Affordable Care Act and your personal health insurance coverage

[Speed]

What is your source for that claim?

http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...are-taxes.html

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Small-Busines...ing-the-Credit

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...eEstimates.pdf

http://news.yahoo.com/health-care-la...175130388.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...-62-for-women/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...amily-of-four/

[Steve Machol]

Thanks. I read the the first link:

http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...are-taxes.html

Which says:

Among the most affluent fifth of households, those affected will see tax increases averaging $6,000 next year, economists estimate.

That is clearly not the same as claiming this:

I just read an article that says taxes will increase within the next year by around $6000 per TAXPAYER.

And even that figure is in question:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/...-tax-increases

Newspapers are supposed to be in the business of informing readers. It's hard to see what information was provided when an article on the tax increases associated with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) told readers:
"Among the most affluent fifth of households, those affected will see tax increases averaging $6,000 next year, economists estimate."
It's difficult to know what this is supposed to mean. The most affluent fifth of households would be around 26 million households. If the tax increases amounted to an average of $6,000 per household that would come to $156 billion a year. However the next paragraph tells us that the projected tax take is $318 billion over ten years. This implies a tax hit on these families that is less than one-fifth as large. (The same tax would produce considerably more revenue ten years out than next year.)

Presumably the piece means that the tax will affect a narrow subset of the top quintile and that this narrow subset (mostly people with income over $200,000 a year), will see an average increase in taxes of $6,000 a year. The Tax Policy Center puts the number of tax filing units (roughly households) affected as 2.8 million. It should have been possible to more clearly describe the impact of the tax increases associated with the ACA.

In fact, none of your links backs your claim. And Forbes ones make claims that are clearly not accurate, including this doozy:

Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women

Note: It is no surprise to anyone that has been paying attention that the ACA is partially funded by a relatively small tax increase on the wealthy. Even after that, they will still be paying at significant lowers marginal tax rates than when Reagan was President.

[gmc]

So Shanbaum, what would be the result of the failure of Obamacare? Enlighten us please. And is the idea dingy as in dull or drab, or dingy as a thought from a foolish person. I need to know from which condition I suffer.

[shanbaum]

So Shanbaum, what would be the result of the failure of Obamacare? Enlighten us please. And is the idea dingy as in dull or drab, or dingy as a thought from a foolish person. I need to know from which condition I suffer.

I was thinking of the latter (although, please note that a reasonable person can propose a dingy idea).

I am not sure what might lead to Obamacare's "failure". Had there been no willingness on the parts of insurers to participate in exchanges, that would have been a problem; but that doesn't appear to be happening. If employers do discontinue providing healthcare en masse, and pay the penalties instead, that would be a possible failure mode. In any case, it would take a more liberal Congress than we had from 2009-2011 to come up with a single payer system (since that one didn't), and I really don't see that happening, at least until after the next census, and the next round of gerrymandering, in 2020-2021. Given that so many of the likely beneficiaries of a single payer system would oppose it as a "socialistic tyranny", I really don't see that happening anytime soon (like, in my lifetime).

More likely, "failure" would consist of an increasing number of states abandoning their exchanges (leaving them up to the federal government to operate), and Congress eliminating the individual mandate, so that the program would become ever less affordable. Depending on the composition of Congress, the Medicaid expansion, which is really the heart of the program, could be scaled back, and you'd be left with a handful of benefits (like the "no pre-existing conditions" rule), but otherwise, pretty much back to where we were in 2008.

[MasterCrafter]

I have a few questions on this topic

If Obama care is so great, why is the administration giving out so many excemptions from it?

Why are most of the Unions against it now? Wernt they pushing for it big time?

And last, Why is the Senate and Congress excempting themselves from it?

[Judy Canty]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...alth-care-law/

[Steve Machol]

I have a few questions on this topic

If Obama care is so great, why is the administration giving out so many excemptions from it?

Which alleged exemptions are you referring to? There is a lot of inaccurate information being generated.

Why are most of the Unions against it now? Wernt they pushing for it big time?

Not sure if that is an accurate accusation, but here just two of many articles explaining this:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ion-96793.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-care-act.html

I found this bit interesting:

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) worked for months in 2010 to scale back the effects of the 40 percent excise tax in the bill for union members, but he said the chances of the Republican House addressing unions’ worries now “are close to zero” because of the partisan dysfunction plaguing Congress right now.

“My frustration is that there are really things that need to be fixed in this bill, but we have this religious war that makes it impossible to go through it and make changes,” Courtney says. “I think people are going to have to figure out how to ride it out for the next couple of years and hope that there will be a more friendly Congress after 2014."

Just how unfriendly are Republicans to the idea of changing the law for unions now? Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) introduced a bill last week specifically barring the White House from making any changes to the bill for organized labor, a move that he said would amount to a “backroom deal.”

And last, Why is the Senate and Congress excempting themselves from it?

They aren't. This is one of many lies being spread, such as the thoroughly debunked but, never dead, 'Death Panel' lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/no-...-for-congress/
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...gress-i/195925

[MasterCrafter]

Which alleged exemptions are you referring to? There is a lot of inaccurate information being generated.



Not sure if that is an accurate accusation, but here just two of many articles explaining this:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ion-96793.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-care-act.html

I found this bit interesting:





They aren't. This is one of many lies being spread, such as the thoroughly debunked but, never dead, 'Death Panel' lie.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/08/no-...-for-congress/
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...gress-i/195925

Steve, first off Media Matters and Factcheck.org are not reliable sources... those are serious liberal groups pushing an agenda.

Here are some articles of Unions being ticked off.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...-by-obamacare/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...acare-n1689633

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...e-in-obamacare

Besides why should Unions get special treatment? Are people in Unions better than everybody else? Union people should get preforential treatment ?? They want an excemption plain and simple.

OK for Federal workers Excemption might be the wrong word, But they get Federal healthcare...which is better than Obamacare... so why not take that away...and give them Obama Care? I mean if it's truly that good....why do they not enroll themselves in it?

[Steve Machol]

Steve, first off Media Matters and Factcheck.org are not reliable sources... those are serious liberal groups pushing an agenda.

And Fox News, the WSJ, The Town Hall and Forbes are 'reliable' and non-biased? Please! Honestly, most of the media is far from 'liberal'. They are almost all Corporatists.

What specific lies and 'agenda' do you see in the Media Matters and Factcheck.org articles? It's one thing to simply dismiss something because of the 'source' (aka 'ad hominem' fallacy). It's quite another to actually deal with the mateial itself instead of the source.

Here are some articles of Unions being ticked off.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...-by-obamacare/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...acare-n1689633

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...e-in-obamacare

I didn't deny that Unions were not upset. In fact I even provided a couple of links to that affect.

Besides why should Unions get special treatment? Are people in Unions better than everybody else? Union people should get preforential treatment ?? They want an excemption plain and simple.

I didn't say they did deserve an exemption. Not sure why you are projecting this onto me.

OK for Federal workers Excemption might be the wrong word, But they get Federal healthcare...which is better than Obamacare... so why not take that away...and give them Obama Care? I mean if it's truly that good....why do they not enroll themselves in it.

Not sure what your point is here. Most people in this country get their insurance from their employers and will not be affected by 'Obamacare'.

Look I understand that you have a particularly ideological viewpoint on this. That is your right. And given the tenor of your posts on OptiBoard (even to the point of claiming about our 'heavy-handed' moderators) I am quite sure that there is absolutely nothing I or anyone else could say that will ever sway you from your beliefs.

But I'm sure that even you, somewhere deep down inside, realize that the many of the objections are based in clearly inaccurate information being spread by people that are afraid of actually seeing this act work for the benefit of the American People. And just like any act of Congress or new program, it will have it's problems. In fact the totally unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bush had numerous problems. And unlike today's anarchists in the GOP-controlled House, Democrats didn't keep demanding that Bush abandon or cripple this program if he did not acquiesce to their demands over and over again. In fact, they even worked with Bush to fix some of the problems in the Act.

The one thing I know for sure is this. If Republicans truly believed this was a 'disaster' for the American People, they would simply let it unfold then just pick up the pieces in the 2014 and 2016 elections after the collapse of a thoroughly discredited President and Democratic Party. There is a very good reason they are trying to sabotage this before it is fully implemented. What they truly fear (and with good reason) is that it will be successful.

[MikeAurelius]

Media Matters and Factcheck.org are not reliable sources... those are serious liberal groups pushing an agenda.

Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha....

If it seems like those websites seem to have a liberal bias, perhaps its because the American Taliban sorry the Tea Party wackos are far better at spewing outright lies than the Democrats are.

When you have nutcases like failed-presidential-wannabe Michele Bachmann, failed-vice-presidential-mistake Sara Palin, and not-born-in-America presidential wannabe Ted Cruz burning up the airways with their peculiar brand of nonsense, it's to be expected that low-education people are going to believe what they say, even if it isn't true.

The problem isn't that those websites are "liberally biased", it's that they have become a necessity to separate the truth from the lies spewed by BOTH sides, but far more on the right than the left.

[Speed]

I have a few questions on this topic

If Obama care is so great, why is the administration giving out so many excemptions from it?

Why are most of the Unions against it now? Wernt they pushing for it big time?

And last, Why is the Senate and Congress excempting themselves from it?

Ultimately it will be used to punish people with tea party or patriot in their applications, like the IRS is now being used. I think they even appointed the employee that came up with those plans to run this program.

[SeaU2020]

With my husband's employer over the past 12 years we pay more and more $ for less and less coverage. This year they are saying that if the "spouse" (me) is offered insurance with my own employer (which they do) and I choose NOT to take it, we Have to pay an additional $50 a month JUST FOR ME! It is messed up because the one my work offers is just for ME, not a family plan, which my husband's offers. If my husband chose just himself and the kids, we pay more that way, too. Insurance is something we can't afford to live without, but we are finding it's really hard to live WITH now as well.

[SeaU2020]

With my husband's employer over the past 12 years we pay more and more $ for less and less coverage. This year they are saying that if the "spouse" (me) is offered insurance with my own employer (which they do) and I choose NOT to take it, we Have to pay an additional $50 a month JUST FOR ME! It is messed up because the one my work offers is just for ME, not a family plan, which my husband's offers. If my husband chose just himself and the kids, we pay more that way, too. Insurance is something we can't afford to live without, but we are finding it's really hard to live WITH now as well.

Oh, and I'll bet someone got a huge pat on the back for thinking up THAT new charge!

[MasterCrafter]

Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha....

If it seems like those websites seem to have a liberal bias, perhaps its because the American Taliban sorry the Tea Party wackos are far better at spewing outright lies than the Democrats are.

When you have nutcases like failed-presidential-wannabe Michele Bachmann, failed-vice-presidential-mistake Sara Palin, and not-born-in-America presidential wannabe Ted Cruz burning up the airways with their peculiar brand of nonsense, it's to be expected that low-education people are going to believe what they say, even if it isn't true.

The problem isn't that those websites are "liberally biased", it's that they have become a necessity to separate the truth from the lies spewed by BOTH sides, but far more on the right than the left.

See , Mike is an example of what the left does in this country... He calls the Tea Party the American Taliban, Obama's adviser Dan Pfeiffer says Obama cant negotiate with people who have bombs strapped to thier chest (referring to Republicans) But then Obama actually does talk with the people that are actually strapping bombs to thier chests( aka-iran and the Actual Taliban)

Judy - Politifact is run by the Tampa Bay Times.... A very liberal newspaper... so everyone of thier "facts" are biased

Steve - Media Matters has never sided with the Right...not once.... and Factcheck.org is run by the Annenberg foundation-a very liberal institution. The reason I talked about Unions is how they thought they were getting an excemption because thats what Obama told them. Now that Obama says they are not, they are ticked. So in few months, after the Unions stomp thier feet for awhile, they will get it. Mark my words. There have been several waivers and some are getting delays, like the employers, they get a one year delay... Why not delay the whole thing and actually work with Republicans? I mean, this is a man that says he will negotiate with anybody...then why not Republicans? Next thing you know you guys are going to start quoting Moveon.org and say how factual they are.

Also Obama ran in 2008 and 2012 dogging Bush and his perscription drug program, Democrats hammered it as "not paid for". Believe me, they are the only ones who can give free stuff away or it's unessecary spending. Every campaign stop Obama was on he hammered that program, so I dont know where you got that info from.

Speed - I agree with you... Obama knows that the only person ObamaCare hurts is the middle class. Once again it will hurt the "working" people. The workers always have to pay for someone else's healthcare and retirements. I can barely pay for my mine, let alone pay for other people!

P.S. - You supporters of ObamaCare say there is alot of mis-information out there. Well There is, on both sides. Where you guys are all in, saying how great it is, lets review some of the Obama mis-information

1 - millions of "tax payer" dollars have been wasted promoting it... even promoting it in Mexico....not one dime of tax payer money has been used against it

2 - speaking of dimes...remember when Obama said it wouldnt raise one dime of anybodys taxes? He even went further...he said Republicans are scaring everybody....not one person, not one dime except people making over 350k,then 250k, then What is it now? But I guess he was right...it wasnt one dime...it was millions of dimes...so technically

3 - remember when Obama said you could keep your Doctor? Not true for millions of people.

4 - he called it Affordable..the Affordable Care Act.... Really? When the Government calls something one thing...you can bet you butt it means the exact opposite!!

[Judy Canty]

So, MC what are the absolutely unbiased news outlets we can all trust regardless of political affiliation? Personally, I vote for The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

[Judy Canty]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...truth-o-meter/

[MasterCrafter]

So, MC what are the absolutely unbiased news outlets we can all trust regardless of political affiliation? Personally, I vote for The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.

There really are no un-biased news outlets out there any where.

But I am a news junkie... i scan all the cable and network news, scan alot of the internet sites and read alot of newspapers, and I can tell who is really bias and who is off the chart bias. So you have to decipher the storys, find out who the writer is to see if there are political motives

Fox News is the least bias hands own.... the reason being is at least I here both sides of a story...they may slant right but at least they present both sides of an issue.

MSNBC is by far the worst.... some of thier hosts on there act like Republicans are worse than the Taliban...I bet Mike agree's alot with them...he probaly believes they are too soft on Republicans.

The rest of the media just fails to report any news that is unfavorable to Obama or Demecrats...for example... if a Republican politicain does something bad...they make sure thier story will highlite the fact that they are Republicans.... if it is a Democrat they will not mention it.

Plus most of the media act like Travon Martin was an innocent little kid..if you think Zimmerman was innocent..your a racist..here this guy explains it better than me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CUNUVhzFAQ

I bring the Travon Martin case up because it was so politicized. Most of the left thinks Zimmerman was guilty of stalking this kid down and murdering him, where as most of the right believes he did it in self defense.

Where Fox presents 2 sides to the ACA debate, the rest act like if you do not agree with it, you must be a racist. There are several Democrat politicians and news people on record stating this.

Where Fox presents 2 sides to the global warming debate...the President, and the rest of the news media, acts like your a flat earther... Obama himself said he will not debate the flat earth society!! Really, the north pole has gained 60% more ice than this time last year, the global warming scientist finaly admit that the earth has not been warming since 1997 and they act like were flat earthers?

So these are just 2 examples.... i could go on for days

[Steve Machol]

Bwaaaahahahahahahahahahaha....

If it seems like those websites seem to have a liberal bias, perhaps its because the American Taliban sorry the Tea Party wackos are far better at spewing outright lies than the Democrats are.

When you have nutcases like failed-presidential-wannabe Michele Bachmann, failed-vice-presidential-mistake Sara Palin, and not-born-in-America presidential wannabe Ted Cruz burning up the airways with their peculiar brand of nonsense, it's to be expected that low-education people are going to believe what they say, even if it isn't true.

The problem isn't that those websites are "liberally biased", it's that they have become a necessity to separate the truth from the lies spewed by BOTH sides, but far more on the right than the left.

This kind of thing is unacceptable. There are better places to spew partisan rants. This is NOT one of them. I will NOT tolerate any more name-calling like this. Do you understand that?

Ultimately it will be used to punish people with tea party or patriot in their applications, like the IRS is now being used. I think they even appointed the employee that came up with those plans to run this program.

This accusation has has been thoroughly debunked. Besides it has nothing to do this subject - the ACA and it's affect on us personally.

With my husband's employer over the past 12 years we pay more and more $ for less and less coverage. This year they are saying that if the "spouse" (me) is offered insurance with my own employer (which they do) and I choose NOT to take it, we Have to pay an additional $50 a month JUST FOR ME! It is messed up because the one my work offers is just for ME, not a family plan, which my husband's offers. If my husband chose just himself and the kids, we pay more that way, too. Insurance is something we can't afford to live without, but we are finding it's really hard to live WITH now as well.

Premiums and medical costs have been skyrocketing for years. Interestingly enough, the rate of increase has slowed down over the last couple of years. Regardless, your situation doesn't appear to have anything to do with the ACA, but instead is indicative of just how screwed up our 'healthcare' system is.

See , Mike is an example of what the left does in this country... He calls the Tea Party the American Taliban, Obama's adviser Dan Pfeiffer says Obama cant negotiate with people who have bombs strapped to thier chest (referring to Republicans) But then Obama actually does talk with the people that are actually strapping bombs to thier chests( aka-iran and the Actual Taliban)

Judy - Politifact is run by the Tampa Bay Times.... A very liberal newspaper... so everyone of thier "facts" are biased

Steve - Media Matters has never sided with the Right...not once.... and Factcheck.org is run by the Annenberg foundation-a very liberal institution. The reason I talked about Unions is how they thought they were getting an excemption because thats what Obama told them. Now that Obama says they are not, they are ticked. So in few months, after the Unions stomp thier feet for awhile, they will get it. Mark my words. There have been several waivers and some are getting delays, like the employers, they get a one year delay... Why not delay the whole thing and actually work with Republicans? I mean, this is a man that says he will negotiate with anybody...then why not Republicans? Next thing you know you guys are going to start quoting Moveon.org and say how factual they are.

Also Obama ran in 2008 and 2012 dogging Bush and his perscription drug program, Democrats hammered it as "not paid for". Believe me, they are the only ones who can give free stuff away or it's unessecary spending. Every campaign stop Obama was on he hammered that program, so I dont know where you got that info from.

Speed - I agree with you... Obama knows that the only person ObamaCare hurts is the middle class. Once again it will hurt the "working" people. The workers always have to pay for someone else's healthcare and retirements. I can barely pay for my mine, let alone pay for other people!

P.S. - You supporters of ObamaCare say there is alot of mis-information out there. Well There is, on both sides. Where you guys are all in, saying how great it is, lets review some of the Obama mis-information

1 - millions of "tax payer" dollars have been wasted promoting it... even promoting it in Mexico....not one dime of tax payer money has been used against it

2 - speaking of dimes...remember when Obama said it wouldnt raise one dime of anybodys taxes? He even went further...he said Republicans are scaring everybody....not one person, not one dime except people making over 350k,then 250k, then What is it now? But I guess he was right...it wasnt one dime...it was millions of dimes...so technically

3 - remember when Obama said you could keep your Doctor? Not true for millions of people.

4 - he called it Affordable..the Affordable Care Act.... Really? When the Government calls something one thing...you can bet you butt it means the exact opposite!!

Sigh, yes we get it. You feel that 'librals' are evil and anyone that presents facts, reason or logic that does not align with your beliefs must automatically be 'biased' and everyone that does agree with you is clearly 'fair and balanced'. The truth is that ALL media is biased in one way or another and most of them are merely vessels to serve their corporate masters. The least you could do is to come up with something original, but I'm afraid that is out of your reach.

As for this:

Also Obama ran in 2008 and 2012 dogging Bush and his perscription drug program, Democrats hammered it as "not paid for". Believe me, they are the only ones who can give free stuff away or it's unessecary spending. Every campaign stop Obama was on he hammered that program, so I dont know where you got that info from.

I really have no idea what you are talking about here. My best guess is that you are accusing Obama of committing 'politics'. Well, there's a shocker!

Honestly if I thought it would change anything I would try my best to understand. But it is clear (and you have admitted as much) you have a deep ideological view which is impervious to any facts and reason that do not come from your pre-approved sources. Arguing with you over this is like entering the rabbit hole and I refuse to continue playing that game. And as with the other times I asked you to provide specific examples to support your accusations, you have refused to do so.

Note: I never once said the ACA was 'great' as you put it. In fact, it is flawed. But it is significantly than what we have now, and whether Republicans like it or not, this is almost the exact same plan produced by the Heritage Foundation (hmmm, maybe they are not on your approved list) and of course the health care plan put together in Massachusetts under Gov. Romney (who, I guess is actually a 'libral' according to a lot of people on the right these days.)

I have one question for all. Does ANYONE think that by going on an ideological rant you are going to change any minds. If not, then what is the purpose of your rants? Frankly it looks like narcissism to me.

[MikeAurelius]

This kind of thing is unacceptable. There are better places to spew partisan rants. This is NOT one of them. I will NOT tolerate any more name-calling like this. Do you understand that?

I'm asking this for clarification ONLY. I was under the impression that name calling was not permitted against members of this board. Apart from the admittedly cheap shot at the Tea Party, is there one thing that I wrote descriptively about the three politicians (who, by the way, invited invective on themselves by running for office) that is incorrect? And if it's true, is it still name-calling?

And if that's not it, I'm not seeing it. I apologize for being blind, but truly, I'm not seeing it.

[Steve Machol]

Fox News is the least bias hands own.... the reason being is at least I here both sides of a story...they may slant right but at least they present both sides of an issue.

MSNBC is by far the worst.... some of thier hosts on there act like Republicans are worse than the Taliban...I bet Mike agree's alot with them...he probaly believes they are too soft on Republicans.

Uh, okay then. You win (which I know is important to you.) Go ahead and bask in the glory.

P.S. Invest in a spell-checker at the very least. Please.

Note to everyone: Please stick to the original topic. You are not going to convince anyone with ideological rants and name-calling. If you feel that you cannot reply without insults, accusations and going on another rant, than simply don't respond at all. It's really not that hard. Trust me.

[MikeAurelius]

See , Mike is an example of what the left does in this country... He calls the Tea Party the American Taliban

I'm not the first, nor will I be the last that refers to the Tea Party as the American Taliban.

About the ONLY thing that the Tea Party hasn't done is fly airliners into buildings.

Those who align themselves with the Tea Party follow similar ideological leanings as far as religion controlling the lives of other people.

The Tea Party and the Taliban want to control women.
The Tea Party and the Taliban want to restrict women's rights.
The Tea Party and the Taliban refer to their respective religious writings as the only way to God.
The Tea Party and the Taliban want their religion to be the one that dictates how others should live their lives.

Want me to go on?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Taliban

[Steve Machol]

I'm asking this for clarification ONLY. I was under the impression that name calling was not permitted against members of this board. Apart from the admittedly cheap shot at the Tea Party, is there one thing that I wrote descriptively about the three politicians (who, by the way, invited invective on themselves by running for office) that is incorrect? And if it's true, is it still name-calling?

And if that's not it, I'm not seeing it. I apologize for being blind, but truly, I'm not seeing it.

I consider 'American Taliban' and' nutcases' to be name-calling and inflammatory language. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE on OptBoard. Is that really so hard to understand?

I think I have been very clear. If you disagree, then fine. You do not have to agree with that decision, but it is my decision to make.

[MikeAurelius]

Ok, I agree to disagree, but I will no longer use the phrase "American Taliban" or the word "nutcase".

[Steve Machol]

I'm not the first, nor will I be the last that refers to the Tea Party as the American Taliban.

About the ONLY thing that the Tea Party hasn't done is fly airliners into buildings.

Those who align themselves with the Tea Party follow similar ideological leanings as far as religion controlling the lives of other people.

The Tea Party and the Taliban want to control women.
The Tea Party and the Taliban want to restrict women's rights.
The Tea Party and the Taliban refer to their respective religious writings as the only way to God.
The Tea Party and the Taliban want their religion to be the one that dictates how others should live their lives.

Want me to go on?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Taliban

No, I don't in fact. OptiBoard should not be about what divides and separates us. It should be about eyecare professionals coming together to help each, not demonize people.

[MikeAurelius]

No, I don't in fact. OptiBoard should not be about what divides and separates us. It should be about eyecare professionals coming together to help each, not demonize people.

Then why does this sub-forum exist? Or, more to the point, why permit political discussions at all?