Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Of course, this likely won't get past the Senate. And even if it does, they probably don't have the 2/3 vote required to override the veto everyone knows is coming.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02 ... -spending/

More wasted time by the GOP.

Same "house" would without a doubt, impeach Clinton all over again too. BFD

UNHWildCats wrote:More wasted time by the GOP.

Both political parties waste time. What did the democrats do while GW was getting us into an unneccessary war? What were they doing to help returning vets? What were they doing to help low income homeowners and the elderly when JP Morgan and BoA were unlawfully foreclosing and charging rates which were higher than what was on the loan paperwork? What's your point Cat?

Would be nice to actually have a govt in Washington that actually listens to what the masses want. When is the last time that happened? One man promises, promises.......then does the exact opposite once in power and so it goes, it goes, and so it goes.

Washington is morally bankrupt and only through fear, lies, and greed are they able to break laws and encompass us all with their supposed superiority. I long for the day when capitol hill and 1600 PA ave are both awash in everlasting shame and are both vacant..........FOREVER!!!

1842BullDog wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:More wasted time by the GOP.

Both political parties waste time. What did the democrats do while GW was getting us into an unneccessary war? What were they doing to help returning vets? What were they doing to help low income homeowners and the elderly when JP Morgan and BoA were unlawfully foreclosing and charging rates which were higher than what was on the loan paperwork? What's your point Cat?

As much as I am a Left Wing Nut ball
This is a solid post (above) and really points out how predictably awful both parties are when they have a majority - and it's not just recently - it's always...

exactly chizzang!!!

Doesn't matter if the ones they pass are vetoed. All the house has to do is refuse to pass any spending plan that funds Obama Care, and it can't get funded.

BDKJMU wrote:Doesn't matter if the ones they pass are vetoed. All the house has to do is refuse to pass any spending plan that funds Obama Care, and it can't get funded.

I want to be able to keep my kids on our insurance until they're 26.

houndawg wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:Doesn't matter if the ones they pass are vetoed. All the house has to do is refuse to pass any spending plan that funds Obama Care, and it can't get funded.

I want to be able to keep my kids on our insurance until they're 26.

Why don't you tell them to get a job and get their own damn insurance like most of us did well before 26. Parents shouldn't be supporting their kids past their early 20s. There comes a time when kids have to be treated as adults and kicked off the parental tit, like in their early 20s.

I think the letting them stay on until the age of 26 is fine as long as the kid is paying college loans or in college, otherwise off the tit they should go by 21.

BDKJMU wrote:

houndawg wrote:
I want to be able to keep my kids on our insurance until they're 26.

Why don't you tell them to get a job and get their own damn insurance like most of us did well before 26. Parents shouldn't be supporting their kids past their early 20s. There comes a time when kids have to be treated as adults and kicked off the parental tit, like in their early 20s.

They both work and are full time college students and haven't lived at home since the week they turned 19.

The university insurance plan is not a good one and their main tactic is deny-until-they-quit-in-frustration. This way the kids are covered by a better plan and we save several hundred dollars per semester by opting out of the university plan.

houndawg wrote: They both work and are full time college students and haven't lived at home since the week they turned 19.

The university insurance plan is not a good one and their main tactic is deny-until-they-quit-in-frustration. This way the kids are covered by a better plan and we save several hundred dollars per semester by opting out of the university plan.

Because Insurance companies are a "for Profit" organization entrusted to manage your health Imagine a world where health insurance was managed to run at a zero net gain - everybody gets paid and all the employees get paid the same (everything stays the same) but instead of putting 100 million in profits into Wall Street they run at Zero Net...

claims would be accepted (estimated) 85% more and doctors and clinics would get paid faster and be more concerned with the actual health of the person standing in front of them and not wondering (or knowing) full wel that whatever they are about to do won't get paid for by the Insurance Company

Imagine....



of course that will never happen because insurance companies wrote that stupid bill and will write the next one too... and there is way too much money in running health care just like you run car insurance

Chizzang wrote: Because Insurance companies are a "for Profit" organization entrusted to manage your health Imagine a world where health insurance was managed to run at a zero net gain - everybody gets paid and all the employees get paid the same (everything stays the same) but instead of putting 100 million in profits into Wall Street they run at Zero Net...

claims would be accepted (estimated) 85% more and doctors and clinics would get paid faster and be more concerned with the actual health of the person standing in front of them and not wondering (or knowing) full wel that whatever they are about to do won't get paid for by the Insurance Company

Imagine....



of course that will never happen because insurance companies wrote that stupid bill and will write the next one too... and there is way too much money in running health care just like you run car insurance

What kind of a fools paradise do you live in? Have you ever had any dealings with a government agency? What kind of service did you get? Did they know what they were talking about? Did they in any way indicate that they really cared about about your situation? Did you ever think that some slack-jawed government employee would ever be reprimanded or fired for doing a bad job? Just because it's health care do you think their jobs will be done better? Alright so the doctor and the insurance company are making money. I could care less as long as they resolve my problem in a timely fashion. And that has been my experience for neartly 40 years.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

Chizzang wrote: Because Insurance companies are a "for Profit" organization entrusted to manage your health Imagine a world where health insurance was managed to run at a zero net gain - everybody gets paid and all the employees get paid the same (everything stays the same) but instead of putting 100 million in profits into Wall Street they run at Zero Net...

claims would be accepted (estimated) 85% more and doctors and clinics would get paid faster and be more concerned with the actual health of the person standing in front of them and not wondering (or knowing) full wel that whatever they are about to do won't get paid for by the Insurance Company

Imagine....



of course that will never happen because insurance companies wrote that stupid bill and will write the next one too... and there is way too much money in running health care just like you run car insurance

What kind of a fools paradise do you live in? Have you ever had any dealings with a government agency? What kind of service did you get? Did they know what they were talking about? Did they in any way indicate that they really cared about about your situation? Did you ever think that some slack-jawed government employee would ever be reprimanded or fired for doing a bad job? Just because it's health care do you think their jobs will be done better? Alright so the doctor and the insurance company are making money. I could care less as long as they resolve my problem in a timely fashion. And that has been my experience for neartly 40 years.

I'm not sure what you're talking about actually...
I'm talking about getting for-profit corporations out of the middle of the relationship between Health Care the doctor and the client... that's all

1)Today Insurance companies are exactly right in the middle between you and your doctor
2) Insurance directors wrote the latest health care bill

I'm am in no way talking about "the government" or government run health care
Please re-read my post (thank you)

Chizzang wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:
What kind of a fools paradise do you live in? Have you ever had any dealings with a government agency? What kind of service did you get? Did they know what they were talking about? Did they in any way indicate that they really cared about about your situation? Did you ever think that some slack-jawed government employee would ever be reprimanded or fired for doing a bad job? Just because it's health care do you think their jobs will be done better? Alright so the doctor and the insurance company are making money. I could care less as long as they resolve my problem in a timely fashion. And that has been my experience for neartly 40 years.

I'm not sure what you're talking about actually...
I'm talking about getting for-profit corporations out of the middle of the relationship between Health Care the doctor and the client... that's all

1)Today Insurance companies are exactly right in the middle between you and your doctor
2) Insurance directors wrote the latest health care bill

I'm am in no way talking about "the government" or government run health care
Please re-read my post (thank you)

That's all well and good but you know just as well as I do that if the for-profit insurances companies are out then the government will be in.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
I'm not sure what you're talking about actually...
I'm talking about getting for-profit corporations out of the middle of the relationship between Health Care the doctor and the client... that's all

1)Today Insurance companies are exactly right in the middle between you and your doctor
2) Insurance directors wrote the latest health care bill

I'm am in no way talking about "the government" or government run health care
Please re-read my post (thank you)

That's all well and good but you know just as well as I do that if the for-profit insurances companies are out then the government will be in.

So I guess you're suggesting there is no answer...
Frankly I don't want the government running the TSA / Education / Health care or pretty much anything else that requires anything with actual accountability and nimble decision making

But I believe we need to get major corporations that think of ONLY MONEY out of the middle between doctors and clients (period) because that is proving to NOT WORK

Chizzang wrote:So I guess you're suggesting there is no answer...
Frankly I don't want the government running the TSA / Education / Health care or pretty much anything else that requires anything with actual accountability and nimble decision making

But I believe we need to get major corporations that think of ONLY MONEY out of the middle between doctors and clients (period) because that is proving to NOT WORK

Until we can start exercising better control over the political class there is no answer. How do we do that? I have no clue. Term limits maybe? I don't know. If I knew the answer I wouldn't be wasting my time here. Nothing personal.

There's a fundamental problem with term limits that's being played out in the Cali legislature: You get a bunch of people with no clue about how to legislate get elected. Because of term limits, by the time they've figured out the job, they're out. The result is gridlock because both parties go to the extremes to show they're "fighting," and no compromise happens. The situation in Cali is compounded, however, by the fact that there are certain areas with funding levels mandated by amendments to one of the most bloated constitutions known to man which were enacted over about 80 years or so through the initiative process. The Legislature's hands are tied, so it LOOKS like the Senators and Assemblypeople are sitting on their cans. The solution to THAT is a constitutional convention, but we haven't seen one yet. But the term limit problem is huge, too.

Term limits is one of those ideas that sounded good at the time, but just doesn't work in practice.

SuperHornet wrote:There's a fundamental problem with term limits that's being played out in the Cali legislature: You get a bunch of people with no clue about how to legislate get elected. Because of term limits, by the time they've figured out the job, they're out.

I don't think it takes much experience to know how to steal and feather your own nest. I think they know how to do that just after the swearing-in ceremony.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:There's a fundamental problem with term limits that's being played out in the Cali legislature: You get a bunch of people with no clue about how to legislate get elected. Because of term limits, by the time they've figured out the job, they're out.

I don't think it takes much experience to know how to steal and feather your own nest. I think they know how to do that just after the swearing-in ceremony.

If you think EVERYONE goes into it with that mentality, you are so far past cynical it's beyond belief. Perhaps some do, and perhaps some develop that over the years in politics (especially with graft and bribes from special interests). But to assert (not that you necessarily did) that ALL people in politics are out to enrich themselves runs into the same problem ALL generalization does: it doesn't work. There will ALWAYS be occasional exceptions.

I should know. I have a friend in the Cali state legislature who IS one of those exceptions. She's represented us to the best of her ability and has NOT taken one red cent in self-aggrandizement.

SuperHornet wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:
I don't think it takes much experience to know how to steal and feather your own nest. I think they know how to do that just after the swearing-in ceremony.

If you think EVERYONE goes into it with that mentality, you are so far past cynical it's beyond belief. Perhaps some do, and perhaps some develop that over the years in politics (especially with graft and bribes from special interests). But to assert (not that you necessarily did) that ALL people in politics are out to enrich themselves runs into the same problem ALL generalization does: it doesn't work. There will ALWAYS be occasional exceptions.

I should know. I have a friend in the Cali state legislature who IS one of those exceptions. She's represented us to the best of her ability and has NOT taken one red cent in self-aggrandizement.

Today:
The desire to become a political figure is an indication of deep far reaching psychological problems...

^^
+100

Chizzang wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

That's all well and good but you know just as well as I do that if the for-profit insurances companies are out then the government will be in.

So I guess you're suggesting there is no answer...
Frankly I don't want the government running the TSA / Education / Health care or pretty much anything else that requires anything with actual accountability and nimble decision making

But I believe we need to get major corporations that think of ONLY MONEY out of the middle between doctors and clients (period) because that is proving to NOT WORK

No such thing as mass altruism, Chizz. You know that. The only motivator for providing a service like health insurance is money. Government is also not the answer because the system becomes politicized as a vote-getter, or it gets raped through the back door, a la Social Security. So I think you are right in that if there is an answer it will be a difficult one. Politicians are as insidious as large corporations, their currency is just power while the corporations' is the dollar.

To 1842Bulldog: Since you are new I will give you a little clue..... UNH is immune to a reasoned argument. Just sit back and watch.

SuperHornet wrote:If you think EVERYONE goes into it with that mentality, you are so far past cynical it's beyond belief. Perhaps some do, and perhaps some develop that over the years in politics (especially with graft and bribes from special interests). But to assert (not that you necessarily did) that ALL people in politics are out to enrich themselves runs into the same problem ALL generalization does: it doesn't work. There will ALWAYS be occasional exceptions.

I should know. I have a friend in the Cali state legislature who IS one of those exceptions. She's represented us to the best of her ability and has NOT taken one red cent in self-aggrandizement.

Have you ever seen a poor retired politician? And in the unlikely event that they don't steal enough when on the "job", they backstop themselves with a gernerous pension. I could tolerate it, in a sense, if they were just stealing for themselves. But that's not good enough. They are stealing for all of their friends too!