Jump to content
Pearl Y, Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014 so what you are seeing is your insurance company gouging you until then . We could see a reduction in premiums when the exchanges start up and there is more competition.
Before Obama, insurance rates were going up dramatically. You might recall, given it hit the news across the U.S., Blue Cross of California boosted its rates 39% around 2008. I was living in Los Angeles at the time and had Blue Cross. Every year I dreaded getting a letter from Blue Cross announcing its yearly premium hike which were always double digit hikes, 39% being the most egregious. Furthermore, I had a pre-existing condition which meant that if I wanted to stay insured, I had to stay in California with my existing Blue Cross policy. I had no freedom to move out of state until I reached Medicare age. We may not like Obamacare but it has eliminated some abuses and there is a good chance that it will be fine tuned well enough to take care of others like runaway hospital costs.
Federal govt employees are covered by FERS since 1984 but federal elected officials, including Congress, pay into Social Security and Medicare just like much of the rest of the nation: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/hfaq.html .
Who is talking about disarming law-abiding citizens?No one, including Obama. Background checks and magazine limits would not take away guns away. They would slow down the acquisition and would probably keep them out of the hands of the mentally disturbed.
There are no stats about states hiring armed security. In a Google search there were a few examples of a county here or there but not many. It appears that about 12 states initiated vs. implemented legislation right after Sandy Hook but the reality is that most states can't afford armed security let alone public education. Maybe you can do a better job than I have done.
"Large majority of schools". Where are you getting your stats? I'm not clear as to what are you saying the majority of honest law-abiding citizens have disproved?
I thought Schmaltz made a good point. Make a better one other than calling his the dumbest thing you've ever read. Why isn't slowing down the acquisition of guns through background checks, eliminating assault rifles and reducing the magazine size, for example, as equally effective as having an armed Sheriff Deputy at WA-hi. Someone with an assault rifle could wipe out part of the school before the armed deputy was in the right spot to do anything?
Stats from AARP
Good point. I'll check to see what I can come up with.
Namvet, could there be some form of gun safety legislation to slow down criminals and mentally challenged persons from getting immediate gun access that wouldn't affect law abiding citizens? For example, how would background checks affect law abiding citizens?
Where and how long were you in Vietnam?
bj and carcrazy, please make an cogent argument that more guns makes anymore sense than more debt, more smokers, more immigrants.
Last login: Wednesday, November 13, 2013
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.