rhaig

now... I'll be the first one to concede this was a campaign promise, and should never have been believed in the first place. But to all the Obama fans, is there any other explanation than this is a broken campaign promise? For other bills that he's broken this promise on they've claimed technical issues posting bills, but the bill hasn't even been on his desk 5 days much less posted. -- Rob

so you acknowledge that the 10th amendment argument has intellectual traction, then dismiss it because the feds control the military. So the states should see that their 10th amendment rights are being trampled by the federal govt because they hold a big stick. But don't bother wasting your time against a government that isn't abiding by it's constitution because their courts will rule in their favor. Is that what you're saying? No. What I'm saying is what I said. I'm not playing the silly game of rebutting your twisting spin of it. I'm reading what you wrote. I keep seeing that there is valid intellectual traction, but it doesn't matter because the federal courts will always rule with the federal government. That's what I'm seeing you wrote. I'm glad nobody listened to opinion like this 235 years ago. -- Rob

so you acknowledge that the 10th amendment argument has intellectual traction, then dismiss it because the feds control the military. So the states should see that their 10th amendment rights are being trampled by the federal govt because they hold a big stick. But don't bother wasting your time against a government that isn't abiding by it's constitution because their courts will rule in their favor. Is that what you're saying? -- Rob

have you investigated it? I work with a guy who is moving to AU in a couple of months. It's complex, but not that hard. A couple of medical checks, some quarantine time for his pets. The only reason he's still here is he hasn't sold his house yet. -- Rob

transparency and all.... I didn't think it was needed -- Rob

15 years ago, I had a plan like this and had no complaints about it......$5 to $1500 in 15 years.......Ouch! welfare started it. WIC is needed, don't get me wrong, but at some point it removes incentive to improve one's self. Case in point. A relative of mine and his wife are struggling to make ends meet, neither has a degree, only one is employed. They get $500/month in foodstamps (WIC). So why bother taking on a second income for the family? Stay home, get the $500, and don't pay childcare. First income gets some extra money? So they go pick up an XBox and a large flat screen TV over the past year. This is one case (of many) where an additional income would mean less take home. I don't have the answer, but it just doesn't set right with me that they've been given disincentive to imrpove themselves. -- Rob

McCain is one of the reasons I voted libertarian in the last election. -- Rob

clearly you're bad at math -- Rob

someone hand me the popcorn -- Rob

sure. I've seen an increase in each of the past 3 years. in 7 months when I re-up, I'll find out if that increase accelerates. Until then it's only speculation. -- Rob

That's because you're automatically pessimistic. yes. yes I am. HC costs and the premium cost have less correlation than you think. IOW's, if costs go up for an individual company and they fail to find ways to lower costs or compete as other companies find these ways, they cannot charge more to compensate; either compete or go out of business. my initial concern isn't the cost of the healthcare, it's the cost of the administration of the policy. The extra requirements and regulation around the policies will add (initially at least) additional administrative cost. So you're saying the alleged/expected by you increases in HC costs, the supposed money you spend will go into a black hole in the ins cos coffers? Or will it circulate? I guess if you believe as I do and that major corps are fascist it might just go into a black hole and be used as score, so you must think that in order to be correct. Well I certainly don't think that money will go into the pockets of any of the employees of the insurance company. If it did, I'd have less concern wrt the economic impact. Money spent with large corporations contributes very little to daily cashflow for individuals. -- Rob

indeed, magicians seem to cut their volunteers in half

My prediction is that this fall when I sign up for insurance again, to get the same benefits as last year, my costs will have gone up. I know that the HC reform bill doesn't do anything that soon, but internal costs of compliance will be seen immediately at the insurance companies. And in a few years, my policy for my family will likely be one of those taxed at 40% so I'll see additional increase then. (I believe the wording is 10K value per policy. If it's per individual, then I'll be in the clear) What this means at that time is that I must stop spending the money required to cover that increase. So while we've seen some economic recovery lately, we'll likely see more people in the same boat as me spending less in the next year. This could be a speed bump on the economic recovery road. I'm not an economist, but I know that spending (not overspending) and cashflow is what helps turn up an economy. What I see coming is a reduction in cashflow. -- Rob

Tax increases are the real answer, it worked during and since WWII, then your hero slashed them to pre-GD levels and we scratch our heads???? you pretend to know who my heroes are. And tax increases are coming. We all knew (or should have known) that when Hopey McChange-alot got elected. -- Rob

no no no bill... you should know that common sense and reason has no place here. -- Rob

you assume I don't like it. I like politicians with balls to stand up for their constituents. They think that's what they want, fine. I think many are doing it because it will play well in the press, and don't have any idea what their constituents think about the issue. hey... you brought up grammar first. consider it dropped. *** As I keep asking: Care to comment on the behavior of the Republican Congressmen, or not so much? Show where Dems have been so brash. I'm not talking dirty tricks, I'm talking about disruption, that is not a dirty trick, but total lack of respect for the process. I don't see you commenting on that. ok... you don't want me to talk down on all of the politicians at once in my answer.... I see the game. How about this then. The disruptive republicans you're referring to will not get my vote in the next election. That's the strongest say I can have in the matter. Vote-em out. Process is there for a reason, and it should be followed. I'll also say this. Any of the politicians supporting the dirty tricks played by either party are out only for themselves and have abandoned their constituents. -- Rob

pretty much can't they do that already? if you try to stop them from taking what they want don't you get thrown in jail for assaulting the robber? -- Rob

And your focus on my grammar rather than the substantive message that federal Republican politicians are rule-breaking when they don't get their way as a protocol of behavior shows the typical strawman-initiating Republican that I knew you were. Address the Republican House members and/or Joe Wilson. Oh, you don't wanna; precisely - your acquiesence is shouting your feelings. did I say grammar? No, I said "wording". Meaning (I may not have been clear enough for you) that the words you chose show there was emotion behind the message (real or fake depends on whether you're obsessed with hating republicans or you're trolling for kneejerks). I've said before that spelling and grammar flames are the lowest form of argument. I was not being the grammar nazi. (though if you found a mistake and that's why you're being so defensive I don't care either) politicians are tards. I wasn't grammar naziing. Care to comment on the behavior of the Republican Congressmen, or not so much? Show where Dems have been so brash. I don't see how you think I was calling you a grammar nazi. perhaps you do have a comprehension problem as others have suggested. all the congressmen are interested in is re-election. They quit caring what their constituents wanted a long time ago and do what they think will get them re-elected. I don't care which side they're on, they listen more to lobbyists than the people who elected them. They all will pull dirty tricks to get done what the media will publicize as good which will get them re-elected. edit: oh... I see where you thought I was calling you the grammar nazi.... I was meaning that you might have found an error in your grammar that you were being defensive about. Not that you found one in mine and that's what got your panties in a wad. -- Rob

And your focus on my grammar rather than the substantive message that federal Republican politicians are rule-breaking when they don't get their way as a protocol of behavior shows the typical strawman-initiating Republican that I knew you were. Address the Republican House members and/or Joe Wilson. Oh, you don't wanna; precisely - your acquiesence is shouting your feelings. did I say grammar? No, I said "wording". Meaning (I may not have been clear enough for you) that the words you chose show there was emotion behind the message (real or fake depends on whether you're obsessed with hating republicans or you're trolling for kneejerks). I've said before that spelling and grammar flames are the lowest form of argument. I was not being the grammar nazi. (though if you found a mistake and that's why you're being so defensive I don't care either) politicians are tards. -- Rob

yes, of course he hates them. But his choice of wording indicates either a rather unhealthy obsession of republican hatred, or he's trolling for kneejerk responses. -- Rob

someone post your latest adventure in flail? :) -- Rob

look!!! more pointless crap! commence flame war in 3...2....1.... GO!! -- Rob

i dont see anything in my post that implies i like the way things are. I believe you have inferred incorrectly. -- Rob

No one is trying to change America, just improve it. We are already socialist-capitalist-communists. The system just needs to be tweaked for sustainability. improve is a type of change. So you are trying to change America. And if you don't like the way it's operating, you should try to change it. That's the whole point of the system. Don't take that to mean there won't be a shit ton of people who disagree with you. Many of them here. -- Rob

so when provided an example from recent history of how disarming the public and enacting strict gun control, your immediate response is ridicule?? is that all you can come up with? running short on ammo? -- Rob