Meanwhile, at the Capital...

Jaxmadine wrote: And I didnt even get listed. I demand a recount! I am from florida:-p

Yeah. Where's the pregnant dimpled hanging chads?

First, we implement tort reform. I don’t believe anyone has contested the estimate that 15% to 18% of all medical spending is defensive IE: Run tests, proscribe meds, etc. that aren’t needed just to minimize the risk of being sued. So, no more punitive damages…if somebody screws up, they’d still be fully liable for lost wages, pain & suffering but no more throwing on a few extra million to “teach them a lesson”.

Next, we redirect the freed up capital and resources to expand Medicaid to provide a social safety net that would be the envy of the world.

Problem solved in 99 words rather than the 20,000 pages of power grabbing, vote pandering bull E36 M3 known as the ACA.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

They're currently being reprinted and voted for by the deceased.

If it's pregnant I had nothing to do with it. I swear.

Cone_Junky wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: All the "R's fault". No one else is to blame. At all. Nope. No one. None. Nada. I think the adherence to this philosphy is mostly what the problem in DC is. It's ALWAYS "their" fault. I really really really wish we had a 3rd option of people that didn't suck as bad.

Right now, this Gov't shutdown is exactly the R's fault. Even the conservative pundits realize this. They're gambling on it benefiting them in the next election. It's like this "pussification of america/children" discussion that comes up here often. Should the D's just give in to the extortion to end this? What will they ask (excuse me, demand) next when they realize this method works? Do the R's get a trophy just for participating so they feel better? The D's get plenty of things wrong and screw up a lot of E36 M3 too. But this discussion is specifically on this current shutdown. Completely designed and executed by the R's.

...and I thought I was biased, damn dude take off the blinders.

Designed by the Rs, this is the 17th shutdown, they must have really planned ahead.

Executed by the Rs, really, who is the Governing party?

Words like extortion, gambling, trophy for participating.

IMHO, this is the definition of trolling

Bobzilla wrote: If it's pregnant I had nothing to do with it. I swear.

Deny everything and demand proof, then expect a trophy for participating

In reply to Xceler8x:

Im going to say this once more, and then politely remove myself for a while. The problem with this bill as I see it is this:

ACA does nothing to resolve the root issue: Health care/coverage is too expensive. ACA does NOTHING to address the outrageous costs of medical care (costs driven up by shocker more insurance).

It does make it easier to get coverage for those who historically had difficulties accessing it. However, it does this by moving the costs from those aided by ACA - those receiving the (now subsidized) coverage, to those who already had access to (monopolized) coverage.

aussiesmg wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: Right now, this Gov't shutdown is exactly the R's fault. Even the conservative pundits realize this. They're gambling on it benefiting them in the next election. It's like this "pussification of america/children" discussion that comes up here often. Should the D's just give in to the extortion to end this? What will they ask (excuse me, demand) next when they realize this method works? Do the R's get a trophy just for participating so they feel better? The D's get plenty of things wrong and screw up a lot of E36 M3 too. But this discussion is specifically on this current shutdown. Completely designed and executed by the R's.

...and I thought I was biased, damn dude take off the blinders. Designed by the Rs, this is the 17th shutdown, they must have really planned ahead. Executed by the Rs, really, who is the Governing party? Words like extortion, gambling, trophy for participating. IMHO, this is the definition of trolling

THIS (current, going on now, present) government shutdown was orchestrated by the R's. How can you possibly say that it was not designed by them to press the D's into their submission? That's not trolling. It is fact. You can say that the D's aren't going along with the charade or caving to their demands. The blocking of this years budget is the R's. Check the votes, it's fact. Spin all you want. It's fact. There is even enough votes on the R's side to pass a CLEAN CR, but Boehner won't let it happen. It just needs to pass the R controlled House So who is the governing party exactly?

Yep. All the R's fault. Gotta be someone else. Are you done pointing fingers yet? You do realize this could have been avoided if the D's had bothered to pass a budget.... in the last 4 years.

Bobzilla wrote: Yep. All the R's fault. Gotta be someone else. Are you done pointing fingers yet? You do realize this could have been avoided if the D's had bothered to pass a budget.... in the last 4 years.

He says then points a finger...

Now here we are. They have a budget, pass it. Problem solved.

In reply to Cone_Junky:

I just want to point that no, no we do not have a budget. We have another "kick the can down the road" BS temporary spending bill. Voting that in still doesn't solve a damn thing.

BOTH parties are equally at fault, both then AND now, and BOTH parties need to be summarily executed.

Cone_Junky wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: Yep. All the R's fault. Gotta be someone else. Are you done pointing fingers yet? You do realize this could have been avoided if the D's had bothered to pass a budget.... in the last 4 years.

He says then points a finger... Now here we are. They have a budget, pass it. Problem solved.

Budget means balanced spending against income, like your family has to do at home. There has been no attempt at a budget in many years. Agreeing to not do a real budget is not a budget.

Cone_Junky wrote: How can you possibly say that it was not designed by them to press the D's into their submission? That's not trolling.

This part of your post says it all, no that's not trolling at all

I don't understand the blind hatred cone exhibits here. I really don't get it. Both parties have berkeleyed this up beyond all recognition. How is that not visible to anyone with a single working brain cell?

But the one with the ACA repeal/postponement doesn't address that either. So what is being accomplished?

Bobzilla wrote: I don't understand the blind hatred cone exhibits here. I really don't get it. Both parties have berkeleyed this up beyond all recognition.How is that not visible to anyone with a single working brain cell?

All that judgement and you are taking the high road eh? Troll.

If you can click your two brain cells together maybe you would have read that I said the D's screw E36 M3 up too. I am asking you to reel in all the blind hatred YOU have for Obama and realize it's the R's responsible for THIS SHUTDOWN. Don't worry, there is plenty of stuff to be blamed on Obama, this one is owned by the R's though.

Who put non-related amendments to delay the ACA in THIS BILL?

Who wants to try to repeal ACA after failing for Fifty-something times prior?

Who thought that this bill would go anywhere with demands they KNOW

would not pass?

Who has enough votes to makes this pass but their "leader" won't let them even vote on it?

There is no real compromise that begins with "We will do X, without question. Now let's discuss how we do X and some other stuff and get your signature on it."

If it's a budget discussion, and X is clearly and obviously the only item which can be addressed to make meaningful budgetary change, then real discussion will eventually arrive at that conclusion. If, on the other hand, X is just a thing someone really doesn't like and they're using budget discussions as an opportunity to try to get rid of it, that's not compromise, or even a good faith discussion of compromise.

"Honey, we need to shave about $100 out of our monthly budget. Obviously, no booze for the foreseeable future. Now, let's talk about the other $20. I'm sure we can reach a compromise..."

Those are my thoughts on the nature of discussion and compromise.

The other thoughts in my head are about how when I first got to GRM, I was astonished at how polite and respectful people were in their discussion of different views. Aw, now I'm getting all misty-eyed...

ransom wrote: ....The other thoughts in my head are about how when I first got to GRM, I was astonished at how polite and respectful people were in their discussion of different views. Aw, now I'm getting all misty-eyed...

Well... that is why political discussion have been discouraged here. Even with the rather intelligent reasonable people here, these discussion tend to turn bad. (I am sure we have all heard the "never discuss Religion or Politics..." saying)

One "cure" suggestion to the current situation that I heard was for the D's to give the R's some sort of budget cut related item to give them something they can say they accomplished and still allow the D's to have the ACA in it's current state. It gives them both a bit of a win.

aircooled wrote:

ransom wrote: ....The other thoughts in my head are about how when I first got to GRM, I was astonished at how polite and respectful people were in their discussion of different views. Aw, now I'm getting all misty-eyed...

Well... that is why political discussion have been discouraged here. Even with the rather intelligent reasonable people here, these discussion tend to turn bad. (I am sure we have all heard the "never discuss Religion or Politics..." saying) One "cure" suggestion to the current situation that I heard was for the D's to give the R's some sort of budget cut related item to give them something they can say they accomplished and still allow the D's to have the ACA in it's current state. It gives them both a bit of a win.

Another option would be to approach the President and say “OK, we’ll sign off on absolutely everything you want if you’ll provide objective metrics on the ACA’s expected performance going forward”…access to care, quality of care, costs of service, etc..

Nobody in the real world backs an undertaking without a solid business plan, why are we allowing this to be different.

If the ACA hits the numbers, wonderful, we’ve accomplished our stated goal, if it falls short, it automatically gets dismantled just like any other business failure.

If President Obama truly believes the ACA will turn out as he has promised, he should have no problem agreeing to this.

Thoughts???

RX Reven' wrote:

aircooled wrote:

ransom wrote: ....The other thoughts in my head are about how when I first got to GRM, I was astonished at how polite and respectful people were in their discussion of different views. Aw, now I'm getting all misty-eyed...

Well... that is why political discussion have been discouraged here. Even with the rather intelligent reasonable people here, these discussion tend to turn bad. (I am sure we have all heard the "never discuss Religion or Politics..." saying) One "cure" suggestion to the current situation that I heard was for the D's to give the R's some sort of budget cut related item to give them something they can say they accomplished and still allow the D's to have the ACA in it's current state. It gives them both a bit of a win.

Another option would be to approach the President and say “OK, we’ll sign off on absolutely everything you want if you’ll provide objective metrics on the ACA’s expected performance going forward”…access to care, quality of care, costs of service, etc.. Nobody in the real world backs an undertaking without a solid business plan, why are we allowing this to be different. If the ACA hits the numbers, wonderful, we’ve accomplished our stated goal, if it falls short, it automatically gets dismantled just like any other business failure. If President Obama truly believes the ACA will turn out as he has promised, he should have no problem agreeing to this. Thoughts???

1. Good idea- I support.
2. Probably not really true, but agree that we should have one.
3. Wouldn't we want to try and fix it before taking it to the junkyard? I think all (or most) of the individual pieces are pretty roundly accepted and liked by both parties.
4. Sure, but defining the performance metrics is where all the BS will begin on both sides. R's will want impossible to achieve metrics, D's will want none. I'm not sure there is an easy solution to this other than perhaps having something like the CBO or other "nonpartisan" group define a realistic set of metrics.
5. Thank you all for calling it the ACA and not Obamacare. For some reason that irks me.

In reply to aircooled:

That's the thing. These were political and religious discussions, and conducted with almost complete decorum. Anyhow, yeah, it degraded, and the discussions were/are discouraged, and fair enough. It ain't what it was, and cars are more fun anyhow.

As my godfather once said, "I feel a lot more like I do now than I did a little while ago."

Anyhow, I appreciate the calm offer of an idea. I had a counterargument, but I'm going to skip it because I need to wander off, and knowing that, I'll leave you with the last word.

slefain wrote: 93EXCivic - post count: 17

But my post were of memes and Kate Upton. You know things that are far more useful then the rest of the thread.

Which branch of our esteemed republic administers the public lands? Executive,Legislative or Judicial praytell.

Y'all some typin fools

In reply to RX Reven':

You cannot simple make that much sense when talking politics.......