text:
[Beowulf] Looking for NFS Server performance comparison
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Joachim Worringen joachim at ccrl-nece.deFri Dec 16 08:35:10 PST 2005
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Looking for NFS Server performance comparison
- Next message: [Beowulf] Looking for NFS Server performance comparison
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bill Rankin wrote: > Hi Gang, > > This may be a rehash, but I'm looking for any references to papers that > address the issue of NFS server scalability in a cluster environment. > Our current cluster here at Duke is right at 500 nodes (and growing) > and the single NFS server with attached SCSI drives serving all data to > all nodes just doesn't seem to hack it anymore. > > I know that there are clustered solutions like PVFS, IBRIX, et. al. as > well as the dedicated filer approach (NetApp, EMC, etc.) and we are > looking at those. But first we need to convince the powers that be that > a Linux-based NFS server just ain't going to cut it as we move forward. Hi Bill, sorry if this sounds a bit perky, but: if you have I/O bound applications, I'm quite sure you can show that they don't scale even with the current 500 nodes on a single NFS server. And if you don't have such applications - well, than you don't have a problem... ;-) You can still use a benchmark, but this might not convince "the powers". Above you say that the NFS server has already problems now: shouldn't that convince the powers that you need something else than NFS? Which problems do you refer to with "doesn't hack it anymore"? Correct me if I just didn't understand your problem. However, I *do* understand that NFS really is a bad idea for many nodes doing something else than just loading the executable (and even this may show problems at scale). Ie. doing MPI-IO correctly is a nightmare on NFS. > So if anyone knows of good documents (white papers, conference papers, > etc.) that will support my assertion, I would appreciate a pointer to > them. I'm quite sure the vendors will happily provide you with such material... A quick search gave this GPFS vs. NFS evaluation: http://www.nus.edu.sg/comcen/svu/publications/hpc_nus/sep_2005/Performance.pdf Joachim -- Joachim Worringen - NEC C&C research lab St.Augustin fon +49-2241-9252.20 - fax .99 - http://www.ccrl-nece.de
- Previous message: [Beowulf] Looking for NFS Server performance comparison
- Next message: [Beowulf] Looking for NFS Server performance comparison
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list


text:
Arrest on SHAW LANE, EAST LANSING, MI |
Arrest - SHAW LANE, EAST LANSING, MI
Email to a friend Submit a Crime Tip |
Google Map Loading ...
Google Streetview Disclaimer: This is a Google Maps Street View of the approximate area where the crime occurred. It is not necessarily the exact address view of the crime.
Local news for East Lansing provided by
Cleveland kidnapping case spotlights Okemos psychiatrist Dr. Frank... (by Detroit Free Press)
I have a confession to make: I've been a crasher - you know, a wedding crasher - so I know how they... Dr. Frank Ochberg testifies during the sentencing phase of the Ariel Castro trial, Aug. 1, 2013, in Cleveland.
Man Charged Following String Of Sexual Assaults (by WLNS-TV Lansing)
An investigation is underway after a roof collapses from an office building on 115 West Allegan in downtown Lansing.
Police Arrest MSU Rapist (by WXMI-TV Grand Rapids)
EAST LANSING, Mich- Just days before classes begin at Michigan State University, a serial rapist is off the streets tonight in East Lansing.
East Lansing Police Department arrests suspect in string of sexual assaults (by MLive.com)
Oswald Scott Wilder was arrested Aug. 23 in connection with a string of sexual assaults in East Lansing earlier this year.
Police Release Sketch Of Suspected Police Impersonator (by WLNS-TV Lansing)
Several Ingham County Sheriff's cars were sent to old Holt High School on the corner of Aurelius and Sycamore Friday morning.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
University Bridge Program
The English Language Institute and University of Montana (ELI-UM) Bridge Program gives students an opportunity to register for one UM credit-bearing course (at the 100 level) while they are enrolled in the ELI. Students who will be in Level 5 or Level 6 are elliglbe for this program. New students must place into Level 5 or Level 6 to be elliglbe for this program.
How can I apply to the Bridge Program?
- Complete the Bridge Program application form, including selection of university courses. The ELI Recommended Bridge Classes Sheet lists classes that ELI recommends students take.
- Submit a letter of recommendation from your most recent English-language teacher
- Submit a copy of an original TOEFL score which shows that the applicant has a minimum TOEFL score of 480 - 499 (pBT)/55-60 iBT.
Priority Processing Deadline for your ELI and Bridge Program application is two months before the start of the semester. Students who apply after the Priority Processing Deadline may be accepted on a space available basis. However, in some cases, you may be accepted for a future semester.
New students should contact firstname.lastname@example.com for further information.


text:
- published: 04 Oct 2012
- views: 18396
- author: AlJazeeraEnglish
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney debate health care coverage for Americans.
Full title | The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act |
Acronym | PPACA |
Colloquial name(s) | Affordable Care Act, Health Insurance Reform, Healthcare Reform, Obamacare |
Enacted by the | 111th United States Congress |
Effective | March 23, 2010 Specific provisions phased in through to 2020 |
Citations | |
Public Law | 111–148 |
Stat. | 124 Stat. 119 through 124 Stat. 1025 (906 pages) |
Legislative history | |
Major amendments | |
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011 |
United States Supreme Court cases | |
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Cases | |
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA),[1][2] informally referred to as Obamacare,[3] is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The law (along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) is the principal health care reform legislation of the 111th United States Congress. PPACA requires individuals not covered by employer- or government-sponsored insurance plans to maintain minimal essential health insurance coverage or pay a penalty unless exempted for religious beliefs or financial hardship, a provision commonly referred to as the "individual mandate". The Act also reforms certain aspects of the private health insurance industry and public health insurance programs, increases insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions, expands access to insurance to 30 million Americans,[4][5] and increases projected national medical spending[6][7] while lowering projected Medicare spending.[8]
PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against.[9] It passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against the bill.[10]
A majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of some or all of the elements of PPACA.[11] As of January 2012[update], two of four federal appellate courts have upheld it; a third declared the individual mandate unconstitutional, while a fourth ruled the federal Anti-Injunction Act prevents the issue from being decided until taxpayers begin paying penalties in 2015.[12][13][14] The Supreme Court heard six hours of oral argument on March 26–28, 2012, and is expected to issue its decision by the end of June.[15][16]
PPACA includes numerous provisions to take effect over several years beginning in 2010. Policies issued before the law was promulgated are grandfathered from most federal regulations.
The Act's provisions are intended to be funded by a variety of taxes and offsets. Major sources of new revenue include a much-broadened Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 and $250,000, for individual and joint filers respectively, an annual fee on insurance providers, and a 40% tax on "Cadillac" insurance policies. There are also taxes on pharmaceuticals, high-cost diagnostic equipment, and a 10% federal sales tax on indoor tanning services. Offsets are from intended cost savings such as improved fairness in the Medicare Advantage program relative to traditional Medicare.[40]
Summary of tax increases:
The Act is divided into 10 titles[42] and contains provisions that became effective immediately, 90 days after enactment, and six months after enactment, as well as provisions that will become effective in 2014.[43][44]
Below are some of the key provisions of the Act. For simplicity, the amendments in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 are integrated into this timeline.[45][46]
Income % of federal poverty level | Premium Cap as a Share of Income | Income $ (family of 4)a | Max Annual Out-of-Pocket Premium | Premium Savingsb | Additional Cost-Sharing Subsidy |
133% | 3% of income | $31,900 | $992 | $10,345 | $5,040 |
150% | 4% of income | $33,075 | $1,323 | $9,918 | $5,040 |
200% | 6.3% of income | $44,100 | $2,778 | $8,366 | $4,000 |
250% | 8.05% of income | $55,125 | $4,438 | $6,597 | $1,930 |
300% | 9.5% of income | $66,150 | $6,284 | $4,628 | $1,480 |
350% | 9.5% of income | $77,175 | $7,332 | $3,512 | $1,480 |
400% | 9.5% of income | $88,200 | $8,379 | $2,395 | $1,480 |
Health care reform was a major topic of discussion during the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries. As the race narrowed, attention focused on the plans presented by the two leading candidates, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and the eventual nominee, Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Each candidate proposed a plan to cover the approximately 45 million Americans estimated to be without health insurance at some point during each year. One point of difference between the plans was that Clinton's plan was to require all Americans to obtain coverage (in effect, an individual health insurance mandate), while Obama's was to provide a subsidy but not create a direct requirement.
During the general election campaign between Obama and the Republican nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, Obama said that fixing health care would be one of his four priorities if he won the presidency.[121] After his inauguration, Obama announced to a joint session of Congress in February 2009 that he would begin working with Congress to construct a plan for health care reform.[122] On March 5, 2009, Obama formally began the reform process and held a conference with industry leaders to discuss reform and requested reform be enacted before the Congressional summer recess; but the reform was not passed by the requested date.[123] In July 2009, a series of bills were approved by committees within the House of Representatives.[124] Beginning June 17, 2009, and extending through September 14, 2009, three Democratic and three Republican Senate Finance Committee Members met for a series of 31 meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill. Over the course of the next three months, this group, Senators Max Baucus (D-Montana), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed became the foundation of the Senate's health care reform bill.[125] The meetings were held in public and broadcast by C-SPAN and can be seen on the C-SPAN web site [126] or at the Committee's own web site.[127] During the August 2009 congressional recess, many members went back to their districts and entertained town hall meetings to solicit public opinion on the proposals. During the summer recess, the Tea Party movement organized protests and many conservative groups and individuals targeted congressional town hall meetings to voice their opposition to the proposed reform bills.[123][128]
Away from the televised meetings, the legislation became a "bonanza" for lobbyists,[129][130] including secret deals that were initially denied but subsequently confirmed.[131][132] The Sunlight Foundation documented many of the reported ties between "the healthcare lobbyist complex" and politicians in both major parties.[133]
President Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress supporting reform and again outlining his proposals.[134][135] On November 7, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act on a 220–215 vote and forwarded it to the Senate for passage.[123][136]
The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, bore similarities to prior healthcare reform proposals introduced by Republicans. In 1993 Senator John Chafee introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act which contained a "Universal Coverage" requirement with a tax penalty for non-compliance.[137] In 1994 Senator Don Nickles introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act which also contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision.[138] However, Nickles removed the mandate from the act shortly after introduction, stating that they had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance."[139]
There were many threats made against members of Congress and many were assigned extra protection. [140][141][142][143][144][145][145][146][147][148][140][149][144][150][151][152][153][154][155][156]
The Senate failed to take up debate on the House bill and instead took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.[157] As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House,[158] the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their health care reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill.[159] The bill as amended incorporated elements of earlier proposals that had been reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees.
Passage in the Senate was temporarily blocked by a filibuster threat by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who sided with the Republican minority. Nelson's support for the bill was won after it was amended to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska.[123] The compromise was derisively referred to as the "Cornhusker Kickback"[160] (and was later repealed by the reconciliation bill). On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a party-line vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with one senator (Jim Bunning) not voting.[161]
On January 19, 2010, Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown was elected to the Senate, having campaigned on giving the Republican minority the 41st vote needed to sustain a filibuster, even famously signing autographs as "Scott 41."[123][162][163]
Although White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel argued for a less ambitious bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed back, dismissing Emanuel's scaled-down approach as "Kiddie Care".[164][165] Obama's siding with comprehensive reform and the news that Anthem Blue Cross in California intended to raise premium rates for its patients by as much as 39% gave him a new line of argument for reform.[164][165] Obama unveiled a health care reform plan of his own, drawing largely from the Senate bill. On February 22 he laid out a "Senate-leaning" proposal to consolidate the bills.[166] On February 25, he held a meeting with leaders of both parties urging passage of a reform bill.[123] The summit proved successful in shifting the political narrative away from the Massachusetts loss back to health care policy.[165]
The most viable option for the proponents of comprehensive reform was for the House to abandon its own health reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, and to instead pass the Senate's bill, and then pass amendments to it with a different bill allowing the Senate to pass the amendments via the reconciliation process.[164][167]
Initially, there were not enough supporters to pass the bill, thus requiring its proponents to negotiate with a group of pro-life Democrats, led by Congressman Bart Stupak. The group found the possibility of federal funding for abortion was substantive enough to cause their opposition to the bill. Instead of requesting inclusion of additional language specific to their abortion concerns in the bill, President Obama issued Executive Order 13535, reaffirming the principles in the Hyde Amendment. This concession won the support of Stupak and members of his group and assured passage of the bill.[168]
The House passed the bill with a vote of 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.[169] The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.[170] Obama signed the original bill into law on March 23, 2010.[171]
In 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the Act will require more than $1.7 trillion in gross federal spending over the period 2012-2022, some of which will be offset by penalties and tax increases related to coverage, resulting in net spending of more than $1.2 trillion.[172][173]
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, by 2019 the Act will increase expenditures on Medicaid and individual subsidies by $165 billion annually while reducing Medicare expenditures by $125 billion annually.[174]
The 2011 comprehensive CBO estimate projected a net deficit reduction of more than $200 billion during the period 2012-2021.[175] CBO estimated in March 2011 that for the 2012-2021 period, the law would result in net receipts of $813 billion, offset by $604 billion in outlays, resulting in a $210 billion reduction in the deficit.[176]
As of the bill's passage into law in 2010, CBO estimated the legislation would reduce the deficit by $143 billion[177] over the first decade, but half of that was due to expected premiums for the C.L.A.S.S. Act, which has since been abandoned.[178] Although the CBO generally does not provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period (because of the great degree of uncertainty involved in the data) it decided to do so in this case at the request of lawmakers, and estimated a second decade deficit reduction of $1.2 trillion.[179][180] CBO predicted deficit reduction around a broad range of one-half percent of GDP over the 2020s while cautioning that "a wide range of changes could occur".[181]
CBO also initially stated that the bill would "substantially reduce the growth of Medicare's payment rates for most services; impose an excise tax on insurance plans with relatively high premiums; and make various other changes to the federal tax code, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs;"[179] A commonly heard criticism of the CBO cost estimates is that CBO was required to exclude from its initial estimates the effects of likely "doc fix" legislation that would increase Medicare payments by more than $200 billion from 2010 to 2019;[182][183][184][185][186] however, the "doc fix" remains a separate piece of legislation.[187] Subject to the same exclusion, the CBO initially estimated the federal government's share of the cost during the first decade at $940 billion, $923 billion of which takes place during the final six years (2014–2019) when the spending kicks in;[188][189] with revenue exceeding spending during these six years.[190]
There is a controversy regarding whether Medicare program savings are "double-counted" when they are reported as both reducing the deficit and improving the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Fund. CBO estimated in December 2009 that PPACA would increase Medicare HI revenues by $113 billion while reducing Medicare Part A (HI-related) outlays by $245 billion during the 2010-2019 period, a roughly $400 billion increase (including interest) in the HI Fund. This extends the date of HI Fund exhaustion by several years. Further, since the government is spending less and taking in more, it also reduces the deficit.[191]
However, because Medicare program surpluses are spent on other government programs and must ultimately be paid back to Medicare recipients, an increase in the HI Fund is in fact an obligation of the government, part of the "intragovernmental debt" that along with the "debt held by the public" add up to the "public debt" or "national debt" commonly reported in the media. This will require funding from other sources once the Medicare program goes into deficit. This is how government trust fund accounting has traditionally been done and PPACA did not diverge from this practice. The Social Security Trust Fund is handled similarly. CBO wrote: "Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund."[192][193]
CBO and Medicare actuaries acknowledge that budget rules required them to double-count Medicare reductions even though in practice they "cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the [Medicare] trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions."[194] According to the Washington Post, "in 2010 the CBO wrote that, absent the Medicare savings, the law would increase deficits by $226 billion through 2019 — instead of decreasing them by the commonly cited $132 billion."[195] Charles Blahous, public trustee overseeing Medicare and Social Security finances, projected in 2012 that PPACA would add more than $300 billion to the deficit over the next decade.[196]
The issue generated considerable debate outside government.[197] Paul Krugman called the Blahous study "bogus,"[198] and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a non-profit think tank, published a dismissal of the "double counting canard" as inconsistent with historical deficit computation practices, pointing out that "the Medicare actuary says that health reform will extend the solvency of the Hospital Insurance trust fund by eight years."[199] Blahous answered with a rebuttal, noting all sides agreed that his study reflected "current law."[200] Forbes published a summary calling the debate "a battle over baselines," with one side being "the literal reading of current law" and the other projecting "current practice forward."[201] Analyzing the Medicare trustees' 2012 annual report, Forbes presented the two views: either (1) the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund remains solvent through 2016, but the CBO scores the ACA as deficit neutral; or (2) the trust fund remains solvent through 2024, "and Blahous' score of the ACA as increasing the deficit by $300-500 billion is accurate."[202]
There was mixed opinion about the CBO estimates from others.
Uwe Reinhardt, a Health economist at Princeton, wrote that "The rigid, artificial rules under which the Congressional Budget Office must score proposed legislation unfortunately cannot produce the best unbiased forecasts of the likely fiscal impact of any legislation", but went on to say "But even if the budget office errs significantly in its conclusion that the bill would actually help reduce the future federal deficit, I doubt that the financing of this bill will be anywhere near as fiscally irresponsible as was the financing of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003."[203]
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director who served during the George W. Bush administration, opined that the bill would increase the deficit by $562 billion.[204]
Republican House leadership and the Republican majority on the House Budget Committee estimate the law would increase the deficit by more than $700 billion in its first 10 years.[205][206]
Democratic House leadership and the Democratic minority on the House Budget Committee say the claims of budget gimmickry are false[207] and that repeal of the legislation would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the same period,[208] pointing to the CBO's 2011 analysis of the impact of repeal.[209]
The New Republic editors Noam Scheiber (an economist) and Jonathan Cohn (a noted health care policy analyst), countered critical assessments of the law's deficit impact, arguing that it is as likely, if not more so, for predictions to have underestimated deficit reduction than to have overestimated it. They noted that it is easier, for example, to account for the cost of definite levels of subsidies to specified numbers of people than account for savings from preventive health care, and that the CBO has a track record of consistently overestimating the costs of, and underestimating the savings of health legislation;[210][211] "innovations in the delivery of medical care, like greater use of electronic medical records and financial incentives for more coordination of care among doctors, would produce substantial savings while also slowing the relentless climb of medical expenses... But the CBO would not consider such savings in its calculations, because the innovations hadn't really been tried on such large scale or in concert with one another--and that meant there wasn't much hard data to prove the savings would materialize."[211]
David Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General now working for The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, has stated that the CBO estimates are not likely to be accurate, because it is based on the assumption that Congress is going to do everything they say they're going to do.[212] On the other hand, a Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis said that Congress has a good record of implementing Medicare savings. According to their study, Congress implemented the vast majority of the provisions enacted in the past 20 years to produce Medicare savings.[213][214]
In a May 2010 presentation on "Health Costs and the Federal Budget", CBO stated:
CBO further observed that "a substantial share of current spending on health care contributes little if anything to people's health" and concluded, "Putting the federal budget on a sustainable path would almost certainly require a significant reduction in the growth of federal health spending relative to current law (including this year's health legislation)."[215]
CBO estimates the legislation will reduce the number of uninsured residents by 30 million, leaving 25 million uninsured residents in 2019 after the bill's provisions have all taken effect.[216][217][218] Among the people in this group will be:
Early experience under the Act was that, as a result of the tax credit for small businesses, many of them offered health insurance to their employees for the first time.[222]
On September 13, 2011, the Census Bureau released a report showing that the number of uninsured 19- to 25-year-olds (now eligible to stay on their parents' policies) had declined by 393,000, or 1.6%, both statistically significant.[223]
With the exception of churches and houses of worship, the Act's contraceptive coverage mandate applies to all employers and educational institutions. The mandate applies to all new health insurance plans effective August 2012. It controversially includes Catholic hospitals, Catholic Charities, Catholic universities, and other enterprises owned or controlled by religious organizations that oppose contraception on moral grounds. Regulations[224] made under the act rely on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, which concluded that birth control is medically necessary "to ensure women's health and well-being."
In February 2012, a major political controversy erupted with candidates for the Republican nomination for President viewing the regulations as a "direct attack on religious liberty".[225] However the mandate has actually been law of the land for over a decade. In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equal.
After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.[226]
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has since taken the lead in opposition to the regulations[227] Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the archbishop of New York and president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the provision "represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty".[228] Other organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, supported the provision.[229]
According to Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI and issued on July 25, 1968 by the Roman Catholic Church, contraception is forbidden by the Law of God.
Similarly excluded [as lawful] is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.[230]
The Agudath Israel of America and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America have also opposed the regulations. According to Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel's Vice President for Federal Government Affairs, "this mandate, which is binding on all faith-based entities other than a narrowly confined group of religious institutions, offends First Amendment principles."[231]
The regulations issued under the act are also opposed by active Christian Evangelicals.[232]
The Obama administration proposed changes in response to the criticism. Under the proposed new regulation, birth control medication would be provided by the insurers, without direct involvement by the religious organization. The Catholic Health Association (CHA) accepted this compromise. The CEO of the CHA, Carol Keehan, stated, "The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed." The vice president of Catholic identity and mission at Mount St. Mary's University, Stuart Swetland, said, "It shows [Obama] and the administration are listening to our concerns", but reserved the right to "examine the details". However, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops continued to oppose the regulation, saying that the regulation still requires Catholics in the insurance industry to violate their consciences.[229] Catholic opinion is split with a The New York Times/CBS News poll showing 57% support of the regulations among Catholic voters and about the same by non-Catholics.[233]
On March 16, 2012, regulations were issued which ensure coverage for employees of enterprises controlled by religious institutions that self-insure. Regulations were also issued which require coverage for students at institutions controlled by religious organizations which purchase insurance. It is believed by the federal government that it is not possible under current law to require contraceptive coverage for students at institutions controlled by religious organizations which self-insure.[234][235]
For the effect on health insurance premiums, the CBO referred[179]:15 to its November 2009 analysis[236] and stated that the effects would "probably be quite similar" to that earlier analysis. That analysis forecasted that by 2016, for the non-group market comprising 17% of the market, premiums per person would increase by 10 to 13% but that over half of these insureds would receive subsidies that would decrease the premium paid to "well below" premiums charged under current law. For the small group market, 13% of the market, premiums would be impacted 1 to −3% and −8 to −11% for those receiving subsidies; for the large group market comprising 70% of the market, premiums would be impacted 0 to −3%, with insureds under high premium plans subject to excise taxes being charged −9 to −12%. The analysis was affected by various factors including increased benefits particularly for the nongroup markets, more healthy insureds due to the mandate, administrative efficiencies related to the health exchanges, and insureds under high premium plans reducing benefits in response to the tax.[236]
The Associated Press reported that, as a result of the Act's provisions concerning the Medicare Part D coverage gap, individuals falling in this "donut hole" would save about 40 percent.[237] Almost all of the savings came because, with regard to brand-name drugs, the Act secured a discount from pharmaceutical companies.[237] The change benefited more than two million people, most of them in the middle class.[237]
The United States Department of Health and Human Services reported that the bill would increase "total national health expenditures" by more than $200 billion from 2010 to 2019.[7][238] The report also cautioned that the increases could be larger, because the Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back. The report projected that Medicare cuts could put nearly 15% of hospitals and other institutional providers into debt, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.[239][240]
Surgeon Atul Gawande has noted the bill contains a variety of pilot programs that may have a significant impact on cost and quality over the long-run, although these have not been factored into CBO cost estimates. He stated these pilot programs cover nearly every idea healthcare experts advocate, except malpractice/tort reform. He argued that a trial and error strategy, combined with industry and government partnership, is how the U.S. overcame a similar challenge in the agriculture industry in the early 20th century.[241]
The Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs, commissioned a report from the consulting company Hewitt Associates that found that the legislation "could potentially reduce that trend line by more than $3,000 per employee, to $25,435" with respect to insurance premiums. It also stated that the legislation "could potentially reduce the rate of future health care cost increases by 15% to 20% when fully phased in by 2019". The group cautioned that this is all assuming that the cost-saving government pilot programs both succeed and then are wholly copied by the private market, which is uncertain.[242]
After the bill was signed, AT&T, Caterpillar, Verizon, and John Deere issued financial reports showing large charges against earnings, up to US$1 billion in the case of AT&T, attributing the additional expenses to tax changes in the new health care law.[243] Under the new law, starting in 2013 companies can no longer deduct a subsidy for prescription drug benefits granted under Medicare Part D.[244]
Public opinion supported healthcare reform proposals in 2008, but turned negative when the plan changed in 2009, and remains opposed to the final version that was signed in 2010.[245][246] Though in 2008 then-Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden campaigned against requiring adults to buy insurance;[247] in 2009 President Obama reportedly changed his mind and agreed with insurance industry and Democratic Congressional proposals to include an individual mandate.[248][249] Public opinion of the legislation turned negative when the individual mandate proposal was announced, and remains opposed by a margin of 10 percentage points.[245][246][250] Specific ideas that showed majority support, such as purchasing drugs from Canada, limiting malpractice awards, and reducing the age to qualify for Medicare, were not enacted.[251]
In March 2010, pollsters probed the reasons for opposition. In a CNN poll, 62% of respondents said the Act would "increase the amount of money they personally spend on health care," 56% said the bill "gives the government too much involvement in health care," and only 19% said they and their families would be better off with the legislation.[252] In The Wall Street Journal, pollsters Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen wrote, "One of the more amazing aspects of the health-care debate is how steady public opinion has remained... 81% of voters say it's likely the plan will end up costing more than projected [and 59%] say that the biggest problem with the health-care system is the cost: They want reform that will bring down the cost of care. For these voters, the notion that you need to spend an additional trillion dollars doesn't make sense."[253] USA Today found opinions were starkly divided by age, with a solid majority of seniors opposing the bill and a solid majority of those younger than 40 in favor.[254]
In the November 2010 midterm election, Democrats lost more seats in Congress than any party in any midterm in more than 70 years. Politico reported that five House Democrats had run political ads highlighting their "no" votes on the bill, while there had not been any political ads highlighting a "yes" vote since April, when Harry Reid ran one.[255]
As of February 2012[update], 72% of registered voters believe PPACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional, while only 20% say it is permissible.[256] By a margin of 50% to 39%, Americans say the Supreme Court should overturn the entire statute.[257] The Supreme Court hearings occasioned public demonstrations including prayer vigils coordinated by the White House[258] and Tea Party Protests.[259]
The Act is commonly referred to as "Obamacare," which has been characterized as pejorative[260][261][262] but continues to be widely used to refer to the legislation, largely by its opponents.[263] Use of the term in a positive sense has however been suggested by Democratic politicians such as John Conyers (D-MI).[264] President Obama said subsequently, "I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care."[265] Because of the number of "Obamacare" search engine queries, the Department of Health and Human Services purchased Google advertisements, triggered by the term, to direct people to the official HHS site.[263] In March 2012, the Obama reelection campaign embraced the term "Obamacare", urging Obama's supporters to post Twitter messages that begin, "I like #Obamacare because...".[266]
In September 2010, some insurance companies announced that in response to the law, they would end the issuance of new child-only policies.[267][268] Kentucky Insurance Commissioner Sharon Clark said the decision by insurers to stop offering such policies was a violation of state law and ordered insurers to offer an open enrollment period in January 2011 for Kentuckians under 19.[269] An August 2011 Congressional report found that passage of the health care law prompted health insurance carriers to stop selling new child-only health plans in many states. Of the 50 states, 17 reported that there were currently no carriers selling child only health plans to new enrollees. Thirty-nine states indicated at least one insurance carrier exited the child-only market following enactment of the health care laws.[270]
Organizations and lawmakers who opposed the passage of the bill threatened to take legal action against it upon its passage[271] and several court challenges are currently at various stages of development. The target of the threatened lawsuits were several key provisions of the bill. Some claimed that fining individuals for failing to buy insurance is not within the scope of Congress's taxing powers. Idaho legislators passed a law that directed its attorney general to sue if mandatory insurance becomes federal law, which he duly did. A total of 28 states have filed joint or individual lawsuits (including 26 states engaged in a joint action) to overturn the individual mandate portions of the law.[272][273][274][274][275][276][277][278][279] In a press release, the Attorneys General for several states indicated their primary basis for the challenge was a violation of state sovereignty. Their release repeated the claim challenging the federal requirement under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage. It also claimed that the law puts an unfair financial burden on state governments.[277] The lawsuit states the following legal rationale:
Regulation of non-economic activity under the Commerce Clause is possible only through the Necessary and Proper Clause. The Necessary and Proper Clause confers supplemental authority only when the means adopted to accomplish an enumerated power are 'appropriate', are 'plainly adapted to that end', and are 'consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution.' Requiring citizen-to-citizen subsidy or redistribution is contrary to the foundational assumptions of the constitutional compact.[280]
Other states were either expected to join the multi-state lawsuit or are considering filing additional independent suits.[275][281][282] Members of several state legislatures are attempting to counteract and prevent elements of the bill within their states. Legislators in 29 states have introduced measures to amend their constitutions to nullify portions of the health care reform law. Thirteen state statutes have been introduced to prohibit portions of the law; two states have already enacted statutory bans. Six legislatures had attempts to enact bans, but the measures were unsuccessful.[283] In August 2010, a ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly in Missouri that would exempt the state from some provisions of the bill. Most legal analysts expect that the measure will be struck down if challenged in Federal court.[284]
In February 2011, Alexander Bolton wrote in The Hill that consensus among legal experts largely changed following Judge Roger Vinson's decision in Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. He said that prior to the ruling, it was widely felt that the Supreme Court would uphold the law by a comfortable margin, but now legal scholars generally feel it would be a 5–4 decision. Georgetown University Law Center professor Randy Barnett said, "There's been a big change in the conventional wisdom ... the temperature of law professors has changed considerably," and described the Florida decision as "extremely deep in its discussion of principles and constitutional doctrine".[285]
On January 31, 2011, Judge Roger Vinson in Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services declared the law unconstitutional in an action brought by 26 states, on the grounds that the individual mandate to purchase insurance exceeds the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Vinson further ruled the clause was not severable, which had the effect of striking down the entire law.[286][287]
On August 12, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Vinson's decision in part: the court agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but held that it could be severed, allowing the rest of the PPACA to remain.[12]
In September 2011, the Department of Justice decided not to ask for an en banc review by the 11th Circuit, and instead asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.[288][289] On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, with oral arguments expected in March 2012 and a decision expected by June 2012.[15] However, "Conservative interest groups and Republican lawmakers want Justice Elena Kagan off the health care case. Liberals and Democrats in Congress say it's Justice Clarence Thomas who should sit out....", though this is considered by many legal and ethical experts to be a questionable approach that is highly unlikely to occur.[290]
According to details of the upcoming proceedings from an online article posted on Monday, December 19, 2011, by Mike Sacks of AOL News Huffington Post Politics, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments- an unusually long total of five and a half hours- over three days from Monday, March 26 to Wednesday, March 28, 2012.[291]
The first federal court ruling in the legal challenges to the health care act came on August 2, 2010, in response to the suit brought by Virginia's attorney general. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson denied the Justice Department's request to have the suit dismissed, citing the complex constitutional questions the law raises and writing that the PPACA "radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America."
On December 12, 2010, in the first case rejecting the law's constitutionality, Judge Hudson ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and that the "tax" imposed on people who choose not to have a "minimum essential coverage plan" was in practice a "penalty" outside the federal government's constitutional authority to raise revenues. Judge Hudson stated he could find no precedent for extending either the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product. He ruled the provision to be beyond the power given to Congress under the Commerce Clause. His ruling covered only Section 1501 of the Act, and severed that requirement without discussing the rest of the law.[292][293][294]
A three-judge panel from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled on September 8, 2011, that the state did not have the authority to challenge the law, saying "... we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction."[295] The state's attorney general said they planned to appeal the decision.
In Seven-Sky v. Holder, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the law is Constitutional.[296][297] The Constitutional Accountability Center remarked that this court consists of many conservative judges and they found the law constitutional.[297] Specifically, Senior Judge Lawrence Silberman, well known in conservative circles as a conservative intellectual, and who ruled that the District of Columbia's handgun law was unconstitutional, ruled that the law is constitutional. Silberman said "the right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems".[296]
On November 30, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Norman K. Moon, who sits in Virginia, also declared the individual mandate constitutional in Liberty University v. Geithner. He also declared the employer mandate constitutional. He rejected two other arguments that government lawyers have made in cases across the country in defending the new law: first, that no one has legal standing to bring challenges at this point to the 2014 mandates, and second that any such challenge is premature. He rejected the challengers' basic argument that Congress had no authority to order someone to give up their own desire not to buy a commercial product and force them into a market they do not want to enter. He said:
Regardless of whether one relies on an insurance policy, one's savings, or the backstop of free or reduced-cost emergency room services, one has made a choice regarding the method of payment for the health care services one expects to receive. Far from "inactivity", by choosing to forgo insurance, [individuals] are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance ... As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies.[298]
On February 22, 2011, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, rejected a challenge to the law in Mead v. Holder by five individuals who argued, among other things, that the Affordable Care Act violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that the individual mandate exceeded Congress's power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Kessler rejected as "pure semantics" plaintiffs' argument that failing to acquire insurance was the regulation of inactivity, noting that "those who choose not to purchase health insurance will ultimately get a 'free ride' on the backs of those Americans who have made responsible choices to provide for the illness we all must face at some point in our lives." Kessler ruled that individual mandate was a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.[299][300]
On October 8, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama wrote that in his view the PPACA, including the individual mandate, was constitutional.[301] He rejected a private suit[302] filed by Michigan's Thomas More Law Center and several state residents that focused on the Commerce Clause, deciding that Congress had the power to pass the law because it affected interstate commerce and was part of a broader regulatory scheme.[303][304]
On June 29, 2011, a divided three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.[305] Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a member of the three judge panel appointed by George W. Bush, was the first Republican-appointed judge to rule that the law is constitutional.[306]
On November 14, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of certiorari to the United States Appeals Court for the Eleventh Circuit to consider appeals to its rulings in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Briefings were filed over the next four months. On March 26, 2012, the court began hearing oral arguments regarding four questions.[307][308][309]
[Is] the suit brought by [the state Attorneys General] to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act?
Starting at 10:00 a.m. ET on March 26, 2012, Robert A. Long, a court appointed amicus, had 40 minutes to argue that the Anti-Injunction Act precludes the challenge. The Solicitor General of the United States had 30 minutes to argue that Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. The state Attorneys General had 20 minutes to argue that Anti-Injunction Act does not apply.[310]
[Did Congress have] the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision?
Starting at 10:00 a.m. ET on March 27, the Solicitor General had 60 minutes to argue that the minimum coverage provision is constitutional. The state Attorneys General and the council for the National Federation of Independent Business each had 30 minutes to argue that the provision is unconstitutional.[311]
Must PPACA be invalidated in its entirety because it is non-severable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress' limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution?
Starting at 10:00 a.m. ET on March 28, the state Attorneys General had 30 minutes to argue that the entire law must be invalidated. The Solicitor General had 30 minutes to argue that only the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions are inseverable from the minimum coverage provision. H. Bartow Farr argued that the minimum coverage provision is completely severable from the rest of the act.[312][313]
Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program [Medicaid]?
Starting at 2:00 p.m. ET on March 28, the state Attorneys General had 30 minutes to argue that withholding funds violates federalism. The Solicitor General had 30 minutes to argue that it does not.[314]
The March 26th to 28th Supreme Court hearings focused on the four questions above, in consideration of an appeal to lower court rulings on healthcare lawsuits filed by 26 state attorneys general and the National Federation of Independent Business. The original suits aimed to challenge the "individual mandate" provision, requiring all individuals to purchase insurance or pay a penalty. The plaintiffs argue that forcing individuals to buy a product is unconstitutional as Congress may only regulate economic activity not require it. The Obama administration argues that the mandate regulates how and whether individuals pay for the healthcare they receive.[315]
The first day of Supreme Court arguments on March 26, 2012, concerned the Anti-Injunction Act and whether this should prevent the court from hearing the challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, until the plaintiffs had either purchased the insurance or paid the penalty for not doing so. According to Hans A. von Spakovsky, a legal expert with The Heritage Foundation, it was clear from the responses of the justices that none of them felt that the Anti-Injunction Act should be used in this case to prevent consideration of the challenge.[316]
On March 27, the court heard arguments for and against the "individual mandate", intended to spread costs by requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.[317] Conservative justices raised critical questions about the constitutionality of the government forcing individuals to purchase insurance.[318] In particular, Justices Antonin Scalia and John Roberts questioned whether allowing the government to mandate this purchase would allow other mandates in future.[319] The Washington Post reported that while statements by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy were interpreted by advocates for both sides as a sign he would rule in their favor, by the end of the day the consensus emerged that the odds were in favor of some or all of the Act being overturned.[317]
The third day of hearings involved consideration of whether the rest of the Act would survive if the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional.[320][318] According to the Associated Press, the justices seemed to have agreed that there were at least two key changes to insurance as part of the Act that could not survive without the individual mandate: the requirement for insurance companies to provide coverage regardless of pre-existing medical conditions and limits on the premiums that companies can charge based on age or health.[321] On the final day the justices also considered whether the federal government had coerced states into agreeing to the expansion of Medicaid under the Act.[322] The counsel on behalf of the states argued that the provision of the Act that covers the expansion is unconstitutional, as it uses the risk of losing Medicaid funding to coerce the states to expand their Medicaid rolls, thereby violating the principles of federalism.[323] The states' argument appeared to be taken seriously by conservative justices, according to The Washington Post, however the justices were split ideologically on the issue.[324]
After a statement on April 2, 2012 by Barack Obama, President of the United States (and former Constitutional law lecturer), saying "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on the following day ordered the U.S. Justice Department to explain by April 5, whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law, Judge Jerry Smith specifically asking, "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" The reply of Justice Department attorney Dana Lydia Kaersvang was "yes."[325][326][327]
Reps. Steve King of Iowa and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, both Republicans, introduced bills in the House to repeal the Act shortly after it was passed, as did Sen. Jim DeMint in the Senate.[328] None of the three bills were considered by either body.
In 2011, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 245–189 to approve a bill entitled "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" (H.R.2),[329] which, if enacted, would repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care-related text of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. All Republicans and 3 Democrats voted for repeal.[330] In the Senate, the bill was offered as an amendment to an unrelated bill, and was subsequently voted down.[331] Before votes in both houses of the Congress took place, President Obama stated that he would veto the bill should it pass both chambers.[332] Democrats in the House proposed that repeal not take effect until a majority of the Senators and Representatives had opted out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The Republicans voted down this measure.[333]
A spokesman for Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor stated, "This is a job-killing law, period. Anyone who argues otherwise is ignoring the construct of the health care law and the widely accepted facts."[334] The House Republican leadership justified its use of the term "job killing" by contending that the PPACA would lead to a loss of 650,000 jobs, and attributing that figure to a report by the Congressional Budget Office.[334] However, the CBO report specifically stated that the negative effect on jobs was because people would voluntarily choose to work less once they have health insurance outside of their jobs.[335] FactCheck noted that the 650,000 figure was not in the CBO report, and said that the Republican statement "badly misrepresents what the Congressional Budget Office has said about the law. In fact, CBO is among those saying the effect 'will probably be small.'"[334] The Republicans also cited a study by the National Federation of Independent Business, but PolitiFact.com said that the 2009 NFIB study had concerned an earlier version of the bill that differed significantly from what was enacted.[336] PolitiFact rated the Republican statement as False.[336]
The CBO estimated that repealing the entire PPACA (including both its taxing and spending provisions) would increase the net 2011-2021 federal deficit projections by $210 billion.[209] Others disagree, arguing that estimate was based on unrealistic assumptions; House Speaker John Boehner said, "I don't think anyone in this town believes that repealing Obamacare is going to increase the deficit."[337] In May 2011, CBO analyzed proposals to prevent the use of appropriated funds to implement the legislation, and wrote that "a temporary prohibition, extending through the remainder of fiscal year 2011, would reduce the budget deficit by about $1.4 billion in 2011 but would increase deficits by almost $6 billion over the 2011-2021 period... CBO cannot determine whether changes in spending under a permanent prohibition would produce net costs or net savings relative to its baseline projection, which assumes full implementation."[338]
Interim regulations have been put in place for a specific type of employer funded insurance, the so-called "mini-med" or limited benefit plans, which are low-cost to employers who buy them for their employees, but cap coverage at a very low level. Such plans are sometimes offered to low-paid and part-time workers, for example in fast food restaurants or purchased direct from an insurer. Most company provided health insurance from September 23, 2010, may not set an annual coverage cap lower than $750,000,[339] a lower limit that is raised in stages until 2014, by which time no insurance caps are allowed at all. By 2014, no health insurance, whether sold in the individual or group market, will be allowed to place an annual cap on coverage. The waivers have been put in place to encourage employers and insurers offering mini-med plans not to withdraw medical coverage before the full regulations come into force (by which time small employers and individuals will be able to buy non-capped coverage through the exchanges) and are granted only if the employer can show that complying with the limit would mean a significant decrease in employees' benefits coverage or a significant increase in employees' premiums.[339]
Among those receiving waivers were employers, large insurers, such as Aetna and Cigna, and union plans covering about one million employees. McDonald's, one of the employers that received a waiver, has 30,000 hourly employees whose plans have annual caps of $10,000. The waivers are issued for one year and can be reapplied for.[340][341] Referring to the adjustments as "a balancing act", Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the Office of Health Reform at the White House, said, "The president wants to have a smooth glide path to 2014."[340] On January 26, 2011, HHS said it had to date granted a total of 733 waivers for 2011, covering 2.1 million people, or about 1% of the privately insured population.[342] In June 2011, the Obama Administration announced that all applications for new waivers and renewals of existing ones have to be filed by September 22 of that year, and no new waivers would be approved after this date.[343]
Find more about Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Wikipedia's sister projects: | |
Images and media from Commons |
News stories from Wikinews |
Source texts from Wikisource |


text:
High Road
Battambang continued | On the Campaign Trail with Sam Rainsy Party
It's been a couple of days since I left Battambang, drove to Kampong Cham, and am back in Phnom Penh now. You can hear the campaigning trucks all over the country, in the cities, on the major national roads etc (yeah, those insanely loud speaker phones that kill your ear drums and destroy the pleasure of sound in general). It's hot. Provincial elections will be commencing June 3rd (?), so just under two weeks to go.
Besides what you read in the newspaper about Sam Rainsy Party members complaining about having difficulties from the local authorities and their constant struggle for fair campaigning, the opposition party is facing much more basic problems other than the higher influential spheres getting in the way. Theres a desperate lack of funding, this includes the basic necessities such as fuel for the motorbikes, truck rental, audio equipment, posters, food and everything in between. A small portion of rice with some veggies/beef is the only thing energizing hundreds of party members and supporters that spend countless of hours in the excruciating heat, elderly on the verge of fainting.
All these heartbreaking efforts for change are being immensely challenged by a great number of factors: the populations deeply routed fear of change, the authorities questionable (least to say) restraining, financial issues and much more. However, there's also a very powerful drive led by many courageous men and females that are determined to reach their goal and seemingly nothing can stop them.
Much more footage in the works, videos and such are en route. Stay tuned.
PS. Thanks to Micky Wiswedel for lending me the tilt-shift. Word up!


text:
This is a bouncing little ditty that any merry-making halfling could dance a jig to!! A happy, fun-filled tavern romp replete with medieval sounding instruments and an upbeat, infectious tempo that could get even the grumpiest dwarf to tap his crusty toes.
But don't stop there......
This song would be a great backing track in ANY tavern of a fantasy themed campaign,... [click here for more]
There you are at the Sign of the Prancing Pony in Bree, when you hear the sounds of rollicking song inside. You push open the heavy oak door to see small hobbits dancing on the bar, spilling beer and singing at the top of their lungs.
Little did you know that there are scores of great hobbit drinkin... [click here for more]
"Welcome to the team. This is your cubicle and over there is the break room. Oh, oh, and I almost forgot. Ahh, I'm gonna need you to come in on Saturday and go back in time to, ah, fix some temporal anomalies." Are you tired of playing heroes? Is it bad for your self-esteem? Well, Time & Temp, a game of "time travel and underemployment", is the answer. Play the... [click here for more]
Welcome to our second full session of Actual Play Old School RPG! Join our team of intrepid adventurers as they take on Orcs and Ogres using Palladium's Fantasy RPG, 1st Edition.
In this episode, we get jumped by a pig. With a stinger! Then we talk a bunch of highly trained, heavily armed troops in to letting us scout for them. In our scouting mission, we kill giant wolves with knives... [click here for more]
Welcome to our fouth full session of Actual Play Old School RPG! Join our team of intrepid adventurers as they take on Orcs, unmade beds and thousands of doors using Palladium's Fantasy RPG, 1st Edition.In this episode, we encounter more orcs than you can shake a pointed stick at. We uncover a potential enemy in a human who appears to be scheming with those same orcs. We a... [click here for more]
In this episode - we begin to record just as a nasty thunder and lightning storm moves through! We rescue the salty mouthed innkeep, reunite her with her daughter and get slapped around by some orcs. Only t... [click here for more]
Recorded September 2011) In this episode, we encounter a troupe of dancing mystical midgets, acquire their bowl of extraordinary power and find out why mom always said not to play ball in the house. Someone has the audacity to try and ambush us using trees. Our mage comes <—-> that close to joining our once deceased kobold, and then we wander into a city and paint it red.... [click here for more]
Welcome to my first of two Old School Paxcasts! Podcast interviews recorded at PAX East in March of 2011. Today's episode includes a brief overview of PAX East and Don Gusano Games' Quack in the box.
Quack in the Box is available from Don Gusano Games. Be sure to check out artist Len Peralta as well, who did each and every illustration for Quack in the Box.
Here's a quick ov... [click here for more]
A poem reflecting a reversal of the corporatization of Christmas using their own weapons against them.
Mander the Story Miner must deal with a feedback loop to his equipment. Risking brain damage, he tries to stay alive as his flaky producer/handler Jasam gets into a scrape with the Fashion Police.
Kragnauyr the Barbarian is taught a lesson in humility as he attempts to enact justice on a wicked sorceress for using her power. Horror (for him) ensues.
The Arc of a Lunatic Superhero. Poetry.
Theme From Space Stops
Musical Artist: Tree Dweller (aka David L. Woodrum Jr.)
Run Time: 1 minute, 42 seconds
>... [click here for more]
These Warriors are Terrible is an RPG Gameplay Show where the Terrible Warriors play in multiple RPG Universes in Four Part Miniseries Campaigns.
Video Game Expendables - Part 1: The Terrible Warriors take on the role of four video game heroes as they are summoned from across the video game multiverse by Queen Lana to the Palace of Power to save the multiverse from a new th... [click here for more]
Video Game Expendables - Part 3: At last! The Terrible Warriors have caught up to the Destroyer in his home world as he slowly makes his way through a ruined futuristic city. Are the Terrible Warriors prepared for the truth of the... [click here for more]
Video Game Expendables - Part 3: The Terrible Warriors travel to the next world after narrowly escaping the ire of Lord Dracula and receiving a gift instead, a strange ball of light handed to Commander Shepard (Dodd) as a gif... [click here for more]
Video Game Expendables - Part 4 - Conclusion: Post-game wrap-up! Birdman, Steve, Laura and Laidman sit down with Big Mike the GM and talk about the first adventure in These Warriors Are Terrible. Listen in as the group talk about ... [click here for more]


text:
7 For All Mankind
The Skinny
Born in Los Angeles, California, 7 For All Mankind was the first company to bring premium denim to scale. 7 For All Mankind quickly earned an immediate following for its innovative use of fabrics, fit and finishes in denim. Female celebrities followers include Emma Stone, Kim Kardashian, Jennifer Lawrence, Kristen Stewart, Jessica Alba, and Kate Bosworth. Male celebrity fans include Ashton Kutcher, Ryan Reynolds and Penn Badgley.
- Wash - Sand Iridescent
- 31" Inseam
- 8.25" Rise
- 98% cotton 2% spandex
- 13" in the knee narrows to 11" at the leg opening
- Metallic coating
- Hand wash cold
- This item is not available for international export
- Styled with Kelsi Dagger Karmine in Natural Suede.
- Modeled in size 27. See fit guide for model's dimensions.
- This item is not available for international export
- Revolve Style No. SEVE-WJ1096
- Manufacturer Style No. AU0150189M


text:
Changes related to "Category:Sound Configuration"
From PC-BSD Wiki
This is a list of changes made recently to pages linked from a specified page (or to members of a specified category). Pages on your watchlist are bold.
9 December 2013
(Protection log) Tigersharke (Talk | contribs) protected "Sound Configuration/9.2" [edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite) (Finalized/Published)3 December 2013
(Page translation log) Drulavigne (Talk | contribs) marked Sound Configuration/10.0 for translation 2 December 2013
Sound Configuration/10.0 (diff; hist; +3,665) Tigersharke (Created page with "<noinclude><translate> <!--T:1--> {{NavHeader|back=Mount Tray|forward=Display}}</noinclude> <!--T:2--> A "Sound Configuration" icon is available which automatically determin...")


text:
Consistent Service Provider
For the past 20 years, Structure Tone has been providing expert construction services for Patterson Belknap. We have performed everything from simple carpet replacement to construction of new offices and conference centers. They have relied on our expertise working within occupied, operational offices and our sensitivity to the attorney's work. During such projects the Structure Tone team was in constant communication with the staff to be sure that the construction would not interfere with Patterson's work and was completed safely.
Phasing Expansion
Our most recent project for Patterson is a three-phase project on multiple floors. Growing, the firm needed to expand to part of the 23rd floor and shift departmental spaces to adapt. The scope of work includes architectural upgrades to carpet, paint and lighting on the 15th and 22nd floors and a conference room conversion on the 21st floor. The northwest portion of the 23rd floor was completely demolished and rebuilt with 11 new attorney offices, conference room, two workstations and secretarial stations.


text:
Curtis Medina
3 weeks, 5 days ago
The filmmakers show the leaders of The Pirate Bay as the regular, every day people who are standing up for their rights and challenging the status quo not unlike former historical figures who pioneered the printing press & VCR's. The most interesting part to me is this idea of how P2P could actually enable creative people to circumvent the tired Hollywood model and get their work into the hands of real people, who then will choose to pay what they wish and remix/rework it into their own art form. Fascinating modern doc.


text:
There is a feeling in the industry that the technology of the future is 3-D cinema. George Lucas, head of Lucas Film and one of the most successful and revolutionary filmmakers of all time, seems a bit more hesitant. At a time when theater attendance is slipping, three dimensional projection could be a creative new way to attract an audience, particularly a youthful one. 3-D films were very popular for a short time in the 1950s. However, since then there has not been any significant attempt at rejuvenating the technology. Only recently has there been talk of a future for three dimensional cinema.
On April 3, 2005, Variety reported that George Lucas had revealed at ShoWest that he was "eager to release all six films in the 'Star Wars' saga in digital 3-D. His plan would be to release one film a year starting in 2007." But "Trekkies" are going to have to wait a little while before they can see their movies in a third dimension. Rick McCallum, producer of Star Wars (special edition), said that the films will not be converted to 3-D until the industry "gets its act together." However, The CEO of In-Three Inc. stated that it would probably be a short time before all films can be and will be converted to 3-D. In the future, In-Three Inc. will be able to provide the technology to convert films produced in status quo format to 3-D for five million dollars.
At the time the Variety article was published in April, 2005, there were no definite plans to release any of the Star Wars films in 3-D. However, there is a distinct possibility that this may change in the very near future. Star Wars is one of the most successful, highest grossing film franchises of all time. As one of the industry's most savvy, technologically advanced filmmakers it would seem reasonable to believe that George Lucas could very well be one of the first to take advantage of the newest technology. If Lucas does make the move towards 3-D, he might be the innovator who influences other producers to do the same. The Variety article provides new information on a topic relevant to the direction in which the future film industry is moving.
tagged 3D C3PO Carrie_Fisher Chewbacca Darth_Vader Digital-Cinema George_Lucas Hans_Solo Harrison_Ford Luke_Skywalker Mark_Hamill Princess_Leia R2D2 Star_Wars_Episode_IV_A_New_Hope by emilycr ...on 05-APR-06


text:
Moderators: mixofsunandcloud, Kelso, Rai, Garfield's Lasagna, Garfield
eitlobsaboo wrote:Oh... dude... dude.. that's.. oh.... that's not something I wanted to see right before bed.. that's fucked up..
Sam Logan wrote:When it comes to tunnels and cats, I feel like this story really delivers.
pie wrote:I have transcended commas!
Return to It's All About Me-ow!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


text:
Subscribe to the 2013/14 Season now!
Portland Opera's 48th Season kicks off with our 2nd annual Big Night Concert and Gala!
This year promises to be even BIGGER! George Manahan returns to conduct. Jonathan Boyd and Jennifer Forni and the Portland Opera Studio Artists join the Portland Opera Orchestra and Chorus on stage for an evening of your favorite opera arias, duets and choral pieces from Rossini, Verdi, Mozart and Wagner.
All proceeds from Big Night benefit Portland Opera's education and outreach programs: bringing opera to students throughout the state of Oregon!
Notte Grande Gala Package
Turn a Great Evening into an Unforgettable Big Night!
- An exclusive pre-concert cocktail party with signature drinks and a sumptuous feast.
- Premium seating for the concert.
- A spectacular party with the evening's stars, including desert, wine and after dinner drinks.
Subscribe to the 2013/14 Season now!
His romantic conquests are so numerous, his sidekick needs a whole aria to list them! But when a father stands between him and the woman he's attempting to seduce, Giovanni murders him and finds himself haunted by the man's ghost. Yet in his moment of judgement, the Don stands unrepentant.
From its spine-tingling first chord to its final bars, Mozart's take on Don Juan, the charismatic anti-hero, is considered by many to be the greatest opera of all time. Charles Gounod, the composer of Faust, called it "a work without blemish, of uninterrupted perfection."
Sung in Italian with English projections above the stage.
Donna Elvira | Mary Dunleavy |
Donna Anna | Stefania Dovhan |
Don Ottavio | Jonathan Boyd |
Don Giovanni | Daniel Okulitch |
Leporello | Jason Hardy |
Commendatore | Harold Wilson |
Stage Director | Christopher Alden |
Conductor | George Manahan |
Subscribe to the 2013/14 Season now!
When her lover, Cavaradossi, faces execution for aiding a political prisoner, Tosca must make an unthinkable choice: submit to the loathsome Baron Scarpia, chief of police ... or send her true love to the firing squad. Her decision brings the opera to a breathtaking climax.
A passionate tour de force, Puccini's thriller has been beloved by audiences since its premiere. Don't miss the revival of this truly grand production, which critics have called "thrilling" and "a Tosca to remember."
Sung in Italian with English projections above the stage.
Tosca | |
Cavaradossi | Roger Honeywell |
Spoletta | Matthew Grills |
Jailer | Anton Belov |
Sciarrone | André Chiang |
Scarpia | Mark Schnaible |
Sacristan | Thomas Hammons |
Angelotti | Nicholas Nelson |
Jailer | Anton Belov |
Stage Director | David Kneuss |
Conductor | Joseph Colaneri |
Lighting Designer | Don Darnutzer |
Subscribe to the 2013/14 Season now!
Outside Jerusalem, Rinaldo, the knight, stands alongside his troops in preparation for battle. When Argante, the Saracen king, and Armida, his sorceress queen, kidnap Rinaldo's beloved, he must overcome a series of battles and trials to save her — trials including mermaids, spirits, and dragons!
This opera, full of sorcery, seductions, and secret disguises — composed in 1711, Handel's first for the London stage — catapulted the composer to stardom. Portland Opera brings it to you for the first time, with new costumes and sets designed especially for the intimate Newmark Theatre. Portland Baroque Orchestra joins us again in the pit, repeating their wildly successful 2009 collaboration with us on La Calisto.
Sung in Italian with English projections above the stage.
Rinaldo | Caitlin Mathes |
Almirena | Sharin Apostolou |
Armida | Lindsay Ohse |
Goffredo | Matthew Grills |
Argante | André Chiang |
Mago / Herald | Nicholas Nelson |
Conductor | Gary Wedow |
Stage Director | Chas Rader-Shieber |
Scenery / Costume Designer | Jacob A. Climer |
Featuring Portland Baroque Orchestra in the Newmark Theatre.
Subscribe to the 2013/14 Season now!
Sir John Falstaff attempts to woo two married women, hoping to improve his financial situation (and, as a bonus, his love life). Unfortunately, things don't go quite as he planned: he's thwarted by the merry wives of Windsor at every turn! But whether he's berated by forest demons or thrown into the Thames, Falstaff retains his sense of humor — and his joie de vivre — to the very end!
One of Verdi's only comedies, his final masterpiece is often called the finest operatic comedy ever written. Based on scenes from Shakespeare's Henry IV and The Merry Wives of Windsor, the opera's clever libretto and brilliant orchestration will have you rolling in the aisles!
Sung in Italian with English projections above the stage.
Alice Ford | Pamela Armstrong |
Dame Quickly | Angela Niederloh |
Fenton | Nicholas Phan |
Bardolfo | Marcus Shelton |
Dr. Caius | Carl Halvorson |
Falstaff | Eduardo Chama |
Ford | Weston Hurt |
Stage Director | Christopher Mattaliano |
Conductor | George Manahan |
503-241-1802, M-F / 9a-5p
Portland Opera
The Hampton Opera Center
211 SE Caruthers St
Portland, OR 97214


text:
See the results below of the Lotto draw for March 07, 2012 Lotto Draw Results PCSO, 6/55 Grand Lotto, 6/49 Super Lotto, 6/45 Mega Lotto, 6/42.
The PCSO holds three 6-pick number games, the Lotto 6/42, MegaLotto 6/45 and the SuperLotto 6/49. All of these number games can be played using the system play (systems 7 to 12), 5 Roll, and Lucky Pick. The Lotto 6/42 is drawn on Tuesdays and Saturdays and has a minimum jackpot prize of P3,000,000.00. The MegaLotto 6/45 is drawn on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, with a minimum jackpot prize of P4,500,000.00. Lastly, the SuperLotto 6/49, which has a minimum jackpot prize of P16,000,000.00, is drawn on Thursdays and Sundays. and Sundays.
March 07, 2012 Lotto Draw Results PCSO
6/55 Grand Lotto
3/7/2012 , 0 winner(s)
6/49 Super Lotto
3/6/2012 , 0 winner(s)
6/45 Mega Lotto
3/7/2012 , 0 winner(s)
3/6/2012 , 0 winner(s)
Source: http://PCSO.gov.ph
Best iPad Air Case Screen Protector – Strong and Durable Yes you already read a lot of articles about iPad Air… just like before this product of Apple will set a trend as others will follow with their own design of a tablet PC that looks thin and light weight. The ...
How to Get Free Debit Master Card Online - Paypal Approved There are a lot of questions on how to get a free credit/debit card that can be used in shopping or purchasing products online, a debit master card that compatible in leading shopping network online, shopping sites like Amazon, Ebay, ...


text:
We're Sorry
The article you are looking for cannot be found or is no longer available.
Check out these others stories
Top Videos
- Highlights: High Point vs. Georgetown
- FOXSports
- Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
- FOXSports
- Public passion for college athletes
- FOXSports
Special Offers from Comcast
Comcast Sports Trivia
Start Playing Now!
Think you know sports? Test your athletic acumen by playing Comcast.net Sports Trivia.


text:
How would you like to top up?
It's quick and easy to get more credit
Top up online. Buy credit for your phone, tablet, iPad, dongle or Mobile Wi-Fi device hassle free.
No need to register, just enter your phone or mobile broadband number and follow the simple instructions.
Unlimited freedom on Pay as you go
Maximise your smartphone with unlimited calls, texts as well as a huge 1GB of UK internet when you buy our £30 Vodafone Red Freedom Freebee. Enjoy freedom on Pay as you go.
Prefer to top up another way?
My Vodafone
Just log in to your account or register, then choose the TopUp link. You can top up with your debit or credit card and store your card details securely, so it's even quicker and easier next time or set up a regular TopUp by direct debit with our Automatic TopUp service.
On your phone
Call – 2345 for free from your mobile and use your debit or credit card.
Text – if you register for Automatic TopUp, you'll get the chance to set up a four-digit PIN to use with our text TopUp service. When you've registered, just follow these simple steps:
- Type the word 'topup' in a new text message
- Follow this with the value of the TopUp, which can be £10, £15, £20, £25 or £30 (e.g. topup 15)
- Send the message free of charge to 2345
Out and about
Pop into a Vodafone store or any of 90,000 shops across the UK where you see the green TopUp logo and choose one of the following ways to top up:
By voucher – buy a TopUp voucher worth £5-£50 then you can do either of the following:
- Log in to My Vodafone and follow the directions to top up using a voucher
- Call 2345 free from your Vodafone mobile and follow the instructions to top up by voucher
Pick up a TopUp swipe card for free – when you've got yours, here's what you need to do:
- First, link your Swipe card to your phone. Just call 2345 from your Vodafone mobile and follow the simple instructions
- Now your Swipe card's linked, you can use it to top up in any shop with the green TopUp logo
- Choose the amount you want to top up (from £5 to £50), and hand your Swipe card to the retailer to add it to your phone
- You can pay by cash, or with a debit or credit card
TopUp kiosk – drop into a Vodafone store and you can Top up your phone in one of our automated TopUp kiosks. It's quick and easy.
Cash machine – buy credit at over 50,000 cash machines across the UK. Just look for the green TopUp logo, insert your debit or credit card and follow the on-screen instructions. Your TopUp will be applied within 10 minutes.
You'll need:
- Your debit or credit card
- The phone number you want to top up
My Vodafone
Register or log in to your account and you can top up with your debit or credit card.
Out and about
Vodafone store – buy an internet pack starting from as little as £5 for 250MB and it'll be applied directly to your account.
Any store where you see the green TopUp logo – buy a TopUp voucher from any of 90,000 shops across the UK where you see the green TopUp logo, then log in to My Vodafone to apply the voucher to your account and choose an internet pack.
Talk more, spend less
Call the same few people a lot? Got friends abroad?
Whatever you do most, do it for less with our great-value extras.
Earn great Rewardz
Get Pointz every time you top up £5 or more. Then spend them on instant Rewardz, or save up for something bigger – like a shiny new smartphone or camera.


text:
Research News on Risk Factors
Breast MRI Better at Finding Disease in High-Risk Women, but Doesn't Improve Outcome
Breast MRI is better at finding breast cancer in high-risk women, but it may not change overall outcomes if these women are diagnosed.
Women Who Don't Have Abnormal Breast Cancer Gene Have Average Risk, Even if Relatives Test Positive
Research shows that a woman who tests negative for an abnormal BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene but has a family history of breast cancer and a first-degree relative who's tested positive for BRCA1 or BRCA2 has the same risk of breast cancer as a woman with a family history of breast cancer but no relatives with an abnormal gene.
Research Continues to Support Connection Between Risk and Regular Drinking
Results from a large study confirm the link between regularly drinking alcohol and an increase in breast cancer risk.
Survivors Need Ongoing, Long-Term Screening
Regular breast cancer screening for survivors saves lives and should be done for at least 10 years after diagnosis.
Women with Disease Linked to Abnormal Breast Cancer Gene Are Younger When Diagnosed Compared to Previous Generation
Research suggests that women diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer linked to an inherited abnormal breast cancer are younger when diagnosed compared to their older relatives.
Women with Dense Breasts Have Higher Risk of More Aggressive Cancer
Research suggests that women with dense breasts are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer and the breast cancer is likely to be more aggressive.
Many High-Risk Women May Not Be Referred for Genetic Testing
A study suggests that primary care doctors don't consistently recommend genetic testing for women at high-risk for cancer because of family and personal history.
Researchers Recommend Regularly Updating Family History of Cancer
A new study found that doctors and patients need to regularly talk about and update the patient's family history of cancer -- including breast cancer.
Childhood Cancer Treatment Increases Risk of Developing Future Cancer
A study found that people treated for cancer in childhood have a 10% risk of developing a different cancer -- including breast cancer -- later in life.
Obesity Doesn't Affect Survival in Metastatic Disease
Research has found that being overweight or obese at diagnosis doesn't affect the survival of women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer.


text:
School Briefs – Holman Middle School
Sept. 7 was the first day on the job for Holman Middle School. Hundreds of kids piled in as the anxiety-ridden first day began. However, the weeks have run on, and people have started to create friendships, even though we are all from different schools. The schools that filtered into Holman (Hungary Creek Middle, Short Pump Middle, and several elementary schools) have all gotten along and grown together. As Dr. Fellows has said, "The tradition of excellence begins now." I think it certainly has begun, from the LEED construction of our school that is environmentally friendly, to the kids' favorite, a slushie machine at lunch. Another thing that makes our new school stand out is the Promethean boards that have been placed in every classroom. These boards make it so kids can write on the board while the screen is projecting a worksheet from the teachers' computer, and linking to devices such as document cameras and interactive student devices. Also the boards can perform simple tasks, like playing movies. The fall athletics have also been a smashing hit, with the soccer, football, and tennis teams all earning winning records so far. Many new clubs have been introduced such as the Rubik's Cube Club, Peer Helpers Club, and Teaching Tolerance Club. However, at the end of the day, besides the academics and extra activities, we all are beginning to be one big happy family. We all hated to leave behind an old school, but it was certainly for the best as "The Tradition of Excellence" has certainly begun. |
Varina's Big Toy parade to help usher in holiday season
In Varina, one of the most anticipated events of the season is approaching. The 19th Annual Big Toy Parade will return on Dec 14, offering a "homey," small-town feel that helps elicit holiday spirit among participants and spectators alike.
The parade, which begins at 3 p.m., is sponsored by the Battlefield Ruritans and Henrico County Parks and Recreation and is held in conjunction with the James River Boat Parade. It is led by a grand marshal along Old Osborne Turnpike and ends at the Osborne Boat Landing, where hundreds of community members gather to await nightfall and the arrival of lighted boats, concluding a festive holiday celebration. > Read more.
Strikers, Kickers form partnership
Citizen Staff Reports 12/03/2013
The region's two premier youth soccer organizations – the Richmond Kickers and Richmond Strikers – have partnered to create Richmond United, a cost-free U.S. Soccer Development Academy program designed to serve the most talented players in the region. The arrangement marks the first time in U.S. Soccer Development Academy history that two member clubs have united their respective Academy programs.
Slated to begin play in the fall of 2014, Richmond United will field U13/14, U15/16 and U17/18 U.S. Soccer Development Academy teams. The teams will train and play home games at two of the top soccer specific complexes in the nation, Ukrop Park and Striker Park. > Read more.
Gettin' piggy with it at Henricus
Photo by Roger Walk for the Henrico Citizen 11/24/2013
Henricus Historical Park has a new, messy guest. Eleanor, a rare five-month-old Tamworth pig, was donated this month to the Chesterfield park by the Chesterfield County Farm Bureau as part of an effort to enhance the living history museum's partnership with the Virginia Foundation for Agriculture in the Classroom. Eleanor and her livestock pig and goat neighbors at the park will be a special attraction for the schoolchildren and others who visit the Henricus Historical Park. Eventually, she will triple from her current 150-pound weight and grow to about two feet tall. > Read more.
Page 1 of 103 pages 1 2 3 > Last ›
Weekend Top 10
Holiday events are in full swing this weekend in eastern Henrico! The Henrico Theatre will show the holiday classic "Elf" and the Concert Ballet of Virginia will perform a shortened version of "The Nutcracker" at the Eastern Henrico Recreation Center. On Sunday the North Airport Drive Civic Association's annual Tree Lighting Ceremony will take place at Fire Station #3. For all our top picks this weekend, click here! > Read more.
Restaurant watch
Find out how your favorite dining establishments fared during their most recent inspections by the Virginia Department of Health. > Read more.
AMC television series seeks background actors
The new AMC television series "TURN" is currently being filmed in and around Richmond, and casting officials are seeking background actors to appear on screen.
"The background actors are profoundly important to the filmmaking process," said Erica Arvold, casting director. "The show takes place during the Revolutionary War, and background actors contribute to the atmosphere of that era." > Read more.
More News
County proposes sale of Best Plaza complex
County asks state to share VRS liabilities
Henrico HS student earns national award
Chickahominy YMCA receives $2,500 donation from The Shops at White Oak Village
'Mr. Christmas' celebrating 40 years of lights, charity
New Varina Library scheduled to open in 2016
Henrico fifth-graders win honors in historical essay contest
Business in brief
Meals tax expected to begin May 1
'Too Smart 2 Start' earns nonprofit status
- More Henrico News
Reader Survey | Advertising | Email updates
DONATE YOUR CAR, TRUCK OR BOAT TO HERITAGE FOR THE BLIND. Free 3 Day Vacation, Tax Deductible, Free Towing, All Paperwork Taken Care Of. 888-617-1682Full text
Place an Ad | More Classifieds


text:
Stupid Woman Plays Frogger With Her Kid Another person that should have their kid taken away. 5/23/2012 12:00:00 AM 14,134
Transporting a Mattress Like a Boss I give it another mile before the mattress lands on the moon. Must be a woman... 5/3/2012 12:00:00 AM 15,806
Lucky Woman Almost Gets Flattened Somebody forgot to teach her to look both ways before walking into traffic. 4/29/2012 12:00:00 AM 16,198
Dramatic Black Woman Remix It didn't take long for someone to make a pretty awesome remix of the dramatic black woman that got bronchitis. Check this one out! 4/15/2012 12:00:00 AM 21,010
Dramatic Black Woman There was a fire and this news crew found the absolutely perfect person to ask about it. Live TV Gold! 4/13/2012 12:00:00 AM 26,443
Woman Crashes and Forgets To Set Brake Typical woman driver. Just let the car take off... 3/28/2012 12:00:00 AM 23,554
Woman Reunites With Wolf Pack She spent a lot of time in 2008 getting to know the pack and 4 years later they are happy to see her return. 3/26/2012 12:00:00 AM 24,079


text:
'The Flower Bead Frame will keep your little ones amused for hours on end. This wooden flower bead frame...'
Kiddicare Staff Expert - Peterborough
'Brilliant lovely chunky pieces for little'
Salockie - Warwickshire
'Look at that baby go! Your child will love being able to push their blocks around with this traditional...'
Kiddicare Staff Expert - Peterborough, Cambs
'My 8 month old loves this as it does a few things. However the box recommends 24 months plus which is kind...'
Suze - Hants
'This encourages concentration, pride in achievement and a desire to learn, boosting self confidence and...'
Kiddicare Staff Expert - Peterborough
'This puzzle is really well made, and can be used in several different ways. The letters are chunky enough...'
Vickee, Consumables - Kiddicare Hedge End
©Kiddicare 2013


text:
Lot 1, Princes Hwy, Figtree, Wollongong
1 review and 21 opinions
"This 55-room motel has a 3 and half star rating, but it don't see why.. One of the worst places I..."
Good for: Road Trip
Hotel Class
2-14 Cliff Road, Wollongong
10 reviews and 607 opinions
"This is a large modern newer hotel with a good location directly on the beach. Some topless sun..."
Good for: Romantic Travel and Honeymoons, Road Trip, Beaches
Corner Market & Church Street, Wollongong
99 opinions
19 Marketing Street, Wollongong
154 opinions
60 - 62 Harbour Street, Wollongong
200 opinions
6-10 Gladstone Avenue, Wollongong
77 opinions
24 Golf Place, Primbee, Wollongong
21 opinions
59 - 61 Kembla St, Wollongong
40 opinions
60 Kembla St, Wollongong
1 review and 20 opinions
"The woman who ran this place in 2007 when I stayed one night was very pleasant indeed so I don't..."
Pioneer Road, P.O. Box 372, Fairy Meadow, Wollongong
41 opinions
1 Park Street, Wollongong
7 opinions
146 Windang Rd, Windang, Wollongong
1 review and 10 opinions
"If you wanted to base yourself in Wollongong to explore the beaches, nightlife and various..."
Cnr of Banks & Corrimal St, Wollongong
46 opinions
222 Lawrence Hargrave Drive, Thirroul, Wollongong
19 Carters Lane, Towradgi, Wollongong
81 opinions
39 Smith St, Wollongong
1 review and 34 opinions
"These suites are very nice, I had a girlfriend who used to work here. I think after the Novotel,..."
5-7 Stewart Street, Wollongong
34 opinions
112 Burelli Street, Wollongong
30 Bourke Street, Wollongong
29 opinions
76 Crown St.,, Wollongong
1 review and 4 opinions
"It was ok. It had all the facilities and amenities need, but it wasn't anything too flash. Good for..."
Good for: Architecture
Corner Campbell and Wilson Street, Wollongong
22 opinions
Sponsored Listings
Get an instant answer from local experts and frequent travelers
87 travelers online now
Latest Wollongong hotel reviews