If you had posted, "Joseph GoodCitizen" just announced he's leaving his entire 200 Trillion Dollar fortune to philanthropic foundations, effective immediately"........

you could set an atomic clock to the following instant when she posts, "Everyone is enthralled today by Joseph G's huge endowment to charitable enterprises, but, where was he last year when this cheapskate signed over a measly 200 million dollars for malaria research in Africa?"

I rated Anne's comment 5. And have been asking her the question regarding whether or not she think Obama has done a good thing, for some time now.

As far as I know Anne has never been able to bring herself or himself to acknowledge anything positive that Obama has done.

When all is said and done, the ACA will benefit some people - perhaps a lot of people - but it is still a given that (1) not everyone will benefit, because some will choose not to get insurance, (2) some are exempted from the requirements and will continue to be uninsured, (3) some will realize they did not make good choices and could end up worse off financially than before, (4) some will be unhappy with - among other things - narrow networks that limit their choices of providers.

Will those things be Obama's fault?  Should we hold him accountable for the so-called "failures?"  Is it his fault that he designed a plan that won't cover everyone, won't expand access or improve affordability for everyone?  And if it is his fault, so what?  What does that mean to the millions who still won't be covered - how does that help them?

Or do we need to turn to the Congress and to the states to address regulations and compliance to make sure that we're making it work for more people the way it was intended to?

We've really barely begun to experience life with the ACA; to use a sports metaphor, we're barely into the first quarter, and while there may be some points on the board, we can't know whether we're going to win the game.  

To point out just a few things that seem to have been overlooked.

I'm not suggesting that athletes be the equivalent of indentured servants, nor do I think they should not get a say in what their coaches require of them.

But I also think that both sides - the athletes on one side and the educational institution on the other - need to answer some essential questions: is athletics the means by which students are able to get an affordable education, or is athletics one of the means by which colleges and universities fund the education of the entire student body?

Where does education come into this?  Does it come into this? Should it come into this?

And what would it mean for, say, some of the sports that not as many people are lining up to see?  For track and field, for swimming, for archery and baseball.  What does it mean for women's sports?  

Just so you fully understand this topic in a proper perspective, and realize that what you are proposing will result in the royally screwing of mid-major NCAA-member institutions like Drexel, Hawaii, Nevada, Akron and Louisiana-Lafayette.

Multiply those totals by 4 years (assuming costs stay the same).

In state:  $83,240
Out-of-state: $146,104

That's before their books and such are paid for. (And keep in mind that some athletes eat way more than an average student and require more medical care that they are getting).

You best realize, kdog, that most D-1 collegiate athletic programs do NOT support themselves by virtue of their own revenues generated, and actually require significant institutional and / or public subsidies from outside the realm of college sports in order to keep them viable at that level.

The University of Louisville has to subsidize the Cardinal athletics to the tune of $10.7 million annually. At the University of Virginia, Cavalier sports requires a $13.1 million infusion above and beyond the $80.8 million in revenues generated. At UC-Berkeley, it's $9.5 million. Florida State, it's $%7.8 million.

At my alma mater Washington, it's $3 million. Here in Hawaii, it's $13.6 million. U.S. taxpayers subsidize Air Force Falcon athletics to the tune of $27.5 million annually. At Central Florida, Golden Knight athletics were $22 million in the red in 2012. And Rutgers University of New Jersey currently shells out an additional $27 million annually to Scarlet Knight athletics.

In fact, the ONLY NCAA D-1 college athletic programs that were completely self-sustaining financially in 2012 are as follows: Texas, Ohio State, LSU, Penn State, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Purdue. That's it -- a sum total of seven schools, out of 228 NCAA D-1 institutions nationwide.

So, please don't insult me by telling me that I'm living in a fantasy world. I spent too many years in the legislature and balancing fiscal budgets for that.

Here's a profile of him from '66 that's considered a classic.

Given that Ms. Farrow may well have consciously perjured herself in New York Family Court -- at Allen's ultimate expense -- regarding the exact nature and circumstances of Ronan's parentage, I'd offer that she's not exactly a candidate for sainthood herself.