Wait, what? So when an insurance company denies you a service, you can "attempt to get funding elsewhere"? Like where, pray-tell? You basically have 4 options:
And that is 3 more options you have compared to the government saying no. Is that a hard to understand thing? I mean you pointed it out yourself.
Those are the same 4 options you have if your plan is provided by the government, and that gov't plan doesn't cover the procedure.
Not with the concept of death panels. Or to put them with the Obamacare terminology, panels that determine best practices which aren't death panels even though their decisions can be final on whether you get a treatment or not that could save your life.
he simple fact of health care is, we can't afford to do all the procedures, for all the people, all the time. We have finite resources - so they HAVE to be allocated. And someone HAS to decide HOW they are allocated, which means someone has to say "we will pay for this" and "we won't pay for that". That's the reality - no getting around it. What "this" and "that" are -- plenty of room for reasonable debate there, with parameters for profitability, ethics & morality, etc.
You are missing the point. The US government should not, with the force of law, be involved in making decisions that would cause a person to die without being duly convicted of a crime and tendered as punishment. The Fifth amendment to the US constittion specifically says so. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" It is bad enough that the US government is imposing fines in the form of taxes without due process of law, but I think all lines in the sand are crossed when they decide who who dies without it.
Personally, the biggest problem that I see with our current system (which is starting to change), is we don't have "health care", we have "disease care". Your doctor is paid to do services for you, not for keeping you healthy. And the impression I get is that many patients are not "partners" in their own health -- they have a problem, they want to go to a doctor and have that problem fixed, and not have to change themselves. "I don't want to change my diet & lifestyle - just give me a pill to pop to make it all better." I think if doctors were reimbursed for keeping you healthy, and patients had a shared stake in that (besides the obvious benefit of living longer, healthier lives), we would have a very different healthcare system (and probably much, much more effective & economical).
While that sounds good, are you seriously ready for the federal government to dictate what you can and cannot eat? Broccoli for instance has been linked to both increasing and reducing the risk of cancer. Do you want the government mandating that you get a membership at a gym- not just any gym, but one that meets specifically defined criteria to offer prenatal care to your 10 year old son or prostate care for your 11 year old daughter? I'm being serious here, these are some of the mandated insurance coverages the government insists. Your son has to be insured for pregnancy and prenatal care and your daughters and wife have to be insured for prostate care.
When the pendulum of what is healthy and what is not swings so wildly and the only thing reasonably certain is that excess of anything is rarely good, do you really want the government involved in telling you what you can and cannot do? Or do you want the government denying you treatment because what you did for 20 years that was supposed to be good turned out to be bad?
Well, it is true that two others died to give her the lungs, but there is no quantifiable evidence that anyone died because she got the lungs. The First set had a problem that wouldn't allow grafting and the second set worked well despite being infected with pneumonia (or was it influenza?).
Organ transplants are not a matter of someone gets it and another person dies. Often organs are only viable for a select portion of the people needing them due to genetic compatibility that goes a little further then just blood type. You also have factors involved such as geographic location, a lung or heart will rarely be transported from NY to CA due to the time involved making it a poor match in viability. It does happen with mixed results but it is more ideal to get a local organ or an organ from within the same zone the patient is in. The US is currently divided into 11 zones for this purpose. Once an organ is available, the recipient's transplant team has to evaluate the organ for their expectations of compatibility and viability, if they decline the organ, it gets offered to another. If no local compatibilities are matched, it is offered to the zone with the first person on the list who is compatible and if declined there, it goes national. Each evaluation increases the time outside of the donor and increases the probability of complications including failure.
No one has ever shown that someone who would have otherwise received the lungs has died as a result of not receiving them. The First set of lungs would likely have failed anyone who got them in the same way they failed on Sarah. An issue of the condition of the lung is supposedly the problem with it grafting. But generally, if the person is that close to death that a wait of a few more days would make the difference, their transplant team likely would have declined the organs as their first priority is viability and someone that far off would have medical issues in that matter.
In short, no you cannot say that bending the rules to save Sarah resulted in the death of two others. There simply is no evidence presented to make that claim outside if assumptions imposed in an attempt to score a political point. Well, that point fails big time.
Interestingly, in some societies, taxing everyone a set amount was good enough. Taxing goods purchased suffices also without the need to invade privacy. As for voting, isn't voluntarily registering to vote a surrender of that privacy which cannot be considered an invasion or affront to it? I mean if John Idiot declines to vote, then what is the purpose of invading his privacy to vote?
The problem here is not invasion of privacy per se, but unrestricted invasion of privacy. What you mentioned might be convincing enough to allow an infrequent invasion or even consideration to give up certain aspects of privacy. But does it translate into losing all privacy to the government for whatever it considers a legitimate function? Should all citizens be required to turn in finger prints and DNA samples because it might be used someday to catch a criminal? Should the government go into your bedroom to understand your health issues in contrast to the amount of protected and unprotected sex you have or don't have?
It seemed that you were condoning all invasions of privacy because you found a few instances where it might be appropriate. I think that is the objectionable part in contention.
So when did they defund it and what or when did it fail because of it? Who is pointing at it and saying it is proof that the government is evil or doesn't work?
My understanding of Medicare Part D was that it was too costly and we were spending too much money on it which was a criticism of the democrats. There is also the Donuts Hole problem and it might be far from perfect but again, the op said, "Sabotage something, then point out how it doesn't work, and then say "well, duh, because all government is evil." which I don't think medicare prescription coverage fits.
But by all means, if you know something specific, please share it with us. A bad program and a bad implementation doesn't make it sabotage and years after it's implementation, it appears that over 80% of enrolled medicare recipients are satisfied with the program. I'm not sure I can find any republicans pointing to it as a failed program or evidence of the government being evil.
It doesn't prove what you think it does. The entire voter ID push it to stop people from voting more then once. That is how it is supposed to kick the democrats in the butt. The claim is that democrats, or people aligned with them as it may not be the party itself, have people who vote not only for their votes, but also cast votes for people who are known not to vote.
The Comment about blacks is just a point of frustration. Nothing is prohibiting blacks or any other minorities who are eligible to vote from getting the proper identification to comply with the law other then not going and getting it. This guys use of the words lazy seems appropriate yet antagonizing to say the least. It could have been worded better but I don't see anything particularly special about the black or other minority population that prevents them from getting the required IDs. But without ever explaining why they cannot get the required IDs, it is a position pushed by the democrats that blacks somehow are not able to comply and will not be able to vote. The real problem is more likely that other people will not be able to vote for those who are too complacent to get off the couch and vote.
So yes, if someone believes there is fraudulent voting happening for one party's favor, whether it is the party or people with sympathizing goals behind it, then a law aimed at curbing that fraudulent voting will kick their butts if said fraud was actually happening.
I understand that. But no one has been able to point to where that action has resulted in failures of the things which they were later able to point at as an example of government not working.
That was what the op proposed as fact wasn't it? Otherwise you have separate items being connected only by association in a way to claim they are cause and effect. It is like claiming the sun wakes up and runs across the sky because the rooster crows and the moon is chasing it. All of those things are ancillary to each other and to claim on is a product of the other is a little dishonest. Just like it is dishonest to claim republicans hamstring things they dislike, some things in government fails, and the republicans pointing to failures in government are all interconnected like the op suggested.
the statement the op made "Sabotage something, then point out how it doesn't work, and then say "well, duh, because all government is evil." is not accurate or supported by any evidence I can find and evidently nothing anyone who truly believes it to be true can find either. So far we have nothing but half points missing either the republican defunding or failures or platitudes with no basis in reality being presented. The entire concept doesn't seem to exist outside of ideology.
The problem is that you cannot attribute those fuckups to Bush and a lack of funding. The Katrina problem is well documented and while it sounds good, it was no where close to reality.
As for the Mexican field kitchen, I'm pretty sure they were attending evacuees and relief workers from parts of Texas hit by the storm.
At least that is what the DOD seems to think. You might think they could have been used better or something, but they did serve a welcomed purpose.
The government shut down the same day the website went live but even more to the point, the site was already bought and paid for and the shut down did nothing to the funding for it.
Two quote on two politically opposite sites from top brass involved in the website that claim the shut down will have had no role in the roll out of the site. I'm sorry this busts your bubble. But it appears what you were told or thought is simple wrong.
It has been my experience that often governments do things because of something specific when all along they wanted to do it anyways.
In other words, "bombs" probably is just a justification the public needs in order to allow this to happen. There are probably other reasons which wouldn't sound so acceptable if officially declared. Think about all the laws that get rammed through in the name of stopping terrorism but primarily end up being used to harass and prosecute drug users/dealers or something along other lines.
Here is the problem. You can cite funding failures but you cannot cite failures because of the funding. The law you bring up is after the recession and is associated with no failures in performing job duties that we know of.
So again, we are with platitudes and innuendos with nothing real supporting the parent's position.
It doesn't matter if you think it is a valid argument or not. It is a convincing argument that can be made should the failures be simply a ploy to get to single payer. I don't think the administration is that stupid.
Yes, yes, I know the argument. Government Death Panels. In the insurance industry, they are called Actuaries. See what a change in name can do even if they do the same job?
I think maybe you should look up Sarah Murnaghan. Cathlene Sebelius said sometimes people die when asked to grant a waiver and refused to do so. Sarah's insurance ultimately paid for the procedure that a judge had to intervene to make happen.
A name change does not step with reality. At least in our most recent examples. Now, the Government is normally tasked with preserving life except in the rare cases of punishment. What do you think is going to happen when the government regularly refuses to do so because it is acting as the actuary? Some people object to the concept of the government being the final arbitrator of life and death. If an insurance company refuses to cover something, I can attempt to get funding elsewhere. When the government does so, I have little to no options left- even if it is to have the hospital perform the procedure and take the charges off as part of the charity work needed to keep their tax exempt status which does happen all the time.
The SEC grew in size and scope under Bush. What you probably meant was the repeal of Glassâ"Steagall. But this was under Clinton with the Grammâ"Leachâ"Bliley Act. I cannot say for sure if this was what you meant because with you being factually incorrect in your statement, I can only assume based on facts that are true within it. But rest assured, of all the things that caused the "Great Recession" failing to fund the SEC or shrinking it was not one of them.
FEMA was still a functioning agency once Bush took office. The Posse Comitatus Act prevented FEMA from taking control in the Katrina ravaged areas before the governor ceded control to them. The Governor and mayor of New Orleans refused to cede control of the situation until it became obvious they couldn't handle it. Had the Governor and more precisely the Mayor of New Orleans stuck to the emergency preparedness plans they already filed with FEMA, the Katrina response would have been completely different.
But that's not the only example. I'm not going to tediously list all the "starve the beast" examples, especially when "starve the beast" is a publicly stated philosophy of the Republican party.
It is because you cannot do it. It doesn't exist and your one example is only valid of you ignore all of the issues surrounding it. FEMA's failures, as was decided by congressional panel investigating it, was due to an clear lack of authority to act without being requested by the officials in the state and as a result, the law was changed to give FEMA the authority to declare local efforts inefficient or overwhelmed if it appears to be the case like with Katrina and assume control.
And yes, law was specifically changed to allow FEMA the option to take over a disaster response if the locals weren't up to it.
And as for the folding of FEMA into the DHS, this did nothing to restrict funding, but officers were trained for more of a terrorist role then a natural disaster role which made them less capable in response. But funding wasn't yanked and FEMA was still a functioning agency.
I think if this is on purpose it is to create this suspicion which has more to do with the reason why Obama waited years to show a legible and convincing document to prove he was in fact born in the US as a natural born citizen.
He simply wants the controversy around in order to be able to use it at whatever opportune time. People were claiming this PPACA law would cause people to lose their insurance which is why he was out claiming it wasn't the case. People were claiming it would cost more to the poor and working families which he dementedly denied, and he in some cases, brushed those accusing these things off as crazies who still don't believe he was born in the US.
Well, now most of that is gone, so he needs something else in order to hide his true intentioned from us. My even saying that is conspiracy enough to prove the point as we are just speculating the motives of the administration and comparing it to ignorance. And I must add, he is either the luckiest ignorance person around, or just like Bush, not near as ignorant as some will have you believe.
Please substitute ignorant for stupid whenever you feel it necessary. I was trying to point out something subtle by using the word.
There used to be a program where different countries volunteered to spy on each others country in order to skirt domestic laws. I think this was part of Echelon or maybe Magic Lantern. It could have been a precursor to those programs. The inclusions of dignitaries from citing the old conspiracies were a must as the cold war was a primary purpose of this type of spying. Of course these programs were started long before the internet was a passing fancy of the universities working with various military around the world. You had to look hard to find them, but they were around strong and hard even back in the 80's and before.
Can you provide us with any real examples of this happening?
I don't think your statement has much support outside of ideology. In almost every attempt to starve the beast I have seen, they have declared the position is broken from the start and that throwing more money at it will not fix things.
Unless you are going to point to someone doing something to make it fail, all you have it people laughing and saying I told you so with an index finger extended outward.
There was absolutely no sabotage in this debacle unless it came from one of the administration's emissaries for reasons we have yet to discover or the contractor who seems to have gotten a no bid contract and has connections to Obama's wife decided to do something for whatever reason.
But the BIGGER question I don't see anybody asking, is why is there no apparent fall back or concession to delay requirements due to the problems?
Because they are afraid that if it isn't implemented and real changes that impact existing people and businesses aren't made, then after an election, they could lose the ability to ever implement it. In fact, this is how it was passed and why you have the "3 days and 3 lawyers to understand what was in it so there will be no reading of the bill" comment from Reid in the senate and the "how will you know what's in it until after you pass the bill, so no reading of the bill" comment from Pelosi in the house. The republicans were attempting to stall for Scott Brown to be seated in the senate so they could have blocked the entire thing. Instead, the senate rushed a bill and pulled some shenanigans on the back side to make it appear as an amended revenue bill instead of their plan and the house used reconciliation to tie a bill they passed together with the senate's version.
but make no mistake, the reason why no delay will ever be afforded is because once the law takes effect, it is almost impossible to remove it and go back to before. That is the goal and the only acceptable result for Obama and company.
Surely the administration and their followers can see that if they did decide to scrap this crap for single payer, the argument against it would be pointing to the inability for the government to manage a simple website and what that would do when you need a coronary bypass or little johnny broke his arm.
I mean nothing says look at me like a law that says you must participate and then having most of the avenues to do so blocked off by incompetence after 3 or more years.
If I got paid by the hour, I would agree with you. I don't get paid by the hour. I get paid to write code, and to a lesser degree, support our in-house apps deployed. Some (a small minority) of meetings help me to understand the business and end-user needs for the code I write. Most of them mean nothing more than "sitting here not writing code" - Meaning, quite literally, an hour of my time wasted, which I'll need to make up somewhere else to get my actual work for the day done.
You are still getting paid. You should show respect for the company paying you. When it is your company and not theirs, you can makes decisions on meetings- at least that is how it has always worked in the past. I refer you back to my comment on professionalism.
Respecting people's time works both ways, regardless of "station". When I have no input for a meeting, no takeaway tasks, and the meeting conveys no useful information me - Well, what can I say. You can force a dozen people to stare off into space and drool for an hour while you try to figure out how Powerpoint works... Again. Does that make you feel powerful? Really boost the ol' testosterone?
And when you do not understand why something someone else who effect your work is doing something a certain way, the boss can say this was covered in the meeting. When you are promoted or demoted, you would have already known if you paid attention. It has nothing to do about testosterone and everything with communications which seems will be lost on you.
I've never quite understood that whole "team" myth. Why have one person do the job, when five can take twice as long and produce an inferior result! I mean, I suppose if you have the goal of employing as many people as possible, then hey, cool, very noble of you.
I can understand why you do not understand. Your one job does not make the company or profits for the company. Your one job, whether you do it all by your lonesome or with 5 peers, is part of the machinery that allows the company to make money and hence, pay you. That is the team in reference to team player- all of the elements that exist in order to make money and employ people, including you.
The southern state never claimed the federal government had no role in passing and enforcing voting laws. The US constitution clearly gives them that right in two places. The claim was always about laws specifically targeting certain states and not all the states that created burdens they didn't believe should exist. The US supreme court recently struck down some of those burdens too.
As for the rest of your argument about race, the federal government does not have the authority to impose some of the laws that have been imposed and revoked either because of constitutional problems or because they didn't achieve their set out goals. Some are being challenged to this day by northern states (see Michigan and college admissions).
However, it is completely illegitimate to accuse the tea party movement of trying to institute racism or bringing back anything of the sort. Nothing they have publicly proclaimed or supported as part of their platform could ever give that impression unless idiots like you attempt to attach a long gone era to a modern issue. I can understand why some of you try to do so, when you cannot argue logic and facts, emotion seems to be the prevailing winner which is why all liberal politicians and their supporters seem to always personally attack the tea party and steer completely clear of their ideas and positions.
But you go right ahead and claim the tea parties are racists because of something in your past that even you do not understand. You go right ahead and argue emotion and ignore logic and facts, we will just push harder and leave you just as dumbfounded.
Not at all. Why don't you browse through the us constitution and the federalist papers to see why you are completely wrong. You can also look at the antifederalist papers and ask youself why they argued against provisions in the constitution supporting federalism noting how they would prevent most of the issues the tea parties have a problem with today.
But i don't expect you to bring any intelectual honesty to the discussion. The confederacy is generally refered to the states that seceded in the civil war not the confederation that breifly existed before our constituton brought about the federalist version of the US. I suspect your wording was specifically designed to impart images of slavery and prejudice despite the constitution doing nothing to change that originally either. But at least the federalist knew that changing the constitution was the way to fix those problems rather than ingoring anything they don't like or that gets in their way in order to press an ideology that doesn't consitutionally fit.
Perhaps i am wrong and you are actually clueless and just repeating crap someone else spewed to you. If so, you really do need to check out what i mentioned.
Slashdot Mirror
And that is 3 more options you have compared to the government saying no. Is that a hard to understand thing? I mean you pointed it out yourself.
Not with the concept of death panels. Or to put them with the Obamacare terminology, panels that determine best practices which aren't death panels even though their decisions can be final on whether you get a treatment or not that could save your life.
You are missing the point. The US government should not, with the force of law, be involved in making decisions that would cause a person to die without being duly convicted of a crime and tendered as punishment. The Fifth amendment to the US constittion specifically says so. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" It is bad enough that the US government is imposing fines in the form of taxes without due process of law, but I think all lines in the sand are crossed when they decide who who dies without it.
While that sounds good, are you seriously ready for the federal government to dictate what you can and cannot eat? Broccoli for instance has been linked to both increasing and reducing the risk of cancer. Do you want the government mandating that you get a membership at a gym- not just any gym, but one that meets specifically defined criteria to offer prenatal care to your 10 year old son or prostate care for your 11 year old daughter? I'm being serious here, these are some of the mandated insurance coverages the government insists. Your son has to be insured for pregnancy and prenatal care and your daughters and wife have to be insured for prostate care.
When the pendulum of what is healthy and what is not swings so wildly and the only thing reasonably certain is that excess of anything is rarely good, do you really want the government involved in telling you what you can and cannot do? Or do you want the government denying you treatment because what you did for 20 years that was supposed to be good turned out to be bad?
Well, it is true that two others died to give her the lungs, but there is no quantifiable evidence that anyone died because she got the lungs. The First set had a problem that wouldn't allow grafting and the second set worked well despite being infected with pneumonia (or was it influenza?).
Organ transplants are not a matter of someone gets it and another person dies. Often organs are only viable for a select portion of the people needing them due to genetic compatibility that goes a little further then just blood type. You also have factors involved such as geographic location, a lung or heart will rarely be transported from NY to CA due to the time involved making it a poor match in viability. It does happen with mixed results but it is more ideal to get a local organ or an organ from within the same zone the patient is in. The US is currently divided into 11 zones for this purpose. Once an organ is available, the recipient's transplant team has to evaluate the organ for their expectations of compatibility and viability, if they decline the organ, it gets offered to another. If no local compatibilities are matched, it is offered to the zone with the first person on the list who is compatible and if declined there, it goes national. Each evaluation increases the time outside of the donor and increases the probability of complications including failure.
No one has ever shown that someone who would have otherwise received the lungs has died as a result of not receiving them. The First set of lungs would likely have failed anyone who got them in the same way they failed on Sarah. An issue of the condition of the lung is supposedly the problem with it grafting. But generally, if the person is that close to death that a wait of a few more days would make the difference, their transplant team likely would have declined the organs as their first priority is viability and someone that far off would have medical issues in that matter.
In short, no you cannot say that bending the rules to save Sarah resulted in the death of two others. There simply is no evidence presented to make that claim outside if assumptions imposed in an attempt to score a political point. Well, that point fails big time.
Interestingly, in some societies, taxing everyone a set amount was good enough. Taxing goods purchased suffices also without the need to invade privacy. As for voting, isn't voluntarily registering to vote a surrender of that privacy which cannot be considered an invasion or affront to it? I mean if John Idiot declines to vote, then what is the purpose of invading his privacy to vote?
The problem here is not invasion of privacy per se, but unrestricted invasion of privacy. What you mentioned might be convincing enough to allow an infrequent invasion or even consideration to give up certain aspects of privacy. But does it translate into losing all privacy to the government for whatever it considers a legitimate function? Should all citizens be required to turn in finger prints and DNA samples because it might be used someday to catch a criminal? Should the government go into your bedroom to understand your health issues in contrast to the amount of protected and unprotected sex you have or don't have?
It seemed that you were condoning all invasions of privacy because you found a few instances where it might be appropriate. I think that is the objectionable part in contention.
So when did they defund it and what or when did it fail because of it? Who is pointing at it and saying it is proof that the government is evil or doesn't work?
My understanding of Medicare Part D was that it was too costly and we were spending too much money on it which was a criticism of the democrats. There is also the Donuts Hole problem and it might be far from perfect but again, the op said, "Sabotage something, then point out how it doesn't work, and then say "well, duh, because all government is evil." which I don't think medicare prescription coverage fits.
But by all means, if you know something specific, please share it with us. A bad program and a bad implementation doesn't make it sabotage and years after it's implementation, it appears that over 80% of enrolled medicare recipients are satisfied with the program. I'm not sure I can find any republicans pointing to it as a failed program or evidence of the government being evil.
It doesn't prove what you think it does. The entire voter ID push it to stop people from voting more then once. That is how it is supposed to kick the democrats in the butt. The claim is that democrats, or people aligned with them as it may not be the party itself, have people who vote not only for their votes, but also cast votes for people who are known not to vote.
The Comment about blacks is just a point of frustration. Nothing is prohibiting blacks or any other minorities who are eligible to vote from getting the proper identification to comply with the law other then not going and getting it. This guys use of the words lazy seems appropriate yet antagonizing to say the least. It could have been worded better but I don't see anything particularly special about the black or other minority population that prevents them from getting the required IDs. But without ever explaining why they cannot get the required IDs, it is a position pushed by the democrats that blacks somehow are not able to comply and will not be able to vote. The real problem is more likely that other people will not be able to vote for those who are too complacent to get off the couch and vote.
So yes, if someone believes there is fraudulent voting happening for one party's favor, whether it is the party or people with sympathizing goals behind it, then a law aimed at curbing that fraudulent voting will kick their butts if said fraud was actually happening.
Wow, and I thought you were making that up to be funny.
Remind me to never go have drinks with you unless I bring a witness... Wait that still doesn't sound right...
I understand that. But no one has been able to point to where that action has resulted in failures of the things which they were later able to point at as an example of government not working.
That was what the op proposed as fact wasn't it? Otherwise you have separate items being connected only by association in a way to claim they are cause and effect. It is like claiming the sun wakes up and runs across the sky because the rooster crows and the moon is chasing it. All of those things are ancillary to each other and to claim on is a product of the other is a little dishonest. Just like it is dishonest to claim republicans hamstring things they dislike, some things in government fails, and the republicans pointing to failures in government are all interconnected like the op suggested.
the statement the op made "Sabotage something, then point out how it doesn't work, and then say "well, duh, because all government is evil." is not accurate or supported by any evidence I can find and evidently nothing anyone who truly believes it to be true can find either. So far we have nothing but half points missing either the republican defunding or failures or platitudes with no basis in reality being presented. The entire concept doesn't seem to exist outside of ideology.
The problem is that you cannot attribute those fuckups to Bush and a lack of funding. The Katrina problem is well documented and while it sounds good, it was no where close to reality.
As for the Mexican field kitchen, I'm pretty sure they were attending evacuees and relief workers from parts of Texas hit by the storm.
At least that is what the DOD seems to think. You might think they could have been used better or something, but they did serve a welcomed purpose.
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=17205
The government shut down the same day the website went live but even more to the point, the site was already bought and paid for and the shut down did nothing to the funding for it.
President Barack Obama has made clear that even if the government closes, the health care show will go on
âoeShutdown or no shutdown weâ(TM)re ready to go,â Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday.
Two quote on two politically opposite sites from top brass involved in the website that claim the shut down will have had no role in the roll out of the site. I'm sorry this busts your bubble. But it appears what you were told or thought is simple wrong.
It has been my experience that often governments do things because of something specific when all along they wanted to do it anyways.
In other words, "bombs" probably is just a justification the public needs in order to allow this to happen. There are probably other reasons which wouldn't sound so acceptable if officially declared. Think about all the laws that get rammed through in the name of stopping terrorism but primarily end up being used to harass and prosecute drug users/dealers or something along other lines.
No you didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Lantern_(software)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(software)
So what failures are they involved with?
Here is the problem. You can cite funding failures but you cannot cite failures because of the funding. The law you bring up is after the recession and is associated with no failures in performing job duties that we know of.
So again, we are with platitudes and innuendos with nothing real supporting the parent's position.
It doesn't matter if you think it is a valid argument or not. It is a convincing argument that can be made should the failures be simply a ploy to get to single payer. I don't think the administration is that stupid.
I think maybe you should look up Sarah Murnaghan. Cathlene Sebelius said sometimes people die when asked to grant a waiver and refused to do so. Sarah's insurance ultimately paid for the procedure that a judge had to intervene to make happen.
A name change does not step with reality. At least in our most recent examples. Now, the Government is normally tasked with preserving life except in the rare cases of punishment. What do you think is going to happen when the government regularly refuses to do so because it is acting as the actuary? Some people object to the concept of the government being the final arbitrator of life and death. If an insurance company refuses to cover something, I can attempt to get funding elsewhere. When the government does so, I have little to no options left- even if it is to have the hospital perform the procedure and take the charges off as part of the charity work needed to keep their tax exempt status which does happen all the time.
You are completely wrong on this.
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/enough-of-this-nonsense-george-bush-grew-the-sec
The SEC grew in size and scope under Bush. What you probably meant was the repeal of Glassâ"Steagall. But this was under Clinton with the Grammâ"Leachâ"Bliley Act. I cannot say for sure if this was what you meant because with you being factually incorrect in your statement, I can only assume based on facts that are true within it. But rest assured, of all the things that caused the "Great Recession" failing to fund the SEC or shrinking it was not one of them.
FEMA was still a functioning agency once Bush took office. The Posse Comitatus Act prevented FEMA from taking control in the Katrina ravaged areas before the governor ceded control to them. The Governor and mayor of New Orleans refused to cede control of the situation until it became obvious they couldn't handle it. Had the Governor and more precisely the Mayor of New Orleans stuck to the emergency preparedness plans they already filed with FEMA, the Katrina response would have been completely different.
It is because you cannot do it. It doesn't exist and your one example is only valid of you ignore all of the issues surrounding it. FEMA's failures, as was decided by congressional panel investigating it, was due to an clear lack of authority to act without being requested by the officials in the state and as a result, the law was changed to give FEMA the authority to declare local efforts inefficient or overwhelmed if it appears to be the case like with Katrina and assume control.
And yes, law was specifically changed to allow FEMA the option to take over a disaster response if the locals weren't up to it.
And as for the folding of FEMA into the DHS, this did nothing to restrict funding, but officers were trained for more of a terrorist role then a natural disaster role which made them less capable in response. But funding wasn't yanked and FEMA was still a functioning agency.
What oversight agency and what failures?
Real examples would mean specific instances not more platitudes and generalizations.
I think if this is on purpose it is to create this suspicion which has more to do with the reason why Obama waited years to show a legible and convincing document to prove he was in fact born in the US as a natural born citizen.
He simply wants the controversy around in order to be able to use it at whatever opportune time. People were claiming this PPACA law would cause people to lose their insurance which is why he was out claiming it wasn't the case. People were claiming it would cost more to the poor and working families which he dementedly denied, and he in some cases, brushed those accusing these things off as crazies who still don't believe he was born in the US.
Well, now most of that is gone, so he needs something else in order to hide his true intentioned from us. My even saying that is conspiracy enough to prove the point as we are just speculating the motives of the administration and comparing it to ignorance. And I must add, he is either the luckiest ignorance person around, or just like Bush, not near as ignorant as some will have you believe.
Please substitute ignorant for stupid whenever you feel it necessary. I was trying to point out something subtle by using the word.
There used to be a program where different countries volunteered to spy on each others country in order to skirt domestic laws. I think this was part of Echelon or maybe Magic Lantern. It could have been a precursor to those programs. The inclusions of dignitaries from citing the old conspiracies were a must as the cold war was a primary purpose of this type of spying. Of course these programs were started long before the internet was a passing fancy of the universities working with various military around the world. You had to look hard to find them, but they were around strong and hard even back in the 80's and before.
Can you provide us with any real examples of this happening?
I don't think your statement has much support outside of ideology. In almost every attempt to starve the beast I have seen, they have declared the position is broken from the start and that throwing more money at it will not fix things.
Unless you are going to point to someone doing something to make it fail, all you have it people laughing and saying I told you so with an index finger extended outward.
There was absolutely no sabotage in this debacle unless it came from one of the administration's emissaries for reasons we have yet to discover or the contractor who seems to have gotten a no bid contract and has connections to Obama's wife decided to do something for whatever reason.
Because they are afraid that if it isn't implemented and real changes that impact existing people and businesses aren't made, then after an election, they could lose the ability to ever implement it. In fact, this is how it was passed and why you have the "3 days and 3 lawyers to understand what was in it so there will be no reading of the bill" comment from Reid in the senate and the "how will you know what's in it until after you pass the bill, so no reading of the bill" comment from Pelosi in the house. The republicans were attempting to stall for Scott Brown to be seated in the senate so they could have blocked the entire thing. Instead, the senate rushed a bill and pulled some shenanigans on the back side to make it appear as an amended revenue bill instead of their plan and the house used reconciliation to tie a bill they passed together with the senate's version.
but make no mistake, the reason why no delay will ever be afforded is because once the law takes effect, it is almost impossible to remove it and go back to before. That is the goal and the only acceptable result for Obama and company.
Surely the administration and their followers can see that if they did decide to scrap this crap for single payer, the argument against it would be pointing to the inability for the government to manage a simple website and what that would do when you need a coronary bypass or little johnny broke his arm.
I mean nothing says look at me like a law that says you must participate and then having most of the avenues to do so blocked off by incompetence after 3 or more years.
You are still getting paid. You should show respect for the company paying you. When it is your company and not theirs, you can makes decisions on meetings- at least that is how it has always worked in the past. I refer you back to my comment on professionalism.
And when you do not understand why something someone else who effect your work is doing something a certain way, the boss can say this was covered in the meeting. When you are promoted or demoted, you would have already known if you paid attention. It has nothing to do about testosterone and everything with communications which seems will be lost on you.
I can understand why you do not understand. Your one job does not make the company or profits for the company. Your one job, whether you do it all by your lonesome or with 5 peers, is part of the machinery that allows the company to make money and hence, pay you. That is the team in reference to team player- all of the elements that exist in order to make money and employ people, including you.
You are full of crap.
The southern state never claimed the federal government had no role in passing and enforcing voting laws. The US constitution clearly gives them that right in two places. The claim was always about laws specifically targeting certain states and not all the states that created burdens they didn't believe should exist. The US supreme court recently struck down some of those burdens too.
As for the rest of your argument about race, the federal government does not have the authority to impose some of the laws that have been imposed and revoked either because of constitutional problems or because they didn't achieve their set out goals. Some are being challenged to this day by northern states (see Michigan and college admissions).
However, it is completely illegitimate to accuse the tea party movement of trying to institute racism or bringing back anything of the sort. Nothing they have publicly proclaimed or supported as part of their platform could ever give that impression unless idiots like you attempt to attach a long gone era to a modern issue. I can understand why some of you try to do so, when you cannot argue logic and facts, emotion seems to be the prevailing winner which is why all liberal politicians and their supporters seem to always personally attack the tea party and steer completely clear of their ideas and positions.
But you go right ahead and claim the tea parties are racists because of something in your past that even you do not understand. You go right ahead and argue emotion and ignore logic and facts, we will just push harder and leave you just as dumbfounded.
Not at all. Why don't you browse through the us constitution and the federalist papers to see why you are completely wrong. You can also look at the antifederalist papers and ask youself why they argued against provisions in the constitution supporting federalism noting how they would prevent most of the issues the tea parties have a problem with today.
But i don't expect you to bring any intelectual honesty to the discussion. The confederacy is generally refered to the states that seceded in the civil war not the confederation that breifly existed before our constituton brought about the federalist version of the US. I suspect your wording was specifically designed to impart images of slavery and prejudice despite the constitution doing nothing to change that originally either. But at least the federalist knew that changing the constitution was the way to fix those problems rather than ingoring anything they don't like or that gets in their way in order to press an ideology that doesn't consitutionally fit.
Perhaps i am wrong and you are actually clueless and just repeating crap someone else spewed to you. If so, you really do need to check out what i mentioned.