industry.

But Wait....

Since the ACA caps the amount of profit an insurance company can keep, they gotta kick it back to the consumer.

Bet you didn't know that.

And my tax credit is reported to the IRS and is treated as INCOME.

 

[rives]

That doesn't really seem to jibe with the results from eHealth's rate study. They found that the rates have risen more since February 2013 to now than they did over the last 8 years combined. Also, HHS just last Friday changed the rules (again...), allowing the insurance companies to keep 2% more profits.

"Health insurance premiums have risen more after Obamacare than the average premium increases over the eight years before it became law, according to the private health exchange eHealthInsurance.

The individual market for health insurance has seen premiums rise by 39 percent since February 2013, eHealth reports. Without a subsidy, the average individual premium is now $274 a month. Families have been hit even harder with an average increase of 56 percent over the same period — average premiums are now $663 per family, over $426 last year.

Between 2005 and 2013, average premiums for individual plans increased 37 percent and average family premiums were upped 31 percent. So they have risen faster under Obamacare than in the previous eight years. An important caveat is that eHealth’s prices don’t include subsidies, so the prices for anyone earning between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has repeatedly claimed patients will pay as little as $18 per month, without noting the taxpayer cost.

Premiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide.

Some benefits, such as emergency and laboratory services, are uncontroversial. But others, like maternity, newborn and pediatric services, are causing headaches for huge swaths of the population that don’t need them. Anyone past childbearing age, single men, the infertile, even nuns — their premiums are rising as well, because their plans must, by law, provide more services.

But premiums aren’t the only key to health care costs — deductibles and out-of-pocket costs like co-pays are also rising. When it comes to employer health plans alone, four out of five U.S. companies have increased deductibles or are considering doing so. (RELATED: 4 of 5 companies may hike deductibles due to Obamacare)

Prices may be people away from purchasing health insurance. The latest survey from consulting firm McKinsey found that half of those who haven’t purchased health insurance yet this year cited their inability to pay the premium."

An important caveat is that eHealth’s prices don’t include subsidies, so the prices for anyone earning between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has repeatedly claimed patients will pay as little as $18 per month, without noting the taxpayer cost.

Premiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide.

Some benefits, such as emergency and laboratory services, are uncontroversial. But others, like maternity, newborn and pediatric services, are causing headaches for huge swaths of the population that don’t need them. Anyone past childbearing age, single men, the infertile, even nuns — their premiums are rising as well, because their plans must, by law, provide more services.

But premiums aren’t the only key to health care costs — deductibles and out-of-pocket costs like co-pays are also rising. When it comes to employer health plans alone, four out of five U.S. companies have increased deductibles or are considering doing so. (RELATED: 4 of 5 companies may hike deductibles due to Obamacare)

Prices may be people away from purchasing health insurance. The latest survey from consulting firm McKinsey found that half of those who haven’t purchased health insurance yet this year cited their inability to pay the premium.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/18/r...ears-before-obamacare-combined/#ixzz2wMc2AFUd

 

[Tokin-stone]

BBZZZZ...wrong answer.

We have some lovely parting gifts for you! Thanks for playing our game! The correct answer was;

Since more of the population has insurance there are less people comming in without insurance. Since those damn uninsured just didn't do the Republican thing and die quietly....some one has to pay for them.

And that some one is everyone.

Bigger pool of insured, less uninsured, means bigger profits for the insurance industry.

But Wait....

Since the ACA caps the amount of profit an insurance company can keep, they gotta kick it back to the consumer.

Bet you didn't know that.

And my tax credit is reported to the IRS and is treated as INCOME.

Oh contraire mon fraire. Your boy Obama and HHS changed that. Maybe you should read this. http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/CMS-9949-P.pdf

A rule imposed March 14th, 2014. Which allows insurance companies to keep an additional two percent of premiums for purposes other than medical care. In other words proposing to increase the amount of money that insurance companies will be allowed to retain for profit. In the proposed rules, it's indicated that this adjustment in the ‘medical loss ratio’, or 80/20 rule, is due to the possibility of increased administrative cost in 2015. However, adjusting the percentage that insurance providers are required to spend on medical care by two percent would have the combined impact of reducing the amount that insurance providers will be required to pay for people’s medical care while increasing the amount that insurance companies are allowed to retain for profit and for executive pay.

​

GAME, SET, MATCH !!!

You might want to stay in the other room while adults are talking!!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

That doesn't really seem to jibe with the results from eHealth's rate study. They found that the rates have risen more since February 2013 to now than they did over the last 8 years combined. Also, HHS just last Friday changed the rules (again...), allowing the insurance companies to keep 2% more profits.

"Health insurance premiums have risen more after Obamacare than the average premium increases over the eight years before it became law, according to the private health exchange eHealthInsurance.

The individual market for health insurance has seen premiums rise by 39 percent since February 2013, eHealth reports. Without a subsidy, the average individual premium is now $274 a month. Families have been hit even harder with an average increase of 56 percent over the same period — average premiums are now $663 per family, over $426 last year.

Between 2005 and 2013, average premiums for individual plans increased 37 percent and average family premiums were upped 31 percent. So they have risen faster under Obamacare than in the previous eight years. An important caveat is that eHealth’s prices don’t include subsidies, so the prices for anyone earning between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has repeatedly claimed patients will pay as little as $18 per month, without noting the taxpayer cost.

Premiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide.

Some benefits, such as emergency and laboratory services, are uncontroversial. But others, like maternity, newborn and pediatric services, are causing headaches for huge swaths of the population that don’t need them. Anyone past childbearing age, single men, the infertile, even nuns — their premiums are rising as well, because their plans must, by law, provide more services.

But premiums aren’t the only key to health care costs — deductibles and out-of-pocket costs like co-pays are also rising. When it comes to employer health plans alone, four out of five U.S. companies have increased deductibles or are considering doing so. (RELATED: 4 of 5 companies may hike deductibles due to Obamacare)

Prices may be people away from purchasing health insurance. The latest survey from consulting firm McKinsey found that half of those who haven’t purchased health insurance yet this year cited their inability to pay the premium."

An important caveat is that eHealth’s prices don’t include subsidies, so the prices for anyone earning between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level will be lower. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has repeatedly claimed patients will pay as little as $18 per month, without noting the taxpayer cost.

Premiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide.

Some benefits, such as emergency and laboratory services, are uncontroversial. But others, like maternity, newborn and pediatric services, are causing headaches for huge swaths of the population that don’t need them. Anyone past childbearing age, single men, the infertile, even nuns — their premiums are rising as well, because their plans must, by law, provide more services.

But premiums aren’t the only key to health care costs — deductibles and out-of-pocket costs like co-pays are also rising. When it comes to employer health plans alone, four out of five U.S. companies have increased deductibles or are considering doing so. (RELATED: 4 of 5 companies may hike deductibles due to Obamacare)

Prices may be people away from purchasing health insurance. The latest survey from consulting firm McKinsey found that half of those who haven’t purchased health insurance yet this year cited their inability to pay the premium.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/18/r...ears-before-obamacare-combined/#ixzz2wMc2AFUd

You can't trust the Daily Squaller's spin on anything, rives. Honest.

The most important part of the whole piece is the part glossed over, the subsidies. Go to the linked source material to get the unspun version.

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/price-index

Looks a whole lot different, huh? That's because the Caller & others of similar persuasion have an axe to grind, and because they depend on the reader believing them while making no further inquiries.

 

[rives]

Looks a whole lot different, huh?

No, actually it doesn't look too different.

In fact, I had gone to the linked page, and it only shows a comparison from the last 4 months to 2013 (roughly $273 vs $197, or a 39% increase, as quoted in the article). I then looked around for older studies or the complete study, and only came up with select years information - average monthly cost of a policy in 2009 - $161, 2010 - $167, 2011 - $183, 2013 - $197, March of 2014 - $273.

I think that the subsidies are irrelevant. Somebody is paying for it, and somebody is collecting it. And while I almost always check sources from articles that I read, this one looked like it follows the facts pretty closely.

 

[Jim Rockford]

Rand Paul is a nutjob, he is from Kentucky. News Flash, Kentucky is a state full of pot smokers that votes for politicians that make some of the harshest pot laws in America. It's full of nutjobs for that reason alone, he represents well. Vote right wing Kentucky, stick to the plan, soon you'll just have prison guards and prisoners and no one else left.

 

[G.O. Joe]

The next prez will probably go after WA and CO whether it's Paul or not.

 

[Jhhnn]

The next prez will probably go after WA and CO whether it's Paul or not.

Please. I figure they'll all be on the legalization band wagon by then, particularly the way it's unfolding here in Colorado.

Legalization is good policy, and we're proving it. Nothing to be afraid of.

Yeh, sure, the Feds could shut down Retail if they wanted, but personal growing is another matter entirely when there's no help from the locals. That's not the same in WA, unfortunately.