Meanwhile, at the Capital...

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: The DCMA was forced back to work. Looks like the furloughs were cancelled.

For now... the DCMA was just the immediate problem keeping the lines moving from what I understand. IIRC aircraft still can't be delivered on either the military or commercial side and SAC can't get paid for any that they might be able to deliver. If the shutdown continues for a while it will probably force more of the furloughs that were threatened. And it has already likely screwed up the award/approval of several of the projects that were up for decisions by the DAB...

yamaha wrote: I like where these last two comments have gone, thanks for making me laugh guys.....

For some stupid reason a picture of Joann Whorley from the old Laugh In show is twirling through my head.

yamaha wrote: I like where these last two comments have gone, thanks for making me laugh guys.....

Dont thank me, thank the Greek poultry...comedy like that practically writes itself.

4cylndrfury wrote: Perhaps Im oversimplifying things a bit, but here is the argument I keep having internally: I understand the cost of medical care was becoming so astronomical, that even lower middle class citizens were having a hard time covering it, even with the (admittedly flawed) insurance/medical care system in place 3 years ago. The ACA is "reportedly" designed to help low income citizens obtain insurance coverage to pay for those astronomical bills. If the problem is the bills were too high, or the cost of coverage was too high, why didnt we focus on bringing the costs down, and not on how to make it possible to get subsidized care? If the costs for medical care were driven sky high because medical providers had to carry stupid high insurance against malpractice suits, and they needed to carry this because it had become easy to bring a case against a provider for almost nothing, then why didnt uncle sam go after the lawyers/legal system that makes this possible? Dropping the cost of care makes it easy(er) to pay for. More bills paid means more taxes collected. Everybody wins. If the cost of insurance is high because the system limited who you could purchase coverage from by forming a sort of localized monopoly, or because the insurance providers were gouging their customers by charging ludicrous amounts of money for coverage (or both), and were restricting a "free market" system for purchasing coverage, why didnt uncle sam go after the state line restrictions for purchasing insurance or regulate the providers so they cannot gouge their customers...or both? It seems to me a free market in this industry wouldve driven costs down to levels the market would support...am I wrong? Im not necessarily an opponent of ACA, but I think that there were many many other options to make care more affordable for lower income folks that didnt regulate the end consumers options, but did regulate the industry. In the end, as much as the O wants to sound like he just wants to help the children...wont you think of the children? ...hes really just posturing for his party. Another govt handout designed to keep the unwashed masses voting D in elections. O-Phone, O-care, foodstamps for everyone..."keep me elected, Im here to help you! Oh and youll never work another day in your life. How much do you love me now???" Its been posted the Rs arent offering up any alternatives...or anything of value even. This is actually not false, they really arent. No jobs bills, no trade equity bills, no energy independence ideas, nothing...just gay chicken sandwiches and whatnot. But the Ds are offering about the same...nothing. Like, people will need to do nothing, and we will take care of you. kick em all out.

I know this is a crazy concept, but bear with me here-

There are people (even politicians...gasp!) that actually care about the well being of fellow humans. They even think that helping others will improve society as a whole. I know this is completely outside the realm of Conservatives, especially because they have been told (repeatedly) otherwise from the propaganda machines. Sometimes social welfare is NOT a tit for them to suckle all their life. There are good people despite the neighborhoods they were born in that will take advantage of the hands up approach and make a better life for themselves and those that surround them.

Maybe even one day these Conservatives will follow that magical book that is used to make their laws and actually learn from Jebus's teachings. Not likely, but maybe.

Wow... I think someone needs to find some concrete.

Good to see things are all the repubs fault and there's no pettiness on the otherside of the aisle:

http://twitchy.com/2013/10/08/catch-us-if-you-can-gettysburg-visitors-defy-spitehouse-cones-and-barrycades-pics/

Cone_Junky wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Perhaps Im oversimplifying things a bit, but here is the argument I keep having internally: I understand the cost of medical care was becoming so astronomical, that even lower middle class citizens were having a hard time covering it, even with the (admittedly flawed) insurance/medical care system in place 3 years ago. The ACA is "reportedly" designed to help low income citizens obtain insurance coverage to pay for those astronomical bills. If the problem is the bills were too high, or the cost of coverage was too high, why didnt we focus on bringing the costs down, and not on how to make it possible to get subsidized care? If the costs for medical care were driven sky high because medical providers had to carry stupid high insurance against malpractice suits, and they needed to carry this because it had become easy to bring a case against a provider for almost nothing, then why didnt uncle sam go after the lawyers/legal system that makes this possible? Dropping the cost of care makes it easy(er) to pay for. More bills paid means more taxes collected. Everybody wins. If the cost of insurance is high because the system limited who you could purchase coverage from by forming a sort of localized monopoly, or because the insurance providers were gouging their customers by charging ludicrous amounts of money for coverage (or both), and were restricting a "free market" system for purchasing coverage, why didnt uncle sam go after the state line restrictions for purchasing insurance or regulate the providers so they cannot gouge their customers...or both? It seems to me a free market in this industry wouldve driven costs down to levels the market would support...am I wrong? Im not necessarily an opponent of ACA, but I think that there were many many other options to make care more affordable for lower income folks that didnt regulate the end consumers options, but did regulate the industry. In the end, as much as the O wants to sound like he just wants to help the children...wont you think of the children? ...hes really just posturing for his party. Another govt handout designed to keep the unwashed masses voting D in elections. O-Phone, O-care, foodstamps for everyone..."keep me elected, Im here to help you! Oh and youll never work another day in your life. How much do you love me now???" Its been posted the Rs arent offering up any alternatives...or anything of value even. This is actually not false, they really arent. No jobs bills, no trade equity bills, no energy independence ideas, nothing...just gay chicken sandwiches and whatnot. But the Ds are offering about the same...nothing. Like, people will need to do nothing, and we will take care of you. kick em all out.

I know this is a crazy concept, but bear with me here- There are people (even politicians...gasp!) that actually care about the well being of fellow humans. They even think that helping others will improve society as a whole. I know this is completely outside the realm of Conservatives, especially because they have been told (repeatedly) otherwise from the propaganda machines. Sometimes social welfare is NOT a tit for them to suckle all their life. There are good people despite the neighborhoods they were born in that will take advantage of the hands up approach and make a better life for themselves and those that surround them. Maybe even one day these Conservatives will follow that magical book that is used to make their laws and actually learn from Jebus's teachings. Not likely, but maybe.

lolerskates, you sound silly.

troll bait: avoided. Heres some crayons and coloring book, have fun, but stay quiet (pats head) ...the grown ups are talking

for the rest of the adults in the room, the big boys and girls table is over here.

Triage the symptoms to stabilize the situation, then correct the problems. All ACA does is put the dirty laundry behind a closet door. It does nothing to clean up the mess except make it look prettier. The problem is that health care is artificially expensive. Lower the costs, make it affordable for everyone. Subsidizing it does nothing...NOTHING to correct the problem.

I dont doubt that there are politicians interested in helping others. But helping some at the expense of others isnt helping anyone.

Don't see the Republican's rushing out to tell the capitalist state of our health care system to "make things cheap you greedy fools".

PHeller wrote: Don't see the Republican's rushing out to tell the capitalist state of our health care system to "make things cheap you greedy fools".

You are right. I don't see them doing anything at all.

PHeller wrote: Don't see the Republican's rushing out to tell the capitalist state of our health care system to "make things cheap you greedy fools".

4cylndrfury wrote: Its been posted the Rs arent offering up any alternatives...or anything of value even. This is actually not false, they really arent. No jobs bills, no trade equity bills, no energy independence ideas, nothing...just gay chicken sandwiches and whatnot. But the Ds are offering about the same...nothing. Like, people will need to do nothing, and we will take care of you. kick em all out.

no one is offering anything.

4cylndrfury wrote: .....Lower the costs, make it affordable for everyone. Subsidizing it does nothing...NOTHING to correct the problem.....

Depends what problem you are trying to fix. I don't think the ACA really purports to make healthcare cheaper (maybe in a long run sense). I am sure there are some very strong ($ wise) forces that are not terribly interested in making HC less expensive. (suckling on the teat of HC you might say)

I think a good statement about the ACA is: The ACA does not make healthcare more affordable for all, just for some.

Cone_Junky wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Wow... I think someone needs to find some concrete.

Of course Bob. Someone can put up a dozen paragraphs on how the Dems are just giving everything away for free to get votes, but I call out the social bias and I need a patio building permit? OMG! Someone doesn't agree with my political rantings. This was supposed to be a one sided argument! Bannnnn them!!!!!

go away troll.

4cylndrfury wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: ...nothing...just gay chicken sandwiches and whatnot.

Are they gay chickens better for sandwich meat or do they just use them because they produce no eggs and don't breed? Or is it a homophobic farmer thing?

They use the gay chickens because their flamboyant presentation gets customers in the door.

roosters don't say "Bob Costas a doodle doo"

4cylndrfury wrote: lolerskates, you sound silly. troll bait: avoided. Heres some crayons and coloring book, have fun, but stay quiet (*pats head*) ...the grown ups are talking for the rest of the adults in the room, the big boys and girls table is over here. Triage the symptoms to stabilize the situation, then correct the problems. All ACA does is put the dirty laundry behind a closet door. It does nothing to clean up the mess except make it look prettier. The problem is that health care is artificially expensive. Lower the costs, make it affordable for everyone. Subsidizing it does nothing...NOTHING to correct the problem. I dont doubt that there are politicians interested in helping others. But helping some at the expense of others isnt helping anyone.

"Helping" is always at the expense of others. Whether it's someone else donating money or giving their personal time for the benefit of others. When a church gives away free meals or shelters for the needy, where does that money/time come from? What about the food bank? Businesses giving away food (at their expense) and volunteers (at their expense) distributing this food. Do we know as a society that it betters our community? Of course. Why is this concept lost on you? Maybe it's the people you surround yourself with. Personally I like to be around others that appreciate humanity. Obviously not your cup of tea.

So where is the legislation to correct all these obvious problems with the ACA? Repealing it or delaying it does nothing to repair or fix anything. Throwing a tantrum because they lost on all the proper ways to change it is childish. So maybe the R's should go back to their crayons and rounded off scissors so they stop hurting themselves and others.

Seriously, the personal attacks are getting old.

aircooled wrote: I think a good statement about the ACA is: The ACA does not make healthcare more affordable for all, just for some.

And thats the problem. The rest needed overhauled before this.

In reply to yamaha: Agreed. The issue with healthcare was not, and is not, going away. It needs overhauled. But that isn't what we got. Hell, we didn't even get a friggin' bandaid.

Bobzilla wrote: Seriously, the personal attacks are getting old.

Then berkeleying stop making them.

Yamaha,

How do we know we're that much more expensive for health care than other developed nations? How many developed countries have a health care system like ours?

Josh wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Seriously, the personal attacks are getting old.

Then berkeleying stop making them.

Where? Please.... I'd like to know.

The difference is conservatives DO give more of their own money and their own time in very large percentages greater than those who would call them uncaring or greedy

And This as those liberals seek to take someone else's money for their own use.

hey I asked a pretty non-partisan question. I'd like it answered before this gets locked.

How do we know, and how do we compare our health care costs against the average?

If our health care is too expensive, how can it be made cheaper without sacrificing the level of care and quality?

Lastly, what do we do about people who no matter how cheap health care is made, they still won't be able to pay their health care bills? Do we spend tax payer dollars putting them in jail?

ronholm wrote: The difference is conservatives DO give more of their own money and their own time in very large percentages greater than those who would call them uncaring or greedy And This as those liberals seek to take someone else's money for their own use.

Honestly, generalizing and comparing Conservatives vs Liberals is completely unnecessary and totally non-productive here (not specifically pointed at you)

Bobzilla wrote:

Josh wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Seriously, the personal attacks are getting old.

Then berkeleying stop making them.

Where? Please.... I'd like to know.

Where you call anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll and call for them to be banned. This is of course a long established tactic of yours. I am going to give you a little credit and assume you know exactly what you're doing. If on the other hand you are saying that you genuinely don't understand what's wrong with that sort of behavior, disregard this as it's difficult to reason with someone who has abandoned it.

I would suggest that if you are so insecure in your own beliefs that you can't abide any expression of an opinion alternative to your own, then maybe it might be time to reexamine those beliefs.