And you're totally missing/avoiding mine.
One day you will realize that your venting is a total waste of time due to your loss of control of the people you elect.

And you're totally missing/avoiding mine.
One day you will realize that your venting is a total waste of time due to your loss of control of the people you elect.

Oh I got your point, it was irrelevant to mine.

Yet it's more important.

Moving on, it seems some on the left are admitting to reality - and no I'm not talking about Dems calling for a delay in the mandate.


Blame Liberals for Obama’s Illegal Drone War (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-23/blame-liberals-for-obama-s-illegal-drone-war.html?alcmpid=view)

The advocacy groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are accusing the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama of possible war crimes for drone strike campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen. These charges won’t have much weight within the U.S. -- after all, even Hollywood now portrays the way we tortured detainees, and no one has been held to account.

But the reports presage what will probably become history’s verdict on drone strikes taking place off the battlefield in weak states: bad for human rights, bad for the rule of law -- and bad for U.S. interests in the fight against terrorism.

There will be plenty of blame to go around, yet I can’t escape the gnawing feeling that people like me -- legal critics of the George W. Bush administration’s detention policy -- bear some moral responsibility for creating incentives for the Obama administration to kill rather than capture. True, we didn’t realize that condemning interrogation practices and quasi-lawless detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would lead a Democratic president to break new ground in unfettered presidential authority. But that’s just the point: We should have seen it coming. And we didn’t.

**************

Although the tactical appeal of drone strikes is significant, it doesn’t fully explain the Obama administration’s preference for them. Part of the policy choice resulted from the practical impossibility for the president of doing anything with al-Qaeda-linked terrorists if they should be captured. Having pledged to close the prison at Guantanamo during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama could hardly add detainees there. But why had Obama come out against Guantanamo in the first place?

The answer had everything to do with legally inflected criticisms of detention as practiced by the Bush administration. You remember the tune: There was no clear legal authority to hold detainees. Harsh interrogation tactics violated domestic and international law. Guantanamo itself was a legal black hole, chosen because it wasn’t inside the U.S., but also (according to the U.S.) wasn’t under Cuban sovereignty because of a disputed 100-year-old treaty.

Reasonable Criticisms

When people including myself made these criticisms to reasonable people in the Bush administration -- yes, there were reasonable people there, such as Matthew Waxman, who worked in both the State and Defense departments, and Jack Goldsmith, of the Office of Legal Counsel (and now my colleague at Harvard Law School) -- we got a pretty consistent answer. Look, they said, detention is problematic, but it is better than just killing people!

These Bush administration moderates pointed out that in choosing military targets, mistakes were sometimes made -- collateral damage was even accepted under international law. Detention, too, might involve errors, but it was necessary as an alternative to shooting first and asking questions later.

Comments?

Moving on, it seems some on the left are admitting to reality - and no I'm not talking about Dems calling for a delay in the mandate.



Comments?

For what it is worth, I would strongly with the OP.

Not ignoring you... and nope your evidence isn't convincing enough.

Anyone can post anything on the internet... doesn't make it factual.

Google up Alien Abduction sometime... see what I mean. Look at how many people blieve in Bigfoot, the Abominable snowman.. etc.

Hell, just look at the Paranormal forum.......lots of people there in need of medications to stop the things they are seeing and voices in their heads.

I am not talking about alien abduction and the like. I am talking about stuff like this that you post:

"As far as the Bill of Rights is concerned...Natural rights and legal rights are one and the same. They trump any legal statute( meaning you can't write a law that does away with enumerated rights)..we are discussing the Bill of Rights not the legal code of the country."

My reply was that if they are in fact one and the same you must also be discussing the legal code of the country as well. This is because you are telling us that, "All x's are x's. After telling us this you then revert to a claim that there is actually a distinction.This is obviously a contradiction.

This logic not convincing enough? Perhaps you can tell my why.

This is the type of stuff I am talking about.

I am not talking about alien abduction and the like. I am talking about stuff like this that you post:

"As far as the Bill of Rights is concerned...Natural rights and legal rights are one and the same. They trump any legal statute( meaning you can't write a law that does away with enumerated rights)..we are discussing the Bill of Rights not the legal code of the country."

My reply was that if they are in fact one and the same you must also be discussing the legal code of the country as well. This is because you are telling us that, "All x's are x's. After telling us this you then revert to a claim that there is actually a distinction.This is obviously a contradiction.

This logic not convincing enough? Perhaps you can tell my why.

This is the type of stuff I am talking about.

Its simple.. our Constitution isn't written in pencil like so many others are... including your own.

The President can't change it... Congress can't even change it on their own... it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

If a very LARGE percentage of thje population decides it's a right... then it can be made one if it isn't already... and that has to be at least 3/4 of the population.

Constitutional Amendment Process (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/)

Laws can be repealed just as easily as they can be made... mental midgets such as Obama can't simply make a proclimation that is so... and make it so..

Obama care for example isn't a "right"....it doesn't have majority support...it was rammed through without a proper vote...and it will never get the 75% required to make it a legal RIGHT......and since it won't it can be very easily repealed.

Hello smoothy, Mr. Constitutionalist:

Tell me, kind Sir, what are my rights under the 9th Amendment?

excon

LOL, Smoothy you make a big argument about what the emperor can or cannot do, but he has done it and you have not repealed or overturned any thing not even through the court. So whom should we believe? YOU? Or him?

Additionally, many can interpret the constitution in many ways but SCOTUS is the final arbiter, not the TParty, or the rest of the loony's who have never read the damn thing, or understand what they read.

9th Amendment legal definition of 9th Amendment. 9th Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment)

Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

9th Amendment (http://constitution.laws.com/9th-amendment)

I know you can read as well as use Google...


If you like the readers digest version.

The Constitution Explained - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net (http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html)

Hell, just look at the Paranormal forum.......lots of people there in need of medications to stop the things they are seeing and voices in their heads.

The paranormal forum is about trying to help people with such things as they may experience and to examine the issues as they are presented. Most of the time an explination can be found that is perfectly normal. So I wouldn't go around condemining people for posting there or trying to help others. There are many belief systems around and as with paranormal it should be respected until all the evidence is in.

The paranormal forum is about trying to help people with such things as they may experience and to examine the issues as they are presented. Most of the time an explination can be found that is perfectly normal. So I wouldn't go around condemining people for posting there or trying to help others. There are many belief systems around and as with paranormal it should be respected until all the evidence is in.

I don't post there, because I believe they are all crackpots... and no disrespect... but I don't HAVE to believe any of that stuff absent any proof to the contrary. Its really no different than an adult believing the Easter Bunny, unicorns or Tooth Fairy are real... I don't need proof they don't exist... and I don't have to believe they do absent irrefutable evidence they do. For the record people that believe in alien abduction tend to have substance abuse issues... poor educations... and for some reason usually tend to live in trailer parks. You would think if aliens were coming here and had the technology to come here... they would be able to pick people that don't live in trailer parks, or at least pick a more diverse selection of subjects.

There is ALWAYS a reasonable and rational explanation for everything they think they see or hear. I however don't have the patience to get them to see it... that's one of the reasons I never studied to be a mental healthcare professional OR a therapist. Besides not having any interest in that field.

The paranormal forum is about trying to help people with such things as they may experience and to examine the issues as they are presented. Most of the time an explination can be found that is perfectly normal. So I wouldn't go around condemining people for posting there or trying to help others. There are many belief systems around and as with paranormal it should be respected until all the evidence is in.

GREENIE

And thanks Smoothy for knowing your limit.

GREENIE

And thanks Smoothy for knowing your limit.

Talking sense to a Liberal is like beating your head against a wooden wall... trying to convince that other group is like beating it against a huge chunk of granite.

I'm hard headed but not enough to break granite.

Are you admitting too beating you head against a wall? :D I am sure its covered under Obama Care :D Is this pre exiting condition? :D

LOL, Smoothy you make a big argument about what the emperor can or cannot do, but he has done it and you have not repealed or overturned any thing not even through the court. So whom should we believe? YOU? Or him?

Additionally, many can interpret the constitution in many ways but SCOTUS is the final arbiter, not the TParty, or the rest of the loony's who have never read the damn thing, or understand what they read.


Exactly, I couldn't agree more Tal. What is the use of smoothy posting a number of links if he doesn't provide his interpretation to go with it. What you say about SCOTUS is also correct.

The 9 Amendment was put in because it was an important reference to natural rights as opposed to civil rights. This is it talks about the people those rights not specifically specified in the Constitution. Why?

Because it would be impossible to codify natural rights in the form of legislation. Why? Because natural rights are unwritten so this makes the task impossible.For this reason natural rights have to be determined by SCOTUS. In other words,their depth, scope and relevance to civil laws is determined by nine judges.

Despite what some people might think civil rights can be taken away, but more often than not SCOTUS modifies them in accordance with their particular interpretation. This is why there are so many complaint about SCOTUS implementing legislation from the bench. The reason people complain about this is because this is exactly what SCOTUS does.

An example I have used before is freedom of speech and I can use it to demonstrate this point. Freedom of speech is often regarded as a natural right. The argument is often granted on the basis that freedom of speech existed in a state of nature. That is to say, prior to there being a organized society to grant that particular freedom. Being a natural right freedom of speech should be all pervasive throughout society. But it isn't. There have been many interpretations and modifications by SCOTUS on the exact definition and prescription of freedom of speech.

Citizens United decision being a good example. Freedom of speech applies to corporations despite the fact that corporations could not have possibly existed prior to their being an organized society.

So no, the Constitution is not set in stone. SCOTUS wields the hammer and chisel in many different ways.

There is no way that the founders envisioned a small group of unelected ,appointed for life demigods determining our rights and the scope of those rights. Perhaps the problem is that the early SCOTUS had an average tenure of somewhere around 8 years . The current court sits until they develop moss on their butts and cobwebs in their brains... average tenure 27 years . It's time to term limit them and reinstitute the restraints on the court envisioned by the founders.

There is no way that the founders envisioned a small group of unelected ,appointed for life demigods determining our rights and the scope of those rights. Perhaps the problem is that the early SCOTUS had an average tenure of somewhere around 8 years . The current court sits until they develop moss on their butts and cobwebs in their brains... average tenure 27 years . It's time to term limit them and reinstitute the restraints on the court envisioned by the founders.


I'm with you all the way on that one.

There is no way that the founders envisioned a small group of unelected ,appointed for life demigods determining our rights and the scope of those rights. Perhaps the problem is that the early SCOTUS had an average tenure of somewhere around 8 years . The current court sits until they develop moss on their butts and cobwebs in their brains... average tenure 27 years . It's time to term limit them and reinstitute the restraints on the court envisioned by the founders.

Yes Tom there should be limits placed on their tenure just as there is on the legislature and the presidentancy. Perhaps they should face election rather than being appointed. This meens of course that those reps and senators would not only face election but have a truly limited term. This might focus them on actually getting something done without stuffing it up

Its simple.. our Constitution isn't written in pencil like so many others are... including your own.

The President can't change it... Congress can't even change it on their own... it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

If a very LARGE percentage of thje population decides it's a right... then it can be made one if it isn't already... and that has to be at least 3/4 of the population.

Constitutional Amendment Process (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/)

Laws can be repealed just as easily as they can be made... mental midgets such as Obama can't simply make a proclimation that is so... and make it so..

Obama care for example isn't a "right"....it doesn't have majority support...it was rammed through without a proper vote...and it will never get the 75% required to make it a legal RIGHT......and since it won't it can be very easily repealed.

Actually it is anything but simple. My post was in reference to natural rights, natural laws and civil laws. I am not sure that anyone can come up with a simple explanation of these things. If you can I would like to hear it.

My post 266 makes some attempt, if you would like to read it.

Actually it is anything but simple. My post was in reference to natural rights, natural laws and civil laws. I am not sure that anyone can come up with a simple explanation of these things. If you can I would like to hear it.

My post 266 makes some attempt, if you would like to read it.

Tutt you can debate rights with these fellows forever. They see their Bill of Rights as sacrosanct, some sort of expression of natural rights but in fact it is a civil law. There are some things that are not part of it which should be and that is the natural right to have equal right to care and equal right to protection from the excesses of their neighbours. They see their Court as offering such protections, but in fact, it enshrines the thoughts of thinkers two hundred years ago and is as far removed from today as the Moon is from the Earth. That was a day in which men defended themselves and did not expect government to do it. Those men did not contemplate the ursurping of the power of the legislature as we have recently witnessed

Hello T:

I am not sure that anyone can come up with a simple explanation of these things. If you can I would like to hear it.I'm a simple guy, so my explanations are simple too.

Let's take gay marriage... It IS a natural right for people to get married... All these laws do is EXPAND those rights. When people ask me WHERE in the Constitution can they find the right for gays to get married, I direct them to the 9th Amendment...

Pretty simple, huh?

excon

I would argue that making SCOTUS term limited and election bound would create the very same dynamic we have in the legislature, the power of the monied interest influencing the courts, and the need to campaign. And lets not forget the process it takes through the lower court before it even gets to the highest court in the land.

Lets not also not forget the legislatures ability, despite the power of SCOTUS, to modify and change and limit the impact of any ruling SCOTUS makes which for whatever reason seems to be extra hard through the divided governance we now have. I think striking down parts of the voting rights act is an example of this that has basically exonerated states for past wrongs and reset the stage for them to be challenged anew for that which they had already lost in courts repeatedly.

The subject of natural rights has always been addressed in civil law, in most countries around the world and we are still trying to separate those rights and define them and their limits. After all if everyone has the same rights it should follow that individual rights have no conflict between its citizens but that's not the case certainly not when it comes to a churches rights, gay marriage, or even POT. Indeed what we have is what was law before has been changed over time as attitudes for/against them have changed. So its subjective to whatever the will of the people is at the time.

There are no absolutes in any society I don't think and much has to do with what the peoples ideas and attitude about rights and how they work for them and present them through the court system is really the determining faction but who writes what laws is the biggest influence on direction of the country more so even than the influence of the courts. I submit the current conflict of the ACA implementation as a very clear picture of how a divided government and states having the power to choose there own course of action in enacting and embracing a law and shaping the policy behind it.

Its been human nature to assume what the natural rights are and then trying to right them down as simple and absolute, but in reality, is neither. Not only are natural rights complex and flowing, and subject to human flaws when applied.

I mean when the constitution gave all men being equal as the foundation, it obvious it wasn't meaning all men. And that's what made natural rights subjective to who is interpreting it. Some obviously have more natural rights than others, and nobody is equal without the power
To enforce it. That dynamic existed 200 years ago, and exists NOW.

Those men did not contemplate the ursurping of the power of the legislature as we have recently witnessed
The legislature did no such usurpation. If anything it was the emperor who has constantly violated his role in the 5 years of his reign

We have a checks and balances in our form of government and all you need are the votes to do whatever needs to be done. You aren't the first minority to not have enough votes, and that can change every two years in America. And you can always go to court and proceed that way.

Our whole history is about courts and elections and a changing electorate. Indeed the evidence points to the need for more participation during the midterms as in the general elections every 4 years for president.

There is no way that the founders envisioned a small group of unelected ,appointed for life demigods determining our rights and the scope of those rights.

With this I disagree. I beleive they actually did make provisions for this and that is the very reason the second amendment exists. It is to provide a way for the people to have an ultimate choice.

would argue that making SCOTUS term limited and election bound would create the very same dynamic we have in the legislature, the power of the monied interest influencing the courts, and the need to campaign. And lets not forget the process it takes through the lower court before it even gets to the highest court in the land.
I did not call for judicial elections . But I am a strong advocate of changing the constitution to term limit both the court and Congress .
Even what I call term limits would be modified in that I would subject them to reappointment after a fixed period ,subject to the same ruled of appointment as is now in the Constitution (executive appointment and advise and consent of Senate ).Let the judges who is reappointed defend their decisions . Judges now are too evasive and not candid in the Q&A Senate hearings .They give vague answers and dodge questions that would give someone an insight into how they'll vote. That's got to end . There has to be an accountability for the decisions they make.


Lets not also not forget the legislatures ability, despite the power of SCOTUS, to modify and change and limit the impact of any ruling SCOTUS makes which for whatever reason seems to be extra hard through the divided governance we now have. I think striking down parts of the voting rights act is an example of this that has basically exonerated states for past wrongs and reset the stage for them to be challenged anew for that which they had already lost in courts repeatedly.
I'd give the legislature greater power to over-rule SCOTUS decisions by subjecting SCOTUS decisions to super majority veto by both houses of Congress OR by 2/3 of the State legislatures.. That goes back to my basic disagreement with the Marbury decision. SCOTUS was never given the power to be the final arbiter .

With this I disagree. I beleive they actually did make provisions for this and that is the very reason the second amendment exists. It is to provide a way for the people to have an ultimate choice.

I agree to disagree, SCOTUS is only supposed to strike down laws that it deems to run afoul of the Constitution. However, the process also leaves the Court open to interpret the Constitution,and that is a recipe for corruption and abuse... and indeed it has abused its power on many occasions. What concerns me is there are too many people like Professor Robin West of Georgetown who openly advocates ,and teaches young law students that :we need aprogressive jurisprudence—a jurisprudence that embraces rather than resists, and then reinterprets, our liberal commitment to the ‘rule of law,’ the content of our individual rights, and the dream of formal equality. More inclusive interpretations—more generous reimaginings—could then undergird, and in a principled way, particular constitutional arguments. Rather than relentlessly buck, deconstruct, and vilify the seeming ‘naturalness’ of legal arguments based on moral premises, we ought to be providing such premises, and natural and general arguments of our own.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1981&context=facpub

Hello again,

While I agree about the unelected oligarchs, if we elected them, or term limited them, they would be DISARMED as the 3rd, and CO-EQUAL branch of the government..

As much as I dislike some of their decisions, I KNOW I'll dislike the ones the states'll make a whole lot more. In fact, I believe it's the ONLY institution holding this nation together.. If states can vote on who has rights and who doesn't, I believe the SOUTH would revert to its segregationist ways, and foment a 2nd civil war.

excon

Lol SOCTUS' Dredd Scott decision is the single biggest cause of the civil war.

The civil war didn't solve the slavery issue, it just changed the form of the slavery from chains to economic and social constraints.

Hello tal:

The civil war didn't solve the slavery issue, it just changed the form of the slavery from chains to economic and social constraints.Another GEM!

**greenie**

excon

The civil war didn't solve the slavery issue, it just changed the form of the slavery from chains to economic and social constraints.

Yes I understand that the Dems like to keep the blacks in a permanent state of second class citizen dependent on the largess of the benevolent nanny state.

Yes I understand that the Dems like to keep the blacks in a permanent state of second class citizen dependent on the largess of the benevolent nanny state.
What would the Republicans do with them?

I know , conservative prescriptions are a hard sell against freebees.

Yes I understand that the Dems like to keep the blacks in a permanent state of second class citizen dependent on the largess of the benevolent nanny state.

You make my point as now you equate second class citizens to poor people. Its republicans trying to constrain people by eliminating the one way ALL people are equal, and that's the VOTE.

Its republicans who wasted no time re enacting laws that were found by the court to be unconstitutional, and discriminatory so back to court we go. Poor people and minorities don't raise prices don't destroy unions, and don't send middle class jobs to places with no regulations or labor laws, while republicans deny food stamps to WORKING poor people.

Republicans deny a living wage and don't even tax the minimum wage job creators. Republicans rant as you have here about FREE STUFF, shut down governments and rail on about parks being closed to the public.

You push everyone into stagnant wages higher costs, and holler free stuff is no good? Your FREE stuff is SURVIVAL in today's times, and you wonder why more and more people just ain't listening to your ideas. I mean look around you and see every group but yours joining forces to open up that spigot you have turned down to less than a trickle, in the biggest economic failure of our time.

Hell even republicans are tired of being afraid of your extremist reactionary's and loony nuts threatening everybody with their INSANITY, and insensitivity.

How dare you assume that you know what's best for the rest. And good luck telling black folk about all that FREE stuff you want 'em to NOT get. What part of rejected did you not get from the last election?

Hello again, tom:

conservative prescriptions are a hard sell against freebees.In other words, you'd cut 'em loose.

excon

In other words I'd get the government jack boot off their neck.

In other words I'd get the government jack boot off their neck.
And then let them run wild and free? To what?

Hello Carol:

In a nutshell, the right wing doesn't believe being on welfare provides an incentive to go to work. They believe HUNGER will.

excon

Hello Carol:

In a nutshell, the right wing doesn't believe being on welfare provides an incentive to go to work. They believe HUNGER will.

excon
Beloved excon:

Where will they work?

Carol

You make my point as now you equate second class citizens to poor people. Its republicans trying to constrain people by eliminating the one way ALL people are equal, and that's the VOTE.

Its republicans who wasted no time re enacting laws that were found by the court to be unconstitutional, and discriminatory so back to court we go. Poor people and minorities don't raise prices don't destroy unions, and don't send middle class jobs to places with no regulations or labor laws, while republicans deny food stamps to WORKING poor people.

Republicans deny a living wage and don't even tax the minimum wage job creators. Republicans rant as you have here about FREE STUFF, shut down governments and rail on about parks being closed to the public.

You push everyone into stagnant wages higher costs, and holler free stuff is no good? Your FREE stuff is SURVIVAL in today's times, and you wonder why more and more people just ain't listening to your ideas. I mean look around you and see every group but yours joining forces to open up that spigot you have turned down to less than a trickle, in the biggest economic failure of our time.

Hell even republicans are tired of being afraid of your extremist reactionary's and loony nuts threatening everybody with their INSANITY, and insensitivity.

How dare you assume that you know what's best for the rest. And good luck telling black folk about all that FREE stuff you want 'em to NOT get. What part of rejected did you not get from the last election?

it's not just "black folk" .You want everyone in that 2nd class status and by God you are achieving it ! Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year round full time workers, according to the Census Bureau. In 35 states welfare pays more than a job . You incentivize people to NOT work . Disability claims are at record highs. Dependency is the new normal in this country . Even Clintoon recognized that was a prescription to disaster . But you embrace it .Then have the nerve to say that I'm the one who's keeping people down .

My dearest Carol:

Where will they work? Cutting right to the chase, huh? I dunno. Ask tom.

excon

And then let them run wild and free? To what?

Yeah free... like free enterprise zones where job creating companies can start up without the myriad of road blocks government puts up .

Yeah free... like free enterprise zones where job creating companies can start up without the myriad of road blocks government puts up .
In which country does this happen -- where the poor are hired by these companies?

it's not just "black folk" .You want everyone in that 2nd class status and by God you are achieving it ! Americans who were recipients of means-tested government benefits in 2011 outnumbered year round full time workers, according to the Census Bureau. In 35 states welfare pays more than a job . You incentivize people to NOT work . Disability claims are at record highs. Dependency is the new normal in this country . Even Clintoon recognized that was a prescription to disaster . But you embrace it .Then have the never to say that I'm the one who's keeping people down .

Whose fault is it that welfare pays more than work? Why do you ignore completely the situation that made everybody lose their jobs. The recession ain't over yet but you want to pretend it is.

And being poor citizen isn't a 2nd class, but guys like you say they are. And you try to treat them like they are.

Go ahead keep calling people lazy bums but ask yourself why the government has to subsidize people who work for the biggest companies in the world. What's wrong with that picture?

In which country does this happen -- where the poor are hired by these companies?

I'm talking about the poor being the start up . Like it used to be before government prevented all but the well off from opening their own business,

As to your question What company hires poor folks now ? Walmart hires them by the thousands . But liberal bastions like NYC won't let Walmart open there

Whose fault is it that welfare pays more than work? Why do you ignore completely the situation that made everybody lose their jobs. The recession ain't over yet but you want to pretend it is.
The question you should be asking is why isn't the recession over yet .


Go ahead keep calling people lazy bums I am not calling them out . I'm calling out the government that prefers them dependent to government largess and does everything possible to disincentive them to find work . You are full of it . Next week you will be telling me why we have to have illegal aliens ,so they can do the work Americans won't .

I'm talking about the poor being the start up . Like it used to be before government prevented all but the well off from opening their own business
Where do the poor get money for starting up?

As to your question What company hires poor folks now ? Walmart hires them by the thousands . But liberal bastions like NYC won't let Walmart open there
And the pay and benefits at Walmart are?

Where do the poor get money for starting up?

And the pay and benefits at Walmart are?

Yeah I know... there is no answer except keeping them perpetually in the dependency of the state . But I knew that was the Dems only answer. JFK once said 'a rising tide lifts all boats '. He would not recognize his party's zero sum game today .

Yeah I know... there is no answer except keeping them perpetually in the dependency of the state
So that's the best you can do?

Where do the poor get money for starting up?
Maybe you think it's a new idea or a poor person to go from nothing to prosperity . In fact millions of Americans have done it throughout our history .

So that's the best you can do?

That appears to be the best the left can do

Maybe you think it's a new idea or a poor person to go from nothing to prosperity . In fact millions of Americans have done it throughout our history .
And how many have tried and failed? Especially during the past ten years.

And have many millions succeeded during the past ten years?

Always shifting the goal posts . Without knowing the numbers I would guess no because liberal policies have been a disincentive for the poor to take the initiative . I'm willing to bet with the required research I could give you anecdotal evidence that yes ,even in this economy ,a person with the drive can over come all the obstacles the left throws in their way ,and succeed and prosper . No doubt you would call that the exception .

By the way .46.5 million people live in poverty in the US . But the total collecting 'welfare 'like benefits is 151 million Americans (MORE than half the population) . That's means that only 43% of all those on welfare are officially considered poor. Think about that.

By the way .46.5 million people live in poverty in the US
And 46.5 million people can come up with an idea for a start-up company and will make money?

During the early '90s, I had a terrific idea for a start-up company, gave it a jazzy name, am smart and cute, had a fantastic business plan and product, live in a high-density area with lots of potential customers, but couldn't get far with it. Marketing was the problem -- but I did try (and failed). So you're saying 46.5 million people will be able to outdo me in this economy?

I know Tom, a living wage for workers cuts to deep into profits so its better to close a factory and go to a country and pay low wages and have no labor laws or unions to stop the flow of money to corporate pockets. Then YOU guys complain about government largess in filling the gaps.

Then vote against a jobs bill because its either too expensive or its not the job of government to create jobs but the private sector makes trillions and hoards it. And you ask why the economy slogs along.

I haven't even mentioned how you guys hold the door open for 1%,and shut it for the rest. Even yourself.

A

By the way .46.5 million people live in poverty in the US . But the total collecting 'welfare 'like benefits is 151 million Americans (MORE than half the population) . That's means that only 43% of all those on welfare are officially considered poor. Think about that.

The issue isn't the number but the incentive, if the welfare is such that there is no need to try then it won't happen, but perhaps the definition of poverty needs revision. Here is a definition of poverty

Poverty is a state of privation, or a lack of the usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions
In the US this equates to an income if $23,000 a year, but such things are relative to where you live

By the way .46.5 million people live in poverty in the US . But the total collecting 'welfare 'like benefits is 151 million Americans (MORE than half the population) . That's means that only 43% of all those on welfare are officially considered poor. Think about that.

Probably says something about the cost of living and the amount people are being paid. Not everyone wants to live in the hope of securing a second or third job so one day they can become independently wealthy. And why should they?

Probably says something about the cost of living and the amount people are being paid. Not everyone wants to live in the hope of securing a second or third job so one day they can become independently wealthy. And why should they?

That would be in line with the personal choices we make. The left used to favor choice . They still do when it comes to the choice of wacking a baby... or what gender to "marry " . Beyond that ,choice is intolerable .

The issue isn't the number but the incentive, if the welfare is such that there is no need to try then it won't happen, but perhaps the definition of poverty needs revision. Here is a definition of poverty

Quote:
Poverty is a state of privation, or a lack of the usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

In the US this equates to an income if $23,000 a year, but such things are relative to where you live
Yup

Hello Carol:

In a nutshell, the right wing doesn't believe being on welfare provides an incentive to go to work. They believe HUNGER will.

excon

Its not what we believe... its they way it really is.

There is no timeline when Welfare ends, not months or years... not even after 4 or 5 generations..

When you can get a check without getting off the couch... why go out and work. Otherwise they would have... you could probably count the number of people that made the choice to get off welfare and go to work on their own initiative, since its inception on your fingers.

That would be in line with the personal choices we make. The left used to favor choice . They still do when it comes to the choice of wacking a baby... or what gender to "marry " . Beyond that ,choice is intolerable .

I wouldn't know much about that. As far as I know in my country there is no abortion on demand, except in Victoria and there is no gay marriage. Other than that our choices are pretty good.

I wouldn't know much about that. As far as I know in my country there is no abortion on demand, except in Victoria and there is no gay marriage. Other than that our choices are pretty good.

Other than the ACT which feels it must be in the forefront of everything. But I agree with you we are not oppressed in any sense, not by a phony war on drugs or a phony war on poverty. We have much less poverty, because we have health care available to all and I not speaking about emergency rooms although they are the care of choice for some. I don't know about abortion on demand though I observe that a young person in my family has been able to go down that road twice without any restrictions

Other than the ACT which feels it must be in the forefront of everything. But I agree with you we are not oppressed in any sense, not by a phony war on drugs or a phony war on poverty. We have much less poverty, because we have health care available to all and I not speaking about emergency rooms although they are the care of choice for some. I don't know about abortion on demand though I observe that a young person in my family has been able to go down that road twice without any restrictions

Yes, I am not exactly sure myself. One would have to do some research into how the abortion laws operate in various states.

Yes, I am not exactly sure myself. One would have to do some research into how the abortion laws operate in various states.

Imagine that... states have powers independent of the national government... what a concept ! So you haven't had an imperial court decide that wacking babies is a national natural right ?

Imagine that... states have powers independent of the national government... what a concept ! So you haven't had an imperial court decide that wacking babies is a national natural right ?

As far as my understanding goes this is correct. I find what you are saying very interesting. For some reason we don't have Federalists jumping up and down demanding national abortion laws.

I don't really know why. Perhaps it is just part of the Australian psyche. I guess we accept that the states do things and the Federal government does things. Federalism versus statism is a non-issue.

Maybe because our Constitution is based on brevity. We have no Bill of Rights. I think the our Constitution does say that state laws must not be in conflict with Federal laws, but I can't really remember when this was ever an issue. Our Supreme Court has little work to do compared to yours.

I think we are actually a rather conservative lot when it comes to some issues. This is why I think it is rather amusing when you want to say Clete, and perhaps myself are left wing.

Abortion in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia)

Yes, I am not exactly sure myself. One would have to do some research into how the abortion laws operate in various states.

I think it is a case of don't get caught

I think we are actually a rather conservative lot when it comes to some issues. This is why I think it is rather amusing when you want to say Clete, and perhaps myself are left wing.

When did they get the impression I am left wing? By Australian political standards I am centre right, but that is a long way left of right of our US cousins.

The reality is you and I have lived with subsidised health care for a long time, It hasn't killed us yet despite the horror stories. We have lived with social restructuring, the government fiddling with everything from transport to taxation. We have lived with gun control. I can't really say I am worse off but I might be the exception. The only thing that has cost me any money is the crisis that arises in the US with monotonous regularity

The is a polarised electorate in the US and I don't think they know how to deal with this. They don't seem to understand you can't have your way all the time

Abortion in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia)

Secondary link:

Abortion Law in Australia – Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp9899/99rp01)

The is a polarised electorate in the US and I don't think they know how to deal with this. They don't seem to understand you can't have your way all the time

So we should roll over and accept what we don't want?

So we should roll over and accept what we don't want?
Much of the U.S. had to when Bush decided to invade Iraq.

When did they get the impression I am left wing? By Australian political standards I am centre right, but that is a long way left of right of our US cousins.

The reality is you and I have lived with subsidised health care for a long time, It hasn't killed us yet despite the horror stories. We have lived with social restructuring, the government fiddling with everything from transport to taxation. We have lived with gun control. I can't really say I am worse off but I might be the exception. The only thing that has cost me any money is the crisis that arises in the US with monotonous regularity

The is a polarised electorate in the US and I don't think they know how to deal with this. They don't seem to understand you can't have your way all the time

Yeah we are always told to go along to get along. Funny how in contrast ,the Dems play for keeps .

America is bigger than just the TParty, so qualify your "we" with being part of a whole, but certainly NOT the whole.

It's the assumption your principles are shared by everybody that's the conflict, for which there is no compromise by you guys.

Yeah we are always told to go along to get along. Funny how in contrast ,the Dems play for keeps .

Are you trying to say the right doesn't play for keeps, that they didn't try to take their bat and ball and go home? Both sides want to keep their victories, however conservatives don't want change, and change is inevietable

that they didn't try to take their bat and ball and go home?
Except that isn't what happened .To refresh your memory ,it was the emperor who said he would not negotiate . It was the emperor and his flunkies in the Senate who hurled insults ;calling the Repubics terrorist holding the country hostage . Note that now the Dems get it and it's the Dems who are pressuring the emperor /and crafting legislation to delay Obamacare .

Except that isn't what happened .To refresh your memory ,it was the emperor who said he would not negotiate . It was the emperor and his flunkies in the Senate who hurled insults ;calling the Repubics terrorist holding the country hostage . Note that now the Dems get it and it's the Dems who are pressuring the emperor /and crafting legislation to delay Obamacare .

Well if they have found some flaws that is as it should be, demonstrates a willingness to be flexible. I recall it was Bonehead, as you call him, who wouldn't let a vote be taken, so yes the analogy fits.

Tom, I recognise you are up the creek without a paddle over there, the legislation is a camel and you wanted a race horse, the software is a bad implementation with a tainted history. This is what you get when corruption and cronieism are permitted to get the upper hand. The system is a bad system and it stems from its original implementation, those founders of yours just didn't have enough foresight.

I recall it was Bonehead, as you call him, who wouldn't let a vote be taken, so yes the analogy fits.
Again you got it wrong. There were many votes from the House .

Actually Clete the problems are compounded by states that decided to fight and resist doing their own websites, and plans. The states that didn't and worked on their own plans are working great. Some republican governors still haven't come on board so how do you intergrate with a state that has no plan? Where do insurance companies register their prices/coverages in those states with NO plans and NO technical infrastructure?

No cooperation leads to many glitches and delays, as much as anything. No we can't blame the founders on this but clearly the flounders are at fault, despite the slow roll out by the government.

Again you got it wrong. There were many votes from the House .

You know very well I was speaking of a particular recent conflict

Again you got it wrong. There were many votes from the House .

Piece meal fixes to match the headlines? That's governing by crisis that republicans caused to happen. The question is did you learn from this or will you listen to Ted again and crash the economy... it only cost us 24 billion for 16 days last time.

No cooperation leads to many glitches and delays, as much as anything. No we can't blame the founders on this but clearly the flounders are at fault, despite the slow roll out by the government.

Hi Tal, my reference to founders in is respect of the system of "governance" and Tom's continued assertion of the perfection of its conception, but yes, floundering would seem to be the current turn of events.

What you have is too many political leaders and too many opportunities for local stuffing about and obstructionism. Where I come from we have resolved this in health care; federal funding and state implementation with the provision that there is a common set of procedures and policies, so states don't go it alone without it costing them big time. No petty potentuates allowed

You know very well I was speaking of a particular recent conflict

Very aware . The Repubics made many proposals to end the impass before the shutdown and after .It was the emperor who (in his own words ) would not negotiate .

Very aware . The Repubics made many proposals to end the impass before the shutdown and after .It was the emperor who (in his own words ) would not negotiate .
And who refused to negotiate in the years before that?

And who refused to negotiate in the years before that?
Ummm that would be the Senate Dems that didn't pass a budget for 3 years .

ummm that would be the senate dems that didn't pass a budget for 3 years .
and????????

Hello again, tom:

The Repubics made many proposals to end the impass before the shutdown and after .Here's the truth..

Each and every one of those proposals included a defund or a delay of Obama's signature achievement.. That was NEVER EVER gonna happen, and your side KNEW it. Oh, you HOPED he'd cave like he did before. But, this time he didn't. Bummer for you. You LOST and you LOST bigtime.

Now, YOU may not believe your side shut down the government, but everybody who's NOT a Tea Partier knows you did.

excon

The disconnect is in place, either you believe your actions had impact or they did not. Fact is only those in the house can vote on a bill

Hello again,

I'm concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That if you're poor, somehow you're shiftless and lazy.Wow! Didja hear this commie? He's making up another mythical right wing WAR - this time on the poor. Come on. Everybody KNOWS right wingers love the poor ALONG with women. Libs. Duh!

But, hold on there, podner. It's NOT a lib. In fact, he's the rather conservative Governor of Ohio, Republican John Kasich (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-gov-kasich-says-there-seems-to-be-a-war-on-the-poor). He must be a RINO, then huh?

excon

Hello again,
Wow! Didja hear this commie? He's making up another mythical right wing WAR - this time on the poor. Come on. Everybody KNOWS right wingers love the poor ALONG with women. Libs. Duh!

But, hold on there, podner. It's NOT a lib. In fact, he's the rather conservative Governor of Ohio, Republican John Kasich (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-gov-kasich-says-there-seems-to-be-a-war-on-the-poor). He must be a RINO, then huh?

excon

You hear some strange things lately, yes there is a war on the poor, an attempt to restrict help to them, and yes, it seems your republicans are at the forefront of this reverse largesse. Just maybe there are a few who see the sense of making availability of health care easier. If the insurers are gouging the market they should be dealt with, but the Republicans need to stop bellyaching and start taking action

Kasich is a populist more than a conservative. He's a Guv of a big swing state who wants to run for the Republican party nomination for President.He shifts with the tides. When he needs conservative support he claims he's proudly conservative (or as Mittens called it "severely conservative ) .Now he's pivoting, positioning himself as a so called centrist . He and Christie will be making the case that they are successfully governing in northern more liberal states. But Christie has a built in advantage for that support since he can make the claim that he successfully governs with a Democrat legislature in Trenton. All Kaisich is doing is splitting the GOP in Ohio .

I can tell him that being seduced by that temporary influx of Federal money to expand Medicaid is in the long run a terrible mistake ,despite the short term advantage it give the state in Federal transfers. The truth is that Medicaid is a money draining failed Federal program. Over half of the doctors no longer accept Medicaid patients because they get screwed with the reimbursement payments and are burdened with the bureaucratic regulations.What the Medicaid expansion does is trap ever more patients into a program that is seriously in need of reform itself . That's poor friendly ? Well maybe it can be spun that way... but we know better .

Tom you have to do something until the job creators get off their arses and live up to their own name.

States wouldn't even need "temporary" help if a few jobs were created. Everything should be shut down until you guys get your way or what?

Tom you have to do something until the job creators get off their arses and live up to their own name.

States wouldn't even need "temporary" help if a few jobs were created. Everything should be shut down until you guys get your way or what?

States have it within their means to get jobs. Texas is getting them . The difference is that Texas welcomes business.Kasich proposed a “frack tax” on oil and gas production and an extension of the sales tax to many services . So who is more business friendly ?


States wouldn't even need "temporary" help if a few jobs were created.
Medicaid is bankrupting states across the union. A couple years of Federal transfers won't change that . Medicaid is in need of serious reform..... not expansion.

You hear some strange things lately, yes there is a war on the poor, an attempt to restrict help to them, and yes, it seems your republicans are at the forefront of this reverse largesse. Just maybe there are a few who see the sense of making availability of health care easier. If the insurers are gouging the market they should be dealt with, but the Republicans need to stop bellyaching and start taking action

As opposed to the Democrats who's entitlement programs are designed to kepp the poor, poor for life, provide zero incentive to ever get off the gravy train... and continue to be leaches for life?

And some states like Nevada are sitting on huge oil and gas reserves but most of the land is owned by the feds so it will go untapped instead of giving them a huge economic boost.

As opposed to the Democrats who's entitlement programs are designed to kepp the poor, poor for life, provide zero incentive to ever get off the gravy train... and continue to be leaches for life?

I suspect there is a difference between keeping them fed and keeping them poor, the ones who keep them poor are the ones who ship the jobs offshore and then exploit those who are poor with low wages. In order for these people to get off welfare they have to have an alternative, it is no good saying get a job if there are no jobs. It is hard to live in a bankrupt country, even harder when the country doesn't realise it is bankrupt. You once had a lot of pull factors now you need some push factors

States have it within their means to get jobs. Texas is getting them . The difference is that Texas welcomes business.Kasich proposed a “frack tax” on oil and gas production and an extension of the sales tax to many services . So who is more business friendly ?


Medicaid is bankrupting states across the union. A couple years of Federal transfers won't change that . Medicaid is in need of serious reform..... not expansion.

Page 2: Texas Job Creation Prospers, But at What Cost? - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/texas-job-creation-prospers-cost/story?id=14161124&page=2)

Income & Poverty In Texas Still Not Recovered « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth (http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/09/19/income-poverty-in-texas-still-not-recovered/)


A thriving oil and gas industry has kept unemployment below the national average since 2007, the last year before the Great Recession. Since 2008, Texas has been a national leader in adding jobs, but between 2008 and 2012, the percentage of people under 65 years old with private health insurance dropped from 57.6 percent to 54.7 percent.


That means the majority of 2.4 million currently uninsured Texans who earn under that threshold will not be eligible for Medicaid or subsidized health insurance, according to the data. They will continue to rely on charity care provided at public hospitals, which is funded through local taxes and higher private insurance rates.

We all know what low regulations get us, and stuff blows up here all the time.

Texas Lawmakers Too Busy Targeting Abortion Providers to Deal With Exploding Fertilizer Plants | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/west-texas-aftermath-regulation-laws)

Its telling what Texas spends its money on, and what it doesn't, but those jobs keeps rolling in right?

IN other words Texas should be more like Kalifornia, it's much safer and cheaper to live there. And soon, they'll be able to ride a high speed rail no one wants.

I live in Texas, and don't worry about California so much. Cuts in education bother me. Taking land from citizens for the use by a rich energy company to sell oil overseas, bothers me. It's a great state don't get me wrong, but we can do better and will.

I live in Texas, and don't worry about California so much. Cuts in education bother me. Taking land from citizens for the use by a rich energy company to sell oil overseas, bothers me. It’s a great state don't get me wrong, but we can do better and will.

Yeah ,I'm sure the libs there strive to make it more like New York .

Yeah ,I'm sure the libs there strive to make it more like New York .

Oh Hell no. We love open space, fresh air, and sunshine.

Yeah ,I'm sure the libs there strive to make it more like New York .

It's their own brand of liberalism, they're just weird.

Got plenty of that here .

In spite of the fact that everyone knows the "if you like it you can keep it" promise was a big, fat a lie, Sebelius repeated it today.

Yeah I've head her spin for 2 hrs now . She is blaming the insurance companies.

Yeah I've head her spin for 2 hrs now . She is blaming the insurance companies.

That's how the regime admits to accountability, by blaming everyone else.

They are responsible for the grandfathered insurance policies they have issued since2010. They have great pricing latitude to administered those policies. Thought you knew.

Hello again, tom:

Yeah I've head her spin for 2 hrs now . She is blaming the insurance companies.I'm watching too. I thought this was when you guys were gonna get a piece of her. Ain't happening, is it?? Looks like she's holding her own pretty well. In fact, it looks like the wingers are badgering her.

excon

They are responsible for the grandfathered insurance policies they have issued since2010. They have great pricing latitude to administered those policies. Thought you knew.

There you go again, treating us like we're stupid. Enough if this "the buck stops there" nonsense," that grandfathering BS was another ruse (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite) from the beginning. I'd say it sucks for you that the media is finally exposing the lies but the regime is actively still lying about it today.

You wingers just can't accept the insurance companies are lying to you about who to blame for those letters kicking you off those cheap policies you love can you?


If you are covered by a plan that existed March 23, 2010, your plan may be "grandfathered." You may not get some rights and protections that other plans offer.

Grandfathered plans

Grandfathered plans are those that were in existence on March 23, 2010 and have stayed basically the same. But they can enroll people after that date and still maintain their grandfathered status. In other words, even if you joined a grandfathered plan after March 23, 2010, the plan may still be grandfathered. The status depends on when the plan was created, not when you joined it.

How to find out if your plan is grandfathered
•
Check your plan's materials: Health plans must disclose if they are grandfathered in all materials describing plan benefits. They must offer contact information.

•
Check with your employer or your health plan's benefits administrator.


What grandfathered plans do and don't have to cover

Here's a quick look at the consumer protections that do and don't apply to grandfathered plans:

All health plans must:
•End lifetime limits on coverage
•End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage
•Cover adult children up to age 26
•Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs
•Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses

Grandfathered plans DON'T have to:
•Cover preventive care for free
•Guarantee your right to appeal
•Protect your choice of doctors and access to emergency care
•Be held accountable through Rate Review for excessive premium increases

In addition to the above, grandfathered individual health insurance plans (the kind you buy yourself, not the kind you get from an employer) don't have to:
•End yearly limits on coverage
•Cover you if you have a pre-existing health condition

Note: Some grandfathered plans offer protections they're not required to. Check with your insurance company or benefits administrator to learn if your grandfathered plan offers the rights and protections listed above.

I posted this on another thread but its obvious it bears repeating,

You wingers just can't accept the insurance companies are lying to you about who to blame for those letters kicking you off those cheap policies you love can you?



I posted this on another thread but its obvious it bears repeating,


And this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3577974-post360.html) bears repeating, stop shifting the blame and treating us like fools. They knew most plans would not be grandfathered.

Show me the ones losing their insurance won't get a better deal. Initial emotional reactions will give way to facts in time. Then you will be hollering for nothing as usual. Your so called lies are from your own misinformation.

Hello again, Steve:

And this bears repeating, stop shifting the blame and treating us like fools. They knew most plans would not be grandfathered.
Ok, this is growing to a close. The law IS the law, and it ain't NEVER gonna be repealed. After these many years, I'm growing tired of discussing it, too.

What I have to say in closing is this: like Medicare and Social Security, that you once HATED but NOW embrace, you'll grow to LOVE Obamacare too.

Next.

excon

And this (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3577974-post360.html) bears repeating, stop shifting the blame and treating us like fools. They knew most plans would not be grandfathered.

We all knew the government was shutting down companies with cheap plans.Most of us knew the insurance companies would dump the cheap plans because its more profitable to do so.

Guess who ends up with all those subsidies the government gives consumers?

Quit being so stubborn and get your head out of the insurance companies a$$. They are it for the money, not your convenience. You have stated that was a good thing and why they were in business.

We all knew the government was shutting down companies with cheap plans.Most of us knew the insurance companies would dump the cheap plans because its more profitable to do so.

Guess who ends up with all those subsidies the government gives consumers?

Again, do you even read what you write?

You still expect us to believe that the new premium plans cost half of what the "junk" "bare bones" plans people want to keep cost. Get your head out of your arse, Tal, we are not that gullible.


Quit being so stubborn and get your head out of the insurance companies a$$. They are it for the money, not your convenience. You have stated that was a good thing and why they were in business.


Not exactly, I said businesses have to SERVE to make a profit to SURVIVE while government TAKES what it wants without regard to your best interest.

Crony capitalism Democrat style...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-hits-the-lucrative-speechmaking-trail.html?hp&_r=2&

Evita spoke at Goldman Sachs events twice in the last week . She netted $400,000 in speaking fees . She also collected fees from speaking engagements at KKR's annual investor meeting in California, and at Carlyle Group. These are not campaign events (I'm sure she'll get her share from these companies also ) . No these are personal appearances to line her pockets.
I have no problem with this arrangement . Just don't pretend that it is the evil Republicans alone engaging in so called cronyism.
For GS ,this is just insurance. As Jamie Dimon can testify... it doesn't pay to get on the bad side of the Democrat syndicate .

Dimon's real sin, as I've pointed out on these pages before, was his withering critique of the Obama economic agenda, which he said was holding back the US economy.

For a while, Dimon (a longtime Democrat) was a rarity in Corporate America in that he refused to be cowed by the Washington political class and keep his mouth shut in the face of the absurdity this administration was administering to businesses in the form of taxes, regulation and now a new health-care system where even something as vital as designing a workable Web site to sign up new recruits doesn't work.

By speaking out, Dimon became de facto public enemy No. 1.Jamie Dimon's $13B sin: Bashing Obamanomics | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2013/10/20/jamie-dimons-real-sin/)

Crony capitalism Democrat style...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-hits-the-lucrative-speechmaking-trail.html?hp&_r=2&

Evita spoke at Goldman Sachs events twice in the last week . She netted $400,000 in speaking fees . She also collected fees from speaking engagements at KKR’s annual investor meeting in California, and at Carlyle Group. These are not campaign events (I'm sure she'll get her share from these companies also ) . No these are personal appearances to line her pockets.
I have no problem with this arrangement . Just don't pretend that it is the evil Republicans alone engaging in so called cronyism.
For GS ,this is just insurance. As Jamie Dimon can testify... it doesn't pay to get on the bad side of the Democrat syndicate .
Jamie Dimon’s $13B sin: Bashing Obamanomics | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2013/10/20/jamie-dimons-real-sin/)

I am shocked, shocked I tell you that a Democrat would be involved in sort of crony capitalism or use such tactics (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/unaffordable-health-care-act-769112-86.html#post3577985).

Crony capitalism Democrat style...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-hits-the-lucrative-speechmaking-trail.html?hp&_r=2&

Evita spoke at Goldman Sachs events twice in the last week . She netted $400,000 in speaking fees . She also collected fees from speaking engagements at KKR’s annual investor meeting in California, and at Carlyle Group. These are not campaign events (I'm sure she'll get her share from these companies also ) . No these are personal appearances to line her pockets.
I have no problem with this arrangement . Just don't pretend that it is the evil Republicans alone engaging in so called cronyism.
For GS ,this is just insurance. As Jamie Dimon can testify... it doesn't pay to get on the bad side of the Democrat syndicate .
Jamie Dimon’s $13B sin: Bashing Obamanomics | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2013/10/20/jamie-dimons-real-sin/)

Are you defending a wrong doer who may yet face criminal charges? I would think going after friend or foe would be a mark of good leaders. I guess you don't think so, as you mock "Evita" for doing the same thing Sarah is doing. And she has a superpac too! Evita doesn't quit when the going gets tough like right wing losers do!

Are you defending a wrong doer who may yet face criminal charges? I would think going after friend or foe would be a mark of good leaders. I guess you don't think so, as you mock "Evita" for doing the same thing Sarah is doing. And she has a superpac too! Evita doesn't quit when the going gets tough like right wing losers do!

You guys defend wrong doers here regularly, see IRS, Benghazi, Fast & Furious and every Obamacare liar.

Hello again, Steve:

You guys defend wrong doers here regularly, see IRS, Benghazi, Fast & Furious and every Obamacare liar.Nahhh.. I hated those things.. I was just waiting for PROOF before I denounced the pres and AG.

Still WAITING...

excon

You guys defend wrong doers here regularly, see IRS, Benghazi, Fast & Furious and every Obamacare liar.

You spent all night gathering rocks didn't you?

Are you defending a wrong doer who may yet face criminal charges?!

Nope... not defending Evita at all.

I guess you don't think so, as you mock "Evita" for doing the same thing Sarah is doing.
The question is why do you criticize Sarah and give Evita a pass ? Trust me... Sarah is a piker compared to the Clintoons.

And she has a superpac too! Evita doesn't quit when the going gets tough like right wing losers do!
Ummmm what do you call the Clinton foundation ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/politics/w19clinton.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2&hp&
It's even worse because she uses it to filter political activities... very questionable ! Any yes ,Evita quit the Senate to become Sec State and then quit the State dept... bugged out in fact... right after the Benghazi scandal started getting hot.

You see ,I got to see her in act up close and personal in the county I reside in .
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/03/06/470866/-Bill-Clinton-s-Curious-New-Square-Four-Pardon#
She bought the vote of a whole community with 4 very questionable Presidential pardons.

criticize SarahPalin was criticized for her stupidity, not for her money-making abilities; of that she knows what she's doing since it's her driving motivator.

Evita is just very incompetent and corrupt . The history of her corruption is more than 2 decades long.

Hello again, Steve:
Nahhh.. I hated those things.. I was just waiting for PROOF before I denounced the pres and AG.

Still WAITING...

excon

Since when did the evidence ever persuade you?

You spent all night gathering rocks didn't you?

No, I live in a rock house, I have plenty.

Speaking of houses, the leaves are falling, and its time to clean the gutters again, and bring the water hoses to the garage, check the attic for critter holes and nests and see how many kids ring the bell tonight. Only a handful last year, but the candy wasn't wasted. :D

Big game for me tonight, need popcorn?

Speaking of Halloween...

TaC1lk7KVzI

And today's hash tag, #CandyCare (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Candycare&src=hash)

Ah halloween, a hallowed tradition in far away places, my daughter is going for tricks this year when the kids turn up she is going to turn the hose on them, that should persuade the little buggers to go away

The reality is the administration never performed final testing on the exchange site's security measures (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57610797/healthcare.gov-ducked-final-security-requirements-before-launch/).


(CBS News) WASHINGTON -- The health care website went down again Monday for an hour and a half, and no one is sure why. It's being taken offline on purpose every night from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. for repairs. Millions are still having trouble buying insurance on it, and it turns out that even when the website works, it may not be secure enough to protect privacy.

As HealthCare.gov was being developed, crucial tests to ensure the security and privacy of customer information fell behind schedule.

CBS News analysis found that the deadline for final security plans slipped three times from May 6 to July 16. Security assessments to be finished June 7 slid to August 16 and then August 23. The final, required top-to-bottom security tests never got done.

The House Oversight Committee released an Obama administration memo that shows four days before the launch, the government took an unusual step. It granted itself a waiver to launch the website with "a level of uncertainty ... deemed as a high (security) risk."

Agency head Marilyn Tavenner accepted the risk and "mitigation" measures like frequent testing and a dedicated security team. But three other officials signed a statement saying that "does not reduce the risk" of launching October 1.

That is simply inexcusable, but I'm sure some of you will try.

There is septic code in the basic programing of the web site . They will never find it unless they completely scrap it and start over .

There is septic code in the basic programing of the web site . How do you know? Are you a web developer? Can you give us some clues as how you discovered this?

No... but I've listened to enough programmers over the last month to determine that there is a high degree of probability that there is no quick fix . I obviously did not invent the term . I knew nothing about it in fact until I began looking a little deeper into the challenges faced with fixing it .
Here is one of the sights that speculates about it ,and there are others ;and also IT people who have been on television and radio .
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/10/24/this-is-gonna-hurt-obamacare-site-code-needs-major-overhaul/

That article is a good read, thanks, it's written in a different style that most most tech articles.

Budget request denied, Sebelius turns to health executives to finance Obamacare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/budget-request-denied-sebelius-turns-to-health-executives-to-finance-obamacare/)


The Affordable Care Act included $1 billion to be used in overall implementation of the law. Congressional Budget Office projections, however, estimated that federal agencies will need between $5 billion and $10 billion to get the law up and running over the next decade. And because many states have refused to partner with the federal government in setting up the law, the burden on HHS has grown.

HHS has repeatedly requested additional funds from Congress to assist in the implementing but has been turned down.

After Congress rejected a request in March for nearly $1 billion in additional spending for fiscal 2013, the White House asked for $1.5 billion for fiscal 2015 to set up and run dozens of exchanges that will provide Americans options for health insurance. The new marketplaces will launch in October for open enrollment.

"We requested additional money . . . but we didn't receive any additional funding for the exchanges," Ellen Murray, HHS's assistant secretary for financial resources, said last month at a budget briefing. "So we've had to come up with a Plan B. We've been working very hard to develop that."

You wingers promised to defund, repeal, delay, obstruct. You kept your word didn't you? Now you blame... well you did that before too.

The root of the problem can be traced to crony capitalism employed by the regime. The article I referenced noted the poor history of the main contractor CGI .

What it doesn't speak of is the crony relationship that Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett have with top execs at CGI .

George Schindler, CGI Group president for U.S. and Canada, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company won the ObamaCare contract, a pattern we've seen in green-energy stimulus money going to companies like Solyndra.

As it happens, the Daily Caller reports that Michelle Obama's college roomie Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of '85, is a senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million ObamaCare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov.

There may be another Canadian connection as well.

Valerie Jarrett's daughter, Laura, is married to Tony Balkissoon. He is the son of Bas Balkissoon, a member of the Ontario legislature whose jobs have included, among other things, a stint as parliamentary assistant to the minister of Health and Long-Term Care from 2007-10. It's all in the family.
Did Valerie Jarrett And Michelle Obama Pick ObamaCare Website Developer? - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/102813-676947-jarrett-balkissoon-wedding-influenced-cgi-selection.htm#ixzz2jnsi9gfI)

I believe tom touched on this earlier. I'll be waiting on Tal to offer us his greedy profits before people crony capitalism speech after reading this...

Does Hillary Clinton’s Enthusiasm for Profit Extend Beyond Her Own Earnings? (http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/04/hillarys-speaking-fee-reminds-us-of-clin)

Do you guys ever quit?

CMS taps IT firm CGI for Sunshine Act Data Dump (http://blog.pharmexec.com/2013/08/21/cms-taps-it-firm-cgi-for-sunshine-act-data-dump/)


The CMS/CGI contract is the most recent addition to what appears to be a strong record of organic growth for CGI Federal, the federal government division of CGI located in Fairfax, Virginia. CGI has been supporting CMS websites like Medicare.gov since 1999, according to CGI's website. In 2004, CGI announced the signing of several CMS contracts totaling over $100 million, and including technical solutions and support for CMS's Health Plan Management System, Fraud Investigation Database, and physician enrollment and identification systems, in addition to maintaining Medicare.gov.

But don't let a few facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. OR a good LIE, whichever.

Fact is they have lots of close connection with the Obamas...

I seem to remember you among others whining about Cheney having once had anything to do with Haliburton... you should all be having strokes over CGI's insider connections with the White house... if not the fact it was a no-bid deal on its own for that much money.

They also have a subsidiary (Silver Oak Solutions )that operates PRISM for the NSA... How's that for a coincidence ?

The government contracts everything out. Cheney and Halliburton was no coincidence either.

The government contracts everything out. Cheney and Halliburton was no coincidence either.

Connecting those two is nothing like Michelle's connections and this no-bid contract, and the same no-bid fix the first screw-up contract. All the same connections.

Why didn't something that expensive go up for bid... there are thousands of companies in the USA who could have done it... and all of them would have done a better job, for a fraction of the cost.

The difference is the Obama's wouldn't have gotten millions in kickbacks.

Who got the kick backs in 1999-2004?

Who got the kick backs in 1999-2004?

Wasn't Cheney or Bush...

And incidentally there were only a couple companies big enough or skilled enough to handle projects the size of that... Halliburton was one, if it was power or construction related there is Bechtel... and only a couple others... some of those were not American Companies.

And it wasn't a buddy buddy, disaster like the website... there have been IT professionals who have said for all that the Obamacare website was supposed to do... it could have all been done for less than a Million and they would have felt like they were robbing the government at that price.

I bet Obama owns a lot of stock in CGI... all acquired before they awarded the contract to them without any bids or oversight.

Has the drive by media even investigated that yet? I know the answer...they didn't. Obama gets a free ride on everything . He could be pulling the legs off kittens every day.....in public at press conferences and they would still cover for him.

Who got the kick backs in 1999-2004?

Thanks for validating my point.

Your welcome.

Let's see... during a two year period Halliburton's revenue from Defense Department contracts doubled. That would be 1998 -2000 . And why did the Clintonoids prefer Halliburton ? The Goracle's ' National Performance Review 'mentioned Halliburton's performance in its Report on 'Reinventing the Department of Defense,'. In a section titled “Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics,” His group favorably mentioned Halliburton for providing “basic life support services — food, water, sanitation, shelter, and laundry; and the full realm of logistics services — transportation, electrical, hazardous materials collection and disposal, fuel delivery, airfield and seaport operations, and road maintenance.”

I believe tom touched on this earlier. I'll be waiting on Tal to offer us his greedy profits before people crony capitalism speech after reading this...

Does Hillary Clinton's Enthusiasm for Profit Extend Beyond Her Own Earnings? (http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/04/hillarys-speaking-fee-reminds-us-of-clin)

I don't think this needs much explanation. Politics is also about governments picking winners and losers in the market place. Most smart corporations are careful to make sure both bases are covered. It is the type of cronyism both sides practise.

You don't have to tell me, I know. No one is interested in any arguments dealing with ruling elites.

Tut, some of us acknowledge it is practiced in both sides. Some just rant about the other side doing it.

Tut, some of us acknowledge it is practiced in both sides. Some just rant about the other side doing it.


Yes, but it still adds up to complicity.

Yes, but it still adds up to complicity.

I'm not the one in denial.

I'm not the one in denial.


Yes, I know. Other conservatives here avoid the topic like the plague, except to point to the Dems. when they do it. I think that can be classed as an aversion to reality.

Not sure who the other conservatives are . I repeatedly point out that the beltway Repubics are no different than the Dems regarding cronyism.

Not sure who the other conservatives are . I repeatedly point out that the beltway Repubics are no different than the Dems regarding cronyism.


Just like to bring this topic up now and again just in case someone comes up with a constructive idea.

Just like to bring this topic up now and again just in case someone comes up with a constructive idea.

Term limits across the board . Although I don't favor campaign donation restrictions ,I am in favor of complete transparency . We should not have learned on the day before the vote that a bundler for the emperor had financed the race of the pseudo- libertarian trojan horse candidate in the VA Guv race .

It's come to this... the media, pro-abortion hero starting her campaign for governor of Texas has declared she's really pro-life.

Abortion Activist Wendy Davis Tells Texas Voters, “I Am Pro-Life” (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/06/abortion-activist-wendy-davis-tells-texas-voters-i-am-pro-life/)

Good luck with that in Texas Wendy, we aren't that stupid.

You make my point as now you equate second class citizens to poor people. Its republicans trying to constrain people by eliminating the one way ALL people are equal, and that's the VOTE.

Its republicans who wasted no time re enacting laws that were found by the court to be unconstitutional, and discriminatory so back to court we go. Poor people and minorities don't raise prices don't destroy unions, and don't send middle class jobs to places with no regulations or labor laws, while republicans deny food stamps to WORKING poor people.

Oh yeah?


Obama using food-stamp cash to fund Michelle’s ‘Let’s Move’ (http://nypost.com/2013/11/11/obama-takes-from-kids-dinners-to-fund-michelles-project/)

As you dig into your Butterball with all the trimmings this Thanksgiving, remember that millions of famished schoolkids around America may be forced to forgo classic turkey — and chow down instead on vegan black-bean patties and organic locavore quinoa salad.

On Nov. 1, sizable cuts were gouged into the federal food-stamp program (or, as it’s now called, SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), which feeds 47.6 million people, or nearly one in six Americans. In the city, 1.9 million folks get the bulk of their Jell-O and Campbell’s Soup from stamps.

But news has spread among the poor, like leafy green vegetables, that it wasn’t heartless Republicans who triggered the cuts.

Rather, some of the food-stamp cash was snatched to pay for Michelle Obama’s pet project, Let’s Move. What?
It’s come to this. Some 76 million meals a year will vanish from this city — poof! — partly because the president diverted money from SNAP to the first lady’s signature program, part of her Let’s Move anti-obesity initiative — the bean-sprout-heavy, $4.5 billion Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.

The rest of the $5 billion annual food-stamp cuts was taken when 2009 stimulus funds dried up. But with ObamaCare woes stealing the oxygen in Washington, there’s little urgency to replace dandelion greens served on recyclable trays with family-friendly buttered mashed potatoes.

Right now, the country’s poorest families of four are seeing food-stamp allotments cut from $668 a month to $632. It may not sound like much, but understand that $36 is enough to buy a truckload of Kool-Aid and ramen noodles. (Lose the noodles if the Food and Drug Administration succeeds in banning trans fats.)

How did this happen?

Hunger activists are livid. In fact, the cuts will bring on no less than civil unrest, according to the head of the Food Bank for New York City.

“If you look across the world, riots always begin typically the same way: when people can’t afford to eat food,” Margarette Purvis, Food Bank president and CEO, told Salon.com.

“We were told, you know, by the president . . . these cuts will not happen,” she said.

Oh SNAP, you thought it was just mean old Republicans taking food from hungry children.

More inaccurate winger stuff. And you mean nasty wingers ARE taking food out of kids mouths and giving the money to rich fat farmers in the house, like Bachmann, and Fincher.

The school nutrition program is on line and a part of SNAP, and REPUBLICAN are defunding Meals On Wheels too.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/meals-on-wheels-feeling-the-pinch-from-sequestration-cuts_2013-03-31.html

So taking lunch from kids to fund Michelle's pet project is OK, got it. How the hell they going to move if they have nothing to eat?

So taking lunch from kids to fund Michelle's pet project is OK, got it. How the hell they gonna move if they have nothing to eat?


So when you eleceted BO you bought the package or is that the baggage, anyway you get it all

So when you eleceted BO you bought the package or is that the baggage, anyway you get it all

Oh, we got it all right, but the point is if a Republican cuts food stamps he's a mean old b@stard for taking food from children. When a Democrat does it Republicans are still mean old b@stards for taking food from children.

Democrats take food from all of us, they think we're selfish for not wanting to be forced to fork over an extra couple hundred bucks a month on insurance instead of buying groceries or paying the heating bill.

Hello again, Steve:

for not wanting to be forced to fork over an extra couple hundred bucks a month on insurance instead of buying groceries or paying the heating bill.Lemme see..

Right now you ARE paying for the health care of the uninsured. You KNOW that, right? It's the MOST expensive form of health care too. It's costing you MORE than a couple hundred bucks a month.

Surly, you see the benefit to your very OWN wallet by insuring those people.. Can't you? Ok, maybe you can't see that.. Oh, well.

excon

Healthy Schools Campaign: Child Nutrition Act (http://healthyschoolscampaign.typepad.com/healthy_schools_campaign/child_nutrition_act/)

The original program started in 1966 by LBJ.

Child Nutrition Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Nutrition_Act)

Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/legislation/CNR_2010.htm)


Improving child nutrition is the focal point of the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010. The legislation authorizes funding and sets policy for
USDA's core child nutrition programs: the National School Lunch Program,
the School Breakfast Program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the Summer Food
Service Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program. The
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act allows USDA, for the first time in over
30 years, opportunity to make real reforms to the school lunch and
breakfast programs by improving the critical nutrition and hunger safety
net for millions of children.

Surly, you see the benefit to your very OWN wallet by insuring those people.. Can't you? Ok, maybe you can't see that.. Oh, well.

excon

Surely you can see I'm not stupid, you can't take several hundred bucks PER MONTH from people's wallets and seriously tell us it's saving us money.

Healthy Schools Campaign: Child Nutrition Act (http://healthyschoolscampaign.typepad.com/healthy_schools_campaign/child_nutrition_act/)

The original program started in 1966 by LBJ.

Child Nutrition Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Nutrition_Act)

Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/legislation/CNR_2010.htm)

First off, kids aren't eating Michelle's wonderful healthy meals and secondly, unlike you hunger activists are pi$$ed about the emperor using these funds for Michelle's project. We all want people to eat, but my private dollars go a whole lot farther in feeding the hungry than your bloated, wasteful bureaucracies will ever accomplish.

Hello again, Steve:

you can't take several hundred bucks PER MONTH from people's wallets and seriously tell us it's saving us money.Yeah, it's a hard concept to grasp. Here's an exercise for you. Go over to your nearest ER. Count the people waiting. The average visit to an ER costs around $2,000. A visit to a family doctor costs about $100. That's about $1,900 MORE than we have to pay for the SAME services. Multiply that by every ER in your state, and then multiply that by 50. Then multiply that by 24 hours in the day.

I'd say that would be many millions of $$'s, wouldn't you??

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Yeah, it's a hard concept to grasp. Here's an exercise for you. Go over to your nearest ER. Count the people waiting. The average visit to an ER costs around $2,000. A visit to a family doctor costs about $100. That's about $1,900 MORE than we have to pay for the SAME services. Multiply that by every ER in your state, and then multiply that by 50. Then multiply that by 24 hours in the day.

I'd say that would be many millions of $$'s, wouldn't you??

excon

Ex they will never see that sort of logic, you know why? somehow it infringes on their prescious freedoms. The freedom to be sick without help, The freedom to be part of the next epidemic and be infected by the untreated, the freedom to waste resources and above all the freedom to squirrel away their money

my private dollars go a whole lot farther in feeding the hungry than your bloated, wasteful bureaucracies will ever accomplish.
How many people are you feeding every day?

How many people are you feeding every day?

At least nine, and you? And that does not count my tax dollars being used for such purposes.

Hello again, Steve:
Yeah, it's a hard concept to grasp. Here's an exercise for you. Go over to your nearest ER. Count the people waiting. The average visit to an ER costs around $2,000. A visit to a family doctor costs about $100. That's about $1,900 MORE than we have to pay for the SAME services. Multiply that by every ER in your state, and then multiply that by 50. Then multiply that by 24 hours in the day.

I'd say that would be many millions of $$'s, wouldn't you??

excon

The average charge might be that, but it isn't the cost and the vast majority of those have insurance I bet. It isn't filled with homeless people. The uninsured are what percentage in this country? How many of those are young, healthy adults? How many rarely visit a doctor?

Hello again, Steve:

and the vast majority of those have insurance I bet.Couple things.

I only went once, and I'll NEVER, EVER do that again, unless I'm bleeding like a stuck pig.

Lemme ask you this.. IF you had insurance, and got sick, would you make an appointment with your doctor, or would you wander down to your local ER, where you'll WAIT for HOURS, and hours, and then even MORE hours - only to get a BILL in the $1,000's??? Certainly, NO insurance company in the world is gonna pay it. You HAVE to know that.


The uninsured are what percentage in this country? How many of those are young, healthy adults? How many rarely visit a doctor?You also appear to believe that everybody WITH a home to live in, HAS insurance. That's just wrong.

It IS a good question, though.. I'll use ME as an example.. I've been rich, and I've been poor. When I was poor, I had NO insurance. Part of that time I WAS a young healthy buck. But, part of that time I was an older healthy fellow, who WORRIED about getting sick.

Now, I want you to understand this. When I was poor, I WORKED hard. I PAID my taxes. I HAD a home, and I FULLY supported myself. Yes, I could even eat out now and then... But, for an older healthy person, insurance on the open market was WAYYYYY too expensive.. The ONLY time I had insurance was when I was employed, or when I was rich. When I was SELF employed and NOT rich, which was MOST of the time, I was on my own.

I don't think I was alone, either. In fact, I think there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people like me, except they NEVER got rich.

Of those people, what percentage DO I think are young and healthy?? Bout HALF. That leaves the other half very vulnerable, and when THEY get sick, they go to the ER, and you and I PAY for it.

excon

Nice story, but not reality. The questions were simple,

The uninsured are what percentage in this country?

How many of those are young, healthy adults?

How many rarely visit a doctor?

Hello again, Steve:

Nice story, but not reality. The questions were simple,

(1) The uninsured are what percentage in this country?

(2) How many of those are young, healthy adults?

(3) How many rarely visit a doctor?I dunno what's NOT reality about it. It certainly was MY reality, and I wasn't alone. Your reality is just as unreal as mine. It stems from an EMPLOYED person WITH insurance. But, I see my answer was too complicated for you. Ok.

(1) 47%
(2) 51%
(3a) The 51% that are young and healthy rarely see a doctor.
(3b) The 49% that aren't, see a doctor REGULARLY or die very young.

excon

How many of those are young, healthy adults?

How many rarely visit a doctor?
The point of young people getting health insurance is that those insured young people will then get those periodic exams they don't want to pay out of pocket for now as uninsureds. They will do the preventive dance (or at least have the coverage to do it) to guard their health and not end up with prostate cancer or breast cancer or some catastrophic illness that they have ignored symptoms of and that will cost us (i.e., Medicaid) tons of money when they show up uninsured at the ER.

I don't deal with statistics pulled out your a$$.

Percentage of Americans Lacking Health Coverage Falls Again (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/percentage-of-americans-lacking-health-coverage-falls-again.html?_r=0)

The point of young people getting health insurance is that those insured young people will then get those periodic exams they don't want to pay out of pocket for now as uninsureds. They will do the preventive dance (or at least have the coverage to do it) to guard their health and not end up with prostate cancer or breast cancer or some catastrophic illness that they have ignored symptoms of and that will cost us (i.e., Medicaid) tons of money when they show up uninsured at the ER.

You are talking about the kids who are ten feet tall and bullet proof? You know, the ones who don't go to the doctor unless they are sick because they think that nothing can happen to them. Right?

You are talking about the kids who are ten feet tall and bullet proof? You know, the ones who don't go to the doctor unless they are sick because they think that nothing can happen to them. Right?
Yup! Those are the ones! Lots of 'em. And even once they have insurance, they think they are bullet proof and don't get regular or even occasional checkups, but wait until they can't function any longer.

The point of young people getting health insurance is that those insured young people will then get those periodic exams they don't want to pay out of pocket for now as uninsureds. They will do the preventive dance (or at least have the coverage to do it) to guard their health and not end up with prostate cancer or breast cancer or some catastrophic illness that they have ignored symptoms of and that will cost us (i.e., Medicaid) tons of money when they show up uninsured at the ER.

So how many people do you feed every day?

So how many people do you feed every day?
At least nine. Plus whoever my taxes support.

So how many people do you feed every day?
At least nine. Plus whoever my taxes support.

So, about 1,500 or more? (just a figure I pulled out of the air)

At least nine. Plus whoever my taxes support.

So how many does the government feed with the same dollars?

At least nine. Plus whoever my taxes support.

So how many does the government feed with the same dollars?

And where does the government get those dollars?

so, about 1,500 or more? (just a figure i pulled out of the air)

Lol.

Those young people will be old one day, and may not be as invincible as they once were. You think and see things much differently at 26 than you do at 56, or 86. That's just reality and us older folks know those changes will come, and younger people do NOT. The next generation may not/cannot/don't want to grasp what we tell them, but they will. We all do get reality as we go, at least most of us.

Insurance is not a priority for a young single because they are doing what most of us did at that age, exploring their world and having the best time they can with their friends. The hardest challenge we face is that our kids take responsibility for themselves in responsible ways and don't take dumb chances that will affect them adversely in the future.

Hard to see or explain that to a person whose priority right now is the next weekend party, concert, get together with friends, or the hunt for romance and good times. They just don't listen to the concept that having insurance and not needing it is better than needing it and not having it.

But some people lets face it don't believe in equal protection under the law, or equal benefit either. Now that's a very skewed value system in my opinion, and some end up better off than others. Too bad for the ones who are NOT better off. They are out of sight, out of mind unless it happens to be YOU.

Hello again, Steve:
I don't deal with statistics pulled out your a$$.From YOUR link.

The percentage of people covered by government health insurance increased to 32.6 percent in 2012, from 32.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid in 2012 was not statistically different from 2011, at 16.4 percent. The percentage covered by Medicare rose over the period, from 15.2 percent in 2011 to 15.7 percent in 2012. Since 2009, Medicaid has covered more people than Medicare (50.9 million compared with 48.9 million in 2012).It's equally hard to argue with a fellow who doesn't even read his own links.

I wasn't addressing the dirt poor, OR the elderly. I was addressing the WORKING poor. And, the numbers don't change the argument.

In MY story, I was never poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, or old enough to qualify for Medicare. Besides, the conversation was about the cost of ER visits, and I haven't changed my mind. People who are INSURED with either government insurance or private insurance DON'T visit ER's for their day to day health care needs.

Go to your ER, and ASK the people IF they're covered with insurance. I'm SURE they'll look at you like you're CRAZY.. NOBODY is their right mind would spend HOURS, and then MORE hours sitting in an ER waiting room, when they could visit their family doctor in 20 minutes. I have NO idea why you think they would.

excon

PS> I see J_9 is around.. She should KNOW who frequents her ER.

People who are INSURED with either government insurance


DON'T visit ER's for their day to day health care needs.

I totally beg to differ. People with "government insurance" use the ER as a clinic. I can even pinpoint what days and times they use it. I would also like to point out that they have learned how to work the system so that they don't have to wait hours. They come in with complaints of chest pain, they come in with complaints of shortness of breath. They know that these complaints will get them seen within 10 minutes of arrival.

You don't experience the system, but I do.

If people want to be stupid then they can damn well live with the consequences. Fact is most of us have worked hard and made our own way and we're damned tired of all this faux sympathy and disincentives to take care of yourself. If you NEED help then let's help, but otherwise buck up people and take responsibility for your lives and end this massive expansion of government power. You lefties ought to be ashamed of what you're doing, leave us the hell alone.

Hello again, Steve:

leave us the hell alone.Buck up Righty.. You're SCREWING people as bad as you think we're screwing you..

Sniveling doesn't help.

excon

Hello again, Steve:From YOUR link.
It's equally hard to argue with a fellow who doesn't even read his own links.

I wasn't addressing the dirt poor, OR the elderly. I was addressing the WORKING poor. And, the numbers don't change the argument.

In MY story, I was never poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, or old enough to qualify for Medicare. Besides, the conversation was about the cost of ER visits, and I haven't changed my mind. People who are INSURED with either government insurance or private insurance DON'T visit ER's for their day to day health care needs.

Go to your ER, and ASK the people IF they're covered with insurance. I'm SURE they'll look at you like you're CRAZY.. NOBODY is their right mind would spend HOURS, and then MORE hours sitting in an ER waiting room, when they could visit their family doctor in 20 minutes. I have NO idea why you think they would.

excon

PS> I see J_9 is around.. She should KNOW who frequents her ER.

Government or private, doesn't matter to my point. It doesn't take an extra couple hundred EXTRA bucks PER MONTH per policyholder to cover the percentage of uninsured. Do the math.

I live in Texas where 25% of the population is uninsured and know for fact that those 25% go to the state subsidized COUNTY ER's that gets its reimbursements from the federal government already.

Texas hospitals are scrambling as we speak to expand the Medicaid roles while the state is opting out of the federal matching dollars outlined in Obama Care. This has led to hospitals trying to make up for lost revenue.

Medicaid waiver | Denton Record Chronicle | News for Denton County, Texas (http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/health/20120726-medicaid-waiver.ece) from

Directive may affect hospitals (http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20120725-directive-may-affect-hospitals-funds.ece)


Steve Love, president and CEO of the Dallas-Fort Worth Hospital Council, a group that works with 80 hospitals in North Texas, said the waiver is creating two funding pools: an uncompensated care pool — costs of care provided to individuals who don't have Medicaid funds; and delivery system reform incentive payments.

Texas has the potential to receive up to $29 billion over the five years of the waiver, which is more than the $14 billion in funds that are available under the upper payment limits program, according to the Texas Hospital Association's website.

Translation- If the state won't do it hospitals will. Why won't the state do it?

I totally beg to differ. People with "government insurance" use the ER as a clinic. I can even pinpoint what days and times they use it. I would also like to point out that they have learned how to work the system so that they don't have to wait hours. They come in with complaints of chest pain, they come in with complaints of shortness of breath. They know that these complaints will get them seen within 10 minutes of arrival.

You don't experience the system, but I do.

Ask the expert on the frontlines

Are you saying they don't have medical issues and are just goofing off? Why do you think they come to the ER and not see a doctor?

Hello again, Steve:
Buck up Righty.. You're SCREWING people as bad as you think we're screwing you..

Sniveling doesn't help.

excon

Really? Hear is a news flash for you. Obamacare is going to ruin things as we know it. Many are barely making it and living paycheck to paycheck and are now mandated to pay yet another bill. The extra costs of Obamacare is about shifting responsibility from government hands since they want to spend it in other ways and shoving up the publics butt. Talk about a big time screwing. Anyone responsible for child support may not be able to live after this fully rolls in.

That's not true since 85% of us already pay that other bill, AND for the 15% that don't/or won't. But you hit on the root cause of most peoples woes, that paycheck hasn't grown in a long time, but the bills sure have.

That's great logic, our paychecks haven't grown so let's stick people for another few hundred bucks a month. Do you really not think about what you're saying?

If you cannot grasp the concept of what I write that's too bad. In simple terms, you have already been a victim of gouging as have we all, yet you cannot see it, but blame the easy target, and not the true target, and that's the broken business model that has failed us in the time of need.

Tal, stop pretending we're stupid and you know what's best for us. Your logic is illogical and we know when we're getting hosed in spite of your bullsh*t.

You were getting hosed long before this administration came along. Or the last. Crap is hitting the fan and a logical plan is needed aimed at the root cause of the problem. You ain't got enough money to meet the rising cost of every damn thing.

More of your logic, because we were getting hosed before we should just shut the hell up and enjoy getting hosed even worse?

qdFLPn30dvQ

The point of young people getting health insurance is that those insured young people will then get those periodic exams they don't want to pay out of pocket for now as uninsureds. They will do the preventive dance (or at least have the coverage to do it) to guard their health and not end up with prostate cancer or breast cancer or some catastrophic illness that they have ignored symptoms of and that will cost us (i.e., Medicaid) tons of money when they show up uninsured at the ER.

The point of young people getting health insurance is to dilute the universe of the insured so that premiums are reduced.

The young, insured or not insured, don't get preventive exams.

The young, insured or not insured, don't get preventive exams.
I should have added that "The hope is that..." We all know most won't.

The point of young people getting health insurance is to dilute the universe of the insured so that premiums are reduced.

The young, insured or not insured, don't get preventive exams.

They will when they are no longer young and dumb and priorities change. I didn't get many check ups in my younger years either, and had insurance. Time changed that.

They will when they are no longer young and dumb and priorities change. I didn't get many check ups in my younger years either, and had insurance. Time changed that.

Preventative medicine is something pushed by the profession, and whilst it may show up a problem, the general population doesn't need to spend unnecessary time in a doctor's office. Pathology (tests) has been one of the greatest ripoffs perpetrated on a gulliable public and has escalated medical costs for no other reason than covering the doctor's backside in a litageous society

They will when they are no longer young and dumb and priorities change. I didn't get many check ups in my younger years either, and had insurance. Time changed that.

I guess that's why they have to sell it as "hosurance (https://twitter.com/DLoesch/statuses/400328931330752512)."

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BY4367DCEAEyALI.jpg

They will when they are no longer young and dumb and priorities change. I didn't get many check ups in my younger years either, and had insurance. Time changed that.

That will be too late to affect premiums. I think you may have missed my point.

That will be too late to affect premiums. I think you may have missed my point.

I didn't miss your point. Why would a young person that's pre prime, even be interested in health insurance? Or twice a year check ups? Add to that all the hollering and screaming, gloom and doom?

We'll see in 6 months won't we?

Why would anyone WANT to increase their premiums, deductibles, copays, out of pockets and decrease their choice of physicians?

Why would anyone WANT to increase their premiums, deductibles, copays, out of pockets and decrease their choice of physicians?

Now that is the essential question, isn't it? Could this be an unintended consequence of listening to the insurance companies and lobbyists, could this be the consequence of a market that is being regulated in the wrong way? or could it be the consequence of restructuring the market to open it to a larger number of participants who present a broader risk profile?

Could this be the unintended consequence of a lie? Could this be the unintended consequence of ramming sh*t through without knowing what was in it? Could this be the result of incompetence? You tell me what it is.

Now that is the essential question, isn't it? Could this be an unintended consequence of listening to the insurance companies and lobbyists, could this be the consequence of a market that is being regulated in the wrong way? or could it be the consequence of restructuring the market to open it to a larger number of participants who present a broader risk profile?

Here is what it is. The true fact that no one was ever denied healthcare is true. And for those seeking insurance with pre existing they did have a place to go to through the states they lived in that offered expanded form of medicaid. Now with Obamacare they are taking those that have been on medicaid rolls and push them into private insurance. The money that they were spending on medicaid will go to suppliment premiums because they are going through the roof. But there is a cut off to getting a supplement. So while the new law purports to make things cheaper they really arent when you add the supplement. Also with Obamacare they are creating a brand new dependent class of people to scare when it comes election time. Its all down to simple politics and money. And the poorest of the poor are going to be hit the hardest.

The true fact that no one was ever denied healthcare is true.


The question isn't whether a person is denied health care, but whether they have the ability to access it.

It would appear that a number of people have been denied care by an insurer for various reasons so this "true fact" you speak of may be true and therefore a fact, or false which is the more likely scenario.

More of your logic, because we were getting hosed before we should just shut the hell up and enjoy getting hosed even worse?


The reason you are getting "hosed worse" is because you are paying the price for historical health inequality. It makes little difference as to who provides the health care. Historically, this has predominately been the private health care system and this system is fine so long as is capable of addressing the problem of equity. But is hasn't.

In other words, the system is too inflexible to monitor and address the problem of inequality. Inequality in terms of health over time means that it becomes increasingly difficult for more and more sections of society to access health care that is satisfactory. A typical example, would be Tom's scenario whereby young people need make a choice between health care and lifestyle.

You are being forced to undergo a revolution in health care as a direct result of the historical inability to address the ongoing problem of equity because of the problem of the increasing problem of inequality.

The question isn't whether a person is denied health care, but whether they have the ability to access it.

It would appear that a number of people have been denied care by an insurer for various reasons so this "true fact" you speak of may be true and therefore a fact, or false which is the more likely scenario.

It is not false at all. What I had said is that some were denied insurance through the private system and then went to the government sponsored system for their healthcare insurance (a form of medicare at the State level).

It is not false at all. What I had said is that some were denied insurance through the private system and then went to the government sponsored system for their healthcare insurance (a form of medicare at the State level).

I took your meaning to be different, you are saying that everyone can access a doctor and a hospital and the cost will be met. I don't think that is a fact otherwise there would be no need for the ACA. as far as I am aware the problem was/is that people could not meet their health care costs, either because coverage was denied by insurers, or because they lacked the financial ability to have insurance and could not meet the costs

Here is what it is. The true fact that no one was ever denied healthcare is true. And for those seeking insurance with pre existing they did have a place to go to through the states they lived in that offered expanded form of medicaid. Now with Obamacare they are taking those that have been on medicaid rolls and push them into private insurance. The money that they were spending on medicaid will go to suppliment premiums because they are going through the roof. But there is a cut off to getting a supplement. So while the new law purports to make things cheaper they really arent when you add the supplement. Also with Obamacare they are creating a brand new dependent class of people to scare when it comes election time. Its all down to simple politics and money. And the poorest of the poor are going to be hit the hardest.

Yup.

Your facts are in error and high risk pool insurance is expensive. Don't be a laid off worker and trying to afford cobra, or a state run insurance in a red state, that hasn't expanded Medicaid. And the dirty little secret is that most state insurances are subsidized by the federal government any way. But Nikki Haley, and Rick Perry will never tell you that but just look it up for yourself.

I dare you.

Your facts are in error and high risk pool insurance is expensive. Don't be a laid off worker and trying to afford cobra, or a state run insurance in a red state, that hasn't expanded Medicaid. And the dirty little secret is that most state insurances are subsidized by the federal government any way. But Nikki Haley, and Rick Perry will never tell you that but just look it up for yourself.

I dare you.

Ok, here you go. One Red State as requested.

TennCare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TennCare)

TennCare (http://www.tennessee.gov/tenncare/quick-info.shtml)


Also when I made my post I did credit the government aide that went with the State program as a expanded form of medicare.

From the site:

In Tennessee, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The PCIP is designed to make insurance available to those without insurance who have or have had a medical condition, disability or illness. Members of the PCIP must pay monthly premiums. To qualify for coverage you must:
•Be a citizen or national of the United States or lawfully present in the United States.
•Have been uninsured for at least the last six months before applying.
•Have a pre-existing condition or have been denied coverage because of a health condition.

Ok, here you go. One Red State as requested.

TennCare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TennCare)

TennCare (http://www.tennessee.gov/tenncare/quick-info.shtml)


Also when I made my post I did credit the government aide that went with the State program as a expanded form of medicare.

From the site:

In Tennessee, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The PCIP is designed to make insurance available to those without insurance who have or have had a medical condition, disability or illness. Members of the PCIP must pay monthly premiums. To qualify for coverage you must:
•Be a citizen or national of the United States or lawfully present in the United States.
•Have been uninsured for at least the last six months before applying.
•Have a pre-existing condition or have been denied coverage because of a health condition.

yes you see the condition that excludes, pay a monthly premium, the main disqualification from health insurance appears to be the inability to pay among the poor

yes you see the condition that excludes, pay a monthly premium, the main disqualification from health insurance appears to be the inability to pay among the poor

And that's what Medicaid is for. Could we not have improved on that instead of hosing 85 percent of the country who liked their health care and weren't imposing on others?

Expansion of Medicare is the improvement to cover more people is the improvements and saves the state billions. Especially in a red state like Texas where a million people have no health insurance.

Unfortunately Red States governors don't want the funds that come with the expansion even though they currently have severely underfunded Medicaid programs. Less choice, less benefits, and higher costs.

Hello again,

The website sunk Obamacare. He did it himself. Why some of you think he'll be given a second chance at it, baffles me.

The end of Obamacare ALSO spells the END of the Democratic party as we know it, the end of universal health care, and the ascendance of Ted Cruz to the presidency.

It's gonna be right wing HEAVEN.

excon

Expansion of Medicare is the improvement to cover more people is the improvements and saves the state billions. Especially in a red state like Texas where a million people have no health insurance.

You mean Medicare for all. We don't want your government run health care, why can you not understand that?


Less choice, less benefits, and higher costs.

Sounds like what we just got stuck with to me.

Hello again,

The website sunk Obamacare. He did it himself. Why some of you think he'll be given a second chance at it, baffles me.

The end of Obamacare ALSO spells the END of the Democratic party as we know it, the end of universal health care, and the ascendance of Ted Cruz to the presidency.

It's gonna be right wing HEAVEN.

excon

The shoddy, incompetent, partisan way it was passed started it. The website disaster compounded it, sticker shock piled on, the habitual lying about it didn't help and when everyone realizes the next sticker shock of higher copays, deductibles and out of pocket and the loss of their doctor that will be all she wrote. But I don't see Cruz as the nominee.

Hello again, Steve:

The shoddy, incompetent, partisan way it was passed started it.Nahhh. It was a simple website. If IT had worked, Obamacare would have worked. The Democrats are fleeing the sinking ship like a bunch of rats.

Yes, I think the picture of Bush looking out the window upon the devastation Katrina wrought, SUNK his second term. I believe this was Obama's watershed moment, and he got caught looking out the window..

I'm like Cronkite, you know.. Once Obama looses me, he's LOST everybody.

excon

There is no basis of fact in your post and the "we" you define is in error. You obviously have not explored the 60 plus plans on your own state website. Nor have you read the link I have provided you to how Texas hospitals are pooling to expand there own programs to advantage the federal dollars for Medicaid that the state doesn't want.

OK, show me the numbers that say "we" want government run health care.

Hello again, Steve:

OK, show me the numbers that say "we" want government run health care.Let's review, shall we?

Bout a year ago we had an election.. It was the LAST time EVERYBODY was counted. One of the candidates said he was gonna repeal Obamacare on his first day.

He LOST, and he lost BIG. "WE" spoke on that day, and "we" spoke LOUDLY!

I dunno WHY you don't think THOSE numbers count.. But, they're the ONLY ones that do..

excon

PS> Look. I gave up the fight. But we didn't lose it because the people didn't want it. They CLEARLY wanted it, your denials notwithstanding. The reason it failed is because of their inability to run a website.

and the fact that "we " were lied to .

Hello again, Steve:
Let's review, shall we?

Bout a year ago we had an election.. It was the LAST time EVERYBODY was counted. One of the candidates said he was gonna repeal Obamacare on his first day.

He LOST, and he lost BIG. "WE" spoke on that day, and "we" spoke LOUDLY!

I dunno WHY you don't think THOSE numbers count.. But, they're the ONLY ones that do..

excon

PS> Look. I gave up the fight. But we didn't lose it because the people didn't want it. They CLEARLY wanted it, your denials notwithstanding. The reason it failed is because of their inability to run a website.

Let's review. Voters did not approve of Obamacare (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/unaffordable-health-care-act-769112-85.html#post3577934) even though they elected him.

I'm not the one in denial.

Poll: Most Look To A Rosier Future - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/30/sunday/main4765027.shtml)


On the matter of health insurance ... Nearly half of all Americans now want the government to provide it for all problems. That's up from just over a quarter in 1979.

Healthcare-NOW! - Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer (http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer)


A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.

The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, “59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.”

Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.

The pols reflect what I have been saying. Screw the for profit market based pandering and cut out the middle man.

Americans LOVE SS, Medicare, and Medicare part D after the ACA closed the donut hole for seniors. In addition people LOVE the elimination of caps on healthcare, elimination of denying coverage for preexisting conditions, and keeping kids on parents insurance until they are 26, and insurance companies can't cancel you when you do get sick.

So why do you want to repeal any of those things?

Poll: Most Look To A Rosier Future - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/30/sunday/main4765027.shtml)



Healthcare-NOW! - Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer (http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer)



The pols reflect what I have been saying. Screw the for profit market based pandering and cut out the middle man.

You're giving me polls from 2009?

Pa. advocates want single payer; 'Obamacare' doesn't go far enough | Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/january/pa-advocates-want-single-payer-obamacare-doesnt-go-far-enough)


But about five years ago, things changed. Goulden was diagnosed with chronic liver disease and as he watched his insurance premiums skyrocket, he said he realized why he had never before had a problem with the company - he had never been sick.

"They pushed me out," Goulden said. "I faced the possibility of losing everything I had worked for."


"People worry about these death panels and a government rationing of care," Michael said. "They worry that a single-payer system eliminates their freedom of choice, but a single-payer actually gives more choice. Right now you are locked into a network of providers and can only get what they give you, anyway."

He said it is only logical to take a good look at which procedures work and which do not before paying for them, and the decision to do so in other countries has not hurt the health of its citizens.

Under a single-payer system, those who can afford experimental or elective procedures can always pay for those themselves or purchase additional private insurance. Health care in the U.S is already essentially rationed, he said, but it is rationed according to income level, as opposed to quality and need.

"We can't afford to pay for everything for everybody," Michael said, "and whether insurance companies ration it for their own profit or the government does it is a matter of semantics."

and the fact that "we" were lied to. Sorry ,that revelation is a game changer. Kalifornia had some 67,000 registered and a million people lost their heath care in the state that is held up as an example for the rest of the nation.

4 million out of 360 million, do the math and look in the mirror, what did YOU lose in the deal?

Pa. advocates want single payer; 'Obamacare' doesn't go far enough | Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/january/pa-advocates-want-single-payer-obamacare-doesnt-go-far-enough)

So one activist group in PA and two 4 year old polls is what you've got to prove "we" DO want government run health care? And you said my post had no basis in fact?

And that's what Medicaid is for. Could we not have improved on that instead of hosing 85 percent of the country who liked their health care and weren't imposing on others?


That would have been a sensible option, but unfortunately it is not possible. There are many reasons for this. Too many to mention in one sitting.

That would have been a sensible option, but unfortunately it is not possible. There are many reasons for this. Too many to mention in one sitting.


Oh come Tutt, do tell, it seems some need to be reminded why you couldn't have a simple solution

I'm a believer in equality of opportunity, not mandated equity. I happen to know my liberal friends here are sports fans. In the real world 2 football teams begin with the same rules, the same number of players, a score of 0-0 and the team that takes advantage of their opportunity wins.

In their world if one team gets ahead, like the Saints did the Cowboys, they would try to level the playing field. Sorry Saints, you should not have been so greedy so Brees has to sit. If that doesn't make it fair then you lose Jimmy Graham, too. If after that you're still hoarding all the points there goes your cornerbacks until finally the hapless Cowboys tie it up and everyone is equal. Unless of course my liberal friends are Saints fans then they keep everyone in and pay off the referees.

p.s. and take 14 points from the Cowboys.

I believe you've finally found the formula for a Cowboy win ! Giants get that same equal playing field this week when the Green Bean Pickers come into town starting their 3rd string QB.

Good analogy, but have you noticed that the playing field is always level from start to finish? That's not always true in society. Too many ways to smile and keep people down and challenged, like a recession that some are more capable to withstand, or bailing out Wall Street, and ignoring Main St.

Even the Saint's and Sean Payton were punished for targeting players with money as an incentive for eliminating key opposition players. That wasn't fair or right for that to happen and I'm sure you agree, decidedly underhanded. It's one thing to stink on your own, quite another to put a skunk in some ones bed.

or bailing out Wall Street, and ignoring Main St. As I recall ,the bailout was a consensus solution by the establishment, with dissents and nay votes coming from conservatives .

Good analogy, but have you noticed that the playing field is always level from start to finish? That's not always true in society. Too many ways to smile and keep people down and challenged, like a recession that some are more capable to withstand, or bailing out Wall Street, and ignoring Main St.

Even the Saint's and Sean Payton were punished for targeting players with money as an incentive for eliminating key opposition players. That wasn't fair or right for that to happen and I'm sure you agree, decidedly underhanded. It's one thing to stink on your own, quite another to put a skunk in some ones bed.

I believe my point was equality of opportunity. The analogy is how your side plays the game.

Harshness Alert

No its not, its about how you guys play the game. Underhanded is the word I used. You wrap yourself in family and flag and screw people when they want opportunity. Your M.O. is separate but equal, but its not equal, just separate.

What else can explain the holding the door open for rich guys to rob us, and misdirect the posse? What else can explain ignoring the many in need for the few that make noise? What else can explain calling a robber a job creator, while destroying the only thing that makes us EQUAL... the VOTE!

Don't bother denying it, we all know in the face of reality, you guys make more noise and holler louder, to hide the reality of your own actions. That's why you get stuff shoved down your throats because your mouth is always open, instead of your ears. (you could chew thoroughly like yo' mama told you, but you greedy ******* like to swallow things whole and blame us for you choking)

There can be no equal opportunity as long as we leave the definition just to you guys. Keep hollering, we ain't listening to the noise, we see what you're doing. Its no surprise that people VOTE against you, and what you are trying to do.

End of soapbox... for now!

Harshness Alert

Its no surprise that people VOTE against you, and what you are trying to do.

End of soapbox... for now!

The people vote for the liars who offer them free stuff.

The people vote for the liars who offer them free stuff.

People vote against the liars who will take stuff, and replace it with misery. I told you that you weren't good at listening, so keep the sour grapes, and excuses, and false spin for losing. AGAIN.

Denial of your own autopsy report ain't good reality.

Hello again, tom:

The people vote for the liars who offer them free stuff.Your people vote for meanies who would let children starve in the streets.

excon

Harshness Alert

No its not, its about how you guys play the game. Underhanded is the word I used. You wrap yourself in family and flag and screw people when they want opportunity. Your M.O. is separate but equal, but its not equal, just separate.

What else can explain the holding the door open for rich guys to rob us, and misdirect the posse? What else can explain ignoring the many in need for the few that make noise? What else can explain calling a robber a job creator, while destroying the only thing that makes us EQUAL... the VOTE!

Spare me, your regime is at this moment looking for a way to carve out special treatment for unions, while disregarding federal law in favor of "green" energy companies. When are you going to get that's EXACTLY what you're b*tching about, noisier and louder?

Hello again, tom:
Your people vote for meanies who would let children starve in the streets.

excon

Again with that lie, I feed at least 9 people every day plus what my tax dollars do. You want to take more of my money and force at least 4 of those people to fend for themselves. I feed others willingly and sacrificially, you do it by forcibly taking from one to give to another.

But speech with so many hungry you can't just feed the ones you want. You have to find a way to feed 'em ALL!

I know, you are doing YOUR part to make it better, I like that in you, it's an uphill battle. I DO get that.