Government Shut Down Looming!

[Tiberius]

And that's the American way. All most Americans care about is now and will worry about the future when we get there. Well sorry folks, when we get there it's too late.

Have affordable health insurance is all about the future, dingbat

[Alaska Darin]

Have affordable health insurance is all about the future, dingbat

[Tiberius]

[Tiberius]

Hurrah!!! The good guys win again!

 

Shutting down the government won’t shut down the health-care law.

In a quirk of the calendar, the start of enrollment for the Affordable Care Act and the first day of a shutdown would fall on the same day, Oct. 1. The good news for President Barack Obama is that cutting off funds for non-essential government programs in a shutdown wouldn’t stop funding for implementing his health care law, health policy experts said.

“A shutdown per se doesn’t stop the Affordable Care Act,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who now leads the American Action Forum, a Washington advocacy group opposed to the health law.

[Chef Jim]

Have affordable health insurance is all about the future, dingbat

 

And so is putting your retirement all in Facebook stock.

[Tiberius]

 

 

And so is putting your retirement all in Facebook stock.

 

Lol, or twitter

[DC Tom]

Hurrah!!! The good guys win again!

 

I'm not offended by your trolling. I'm offended at how badly you suck at it.

[OCinBuffalo]

Of course you know people who have cut jobs, reduced hours and blamed it on the Affordable Care Act... color me shocked from my bubble... lol

Careful, your mindset is showing.

 

Right, so everybody that want's to expand, and make more money, isn't...so that they can cut jobs/hours, make some short term cash, but lose out on long term opportunity? Did you think this one through at all?

 

Great job of proving you don't live in a health care bubble, where the number of beds you have is the number of beds, and the only way you get more and expand? A major capital outlay, which needs board and regulatory approval, which takes years and requires full enterprise commitment of resources. So, of course you only see F'ing about with/cutting staff and materials, and posted as such above...because that's all you can do, in your job. (It isn't, and I've helped many health care people see that it isn't...)

 

If it is this way for you: it must be this way for everybody, right? Careful, your mindset is showing. I think I see a bubble forming...

 

You support Obamacare, because, in your mind, the only way to expand/make major change DOES involve the government. That's because in your job, that is true.

 

This is not the case for the rest of us. Most people think up something, or, more likely, are given some broad/general goal to accomplish, and it's on them(which then means, it's on me) to come up with the how and get it done. They do this quickly, and without much supervision. They aren't bound by regulations, and, therefore they can't blame them when they fail. They have the freedom to succeed, or fail. But the changed, good or not, comes from them, in their own little corner of the economy.

 

However, regardless of what they are trying to get done, when they run the #s, Obamacare, more often than not, makes all approaches involving human resources, unreasonable.

 

That's when I, and many others, get the phone call. They choose IT, rather than humans, hence, no new jobs. As I've said 1000 times, Obamacare is a windfall for the IT industry, but, in the long run, all this IT, and not enough humans, is going to burn ALL of us.

 

I care about pragmatism

 

I see we are now 2 for 2 on the irony count.

People can log onto their insurance exchange and buy coverage, why would 30M people be without insurance, other than by making a obstinant choice to do so? Short on money, they get a voucher. Had cancer, doesn't matter.

If the end result of Obamacare is: 30 million uninsured, and, we started with 30 million uninsured....

 

What has this accomplished?

 

People are stupid? Hell DC_Tom could have told you that. Why put is through this whole rigamarole, which doesn't solve any of your industry's cost problem, and if anything exacerbates it, just so we can end up where we started?

 

Do you really think anybody comes away from this...more healthy? Health, and maintaining it, is job #1. Healthy people don't cost as much money as sick ones, thus, the more healthy we can make people, down goes the cost. (No different than the healthier I can make your hospital's business process evironment, not just the processes themselves, the less the cost). The same reason why drugs should be legal: less bad drugs = less sick people, is the same reason why Obamacare is idiocy: it doesn't make anyone healthier.

 

We aren't going to get more providers out of this, we are going to get less. We aren't going to get less unhealthy behavior out of this, we are either going to get more, or, as you stated above...30 million of: the same.

[Tiberius]

So, because of gerrymandering, the Republican "majority" in the House received 1.4 million fewer votes than their Democratic foes and on that they feel they can just burn down the government? Wow

[B-Man]

So, because of gerrymandering, the Republican "majority" in the House received 1.4 million fewer votes than their Democratic foes and on that they feel they can just burn down the government? Wow

 

Well, I've got a minute before lunch..................let's see..

 

(gerrymandering) incorrect

 

(recieved fewer votes) each member of Congress won a majority of their individual race, so your "dems had a higher total silliness is superfluous and funny.

 

 

(burn down the government) The GOP members want to stop a bad law by defunding it, the rest of the budget was passed, so your laughable conclusion is again superfluous and funny.

 

 

 

Other than that, your statemen................................NO wait , it was gibberish

 

Wow.................is right................lol

 

 

 

.

[/dev/null]

So, because of gerrymandering, the Republican "majority" in the House received 1.4 million fewer votes than their Democratic foes and on that they feel they can just burn down the government? Wow

 

Are you arguing in favor of a Parliamentary system where votes are cast for party, not candidate?

[B-Man]

Don’t Forget to Blame Senate Democrats and Harry Reid for any Government Shutdown.

Whatever else you can say about the House of Representatives and President Obama, at least these folks have consistently produced spending documents in rough approximation to legal requirements (

to be sure, Obama’s latest offering, showed up two months late and $5.2 trillion long when it came to increasing deficits over the next decade

).

 

In contrast and despite a solid one-party majority,

the Senate has passed exactly one budget in the past four years and in most of those years, they didn’t even produce the necessary document as mandated by law

. Instead, we were treated to journalistic valentines to former Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), the guy in charge of the Senate budget wonkery, by a pliant press.

 

As my colleague Ed Krayewski reminds us in his essential survey of “4 Washington Scandals That Still Matter,” the Democrats couldn’t pass a budget even when they controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House. It’s been the Senate all along that’s been the problem, at least since Sen. Harry “We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year,” Reid (D-Nev.) has been running that godawful show.

 

 

.

[KD in CA]

Are you arguing in favor of a Parliamentary system where votes are cast for party, not candidate?

 

He is...at least until the party he's been told to get on his knees and suck is no longer getting the most votes.

[Tiberius]

Are you arguing in favor of a Parliamentary system where votes are cast for party, not candidate?

Nope

[birdog1960]

Are you arguing in favor of a Parliamentary system where votes are cast for party, not candidate?

no, what he's saying (and you're trying very hard to feign ignorance of) is that the math doesn't work out without purposeful redistricting. you ever looked at the congressional district maps? to argue otherwise is to be stupid, blind or rabidly partisan, all of which are singularly or collectively possible with the cons here.

[/dev/null]

no, what he's saying (and you're trying very hard to feign ignorance of) is that the math doesn't work out without purposeful redistricting. you ever looked at the congressional district maps? to argue otherwise is to be stupid, blind or rabidly partisan, all of which are singularly or collectively possible with the cons here.

 

Yeah because those Congressional districts in Oklahoma, Utah, Kentucky, and the rest of flyover country are gerrymandered too

[Tiberius]

Yeah because those Congressional districts in Oklahoma, Utah, Kentucky, and the rest of flyover country are gerrymandered too

Dodge

[birdog1960]

Yeah because those Congressional districts in Oklahoma, Utah, Kentucky, and the rest of flyover country are gerrymandered too

 

Yeah because those Congressional districts in Oklahoma, Utah, Kentucky, and the rest of flyover country are gerrymandered too

kentucky, yes. union coal miners and their families are predominantly dems (coal mines and mining towns are mostly geographically isolated) although obama's anti coal legislation has changed that some. oklahoma and utah, probably not.

Edited September 24, 2013 by birdog1960

[/dev/null]

kentucky, yes. union coal miners and their families are predominantly dems (coal mines and mining towns are mostly geographically isolated) although obama's anti coal legislation has changed that some. oklahoma and utah, probably not.

 

seriously, Kentucky? Let's take a look at those Gerrymandered counties in the 2012 Presidential race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Kentucky,_2012

 

Dodge

So those people in flyover country don't have the same right to a Congressional Representative as those on the coasts? Or should those in flyover accept that they should be represented by people on the coasts?

[DC Tom]

So those people in flyover country don't have the same right to a Congressional Representative as those on the coasts? Or should those in flyover accept that they should be represented by people on the coasts?

 

What, you think "states" are more important than "people?"

 

Racist.