dayman

Seriously though I would like to know here let us play Congress. I'll be NewBills (D) in this scenario and you all PPP ®. Let's pretend I have Presidency and Senate and you all have House and the ability to stop me from doing anything you want in the Senate. We're gridlocked. There's an election. I propose...let's extend the Bush Cuts 1 year for everyone. Lets pass the Disclosure bill. Lets pass the Jobs Home bill. Counter offer?

Energize the base! Team Obama! lol Let's do this Obama!

Hey whoever is representing him ... he's in way better hand than me there's no doubt and I'm sure he's tried to talk to him. And ultimately he works for him. But it's his job to manage his defense, and to some degree you can't do that if you can't manage George. Everything said comes in. If everything is going good then don't let anything else in. And don't assume your murder trial is air tight until the verdict comes back. Got to try (I'm sure is attorney did) to manage him throughout the process and keep in him focused not on some bounty but on his trial. Jury first. America second. The bounty is crazy George the bounty isn't coming off b/c of a Hannity interview George. Think George. Listen to your lawyer George. ETc... I haven't seen the charging document but there's always lesser included crimes. Dude is on trial for manslaughter.

As his attorney I wouldn't be insensitive to that. But I would attempt to convince him to fight one battle at a time. Right now there's a handful of people he needs to convince within a framework of rules designed to protect him. If he can win that, he wins his freedom. Then he can go on defending himself in the eyes of millions w/ no rules. One battle at a time I would try to convince him. Merging the mob w/ no rules with the jury w/ rules isn't going to help him in my eyes I would attempt to reason with him.

It denys deductions for outsourcing expenses. We could go back forth whether or not that is really punitive. But it's not the strongest argument IMO that this bill is somehow an overly populist power grab. And I still am livid over the disclosure deal and particularly McCain whom I like sometimes (never when he talks Syria). What they should do is say give us our disclosure bill which is great, give us our outsourcing jobs bill, and we will give you the extension over 250K. 3 political bills, 1 compromise. The nation wins on all 3 IMO. Congress approval goes up. Win, win, win, win. America, Congress, Romney and Obama.

He's behaving like a man who wants to clear his name. He needs to behave like a man who wants to avoid a murder conviction. Then he can clear his name. I don't know if he's guilty but he's cracking and he'll end up guilty if he doesn't go into the defendant shell he should be in the entire trial.

I'm not an offshore maniac I get it. But credits for insourcing to encourage people to bring them back, and elimination deductions for outsourcing is fine by my book. And the campaign disclosure is something I greatly believe in. Every bill is political these days. From both sides. 2 weeks repealing the ACA when everyone knows it isn't happening? POlitical. These two bills...political? Sure. But guess what...these are sensible bills. No way the Average American voter disproves of either of these bills. I like the Jobs bill sounds good enough I LOVE the Disclosure bill...hence I hate that the GOP blocks them. Does that make me shallow? No...I'm not just supporting Obama by complaining here is all I'm saying...I know you think I'm an Obamabot...but I like these Bills.

Megyn Kelly on O'Reilly saying it hurt. Said some inconsistencies there than what he said previously (human nature to have those the more you talk) and God's plan not good. Shame on attorney although if George was hell bent on speaking then what can you do...

You SOB http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3364/text ^text^

If the chamber of commerce doesn't support it, it's bad for the American people? C'mon now. Can you link up that text? And the filibuster just needs to be gutted in some way it's ridiculous. Probably won't happen until the Democrats are in the minority but I'll support it then just as much as I would now.

Obviously this would be fuel for the Obama campaign I don't deny that. But things like disclosure, tax breaks to bring jobs back...proposed by the majority in the Senate ready to go...not bad. If it takes politics to get things done then whatever...let's move them through anyway they aren't that bad. The angry minority filibusters again! NEWMAN! Also for the record I sometimes get news from the tv and a lot from sirius talk so I don't always just have a link I'm looking at...that's the whole "no share linky" beef ...

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=bring+jobs+home&oq=bring+jobs+home&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.660.356761.0.357242.18.14.1.1.1.0.368.2137.1j11j0j1.13.0...0.0...1c.Q178P1cD_Kw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e90d0913f918c708&biw=1092&bih=514

Some decision making will ultimately be needed but I'm telling you guys "it's the pay structure stupid!" (best James Carville voice) That's the largest change the American system needs.

Quoting Scalia on the subject from his interview last night discussing Citizens United: SCALIA: Oh, I certainly think not. I think, as I think the framers thought, that the more speech, the better. Now, you -- you are entitled to know where the speech is coming from, you know, information as -- as to who contributed what. That's something else. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1207/18/pmt.01.html Oh bleh just google "Bring Jobs Home" Bill. Not accusing anyone but some people here like to find links on subjects that they know will discuss them in certain ways ahead of time so everyone can find their own version of the information they want. Crux was 20% tax credit to move jobs back, eliminates tax breaks for companies closing down and moving over seas.

Now Republicans block a bill to give tax breaks to those bringing jobs back, and none to those shipping them over seas. "Turrible" - Charles Barkley

And here's a video that talks about the challenges of moving away from fee for service and why it takes a while: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_FcdP6JfTY

Here's an article that talks about the long term pay shift I'm talking about: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/07/moving-beyond-health-cares-fee-for-service/ The AQC predates, but is similar to, the Pioneer Accountable Care Organization contracts that Medicare began this year through the Affordable Care Act, an initiative in which Medicare will reward groups of providers based on improved outcomes and lower health care spending. The researchers looked at the first two years of data from the AQC and found that the program has, in fact, succeeded in lowering total medical spending while simultaneously improving quality of care. On average, groups in the AQC spent 3.3 percent less than fee-for-service groups in the second year, the study showed. Provider groups that entered AQC from a traditional fee-for-service contract model achieved even greater spending reductions of 9.9 percent in year two, up from 6.3 percent in the first year. Compared with those groups, groups that entered from contracts that were already similar to the AQC achieved fewer savings in both years. The researchers also found that the improvements in quality of chronic care management, adult preventive care, and pediatric care associated with the AQC grew in the second year. “Moving away from fee-for-service models is high on the agenda of those looking to establish a fiscally sustainable, efficient health care system,” said Michael Chernew, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School (HMS) and senior author on the study. “It is likely that this type of new payment model will grow rapidly in coming years in the nation as a whole, and particularly in Massachusetts. By analyzing this program, we’re studying the future before it gets here.”

Look just be to clear here, the shift in payment procedures is still experimental and what I'm saying is the ACA includes Medicare in the game to a substantial degree. The gov't (being such a large spender in the messy public-private hybrid we've had and will continue to have) is one of the primary parties people blame for the explosion of costs. What Medicare does, how Medicare pays, the providers structure around the private payers eventually follow. So in that manner, provisions in the ACA for new Medicare payment schemes look to lead the way (on the large scale necessary) to spur along the change. The change itself is organic. The ACA did not invent this, nor would this have not occurred without it. The ACA responded to the need for it and got on board with the push towards it. 10 years..IDK..that's a number I've heard kicked around. The point is to move substantially away from the fee-for-service oriented healthcare system (read: high costs) we have now is not overnight. It will take time. It will take time to bring down costs. And there are things the ACA brings along that will aid that effort. So when I say 10 years I'm not saying 10 years for the ACA to work. I'm saying 10 years for our system to really be departed from the current pay structures that contribute substantially the explosion of costs.

I did a google search on her district and one lady (who apparently has an MBA)running against had this to say: She told the St. Cloud Times: "I feel this is a real opportunity for a candidate to raise the economic issues that the Occupy movement is talking about." So maybe it's just Minnesota. If you don't have a trendy "movement" to link with you can't speak to them? For the record I didn't click on them all but it looked like other people running too like some Hotel Developer. Na she's special. She's not just an R. I don't just think all people with an R by their name are retarded contrary to popular belief.

LOL my God you are a terrible poster. I certainly don't care if you think I'm an Obamabot or if you don't understand/agree on the timing of shifting the pay-structure as a means to reduce costs w/ Medicare leading the way...but to still not understand what was said in the other topic regarding campaign messaging puts you in total retard territory. You are basically a big ball of emotional idiocy. I still love you though so don't worry.

Would you say her cowtowing and usage of the far right xenophobic conspiracy-loving blogoshpere for popularity/power has backfired and will end with her getting the boot?

Did you tell that to your right wing brethren when they were chanting about death panels to oppose reform during the ACA's creation? And in any event the fight to bring down costs is a system-wide shift that will take about 10 years and the ACA addresses medicare/caid's role in that shift there isn't much more it can do.

As Bird said they are basically the same in a system where insurance is the means by which everybody has access to care, and where most people cannot afford care without it. And in any event, the claim that the ACA doesn't attempt to address healthcare costs shows that you don't really have a strong understanding of the ACA, or the historical impact Medicare had on costs.

I think the thought of 3rd passing it brings a smile to all of our faces.

Try giving them the hard facts on American healthcare as is compared to other nations (who do a bunch of different things...different from us...different from each other) and poll them on if we should do something. That'll be unanimous. Then we can sit here and debate and ACA structure, a medicare for all structure, or just total social medicine. If you really care about small business and state budgets so much I take it you want to socialize the entire thing? At least a public payer? Of course that would take even more taxes...tsk tsk...so now we're back to ACA? But then again the ACA is still ultmately more expensive than single payer...so we should shift back over there at least...and now wait a minute single payer could lower the cost of care more if we go to socialized medicine! But wait socialized medicine doesn't sound good...let's just stick w/ single payer....bleh the taxes! Back to ACA. You know the ACA has a huge lobby against it and seem complicated...let's just do nothing? At some point we have to pick one. We picked the conservative approach. This is Romney's own damned approach. As a nation (and by nation I mean the GOP), we should all stop forcing him to run against it and repeal it and just move forward on implementing it well and revising where necessary.