Government Shut Down Looming!

[B-Man]

Note how this pro-goverment attitude is also reflected here on this board, in the "shutdown" thread..........................

 

 

You Say That Like It’s a Bad Thing

 

 

FTA: -- 1st a statement from Harry Reid

 

 

“We’ve tried really hard to work on this energy bill, but it’s no wonder that the news is reporting today this [is] the least productive Senate in the history of the country. We have a number of Republican senators — and lots of . . . Republican House members who don’t believe in government,” Reid said.

 

 

 

And there you have nearly everything that’s wrong with the congressional ethos — that, in order to “productive,” legislators must continually be legislating, otherwise they “don’t believe in government.”

 

This, I think, is an outgrowth of the current business-management fad for “metrics,” markers to be hit whether or not those markers actually make any sense. Conservatives are constantly mystified by the strange mind-control the capital seems to exert on even fire-breathing newcomers, who sooner or later have their ideology beaten out of them as they learn the lessons of bipartisanship and Senate “comity” (a one-way street, as Reid’s remarks linked above clearly show). If the goal of the game is to “write laws” and “pass legislation,” then that eventually is what you will do, and that is all that you will do.

 

But when are too many laws enough? The unspoken end point is a country completely tied down by laws governing every area of human behavior — laws often written on a whim, or in reaction to some transient news cycle, which then stay on the book forever. As Glenn Reynolds has written, we’ve become Ham Sandwich Nation, a land in which everything is a crime, and it is left to the judgment of police and prosecutors whether you star as

today or tomorrow.

 

“Not going to finish the legislation”? Heaven forfend.

 

Note also the latest leftist meme that the Right “doesn’t believe in government.”

is their motto; if you’re not in favor of increasing, say, the debt ceiling then you must be in favor starving kids and seniors. For them, there cannot be a desirable social outcome without there first being a law. They’ve happily conflated their Manichaean ethos with bureaucratic process, constantly churning out new strictures at the federal, state and local level, because that, in their minds, is what we pay them to do. They’re clock punchers for the sake of clock-punching, presided over by party apparatchiks like Reid. Edited September 19, 2013 by B-Man

[B-Large]

That's cruel

 

yeah, WTF was with that punch to the nuts? I know I differ on many opinions from tohers here, but at least I try to lay down an argument for it. Gatorman goes full retard from the start, with unbright quips and hyperbole.

 

Why would I reply to your strawman argument that fails to refute anything Doc said?

 

argue it if you can... you can't that's why your deflecting... prove your position.

 

I'd argue Democrats are complete hypocrites in cheerleeding the ACA, while at the same time portaying Ryan's reforms to Medicare as killing granny. Its the same damn thing, same problem, same solution.

Edited September 19, 2013 by B-Large

[DC Tom]

and baron rothschild was?

 

 

the healthy people or their employers already are subsidizing the sick. and they're subsidizing the inadequate emergency care of the uninsured. the aca is just forcing an honest accounting for covering the cost of caring for 300 million americans vs 270 million. can the costs be reduced? well, sure if folks would stop screaming about "death panels" and rationing every time someone mentions rational limits on care.

 

Thus the crux is reached: Americans want reduction in cost without reduction in service (with increases in service, in fact - the pre-existing condition exclusion was a rational limit on care).

 

And thus the real problem with the ACA: it pretends to give Americans what they want, while doing absolutely no such thing.

[Joe Miner]

No, says anyone who understands human nature. You love Obamacare because it will ostensibly save you money. But that savings has to come from somewhere, namely healthy people (the "losers"). So the people who are healthy say to themselves "I don't use much health care so why should I subsidize care for those who use a lot of it and probably don't do all they can to maximize their healthiness? Especially when the penalty is a joke, they can't collect it, and I can sign up for insurance when I want? I want to save money too!" So those people won't sign up on the exchanges and instead mostly sick people will. Now the first year of exchange rates might look good, but that is because insurance co's are guesstimating and Obama/the states are pressuring them to keep the first-year rates low to make it seem like Obamacare is working. When they see the actual numbers, they'll be demanding the maximum increase in rates annually.

 

yeah, WTF was with that punch to the nuts? I know I differ on many opinions from tohers here, but at least I try to lay down an argument for it. Gatorman goes full retard from the start, with unbright quips and hyperbole.

 

 

 

argue it if you can... you can't that's why your deflecting... prove your position.

 

I'd argue Democrats are complete hypocrites in cheerleeding the ACA, while at the same time portaying Ryan's reforms to Medicare as killing granny. Its the same damn thing, same problem, same solution.

 

Easy there gator jr. Take a step back and breathe.

 

At this point you've gone straight in to making **** up. Or perhaps you'd like to quote me on 'my position'?

 

Doc made an argument against Obamacare, and your reply was a criticism of privatizing Medicare.

 

Feel free to point out where Doc brought up privatizing Medicare in his post.

 

That's why your response was a gatorman-like strawman deflection based on your emotional response to criticism of Obamacare.

[B-Large]

Easy there gator jr. Take a step back and breathe.

 

At this point you've gone straight in to making **** up. Or perhaps you'd like to quote me on 'my position'?

 

Doc made an argument against Obamacare, and your reply was a criticism of privatizing Medicare.

 

Feel free to point out where Doc brought up privatizing Medicare in his post.

 

That's why your response was a gatorman-like strawman deflection based on your emotional response to criticism of Obamacare.

 

I brought it up to provide a comparison/contrast/ context to illutrsate the hypocrisy of criticizing the ACA, which conservtaives don't support, to the Ryan Plan, which conservatives generally support. He brought up saving money, the Ryan Plan was proposed to save money, bring down the cost of care for senior and save the program for future generations who will need it. He also brought up the fact that a bunch of sick people will not bring down costs and will esentially send premiums sky rocketing, unless young people paying in will make up the deficit in a risk pool. I think the comparison is fair, relevant and compelling to the discussion Doc and I were having. I am sure he will find it the same and I look forward his reponse. If you don't wish to discuss it, or simply are not equipped to, then please don't reponds to my posts, or I will simple ignore them. I am still interested in your thought on the comparison and hypocrisy....

[Joe Miner]

I brought it up to provide a comparison/contrast/ context to illutrsate the hypocrisy of criticizing the ACA, which conservtaives don't support, to the Ryan Plan, which conservatives generally support. He brought up saving money, the Ryan Plan was proposed to save money, bring down the cost of care for senior and save the program for future generations who will need it. He also brought up the fact that a bunch of sick people will not bring down costs and will esentially send premiums sky rocketing, unless young people paying in will make up the deficit in a risk pool. I think the comparison is fair, relevant and compelling to the discussion Doc and I were having. I am sure he will find it the same and I look forward his reponse. If you don't wish to discuss it, or simply are not equipped to, then please don't reponds to my posts, or I will simple ignore them. I am still interested in your thought on the comparison and hypocrisy....

 

You brought it up because you couldn't argue what Doc said.

 

Your noble cause of attempting to highlight assumed hypocrisy is just another sham to cover up the fact that you can't actually refute the multiple issues that have been pointed out with Obamacare.

[Chef Jim]

and baron rothschild was?

 

And that has exactly what to do with the average American's 401k?

[birdog1960]

Thus the crux is reached: Americans want reduction in cost without reduction in service (with increases in service, in fact - the pre-existing condition exclusion was a rational limit on care).

 

And thus the real problem with the ACA: it pretends to give Americans what they want, while doing absolutely no such thing.

actually it doesn't pretend. it makes some very real changes and intiates some others that are also very important. firstly, it emphasizes and rewards primary care in which only 30% of american doctors now practice and which, in other cost effective western systems, 50% is the norm. while not initially, i'll bet that specialization will be disincentivized from it's current perverse level, again resulting in more cost effective care. just as the aca mandates preventive care in private insurance products (which will ultimately save money), it could mandate limited payments for end of life or futille care. it could also set safe harbor guidelines for standardized care for common conditions, eliminating wasteful testing and procedures. and it could mandate pay for performance rather than pay for volume. private insurance entities would never tackle these kinds of issues and in their historic very limited attempts have failed. the gov't has the best chance of effecting true reform in these regards.

 

And that has exactly what to do with the average American's 401k?

it has to do with psychology. if on paper you are poorer today than you were yesterday, you're not happy. even contrarians have to remind themselves that it might be a good thing. instinctively, you're going to be pi$$ed.

[Azalin]

Few things are funnier than listening to today's liberals argue that people only hate AFA because of Obama before they quickly turn around to explain that everything wrong in the world is exclusively blamed on a a guy who hasn't been president for over five years.

yep. that pretty much sums it up.

Well, you are hopelessly biased jackass, so what? Go live in another country if you hate the government that much. I'll bet more than half the people that share that opinion are on Medicare and Social Security. Why don't the GOP de-fund those programs?

biased? when I say that I trust NOBODY in the federal government, regardless of party, to manage such things? invest a few dollars in a dictionary, look up the word 'biased', and then read my post one more time.

 

you sound like some ultra-right wing, swamp-dwelling inbred hick......murica! love it or leave it!

[Tiberius]

yep. that pretty much sums it up.

 

biased? when I say that I trust NOBODY in the federal government, regardless of party, to manage such things? invest a few dollars in a dictionary, look up the word 'biased', and then read my post one more time.

 

you sound like some ultra-right wing, swamp-dwelling inbred hick......murica! love it or leave it!

 

Now that's funny. No idiot, your bias against government. Should GOP fight to de-fund medicare?

[Doc]

the healthy people or their employers already are subsidizing the sick. and they're subsidizing the inadequate emergency care of the uninsured. the aca is just forcing an honest accounting for covering the cost of caring for 300 million americans vs 270 million. can the costs be reduced? well, sure if folks would stop screaming about "death panels" and rationing every time someone mentions rationale limits on care.

True the healthy were already subsidizing the sick. But that's when people were automatically enrolled through work as part of a benefits package, i.e. out of sight, out of mind. Now when you'll need to sign up for it, it's a whole different animal. And the ER visits won't change.

[Azalin]

Now that's funny. No idiot, your bias against government. Should GOP fight to de-fund medicare?

strawman alert.

 

I'm not biased against government. I'm against the continuing encroachment of the centralized authority usurping the constitutional authority of the states. you're the only one talking about medicare. idiot.

[B-Large]

True the healthy were already subsidizing the sick. But that's when people were automatically enrolled through work as part of a benefits package, i.e. out of sight, out of mind. Now when you'll need to sign up for it, it's a whole different animal. And the ER visits won't change.

 

but the underlying assumption is that young people don't value risk management, ie Insurance. Why do we have such little faith in young people to make good decisions. If young people see that jobs are less plentiful and pay less than they did 10, 20, 30 years ago, is there not the possibility that more kids will start a business or try to start a business because they no longer are tied to employer bennies? My first priority out of school was a job with benefits... I imagine many are like in that respect.

 

Its a bit of leap to determine just because kids are young, they make all their value decision on just dollars and cents, no?

[Doc]

So by that same logic, does privatizing Medicare work? So the sickest of the sick hit the private market, whose going to offest that savings to Medicare?

I wasn't a big fan of Ryan's plan. Something needs to be done about it, just like something needed to be done about private health insurance, but Ryan's plan, like Obamacare, isn't it.

 

but the underlying assumption is that young people don't value risk management, ie Insurance. Why do we have such little faith in young people to make good decisions. If young people see that jobs are less plentiful and pay less than they did 10, 20, 30 years ago, is there not the possibility that more kids will start a business or try to start a business because they no longer are tied to employer bennies? My first priority out of school was a job with benefits... I imagine many are like in that respect.

 

Its a bit of leap to determine just because kids are young, they make all their value decision on just dollars and cents, no?

I think that's pretty self-explanatory.

[Tiberius]

strawman alert.

 

I'm not biased against government. I'm against the continuing encroachment of the centralized authority usurping the constitutional authority of the states. you're the only one talking about medicare. idiot.

 

You are not? But you said in next sentence your biased against it taking the states authority. You are a piece of work man.

 

So you would just feel better if states had more power?? How would that improve your life?

[Jauronimo]

You are not? But you said in next sentence your biased against it taking the states authority. You are a piece of work man.

 

So you would just feel better if states had more power?? How would that improve your life?

When it comes to overreaching central government and states rights, clearly the issue at hand is immediate and noticeable effects in your day to day life. Precedence and long term implications have no place in this discussion, you f@#$ing moron.

[Tiberius]

When it comes to overreaching central government and states rights, clearly the issue at hand is immediate and noticeable effects in your day to day life. Precedence and long term implications have no place in this discussion, you f@#$ing moron.

Oh come on, just tell us how its affecting your life! Give a few examples of how you are being oppressed or whatever. Instead of throwing out insults just make a rational argument

[Jauronimo]

Oh come on, just tell us how its affecting your life! Give a few examples of how you are being oppressed or whatever. Instead of throwing out insults just make a rational argument

I did make a rational argument. Just because the effects are imperceptible in my day to day life right now, doesn't mean these changes aren't important. Water on a stove reaches boiling one degree at a time. Frogs can't feel the difference.

 

On the flip side, please provide one example of how centralized government made your life better today. Go!

[Chef Jim]

it has to do with psychology. if on paper you are poorer today than you were yesterday, you're not happy. even contrarians have to remind themselves that it might be a good thing. instinctively, you're going to be pi$$ed.

 

And that's why the typical "investor" that does it themselves is usually !@#$ed because they get too emotionally involved and they look at their long term investments with their short term glasses. Getting pissed because your 25 year plan on your 401k is down this month is stupid. I do this for a living and I can't tell you how much I have in my retirement.

[B-Man]

On Friday, the House is expected to pass a continuing resolution to extend funding for government, but also strip all discretionary spending to implement ObamaCare. If enacted, the House action would allow government to remain open but erect a huge obstacle to ObamaCare. While all of the media is consumed with an internal GOP debate on this issue, the true target of such a move has escaped notice. If the House proceeds with its vote, several vulnerable Democrat Senators face a series of bad choices.

 

Many commentators criticized the move, arguing that the Senate and Obama would never agree to defunding their signature policy achievement. Those commentators are missing the point. While there is no practical way to defund ObamaCare, since most of the spending supporting the law is mandatory and not subject to Congressional appropriations, the House move puts an unwelcome spotlight on several vulnerable Senate Democrats. They will be forced, just a little over a year ahead of mid-term elections, to again take a stand on ObamaCare.

 

Republicans needs to pick up 6 seats to take control of the Senate. They are currently favored to pick up three seats, in West Virginia, South Dakota and Montana. Three more Democrat incumbents are endangered, Mark Pryor (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Kay Hagen (NC). With the House action, all three will be forced to go on record, either supporting or opposing ObamaCare. It is not an easy choice.

 

The full implementation of ObamaCare begins in two weeks. As the deadline approaches, polls show the health care law even more unpopular than when it was passed in 2010. At that time, problems with the law were abstract. Today, with employers cutting hours, shifting to part-time employees or dropping health coverage, the problems with the law are very real. Taking a vote now to continue with the law is the worst possible choice for Democrats up for reelection next year.

 

Which is the entire point of this move by Sens. Cruz and Lee. The target isn't to rally the Tea Party or call out RINOs, it is to force Senate Democrats to again endorse ObamaCare.

 

 

http://www.breitbart...crats-obamacare