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

So two intrepid GOP Senators (1) helped persuade a bare majority of the House to pass a budget that stripped out funding for Obamacare, (2) might filibuster the very same bill in the Senate in an effort to prevent Harry Reid from passing another budget without the "defund Obamacare" provision, and (3) expect the House to "do its duty" when Reid's budget comes back to the House for "reconciliation." What great legislative strategists!

The Wall Street Journal roasted these two clowns in a tongue-in-cheek edtorial today. The paper compared the Cruz-Lee strategy to "invading the Japanese home islands" and recommended a more incremental strategy to attack Obamacare that includes (a) postponing the individual mandate for a year, like Obummer already did for the employer mandate, and (b) "winning elections." Makes more sense to me.

I think if you threw darts at a list of CS.com posters, you could come up with a better Congress than we have.

Should have been "Part Deux," but you knew that.

Ivytalk wrote:So two intrepid GOP Senators (1) helped persuade a bare majority of the House to pass a budget that stripped out funding for Obamacare, (2) might filibuster the very same bill in the Senate in an effort to prevent Harry Reid from passing another budget without the "defund Obamacare" provision, and (3) expect the House to "do its duty" when Reid's budget comes back to the House for "reconciliation." What great legislative strategists!

The Wall Street Journal roasted these two clowns in a tongue-in-cheek edtorial today. The paper compared the Cruz-Lee strategy to "invading the Japanese home islands" and recommended a more incremental strategy to attack Obamacare that includes (a) postponing the individual mandate for a year, like Obummer already did for the employer mandate, and (b) "winning elections." Makes more sense to me.

I think if you threw darts at a list of CS.com posters, you could come up with a better Congress than we have.

Should have been "Part Deux," but you knew that.

The easiest way to defeat Obamacare is to let it be implemented. If it turns out as they predict, then the GOP will win back the Senate and WH, and actually be able to do something about Obamacare. As it is, they will lose this battle, and subsequent battles, if Clueless Cruz continues this nonsense.

The GOP is continuing to go full tardo.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:So two intrepid GOP Senators (1) helped persuade a bare majority of the House to pass a budget that stripped out funding for Obamacare, (2) might filibuster the very same bill in the Senate in an effort to prevent Harry Reid from passing another budget without the "defund Obamacare" provision, and (3) expect the House to "do its duty" when Reid's budget comes back to the House for "reconciliation." What great legislative strategists!

The Wall Street Journal roasted these two clowns in a tongue-in-cheek edtorial today. The paper compared the Cruz-Lee strategy to "invading the Japanese home islands" and recommended a more incremental strategy to attack Obamacare that includes (a) postponing the individual mandate for a year, like Obummer already did for the employer mandate, and (b) "winning elections." Makes more sense to me.

I think if you threw darts at a list of CS.com posters, you could come up with a better Congress than we have.

Should have been "Part Deux," but you knew that.

The easiest way to defeat Obamacare is to let it be implemented. If it turns out as they predict, then the GOP will win back the Senate and WH, and actually be able to do something about Obamacare. As it is, they will lose this battle, and subsequent battles, if Clueless Cruz continues this nonsense.

The GOP is continuing to go full tardo.

I think that deep down they don't want to win. If they did they'd have to start acting coherently.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:So two intrepid GOP Senators (1) helped persuade a bare majority of the House to pass a budget that stripped out funding for Obamacare, (2) might filibuster the very same bill in the Senate in an effort to prevent Harry Reid from passing another budget without the "defund Obamacare" provision, and (3) expect the House to "do its duty" when Reid's budget comes back to the House for "reconciliation." What great legislative strategists!

The Wall Street Journal roasted these two clowns in a tongue-in-cheek edtorial today. The paper compared the Cruz-Lee strategy to "invading the Japanese home islands" and recommended a more incremental strategy to attack Obamacare that includes (a) postponing the individual mandate for a year, like Obummer already did for the employer mandate, and (b) "winning elections." Makes more sense to me.

I think if you threw darts at a list of CS.com posters, you could come up with a better Congress than we have.

Should have been "Part Deux," but you knew that.

The easiest way to defeat Obamacare is to let it be implemented. If it turns out as they predict, then the GOP will win back the Senate and WH, and actually be able to do something about Obamacare. As it is, they will lose this battle, and subsequent battles, if Clueless Cruz continues this nonsense.

The GOP is continuing to go full tardo.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Cruz bears some facial resemblance to Bill Murray. Maybe that explains his political tactics: Lost in Translation.

Ivytalk wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
The easiest way to defeat Obamacare is to let it be implemented. If it turns out as they predict, then the GOP will win back the Senate and WH, and actually be able to do something about Obamacare. As it is, they will lose this battle, and subsequent battles, if Clueless Cruz continues this nonsense.

The GOP is continuing to go full tardo.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Cruz bears some facial resemblance to Bill Murray. Maybe that explains his political tactics: Lost in Translation.

Bill Fucking Murray

I can't understand why the Republicans haven't become EXPERTS on every tid-bit and nuance
Hire a team to completely understand and break-down the Affordable Care Act

Then post the top 4 or 5 issues with it...
and re-write a proposal that fixes the Act

Why..?


Anybody..?

Chizzang wrote:I can't understand why the Republicans haven't become EXPERTS on every tid-bit and nuance
Hire a team to completely understand and break-down the Affordable Care Act

Then post the top 4 or 5 issues with it...
and re-write a proposal that fixes the Act

Why..?


Anybody..?

Aliens.

Chizzang wrote:I can't understand why the Republicans haven't become EXPERTS on every tid-bit and nuance
Hire a team to completely understand and break-down the Affordable Care Act

Then post the top 4 or 5 issues with it...
and re-write a proposal that fixes the Act

Why..?


Anybody..?

Why do you think it can be fixed? It seems fundamentally flawed and is by Reid's admission designed to be the first step in an incremental move to single-payer.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:I can't understand why the Republicans haven't become EXPERTS on every tid-bit and nuance
Hire a team to completely understand and break-down the Affordable Care Act

Then post the top 4 or 5 issues with it...
and re-write a proposal that fixes the Act

Why..?


Anybody..?

Why do you think it can be fixed? It seems fundamentally flawed and is by Reid's admission designed to be the first step in an incremental move to single-payer.

What's working and Not working with Romney Care in Massachusetts..?
Examine and compare the two systems and fix and go from there

To write legislation somebody should become an "expert" somewhere no..?

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Why do you think it can be fixed? It seems fundamentally flawed and is by Reid's admission designed to be the first step in an incremental move to single-payer.

What's working and Not working with Romney Care in Massachusetts..?
Examine and compare the two systems and fix and go from there

To write legislation somebody should become an "expert" somewhere no..?

It's easier to point fingers. You know that.

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Why do you think it can be fixed? It seems fundamentally flawed and is by Reid's admission designed to be the first step in an incremental move to single-payer.

What's working and Not working with Romney Care in Massachusetts..?
Examine and compare the two systems and fix and go from there

To write legislation somebody should become an "expert" somewhere no..?

Employers should not be held accountable for their employees healthcare. Health insurance does not need to be nor should it be for-profit.

That's a start...

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
What's working and Not working with Romney Care in Massachusetts..?
Examine and compare the two systems and fix and go from there

To write legislation somebody should become an "expert" somewhere no..?

Employers should not be held accountable for their employees healthcare. Health insurance does not need to be nor should it be for-profit.

That's a start...

Ya... um... This is America
EVERYTHING is for profit / Wall Street determines the value of all things

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
What's working and Not working with Romney Care in Massachusetts..?
Examine and compare the two systems and fix and go from there

To write legislation somebody should become an "expert" somewhere no..?

Employers should not be held accountable for their employees healthcare. Health insurance does not need to be nor should it be for-profit.That's a start...

What about life insurance? Auto insurance? Casualty insurance?

Should hospitals be allowed to make a profit?

Should doctors be entitled to profit from their practices, or just break even?

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Why do you think it can be fixed? It seems fundamentally flawed and is by Reid's admission designed to be the first step in an incremental move to single-payer.

What's working and Not working with Romney Care in Massachusetts..?
Examine and compare the two systems and fix and go from there

To write legislation somebody should become an "expert" somewhere no..?

Oh, but the "experts did write it.

Anyway, Obamacare and Romneycare are two different animals on two different scales.

kalm wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
What's working and Not working with Romney Care in Massachusetts..?
Examine and compare the two systems and fix and go from there

To write legislation somebody should become an "expert" somewhere no..?

Employers should not be held accountable for their employees healthcare. Health insurance does not need to be nor should it be for-profit.

That's a start...

Without profit, what is the incentive to improve practices, facilities, technology, pharmaceuticals, etc., etc.?

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Employers should not be held accountable for their employees healthcare. Health insurance does not need to be nor should it be for-profit.That's a start...

What about life insurance? Auto insurance? Casualty insurance?

Should hospitals be allowed to make a profit?

Should doctors be entitled to profit from their practices, or just break even?

True... ^
Healthcare can only be discussed sensibly within the framework of our for profit system

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
Employers should not be held accountable for their employees healthcare. Health insurance does not need to be nor should it be for-profit.

That's a start...

Without profit, what is the incentive to improve practices, facilities, technology, pharmaceuticals, etc., etc.?

Goodness of one's heart, ask D1B.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
Employers should not be held accountable for their employees healthcare. Health insurance does not need to be nor should it be for-profit.

That's a start...

Without profit, what is the incentive to improve practices, facilities, technology, pharmaceuticals, etc., etc.?

Insurance

Chizzang wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
What about life insurance? Auto insurance? Casualty insurance?

Should hospitals be allowed to make a profit?

Should doctors be entitled to profit from their practices, or just break even?

True... ^
Healthcare can only be discussed sensibly within the framework of our for profit system

This.

Insurance is simply shared risk. It requires no further innovation. Ours is complicated because the system is top-heavy and complicated. That's all.

Under the Kalmunist system, providers, manufacturers, and pharma would still be for profit.

Somehow EVERY other OECD country has managed to prohibit for-profit insurance for basic health. The Swiss have it, but it's optional for those who enjoy golden plated toilets in their hospital room.

Now, if only we could figure out how to make our socialistic fire departments for-profit. Imagine the innovation and redcution in prices due to competition and choice. "We'll put out your fire in 30 minutes or less or the next one's free!"

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Employers should not be held accountable for their employees healthcare. Health insurance does not need to be nor should it be for-profit.That's a start...

What about life insurance? Auto insurance? Casualty insurance?

Should hospitals be allowed to make a profit?

Should doctors be entitled to profit from their practices, or just break even?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:So two intrepid GOP Senators (1) helped persuade a bare majority of the House to pass a budget that stripped out funding for Obamacare, (2) might filibuster the very same bill in the Senate in an effort to prevent Harry Reid from passing another budget without the "defund Obamacare" provision, and (3) expect the House to "do its duty" when Reid's budget comes back to the House for "reconciliation." What great legislative strategists!

The Wall Street Journal roasted these two clowns in a tongue-in-cheek edtorial today. The paper compared the Cruz-Lee strategy to "invading the Japanese home islands" and recommended a more incremental strategy to attack Obamacare that includes (a) postponing the individual mandate for a year, like Obummer already did for the employer mandate, and (b) "winning elections." Makes more sense to me.

I think if you threw darts at a list of CS.com posters, you could come up with a better Congress than we have.

Should have been "Part Deux," but you knew that.

The easiest way to defeat Obamacare is to let it be implemented. If it turns out as they predict, then the GOP will win back the Senate and WH, and actually be able to do something about Obamacare. As it is, they will lose this battle, and subsequent battles, if Clueless Cruz continues this nonsense.

The GOP is continuing to go full tardo.

This is the U.S. Government we're talking about here, Mountie. Once something gets "implemented", it never gets "un-implemented". Our government isn't designed to shrink.

Chizzang wrote:I can't understand why the Republicans haven't become EXPERTS on every tid-bit and nuance
Hire a team to completely understand and break-down the Affordable Care Act

Then post the top 4 or 5 issues with it...
and re-write a proposal that fixes the Act

Why..?


Anybody..?

Have you ever actually met a Congressional staffer?

They're like the blue blooded contestants in Monty Python's "Aristocrat Olympics"

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Why do you think it can be fixed? It seems fundamentally flawed and is by Reid's admission designed to be the first step in an incremental move to single-payer.

What's working and Not working with Romney Care in Massachusetts..?
Examine and compare the two systems and fix and go from there

To write legislation somebody should become an "expert" somewhere no..?

Better yet, if it is working so well, why haven't other States adopted it or a version of it? The little I know about the MA system leads me to believe that it works better at the state level, rather than at the national level.

AZGrizFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
The easiest way to defeat Obamacare is to let it be implemented. If it turns out as they predict, then the GOP will win back the Senate and WH, and actually be able to do something about Obamacare. As it is, they will lose this battle, and subsequent battles, if Clueless Cruz continues this nonsense.

The GOP is continuing to go full tardo.

This is the U.S. Government we're talking about here, Mountie. Once something gets "implemented", it never gets "un-implemented". Our government isn't designed to shrink.

Something like this could. It's so massive, confusing, and so beneficial to insurance companies that it could be.

Of course, I still think we will ultimately adopt a single-payer model. Not because Obamacare helped usher us towards it because it's so great, but because single-payer > Obamacare.

AZGrizFan wrote:
This is the U.S. Government we're talking about here, Mountie. Once something gets "implemented", it never gets "un-implemented". Our government isn't designed to shrink.

Woah there Mr.
That's my quote