Here's another something we DO know about this Presbyterian group, and yes, it's pretty outrageous: "This isn’t a matter of protecting 'reproductive rights.' A baby that is born is no longer in his or her mother’s body and thus nothing is being done to interfere with her privacy or autonomy. Peter Singer believes that unwanted infants can be killed in the same manner as they can be aborted. Apparently, so does the Presbyterian Church, USA." http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/381084/presbyterians-ok-killing-born-babies-wesley-j-smith

"Why Obamacare Good News Only Applies to the Poor" "That's certainly not what Barack Obama promised when he said his plan would make health care 'better for everybody.' It's not what he promised when he said the Affordable Care Act would 'cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year.' It's not what he promised when he said Obamacare would 'bend the cost curve' of health care. What happens now? After Democrats finish crowing about what a success Obamacare is, it's likely they will argue that subsidies must be extended to more and more Americans to pay for coverage that Obamacare has made more and more expensive. Republicans will resist, but at the same time realize Obamacare has changed the health care system in ways that will be difficult to overturn and hard to fix. And for those millions for whom Obamacare is a bad deal? They're just out of luck." And to the Always Alternately Clued Crowd, where more Big government is ALWAYS the answer, they'll just continue to ignore realities that are just to inconvenient, and don't quite mesh with their warped worldview political, social, and economic agendas. http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-obamacare-good-news-applies-only-to-the-poor/article/2549978

IBD: "Bribery, Obamacare Style" "In short, Obama is offering the industry virtually unlimited taxpayer bailout money, in hopes that it will return the favor and avoid politically damaging rate hikes, at least until after November's mid-term elections. Left unsaid in all this is the fact that the only reason such bailouts are needed in the first place is because ObamaCare tries to replace basic market forces that normally govern the insurance industry with a vast array of complex and costly cross subsidies. Obama might think 'this thing is working.' Taxpayers now on the hook for ObamaCare's failure shouldn't buy it." http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/052114-701754-obama-tries-to-bribe-insurance-industry-on-obamacare-rates.htm

RE 2015 premiums: From The Hill: "Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration. The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015. The industry complaints come less than a week after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to downplay concerns about rising premiums in the healthcare sector. She told lawmakers rates would increase in 2015 but grow more slowly than in the past. 'The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act,' (NB: Ummm, no, they were NOT, as the material previously posted has documented) the secretary said in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee. Her comment baffled insurance officials, who said it runs counter to the industry’s consensus about next year. 'It’s pretty shortsighted because I think everybody knows that the way the exchange has rolled out … is going to lead to higher costs,' said one senior insurance executive who requested anonymity. The insurance official, who hails from a populous swing state, said *******his company expects to triple its rates next year on the ObamaCare exchange."***** http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/03/20/coming-soon-obamacare-premiums-will-double-in-some-parts-of-the-country-n1811392

Regarding premium increases, we have just begun to see what's in store for our people down the road. Here's the Dem/Lefty/"Proressive" plan to minimalize the political fallout in this November's mid term elections, regading the onslught of another round of premium increases: Delay in annoncing rate increases. ".....thanks to the month-long delay, 'consumers will not see their 2015 premiums until after the midterm elections, instead of immediately before.' Tuffin adds, 'One doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to divine the motive here.' And if anyone doesn't see it, Obamacare's opponents should be eager to spell it out. " But the David Crafts of this world are sure to find some way of thelling us that's just not true. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/2015-obamacare-enrollment-delayed-to-november.html

when you look at the facts that keep emerging about this......monstrosity.....of a public policy, combined with the corrupt way it was implemented, and the corrupt way it was marketed to the public, there are few (if any) positive things to be said about the "Affordable" Care and Patient "Protection" Act. Yet that doesn't stop the partisan "progressive" prevaricators from their continuing effort to put lipstick on this ever uglier pig.

And let's put and end to the "Apples and Oranges" nonsense floated by Craft. From the methodolgy section of the Manhattan Institute's report, which Craft failed to read before he jerked his knee in response to the post: "In order to document rate changes, we first gathered pre-ACA insurance rates using the federal government's finder.healthcare.gov website. Our pre-ACA dataset consists of the five least expensive plans (by monthly premium) for the most populous zip code in every county. To cover a significant age range we collected rates for 27, 40, and 64-year old male and female non-smokers.***** We adjusted these rates to take into account those who are denied health insurance coverage as well as those who receive a surcharge. Using the 'denial rate' and 'surcharge rate' from the federal government's repository, we assumed that those who are surcharged pay 75 percent more and those who are denied, find insurance elsewhere at three times the original rate. We used this to develop a weighted average of the five least expensive insurance plans for every zip code we identified.***** To develop a state-wide average, we took the state-wide average for every age-gender combination. For ACA rates, we created state-level averages by averaging rates for the five cheapest plans across all counties in a state. The data was sourced from HealthSherpa.com, and because the ACA bans denials based on pre-existing conditions, there is no need to develop a weighted average of these rates. Thus, rate changes at the state-level are calculated by looking at the rate change between the average of the five cheapest plans for all counties before and after the ACA." http://www.manhattan-institute.org/knowyourrates/about.htm

So much for the "it reduces emergency room use" meme used to sell this abomination. "Experts cite many reasons: A long-standing shortage of primary-care doctors leaves too few to handle all the newly insured patients. Some doctors won't accept Medicaid. And poor people often can't take time from work when most primary care offices are open, while ERs operate round-the-clock and by law must at least stabilize patients. Plus, some patients who have been uninsured for years don't have regular doctors and are accustomed to using ERs, even though it is much more expensive. 'It's a perfect storm here,' said Dr. Ryan Stanton of Lexington, president of the Kentucky chapter of the ER physician group."We've given people an ATM card in a town with no ATMs.' " http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/08/more-patients-flocking-to-ers-under-obamacare/10173015/

Meanwhile, let's place further context on the issue. The price increases demonstrated by the Manhattan Institute are just the beginning of the ever increasing spiral of this monstrosity known as health care "reform". Silver plan enrollees saddled with high out-of-pocket costs Excerpt: " 'Americans participating in the exchanges were promised coverage comparable to employer plans and yet the reality is that many new plans are failing to provide an appropriate level of access to quality, affordable health care,' said John Castellani, president and CEO of PhRMA. “Patients face hurdles in accessing the medicines they need to manage their conditions, which is particularly problematic for Americans trying to control their chronic diseases.' The report also noted that silver plans are nearly four times more likely to have a single combined deductible for medical and pharmacy benefits (46 percent of the time) compared to typical employer-sponsored plans (12 percent of the time). This is an important distinction, particularly for patients with chronic illnesses, as it means prescription medicines are not covered until patients meet the deductible,' the report noted. The typical deductible for silver plans is $2,000, according to analysis." http://www.benefitspro.com/2014/05/16/silver-plan-enrollees-saddled-with-high-out-of-poc

"Only the healthiest could get those rates pre-ACA." Really? Based on what information do you make that statrement? Document your opinion. You won't, because you can't, as well we know from previous discussion.

Regarding Gauger's assertion that the events of June 29 were nothing more than "A few teens ruckusing on Saturday night." shows he doesn't have a clue what actually happened. Why am I not surprised?

Let's be clear on several points here. First, violence in downtown Greensboro is hardly dependent on the dubious proposition of "...the city had recruited large number of teens to come downtown for its Summer Nights Live program", as stated here. Downtown has seen a number of violent evenings this year, and in preceding years, when there was no specific event to "recruit large number of teens to come downtown". Trouble also occurreed on Independence Day evening, yet no one saw fit to point the finger at the Fun Fourth festivities as a catalyst. Second, making the insinuation (as Hartzman has done) that City Council welcomed the opportunity to use the violence to pass a curfew is irresponsible. In respect of that, I think its fair to say that Hartzman may be using this as a talking point for his campaign. Third, as much as we might dislike the corrupt cronyism culture that infests Our Fair City, we cannot not permit hysterical over-reaction of this sort to dilute the legitimate criticism of our self appointed ruling elites. Argue against the curfew all you want; point fingers at poor crisis management to your heart's content, but don't make ludicrous assumptions that require the willing suspension of disbelief, and weaken the case for actual reform that's so badly needed.

These are all valid reforms. Of course, the "progressives" who like to assume the non-existent moral high ground on issues like this will never agree. The solution is to maintain common good sense approach to programs like this, and for the Republicans in power to remeber they're not Democrats buying votes from a victims' group.