According to the Mars One website, the first crews leave in 2024. As in *not* 2018

http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap/2024

"savvy enough to wipe his drive" = "dumb enough to risk an obstruction of justice charge in addition to the false bomb scare charge"

Obstruction of justice often comes with penalties at least as great as for the crime.

There were a few problems with the idea of a car player that needed to be solved - besides simply keeping the needle on the record. One of them was safely operating the unit while driving.

The player had to be small, so the 7-inch size of the 45-rpm record was ideal; but using 45s would have meant changing the record every few minutes, a little risky at highway speeds. To solve that problem, 7-inch records for the player were produced in the new 16 2/3-rpm format (ultra-microgroove) offering up to an hour of playing time per side and the added benefit of a slower speed that was less likely to kick up the needle. The records also were easy to load. Moving the tone arm over the record would start it spinning and, in a few seconds, the needle would automatically lower into the starting groove. Then the turntable could be pushed back in and the front cover closed.

This.

Ironically, if the employer mandate wasn't delayed a year (still don't know what was up with that), it would seem to me that Congress could have been fined for dropping coverage for their employees upon the ACA go-live.

Congress is the only employer that is actually required by the ACA to drop their existing coverage of their workers and require them to purchase their own insurance (and contrary to popular belief, you don't have to purchase your insurance on the exchanges; that was just supposed to make it easier - although so far that isn't the case - and would be the only way you get the subsidies if you were eligible for them)

All other employers (above 50 employees) are *required* to provide health insurance to their employees (although enforcement has been delayed a year). So yes, Congress got "exempted", but not in the way the ACA-haters are making it out to be. The "exemption" was actually put in by Charles Grassley, a republican, because he thought that this would kill the bill. However, congress actually said "sure, whatever, we don't have a problem going through the exchanges just like all the people who don't have coverage now". The "exemption" actually requires these employees to get their insurance through the exchanges (or on their own if they want), rather than to just stay on their employer's group plan like most other full time workers in the country.

The only remaining debate is whether to take the money that Congress was previously kicking in as a contribution to their employees' group health care and add it onto their employees' paychecks instead, which seems fair to me.

Yes, but that is how everything burns. Nothing burns in the solid or liquid state. Whether it is wood, paper, gasoline, or whatever, the exothermic oxidation that most people call "fire" occurs in the gas/vapor phase between gases released from the fuel (when heated) and oxygen in the air.

Nope. This just says there are places where some insurance companies are not offering plans through the exchange. They can still sell their policies. You don't have to purchase your insurance through an exchange.
 

From the article:

This one does reference some anecdotal cases where plans are discontinued. But nowhere is it clear that this is directly related to the ACA. It appears the ACA is a convenient excuse whenever an employer wants to make a change in their rates or offerings.

Why do you say that it is the law that priced his current coverage out of reach? What in the law would require them to raise the premiums like that?

Democrats remember this. Remember when Romney proposed just this sort of thing as part of his plans to replace ACA? It was the Democrats who had to point out to him that that was already law of the land according to HIPPA.

The problem is this only worked if you COBRA-d right when you leave your old company. If you are unexpectedly laid off, you can't necessarily just go an pick up the full group premiums the next week without a new job.

True, this option was available to people who wanted to quit and start a new self-employed venture (and who presumably setup the finances for this in advance). But what if you wanted to go with a less comprehensive plan (say, catastrophic coverage only, like some of the bronze or lower ACA plans) to save on premiums? Your old employer's plan probably isn't like that, and you don't get to choose.

Are you saying that requiring coverage for contraception and keeping kids on the program until they are 26 raised the rates by 15%. I think your employer is feeding you a line of BS.

So you really think that by next year, there will not be more people covered by health insurance (i.e. the "intended end" of Obamacare)?

I am confused. Are you arguing that ACA shouldn't be implemented, because the current system provides better access to some people by way of making it difficult or impossible for other people to see doctors?

That the best system is that some people get great medical care and others get none, as opposed to all getting good medical care?