I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

In my home town, the one hospital demanded that another not be opened up in the townships surrounding it citing they would be unable to maintain a profit and have to close down. The second hospital was to be placed near a busy highway about 25 minutes from the original hospital and the through was that it could shave 20 minutes off the transport time and save lives.

Anyways, the other hospital was defeated and the zoning board wouldn't let them build. So the local hospital decided it needed to expand and promptly purchased all the property on the block and started building on to the hospital. The issue about the travel time came up again and another hospital from out of town wanted to open one. Well, the main hospital kicked up a storm again until the outside hospital agreed to only be an emergency room and outpatient surgery hospital and somehow, the two ended up going in as partners. But they located it a little further out but still near the busy highway so transport is still quicker from the highway but you are basically looking at another 30 minutes or so if you drive by the old hospital in order to go to the new one.

This was about 15 years ago. People in government has changed since then but I think this type of protectionism will still happen today if someone wanted to open another hospital. The new one had been expanded as part of the old one since it's inception.

lol.. Are you but hurt or something? Where in there have I criticized the ACA? It's the administration and their handling/management styles that is being discussed. The ACA could be 100 times better had any other administration been in office.

I just want to point out that all of your citations are from before the enrollment deadline. I think your latest post was from April.

They are all from april 3 or later. The only deadline they were before is the unofficial expansion Obama gave to april 15 because of the failures in the rollout.

How about something a little more recent?

Here is something a little more recent but the open enrollment window is lapsed so your emphasis of more recent is a but misleading.

In fact, if you follow the website attacks on Obamacare based on the number of people enrolled, you will find a deluge of articles leading up to April of 2014 and then...silence. You'll still find other attacks, but none based on the number of newly enrolled.

That is likely because the open enrollment window closed officially march 31 but was extended to april 15 or something like that for people who started to enroll but didn't finish on time because of the roll-out problems. I would assume the reason for a rash of articles discussing the coverage numbers would be relevant more around the time the enrollment window ended and not 5 months later when you have to either lose coverage otherwise obtained or turn a certain age requiring coverage.

Then, in May, you see a lot of articles saying, "Well, OK, a lot of people enrolled, but how many actually paid?". And then, based on insurance company data, it turned out that the people signing up for exchanges actually paid at a higher rate than the general population signing up for health insurance.

Yes, it is funny how people progress their questioning along the time lines of something in order to reflect the current timeline and complaints get brought up as they appear in the time lines. Go figure.

There are good reasons to criticize the ACA, but the number of people who have gotten coverage for the first time because of the law is not one of them.

Umm.. I never criticized the PPACA in these posts. I corrected a deluded person who didn't buy into reality. The numbers themselves seems to be what you think is criticism. I seriously think that any other president than Obama, and this entire situation would have had 10 times better of an outcome.

Did you see the stats for the growth of their middle class over the past 15 years or so?

I'm not disputing that the country is ardently capitalist and has tightly guarded elite circles. But for most people in there, that's not where they are aiming for. What they want is basically just comfortable living, and their standard for it is getting pretty close to what the West enjoys. And with every new generation, there are millions more actually enjoying it - even though there's still hundreds of millions locked out. But for now, the trend is good.

Do you really not understand what "project" and "estimate" means?

Really, and you are complaining about Forbes as a link? Well, Forbes was not the only link I provides and the Forbes link was more kind in regards to what was said. I shouldn't even have to post a link because an internet search is just as easy to find the same numbers. Also, if you look on the Forbes link, you will see updates and foot notes where the author actually takes in criticism and corrects himself and the article- and then notes it.

But please, by all means, tell us where the Forbes article is incorrect, misleading, or somehow worthy of your dismissal other than your political bias which obviously is filling your head with misinformation and making it necessary for you to forget well defined words like project and estimate.

What? Obama's new wonder-plan is what TOOK AWAY our low deductible plan and forced us, for more money, to buy one that will cost us thousands more each year in premiums, and ten thousand more a year in deductibles. The people you're defending - Obama, Pelosi, Reid - forced us to buy a high deductible plan with fewer benefits, minus the doctor we'd used for years, and more. Obama didn't "outlaw" bad, expensive coverage, he just forced us into that exact situation. Thanks for shilling for him, though - it's nice to see that BS so transparently on display for all to see.

I used to have affordable insurance for my wife and I. The ACA killed it. Were forced to go to a new plan that:

1) Has much higher monthly premiums (we went from roughly $230/month to about $500/month)

2) Has a hugely higher deductible (we went from $2,500 a year to about $12,000 a year). This means that we are much, much farther out of pocket every year, especially if we actually need medical care beyond one or two simple visits annually.

3) We are past any risk of pregnancy. None the less, we are being forced to pay for elaborate maternity care that we cannot possibly use.

4) The new plan forced us to give up the doctor we've been using for 15 years unless we want to pay cash for that in a way that doesn't help with our deductible.

5) The two best local hospitals are no longer available to us unless we want to pay retail for their use, and get no benefit against our deductible.

Prior to this "affordable" new act, we had no need to change insurance, doctors, hospitals or anything else for well over 10 years.

Because of how the math is working out, we're told to expect that next year's premiums will go up by another 45-55%. Thanks, Mr. Obamacare Cheerleader, if you're one of the people who helped to empower the people who snuck this 100% partisan monstrosity through congress on Pelosi's "deeming" technique. Thanks a lot.

So you are ALSO saying that the information presented is incorrect ... that the people at HHS had NO idea that the site wasn't full of holes in terms of security and functionality. That the "cherry-picked" emails that show the administration knew the site was a train wreck are referring to something else, because the site wasn't a train wreck when it went live. Right? I see. So if that's incorrect, then what you're saying is that the administration did NOT know that the site was a train wreck. Which makes them stupefyingly incompetent.

So your idea of "nothing to see here" is either:

1) The administration knew exactly what a train wreck the thing was, but lied about it. Or...

2) The administration, at every level, was so foolish and incompetent that it had no idea whether or not the system was useless, and in lacking any sort of knowledge one way or the other, just assumed it was fine.

It's news only because die hard liberals or should I say Obama supporters refuse to accept he or his team is anything less than stellar. It's all Bush's fault or those damn republicans keep blocking or someone other than himself. And when Obama and his supporters started blaming everyone else and anything else as the problems happened, it was blamed on someone else again.

but more importantly, it appears this broken management and failed project is still being run with broken management but it's being hidden from public view.

Umm.. The numbers are not even close to 12 million.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...

Obamacare seems to have only helped a little under 3% of the people who did not have coverage previously. Even now, there are still problems with it as one of the largest insurance companies in Minnesota is pulling out of the exchange.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/...

Now before you get all pissy, this isn't a swipe at obamacare, it's the facts surrounding it that you seem to have missed and evidence of the GP's statement that "they simply do not have any clue to anything that they are involved with". Evidently, neither do you unless you were listening to them.

There seems to be cities in which are somewhat majority muslim. Dearborn Michigan I think is one of them. Youtube that and you will see a lot of videos posted by people protesting it.

But I think the original poster is thinking of the mosque that the boston bombers attended has produced many radicalized muslims and keeps being investigated but ignored by the FBI.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro...

So what you're saying is that: 1) The administration didn't knowingly force people to use a badly designed, insecure web site that wasn't ready for prime time. That's just something the administration's critics made up, out of context. 2) The administration has fixed all of the security concerns, and that the whole platform is now working as they promised it would, and that anyone saying otherwise is lying and spinning the glorious real facts on the ground. I see.

>Not sure what you're referring to, but I've yet to encounter a DVD (not Blu-Ray) that Media Player Classic and VLC can't play, and since they aren't officially licensed players that means they're cracking whatever DRM is on the disc.

Yeah, I already said that, basically. DVDs have been cracked for ages. I don't know what this watermark thing the parent poster referred to is.

For some reason, I would have expected some kind of automatic valve system that would allow multiple kegs to be connected at once, switching over to the next keg when one went empty.

There are a lot of high-volume bars with few taps, I can't imagine the nuisance of constantly switching over to new individual kegs.

Was it, though? China circa 1960s/70s was a totalitarian dictatorship where Tiananmen square was an impossibility simply because any dissent would be crushed long before it would get to mass protest stage, and the yearly number of victims was far greater, too. Compared to China after Tiananmen, the latter is far more liberal. It's even more liberal today.

I did not suggest doing such a thing. The best thing you can do is just trade (and yes, this doesn't preclude e.g. tariffs to even out the price of labor differences, environmental concerns etc).