Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (774603)	3/12/2014 10:38:27 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571330

Oh, what a wonderful speech!!!!

To: jlallen who wrote (774603)	3/12/2014 10:44:37 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571330

So, how does Congress NOT have standing to take the president to court if the president refuses to enforce the law that is enacted? The speech is excellent and needs to be heard; but I'm perplexed as to why it is necessary at all.

To: jlallen who wrote (774603)	3/12/2014 10:56:36 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571330

.....well I've often stated how dissatisfied I am with my two term Congressman Chris Gibson.......he ran as a Constitutional Conservative but has one of the worse Conservative voting records in Congress for a Republican..........so today I learn who the Democrats are running against him.........one 27 year old multimillionaire activist Sean Eldridge......he was born in Canada, grew up in Ohio and in recent years lived in NYC....but last year he bought a $2M home in Ulster County and promptly announced he is running for Congress. Eldridge's husband is BILLIONAIRE Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes .....the current publisher of the decidedly liberal "The New Republic" magazine which he bought in 2012. Both ardent supporters of left wing causes, they contributed $500K during the 2012 election cycle. In contrast Gibson, a 24 year US Army veteran (retired Colonel) was born raised and still lives in Kinderhook NY along with his wife,3 kids, and dog.........This might be one of the most brazen attempts to buy an election ever............business as usual in the EMPIRE State.............................I really need to get out of here. Hughes/Eldridge Gibson Family

To: jlallen who wrote (774603)	3/12/2014 10:59:31 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1571330

At the intersection of calendars and the ACA 03/12/14 12:58 PM By Steve Benen The Affordable Care Act enrollment figures for February were released yesterday afternoon, and for the most part, the numbers looked pretty good for those hoping to see the U.S. system succeed. But news consumers can be forgiven for thinking the opposite. The Hill ran this headline: “ObamaCare enrollments dip.” The Washington Post had a similar message: “Obamacare enrollment drops off in February.” The conservative Washington Examiner told readers: “Obamacare signups slow down in February.” Sounds discouraging, doesn’t it? January’s enrollment totals were heartening, but if you just skimmed the headlines out of D.C., you’d think February represented a step backwards. But it didn’t. The months HHS has been using for tabulation don’t correspond precisely to the calendar, because of state reporting methods and where weekends fall. As it turns out, “February” is actually February 2 through March 1. That’s 28 days. “January” is actually December 29 through February 1. That’s 35 days. Plug in the numbers, and you’ll see the average daily enrollment for January was 32,744 and for February it was 33,673. As you can see in the graph, the pace actually increased a bit. Among the very few who noticed were Charles Gaba of ACASingups.net and Sy Mukherjee of ThinkProgress. At a superficial level, the raw monthly totals offer a misleading picture. Someone sees 1.2 million sign-ups in January, followed by 943,000 in February. That looks like a drop. *Until we’re reminded that February is the shortest month.* Stepping back, it’s worth noting that these month-to-month totals are interesting, but their broader importance is limited. I always make a point to highlight the totals as a way of documenting ACA progress, and there’s a political salience as more Americans get invested – literally and figuratively – in the law’s future, but the success of the system will not rise or fall based on monthly tallies and the degree to which they meet preliminary projections. As Rachel has noted on the show more than once, when a very similar system was established in Massachusetts eight years ago, officials worked under the assumption that enrollment would be slow at first and would then improve in time. In the very first month of the state’s open-enrollment period, a grand total of 123 residents of Massachusetts actually signed up. And while that may sound like a disaster, no one much cared – in fact, no one even bothered to acknowledge the total at the time, and the figure was only dug up later. The Affordable Care Act is following a similar trajectory. And since the Massachusetts system is working quite well, that’s probably a pretty good sign. By most estimates, by the end of March, a little over 5 million consumers will have enrolled through exchange marketplaces, and a similar number will have gained coverage through Medicaid. That’s not quite what the CBO projected before the process began – whether the 7 million figure could have been reached if healthcare.gov worked from the outset we’ll never know – but it’s a perfectly fine number when it comes to sustainability. Keep this in mind the next time you’re perusing the Beltway media’s headlines about the system’s progress.