Actually, the bill was written like this by design to encourage the breakup of low-income families so they would then be able to afford the individual coverage under the 0bamacare exchange. Its all good. Adds to increasing dependency upon big govt. Afterwards the new dependents will always vote for democrats to maintain their ability to afford health insurance. sarc.

Indeed.
Society, family, school, community- all these have been turned into different kinds of labor camps.

I must admit to a bit of ‘inward mirth’ when various and seemingly well-planned Gov’t objectives from either side go off the rails.
But Barry’s Kids seem to have it down to a science of sorts.
Bring out the Horns and Drums , rev up the ‘Schturm und Drang’ and create
Great Expectations.
Then, a short while later , excuse miserable results by using shallow talking points, such as “…we did not Expect …” whatever is being faulted/hammered like an American’s wallet that week, or this new and improved term,…..”Glitch”.
Is this part of the great miasma of what ‘is to be determined at a later date’ by
“the secretary’ of whatever ?
Pray tell, what is in store for America, next week?
“All Citizens whose S/S # ends in an Odd Number, shall hereafter be eligible for only even numbered benefits noted in the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare……”
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda,……..

Everything that is wrong with this country now is because of the government. Whenever a politician tries to monkey with a market, they cause all kinds of stupid unintended consequences. They (state and federal) have been monkeying with healthcare now for 60 years. They mess with it, and mess with it, and mess with it, until they finally they say OMG it is messed up and we really need to fix it now. And they just mess it up more. LET THE MARKET DECIDE! Get out of my business! Politicians are not smart enough to second-guess a market. Until they realize that, we are doomed.

If you like to be frustrated and haven’t been in a while, try to find out who actually wrote the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Some say a guy named John Creamer (tough childhood, no doubt) wrote the act’s “blueprint” while in prison. Some say it was Max Baucus of Montana; some say a handful of democrat and republican congresspersons wrote it. Some say congress compiled two or three other acts from various committees to form the big act. Some say insurance, pharmaceutical and other healthcare lobbyists wrote it.

Some senate records indicate that the act started out as a bill to modify credit for military and other federal employees buying homes for the first time.

Some say the act is based on Romney’s healthcare reform in Massachusetts.

But as far as who actually set fingers to keys and put the act into words, and who told the writers exactly what to say? You will probably not find that anywhere without some serious, energetic and time-consuming investigation.

Who wrote the law? What technical writer, or paralegal, or congressional “staffer,” wrote the law that would affect all of our lives, and for which the president and numerous congresspersons would take and/or get credit, and which neither the president nor most congresspersons would even read?

What anonymous, low-level bureaucrat or bureaucrats knew that the law’s final interpretation was in his, or her, or their hands; that according to the words he, or she, or they used, lawyers, politicians and a legion of pundits would argue about this and about that . . . and few people would read what he, or she, or they wrote before approving the act?

We point to Obama, but he didn’t write it, and I’d bet he hasn’t and won’t read it. We point to various politicians, but they didn’t write it, and most of them haven’t and won’t read it.

“Back when I was in seminary school . . ..”

Woops! Wrong narrative. Sorry! (“The writer awoke before dawn. He put his boots on.”)

Back when I was writing for industry magazines, I studied laws, and the authors–the technical writers who actually did the grunt work–but their names to the paper. But that’s not the case with this behemoth, mother-of-all acts, and several long-standing leftists–whom I’d think would be involved with the act’s conception, authorship and passage–are conspicuously missing from the mix.

The act emerged like an undefinable, unidentifiable monster from the terminally corrupted cesspool of politics: the blob, the thing. Where did it come from? Who’s actually behind it? Who wrote it? What’s in it? What does it mean? Why do some politicians obviously not want their names mentioned in conversations about it?

As Mr. Erickson noted soon after the Supreme Court found the act Constitutional, Chief Justice Roberts, in a judicial masterstroke, identified the act as a tax, so simple congressional majorities (rather than two thirds) can repeal it; Roberts also got the other justices–even those who supported the bill–to unanimously find it unconstitutional within the Obama administration’s planned defenses of it: the commerce clause and the “reasonable” clause.

The act is a mistake. It’s a mess. Nobody–even those who’ve read it–knows what’s in it or can even understand it. Roberts made it highly vulnerable.

Obama–the dumb, inexperienced political flunky–allowed the act’s proponents to attach his name to it, and because the leftist news media didn’t want to tarnish his public image, that was the act’s greatest strength.

But now Obama–popular, but always politically weak–is a lame duck president and, coincidentally, more and more of the act’s provisions are coming to force, and ordinary people–even those who supported the act–are complaining about it. Because of “Obamacare,” their taxes and healthcare insurance costs are rising, and their incomes are decreasing.

The stage is set for repeal. Whether the leftist media will flip, contradict Obama and raise public opposition to the act, thus ensuring its demise, remains to be seen.

It’s all Bush’s fault.

Know what I think? Well, some of you don’t…but then suck it up. I think that the poor are going to get so good and mad that this will leave Obama with no other choice than to impose martial law. Yup…you take away someone’s financial security, limited as it may be, and they react in fear. How does fear demonstrate…anger or self pity. Most of the time it is with anger.

It probably can be enforced…selectively…if you register Republican and don’t pay…you are first on the line to suffer. Alinsky or Obama…doesn’t matter…the end is the same.

“Most of us”? Speak for yourself. I know more people who pay for their own health insurance than have employer-paid policies. Maybe it’s just the bubble I live in, but we have only had employer-paid insurance for the first 2 years of the 33 total we have been working and I know plenty of others in the same boat. Obamacare has certainly screwed with our choices.
I most definitely agree with you that the government is continuing to screw everything up – any time they mess with something, it sucks the personal freedom out. Rush was quoting Ron Paul today: he said he was completely shocked to find out how hard it is to sell freedom & liberty in this country.

No way! You mean the ACA actually hurts poor people and children with disabilities? I cannot believe it! Did not Obama promise everyone the opposite? And why are my premiums going up? Do you mean to tell me that the ACA does not lower health care costs? /heavy sarcasm.

Pardon my sarcasm, but when I hear this I have a slight inward chuckle that with each passing hour Conservatives are being proven to have been completely accurate in their criticisms of OCare. But when you do not read a bill, fail to listen to all of the sane health care professionals and experts frantically trying to stop you from blowing up the healthcare system, and force a bill down the throat of the American people in the most dishonest way possible, these are the natural consequences. Absolute disaster and embarassment.

No Bill…now they have put out, via Drudge…a smoke screen. I find the wording of the article strange. To paraphrase…it is lawful for the US to use drones against Citizens. Read into the post and supposedly they are talking about AlQaeda…but then it goes on to say anyone that poses a threat against homeland security. Well, now that is one heck of an interpretation.