Late night thunderstorms.
Cloudy skies this evening followed by thunderstorms late. Low 67F. Winds SSE at 10 to 20 mph. Chance of rain 80%.
Updated: February 26, 2017 @ 9:52 pm
February 26, 2017
J. Rick Altemose needs to check his math. 1968 was the most expensive in the Vietnam war with the American spending $77.4 billion ($ 519 billion in 2013 dollars adjusted for inflation) on the war. For his statement "That’s almost double the spending at the height of the Vietnam War" to be true, the US would have to spend over a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the $716 billion he mentions in his post. It was only 1.38 times higher. The higher costs can be attributed to the amount spent on technology.
And if I may add, the increase in technology has led to fewer American deaths:over 16, 000 American dead in 1968 in the Vietnam war as opposed to 310 Americans killed in 2013 in Iraq and Afghanistan. My deepest sympathy to all who gave their lives in the service for their country and I thank all who serve and have served in the American military.
While it wouldn't change the overall message, I think it would be a more meaningful comparison if you compared peak to peak. 1968 was during the height of Vietnam. Not the case with 2013 in either Iraq or Afghanistan. If you want to compare pull-out periods, you might use something around 1976 or so in Vietnam. Either way, I would think you'd see something on the order of a 10:1 ratio. Less than your 50:1 demonstration, but still strong support for the difference in technology.
Ok. Peak deaths during Vietnam War Conflict was in 1968, over 16,000.Peak American deaths in Iraq-Afghanistan was in 2010,
Ok, Peak deaths during Vietnam War Conflict was in 1968, over 16,000.Peak American deaths in Iraq-Afghanistan was in 2010, with 499 deaths.A ratio of 32:1
For what it's worth.... Afghanistan alone in 2010 was 499, and that has, so far been the peak number of deaths. Peak for Iraq was 2007, with 904 deaths.
Perhaps a study of the Sudetenland and what happened there along about late 1938 might be instructive as to increased action by our military some few months later.So, if we spend more, that means we have more armed forces?No.
What is Obama-care?A transfer of money from citizens and taxpayers to insurance companies.Insurance companies paid Democrats for a law giving them monopolistic profits.Anything less than total coverage must be canceled. You are then required to buy total coverage. Forcing us to pay for coverage we don’t need, want or can never use increases insurance company profits. Forcing the young to buy coverage they don’t want or need subsidizes older citizens.Taxpayers will pay the difference for lower income citizens.
And, without it, we have a huge transfer of money from taxpayers to government to hospitals and doctors. The numbers to watch will be the ones related to the total economic cost differences. We won't really have anything good along those lines for at least 5, probably closer to 10 years, from now. We'll have to watch closely to see what happens to the government slices of the pie, and whether the insurance slices turn out to be well in excess of the bureaucratic footprint before. We'll also need to look at the total patient expense before and after. Not just looking at direct expenses by patients, but also the indirect expenses (tax dollars allocated to indigent care, for example).
When did obstinance become synonymous with optimism?[beam]It doesn't take a leap of faith anymore to believe that the ACA as it is now is a good thing that will bring down costs and increase medical care.It takes a wholesale withdrawal from reality.Blindness and deafness are optional accessories in denial that would at least provide some cover for ignoring the obvious. [beam][beam]
People who think the ACA is good are the people Rush calls "low information voters.Good for bureaucrats and insurance company stock owners.Good for almost no one else.Really bad for taxpayers and people forced to buy coverage they can never use.
I'm not saying whether it's good or bad. We can speculate all we want, but without data, all we have is BS and FUD. I prefer to deal with facts over innuendo and supposition. Since we currently have 0 years of data on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of ACA, everything that both sides say at this point is just BS, supposition, innuendo, wishful thinking, etc.
I think that it would take a very strong break from reality for anyone to claim that the pre-ACA system was the panacea. Those that think the system before was worth preserving in entirety are, what some would call low information talk show hosts.
Therefore, we're perhaps having to evaluate different flavors of bio-waste.
Calculate the cost?40 million unensured will be financed by people who were paying for coverage they liked.140 new ACA bureaucracies will be financed by wealth transferes from taxpayers to government employees.The CBO calculates it will add $2.8 trillion to health care costs. Likely a low estimate because CBO uses data provided by the Obama regime.
Obama should not be blamed for Obama-care. Democrats were working on it before he was born. HRC offered a version in 1993.Insurance companies should not be blamed. All they wanted was selling "full coverage" policies. A few million dollars to a few dozen cheap Democrats seemed a good deal.Blame should really be on the Democrats who sold their votes and used the money to get elected.Republicans doing the same hate the Tea Party because the Tea Party wants to eliminate vote sales.
J. Rick Altemose
Another fact is the U.S. spends more on national defence than any other country.But we spend a smaller share of our national gross domestic product than most countries. Our 6 % compared to 31 % for North Korea or 22% for Iran or 12 % for China. Our spending is focused on tech for winning with less killing. Reducing needless killing is expensive.
OK. Try this:Get together all the millions tossed off their individual insurance policies deemed 'substandard' by the ACA. Just the ones so far. Never mind until next year all the ones who'll get tossed once employers decide to pay cheaper fines. Round up the people who never wanted insurance in the first place, but will now be fined or forced to buy something expensive they don't want. Assemble the 'millenials' who can't win for losing with a President who's policies not only kill their chances for a job but also wants them to sign up to pay double what they would have had to pay for health insurance, to subsidize HIS plan, which he himself has yet to sign up for (more 'leading from behind??...).Get a statement from the insurance coimpanies about how much it's cost them to spend 3 years implementing this mess, THEN having to turn on a dime and un-emplement some of it courtesy of another POTUS twist and dodge.Marshal the doctors and hospitals who have or will drop out of the ACA mandated programs because of rediculously small payments for the care they give.Having done that, repeat to them the following:"I'm not saying whether it's good or bad. We can speculate all we want, but without data, all we have is BS and FUD. I prefer to deal with facts over innuendo and supposition. Since we currently have 0 years of data on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of ACA, everything that both sides say at this point is just BS, supposition, innuendo, wishful thinking, etc.'I'd suggest you use conference calling or internet Go To Meeting, so they don't all blow your ear drums out telling you their opinion of your 'speculation and inuendo and supposition' assertion. OR, worse, beat the everlovin' 'biowaste' out of you. [beam][sad][wink][lol][huh][whistling][ohmy]How about the 'data' that we've already shelled out 600 million plus bucks for a website that not only STILL does not work at full capacity, but is still fraught with errors and NOT EVEN FINISHED YET to where payments can be accepted or made, and on which we'll no doubt spend another 300 - 400 million to 'fix it'?Is THAT, too, just a figment of imagination.Or, must the actual, final bill be produced and entered into the Fedre;la register before any credibility can be placed on what even the most ardent supporters of POTUS Folly are reporting.Daily.Stop it. Might as well argue that we don't KNOW a decapitated body is dead until the ME officially pronounces it so.
On one hand, we have the system we've known for so long to be an unsustainable pile of horse manure that was on course to kill our economy within a decade. On the other hand, we have an ACA that a large faction of our country lacks the the intestinal fortitude to follow through on. Apparently, your preference is that we behave like crawfish and back out because we see a few signs of trouble.
Is ACA perfect? No. Flawed? Yes. Is the website a debacle? Yes. Is every issue with an implementation of anything reason for abandoning the change, or should there be honest attempts to evaluate what works, what doesn't, what can be fixed, and what needs to be reworked from the ground up?
Your talking points sound just like those of the liberals when the first round of problems cropped up in Afghanistan or Iraq, or how the liberals look at deep water drilling post BP.
Certainly, I fully understand that this is a radical change, and there are some up-front sticker shocks. However, I'm convinced that if we could get the politicians and many other people to abandon the hysteria and irrational defense mode and sit down to real problem solving, the biggest pain points can be addressed and we'd get a clearer feel for whether there is any promise in the idea of insurance affordability.
I have no idea whether this can succeed or whether it can't. However, my stance is that we're a nation of fools if we can't even follow through on an attempt.
Gosh, let's just turn the clock back on every program this country has undertaken for which there were philosophical differences. Let's give up on the notion of ever asking people we perceive to be smart to suck it up on philosophical differences and actually try to ensure that things are implemented well, regardless or whether it's what we would have wanted to do.
One 'phylosophical difference' is lying through one's teeth and KNOWING it's a lie years ahead of when one is finally outed as having used that deceipt to skew not just the passing of a law but the outcome of a national election. Using your examples, a phylosophical difference is that each citizen of the nation was not required to go fight in the Afghan war, told what their MOS would be and which branch of the service it would be in, and then taxed if not complying.A phylosophical difference is that it was liberal greens who CAUSED the drilling in deep water by not allowing it in shallow areas near the coast. They didn't CAUSE the actual BP event, that's on the idiots on site, but there is NO denying that the leak would have lasted hours or days instead of weeks/months if in 50 feet of water, or even 500, instead of 5000.Now, rather than overreact and get all hysterical about 'every program this country has ever undertaken', I'll just stick with the subject at hand, the ACA, the ONLY program ever undertaken that involved such massive and nationwide effect with ZERO buy in from the other side of the aisle, and that could not even pass then without being 'deemed' to have passed.The diversionary narrative that the ignored and denigrated opposition should now rise up and help save that which they SAID was a royal mistake, now proven such, is a bit silly, imho.If I tell you the car you want to buy is a clunker, and you bad mouth me for saying so and buy it anyway, then YOU can live with it when the wheels fall off and the engine develops a knock, not blame me for not helping you fix it. You'd think the folks so adept at tossing the word 'substandard' around would understand what it means and that it describes their own product far better...[wink]
Excuse me. I missed the lesson in civics that says that if the majority passes a law that the minority doesn't like, then we should be sticks in the mud, encourage everyone to disobey the law, do everything we can to make sure it fails to do what it intends, and proclaim that it only applies to the majority that passed it.
Would this be too late to exonerate the Vietnam era conscientious objectors? I would think their philosophical difference with the legislative majority would be relevant, too.
At the congressional hearings Wednesday 12-4, 2013 a member of the Obama regime testifyed under oath a big American internet company had offered to build the ACA website for free, and have it fully functional in 2011. With 'state of the art' security protocal.He said he didn't know why that offer wasn't accepted. The Canadien company, paid $634 million for a mess, was a major donor for Obama's election.
I don't like it that 2 separate interesting topics are combined in one thread. Threads should be by lower-indenture titles. Just my 2 cents.
Anyone else having trouble with the GDN site forgetting that you're a subscriber even when you check the box to be remembered on a certain device? Or is the problem with my devices?
Mr. Buckner, the little check box has remembered me the last few times, but for a while previously did not.
It forgot again...[sad]
Would it be too late to bring back Jim Crow?By your example, people who fought against it should be re-taking junior high civics...Or, they should have tried to help make it work better.How about the Civil Rights Act, and those who didn't support it and fought it tooth and nail to kill it and didn't vote for it. Were those Democrats positive participants in it's transitional process? Kevjlang, the 'we must support whatever is passed' position is not one even shared by the most ardent of the far left (or far right or points in between).If it were, the most recent debate about 'the law of the land" would not be seeing the Pres. violate his own law to try to save his own political Party's hide.In my little world, not helping fix a bad law that was shoved down your throat is not nearly as bad as doing the shoving, and then cherrypicking what parts of your own law you'll enforce.I almost forgot.When will POTUS and others get on board with the Supreme Court's ruling that the Second Amendment does apply to individual firearms ownership, and stop trying to actively subvert that right? Why are they not helping make it easier for me to exercise my lawful right?Maybe they should re-take their JH civics classes...[smile]
You make some good points. There certainly are instances where civil disobedience is right, and going along to get along is wrong. However, I'm not sure how much of the "conservative opposition" to Obamacare is on moral grounds rather than just pure political obstinance. It sure seems to be mostly the latter. The fact that Obamacare was patterned after Romneycare is insignificant. The opposition is against Obamacare purely because it was pushed by Obama, and they're against Obama for the sake of being against Obama.
The opposition certainly can't be based on taxpayer costs, because the old system has been costing taxpayers billions of dollars and was projected to continue skyrocketing. All the other reasons for opposition change every day and are based on not wanting to address problems, rather than because of right versus wrong ethical situations.
At least the people against the Vietnam War, Jim Crow, etc. did try to get their concerns addressed through the legislative channels before they pursued the civil disobedience options. The only real option seriously pushed by the GOP has been, essentially, to go right back to where we were before. Exactly how many people actually believe that the old system was even half as good as sliced stale bread?
The opposition has used the analogy that Obamacare is like a runaway train barrelling towards a cliff. They're doing a good job of hollering that the brakes are bad and that we're heading over the cliff, but they aren't offering a solution that's relevant for the condition. Returning to the station just isn't an option when you're about to go off a cliff. Seems to me that the smarter thing to do is to figure out how to keep the train from going off the cliff first, and once you've solved the immediate problem, then start figuring out how to get the train moving again, under control, and in the direction you want to go.
You repeated a liberal lie as if you believed it.The opposition to Obamacare has offered solutions to everything wrong with our health care system. A La Cart policies, competition across state borders, portability, looser pays tort reform, tax credits for individuals like business had, health savings accounts. The list is longer but there was no profit for progressives.The free market can fix anything government can break.
Which fully explains why the free market has done nothing but make the problem worse over the last 30 years or so when the rising costs of healthcare was raised during the Reagan administration.
Every single thing you mention has received nothing but passing talk for decades. The fact is that there may be elements of good and bad idea in each of them, but the reality is that neither side has been willing to take the political backlashes when things invariably don't turn out as they advertised.
Competition across state borders SOUNDS like a good idea, but how are you going to integrate that with all of the various State Insurance Boards, and who's going to arbitrate the situations where a state board says a policy from another state fails to meet another's standards? Do you really think that Aetna, for instance, is going to stand by while Prudential sells a policy it writes in Wyoming, for instance, that Texas calls substandard, and because it's substandard, Aetna is unable to match? Competition across borders is far more complex than it sounds.
If there was any chance of consumers buying into a la carte policies, you'd see it first at McDonald's. Do you really think that people would prefer to buy the Big Mac, Fries, and Drink separately rather than as a combo meal? McDonald's would LOVE it if they could get away with unbundling their meals.
Medical Insurance already can be purchased with pre-tax dollars. That's how my share of my premiums is paid. How much more of a handout should I get for doing what's responsible?
What's the liberal opposition to health savings accounts? There's nothing about health savings accounts that would conflict with Obamacare from what I can see.
The ACA was not pushed by Obama. Progressives had been trying to pass a government take over of health care long before Obama was born. He was just the first president elected that would sign it.
Maybe, maybe, a few people still believe that it's wrong to lie to and screw over the people who hired you to solve problems?Maybe...These days, right and wrong seem to depend strictly on whether anyone might find out about it.
What I would like to see is a government that realized it isn't very good at solving a whole bunch of problems at once. It's frequently not very good at solving even one problem at once--or even 1/10 of a problem at once. Realizing that, I think they should have taken a more measured approach to addressing the insurance situation. However, that's not the hand that was dealt. At this point, we have to try to make the best of this hand before we can even conceive of changing directions. I don't believe that anyone ever truly believed that what was passed would be an exact image of what was implemented. There aren't many federal laws that do make it from proposal to passage to implementation without being amended. The total dysfunction in DC is the root cause of all the problems with ACA. The act itself did bite off more than the government could chew, and it's been further complicated by the fact that our government is incapable right now of chewing anything other than money. If they can't solve a problem purely by throwing money at it, or possibly by starving it of money, they alternate between being unwilling to show any wit, or showing they're witless.
Something measured like, say, health savings accounts?Something like interstate policy buying/competition?Something like attending to the problem of people without insurance, who wanted it, without messing with those, reported by poll to be 80%, who had it and were happy with it?Something like malpractice tort reform?Something like providing incentives for people to become doctors?Something like reform of the Medicaid payments schedules so doctors would actually see Medicaid patients without losing money doing so?Something like creating actual paying, full time jobs so people could buy insurance or get it via employer.ALL proposals on the table by opponents of a wholesale overhaul of the entire national health care system, and all summarily discarded via not even allowing them to be discussed in the Senate, much less voted on.Now, so much for the lie, another one, about being 'willing to consider any ideas', and that 'those guys have no plans of their own'.Of course, government by teleprompter and by golf cart doesn't lend itself well to the face to face negotiations and compromise necessary to even begin to have good governance.Taxpayer costs?Well, if the CBO isn't lying, they say that WITH the ACA we'll still end up with the same number of uninsured as was claimed to exist by the people demandding the ACA to solve the uninsured problem - 30 million.That means we'll STILL be on the hook for care for them anyway, and along with it have screwed up the health care for many millions of people who did not need or want any help, at a cost of billions in taxpayer dollars to do so, and trillions if one considers the CBO latest estimates of costs. What exactly has improved in savings to taxpayers that requires no need for opposition?EVERYTHING will continue to skyrocket and soak taxpayers unless this godawful bunch in DC ever change course and offer help to business to create full time, good paying jobs,, and not just part time ones that require taxpayer subsidies to buy insurance, and to get food stamps.Once the new EPA mandates kick in, and energy costs 'necessarily skyrocket under my Administration's energy plan', you ain't seen nuthin' yet like a bunch of PO'd people now paying double for that, too...Of course, that will be after the next elections...One way to start the stopping of this insanity?Vote in a new 67 vote majority in the Senate next year, keep the House majority, and let's do some law changing and veto overriding...Or, keep making excuses for it from a bent over, rear cheeks spread position...Merry Christmas...[beam]
There is another solution. Two more Red states are needed to call a "Constitutional Convention". Can't you think of anything that could change?I'd like an amendment that forced elected officials to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Goodbye BHO.Another would restore the original purpose of the Senate. Goodbye Harry Reid.A needed amendment would make it illegal to transfer earnings from workers to non workers.One making it illegal for non citizens to donate to political campaigns.Another to require a "Citizen ID" to vote in any national election. Another giving a worker the choice of joining a union, instead of a union, employer or government making that choice.I'll bet you have some better ideas.
"A needed amendment would make it illegal to transfer earnings from workers to non workers."
Translation: No benefits for the disabled, retired, etc., as that would require transferring earnings from workers to non-workers.
"I'd like an amendment that forced elected officials to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Goodbye BHO."
And, goodbye Cruz, Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, Paul, and just about every other elected official loved or hated by IHOG.
"Another would restore the original purpose of the Senate. Goodbye Harry Reid."
And, Goodbye to just about everyone else currently in the Senate. Especially folks like Cruz and Paul, that you love, but cannot be even remotely considered to be "elder statesmen".
Which government in our nation requires anyone to join a union? I think that your amendment would be to ban labor unions period. I think your preference would be that workers could be dumped on as the employer sees fit. Let the economic realities determine whether workers would stick around and take it, or leave for another employer when there is one.
The problems in this country are not because our constitution needs to be rewritten or extensively amended. The problems are because no one does anything unless they KNOW the political wind is still with them. Since that changes every 5 minutes, we won't do anything meaningful.
You misinterpit? Retires wouldn't be effected. They retire on earnings they invested. The aged and infirm would be protected. Only the ones who could work but prefere handouts would be affected.Returning to original Senate rules would re enforce Cruze and Paul's tenure. You need to learn what the original rules were. Senators were Appointed by states as defenders of the states voters, not hacks of a political party.Citizen ID for voting in National elections would restore the value of a citizens vote by eliminating voting in national elections in seven states by non citizens. Estimated to be at least 11 million non citizen votes in last two elections.Obama couldn't have been elected if he'd have had to tell the truth, any others should also be eliminated if caught lying. My lier is no better than your lier. Honesty would improve our trust in government.Presently 26 states have forced union membership to keep a job. Choice would force unions to support their members instead of their political party.
IHOG, no, I didn't misinterpret. You mis-wrote. You said no money from workers to non-workers. The typical retiree receives more SS benefits than what they paid in. Same with Medicare benefits. Now, if you want to restate what you wrote, that's fine.
Cruz and Paul may or may not be GOP hacks. However, the Senate was originally intended to be made up of people that had paid their dues from a statesmanship standpoint. Cruz and Paul are still paying their dues.
The problem with the Senate has nothing to do with HOW the members are chosen, but more in HOW the members perform. I would much rather have the voters of the state of Texas choose their senators rather than our state legislature.
Tell me one president in recent memory that wasn't accused of being a liar, and then tell me if you'd want that president to still be in office. I haven't heard many people accuse Carter of being a liar.....
In those states, the government didn't rule that you had to join a union to work. They ruled that people that wanted to work in shop that was under a union contract would have to join the union as a condition of employment. Anyone that wants to open a business in those states and wants an open shop can certainly do so.
If you want to get rid of Political Action Committees in entirety, I'm all for that. However, if you only want to ban unions from supporting activist groups, while letting groups that you feel support your causes, then I'd disagree.
You do understand, I'm sure, the difference between an accusation that someone did something, and with audio/video of the person themselves actually doing it. Period.No doubt loyal base players, though, will continue to believe the denials and spin and blaming Others rather than what they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. I expect little if anything from the too many people clueless as to the difference between saying something that's not true when you believe it is true, and with saying it when you know it's not true.Since we're talking about dishonesty and subterfuge, I hope at least some people managed to give a few seconds thought to the despicable attack on Pearl Harbor 72 years ago today, and to the men/women who died then and subsequently in the war that followed. THEY gave all so that we may be sitting here today not having to eat fish bait for food if we don't want to.Our service people since then have done their part, too.Do yours, and in honor of the day send off a donation to Wounded Warriors or whatever military personnel advocacy group suits your fancy.Merry Christmas and God Bless to ALL who have fought so hard over nearly 240 years now to keep this nation fundamentally free and so-far-more-true-than-not to what the founders intended. Merry Christmas.
'Passing talk' sure beats heck out of the royal mess that the ACA has made, is making, and will make for years.A 'fix' worse than the problem.
Well, at least someone finally had the guts to address the problem. If ACA is indeed making the problem worse, perhaps someone will be motivated to implement better fixes. I don't expect our current House and Senate to display such motivation, except under the strictest of highly partisan reactions that will yield nothing fruitful.
It is not 'gutsy' to make things worse for a lot of people in an attempt to make them better for a few. 'Gutsy' is a poor replacement for 'smart', which would have been the attending to the 10 percent of the population who needed the attention and not screwing up everybody else in the bargain.And, when you KNOW that your 'fix', warts and all, is NOT ready to go yet, and choose to LIE about it and bull ahead anyway, damn everybody hurt by it so that a dozen people can stand behind POTUS during yet another speach and smile broadly, that is just plain DISHONEST, and stupid, too.Stupid can't be fixed.
I would have said this could not be true before the ACA began to show 'what's in it', but inside it's headlong rush to economic ruin and social disruption appears, appears, to be at least the means to also effect public safety.If this is true, it will be interesting to see whether the VFD's get the same 'waiver' as ther Admin's cronies have gotten.WHATS NEXT.Will Little League parks that have over 50 volunteer parents working them be forced to provide health insurance to those 'employees' or pay fines? How about big high school car washes? Rediculous?Impossible?Yes.No.
Certainly, they can be found guilty of not thinking things through. That's typical of major congressional reforms. I feel I have to assume that the intent was to fix the major problems, add in a few nice to haves, and then sprinkle in a few "gifts" as well. That's what Congress likes to do. The fact that it wasn't perfect should be of surprise to no one. The travesty in the whole thing is that there has been absolutely no intent to provide adequate stewardship of the law to identify the gotchas and legislate the fixes, clarifications, rewrites, and repeals that laws of this magnitude would be expected to require. As a result, we've gone way off from the core intent of the reform--to make insurance available to everyone, and, preferably, to have everyone covered as a result.
To actually craft a bill that intended to deliver those goals was gutsy in our political climate. To completely neglect the issues with it because of political gamesmanship is beyond foolish. Even if they had taken a more measured approach toward the transition, it still would have required a lot of care and feeding to manage the implementation. This bill really required at least 4 years of that, but has received virtually none. I call that gutless. And stupid. Stupid walks on two legs, a D leg and an R leg. Somehow, both legs need to figure out a way to fix themselves and the problems.
How do you think things through when you're not allowed to read the bill before being forced to vote on it?What's gutsy about crafting a bill in secret without even input or discussion by most members of your OWN Party, and none from the opposition?Where are the guts in 'deeming' a bill to have passed, due to parliamentary maneuvers vs up front voting?I believe all those qualify as political gamesmanship.What you refer to as gutsy I would call stupid, in this case.When I told my crew(s) what I wanted to accomplish, and listened to their suggestions on how to get that done, or not, no matter whether good or bad, happy or sad, nice or meanly delivered, I ALWAYS got better results, because of a little thing called Buy-In.THEY owned part of the outcome.I watched others give orders intended to not be diverged from suffer a lot of unnecessary difficulty, when they even succeeded at all.Just like now...Merry Christmas.
Well, it's easy to say that everything was a complete mystery when you discard the fact that Republicans were working with the committees up until it was just about apparent that the thing could actually pass with just a couple of Republicans on board. Once the Tea Party got them running scared, they bolted and then the Democrats went and did some amending and deal making to make sure they had enough Democrats to pass it.
The rank and file of the House and Senate probably didn't have many details, but those that had been in conference knew quite a bit. For example, Sens. Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe.
Just because none of the Republicans voted for the bills doesn't mean their fingerprints aren't on it.
Response to gecroix posted at 4:57 pm on Fri, Dec 6, 2013:
Well, to answer kevlang's point regarding the Republican's "fingerprints on teh bill"....they got mad b/c they couldn't get their way in the game, got mad, took their marbles home. Kind of like when my cousin Lisa tried to make up new game rules at the last minute.
Now, regarding the strident opponents of health care reform: Sometimes it fulfills a "want" for many of us to get some good entertaining reading by perusing through some of these posts. "Golf cart president", "government by a teleprompter", or how about "how progressive"? Sounds so "geocroix". It sure is a shame that the "other side" (election candidates) couldn't have mustered up enough momentum to challenge such mediocrity and replace such mayhem.
As it is, we have a society that needs to move forward. To prepare the bulk of the population that very likely will not face a middle class status anytime soon. It's easy for us well-established folks to lament for the old days and "wish" for the struggling to "get it together", and for each individual to seek his/her own health insurance for self and their budding families.
To thwart a nationalized health care system is simply an attempt to put a stop to help that people need..in this day and age. After all, during the 1800s when the railroad constructions were in their heyday, the concept of AIDs treatments wasn't around because there simply wasn't such thing as AIDs in those days. Same for nationally financed road construction by the 20th century. Today, we expect a well-constructed interstate system.
So, we have advanced and, to use your dirty word, "progressed". Now, we have new concepts called "insurance" and "health care". It's desireable and cost effective in the long run that as many folks get it as possible. So, a question: What do you and the other naysayers propose to do in place of this plan that will address the need to reach health care for millions of folks who don't have the luxury of obtaining it through their "high-paying jobs"? [note sarcasm in last sentence]
Well, I knew I wouldn't get an answer to my questions regarding all the geocroix objections toward national health care. Still analyzing data in order to come up with a better alternative? Keep studying, as you just might learn something new.
From the Nobel Prize for doing nothing, to the 'Lie of the Year' award for what he actually did accomplish.I expect any day now he'll take to calling himself "I1soscruU0812' and ramp up the mendacity and dishonesty under cover of, well, cover.
So, gecroix, what's your alternative plan for the millions of uninsured?
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.