Ok, I just read the article, and I have to say what is she smoking and where can I get some? Either that or she's so deluded that Obama could hand her a one dollar bill, tell her it's a hundred dollar bill, and she would believe Obama's word over her own eyes. First of all, I'm not even a conservative and I can see flaws in her reporting. Of course, this article doesn't say it's by Rachel Maddow. It says it's by Steve Bannon. Now, let me start tearing this article apart for you.
1.The reporter Steven Bannon says this "Carson’s mistaken when he says the Affordable Care Act isn’t working; the evidence to the contrary is simply overwhelming." The evidence part is a link. When you click on this link, it sends you to a report that says "‘Obamacare’ reduces medical financial stress for U.S. families" wow! Sounds great! but, wait, this article was also written by Steven Banning. If you aren't sure whether to believe him to begin with, the evidence, written by him, isn't going to help either. If the Affordable Care Act was considered a success by reducing medical financial stress for families then, every health Insurance company must also be a success! I would like to pause for a moment and congratulate the Hand In Hand insurance company for oh, wait, that company no longer exists. Alright, obviously, success can't be judged simply by looking at one area. Otherwise, we could just give free health insurance to every american but, that would also collapse every health insurance company that went along with the plan. So, what factors make health insurance a success. 1. saving people money 2. stability 3. Doctor's willing to accept said health insurance. I'm going to have to add a fourth which is a new one for all of us 4. Doctor's fleeing the profession to escape the ACA's new plan for their lives. Ok, the first one, saving people money: This one, you would think, must be a yes but, surprisingly, it's only a yes for some people, For others, Obamacare has cost them. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/29/is-obamacare-really-saving-people-money.aspx Here's another one: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368675/wasnt-obamacare-supposed-save-money-veronique-de-rugy For the first one, I'm going to be generous and give ACA a 75% percent success rate on saving people money. 2. Stability - Stability, in this case, must be defined by popularity, statistics, effectiveness, and sustainability. a:Popularity and b:Statistics. The popularity for national healthcare is still relatively high with 68% supporting some kind of national healthcare but, the Afordable Care Act itself has consistently lost popularity points. Only 39% now support the ACA. Meanwhile, those against it have raised to 52% Part of this is because of Obama's false promises of people being able to keep their insurance but, there are other factors which will be discussed later. The amount of people who lost their health insurance was a frightening 17 million. There are only 10 million enrolled in ACA now. C: Effectiveness and D: Sustainability How effective is Obamacare: Well, if you base it off the percentage of uncovered to the percentage of uncovered before the ACA, the answer to that is a little effective. The percentage before was 16.8 when obamacare went into effect the percentage of uninsured jumped up to 18 percent because so many people lost their health insurance but, it's now dropped down to 13.4 percent So 16.8%-13.4%=3.4% That's a little bit more than 20% of the previously unemployed, not too bad. However, state support for Obamacare is like state homosexual marriage support reversed. 36 states do not have exchanges, and the number of states is only increasing. 2 states that origianlly had state exchanges have given theirs up. From the start of the ACA until now, the amount of hospitals have been dwindling at a disturbing rate 43 hospitals have closed since then. I'm out of time to finish this. I'll finish the second part later.

I support homosexual rights but, to call them civil rights, as if there is no choice, is wrong in my opinion. One last thing, I forgot to mention. My first two sexual encounters were homosexual. I'm fairly certain I could choose to be a homosexual if I wanted to.

For those of you who have only had straight experiences, bisexuals make up 50% of the L**T community.

Personally, I thing homosexuals deserve some rights as human beings but, I believe homosexuality is a choice I've talked with too many homosexuals who have said otherwise, and scientists have never found a "gay" gene. Scientists are still hunting it as proven here. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/20/the-problematic-hunt-for-a-gay-gene.html Third, I know several heterosexuals who have become bisexual but, I've heard certain "politically correct" homosexuals state that homosexuals cannot become bisexual If this is possible for heterosexuals, why is this not possible for homosexuals? This politically homosexual agenda seems to deny the very existence of bisexuality while including their letter in the L**T community. I have met several homosexuals but, I have yet to personally meet a homosexual who wasn't victimized by sexual abuse when they were younger. I was also sexually abused by an older male when I was younger and I had a hard time deciding my sexual identity. In fact, I didn't finally decide until I was 22. Finally, the p*******e organization NAMBLA has been included in several of political homosexual functions, and p*******es are now beginning to claim that it's not a choice for them either. I find this highly disturbing. Basically, politically correct homosexuals are stating that if someone chooses to become heterosexual they cannot choose to become homosexual later. I know of homosexuals who have had heterosexual phases. I would appreciate some answers to these questions and statements.

LOL she's funny

An executive order is needed for what he ordered the federal authorities to comply with.

That's like the president sending a memo telling the US Army to invade Canada. Memos aren't supposed to have that much authority.

An Executive Order has more authority than a memo but, the memo was written as an executive order. The federal authorities cannot disregard the memo without being held accountable for going against the president's "memo" order.

I have to agree. You can disagree without degenerating into ape ranting and chest beating.

Hey, I'm a libertarian but, I believe in limiting free trade when it hurts american jobs. And yes corporate welfare is a problem, and what Wal-mart and these fast food restaurants do are wrong. Where I live Wal-mart pays it's employees minimum wage. Even the pharmacy techs with college degrees get paid under poverty levels. The starting wage is 8.75 The answer is to lower the supply of uneducated workforce and stop Obama's extreme immigration influx which has lowered job wages. One of you mentioned that Wal-mart would just raise the price of merchandise but, we are already paying for these employees welfare benefits which is more expensive and socialistic than it would be if wal-mart were to just provide better benefits to it's workers.

Um, those farm subsidies were propbably not given to her family when she was growing up. Most of it is much more recent. So, I doubt she's lying about living simply. Plus, if you've ever lived on a farm, you could have a half million dollars, and lose it all within a year when a bad crop hits. I wouldn' t call those subsidies wealthy when it comes to a farm. Middle income, maybe.

"Young earth" creationists have it wrong but, Darwin had it wrong too. Yes, evolution does exist but, his version of evolution has been disproven.

Take that, you agnostic heathens, you Godless infidels!!!

It is accurate. This nation was not founded as a Christian nation although several of our founders were Christian. Many of the most important ones we recognize today however were Deists or Theology- rationalists It would be more accurate to say this nation was founded as a theological nation.

Have you noticed that Obama is pushing this only now when the Republicans have gained the majority in congress. Why didn't he do this when the democrats had a majority? This is just more politics.