Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Clearly making money. Give it to me and I'll make sure the taxes go away.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Have a traumatic experience. Get diagnose with PTSD. Have it mention somewhere in the prognosis that painting mini's help settle you down or keep you calm. Save all your receipts from 40K. Books, Codex's, paint, paint brushes, mini's and hobby supplies/tools. Get it all back come tax time. Do not go my route of acquiring PTSD. Come out with a lot of physical scars and emotional numb. Not to mention the wear and tear on the ole body.
edit
Woops. Get it all back on Tax Time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/22 03:11:22
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Dreadclaw69 wrote: As I said, I wanted too see if a Dakka member's experience matched the chart. There was no comment, nor endorsement, about it's credibility. But please don't let that try to stop you from distorting my intentions to your own ends
What's interesting is that I think you now actually believe that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So... having said that, those charts are absolutely relevant.
Only if the comparison makes clear that this isn't a like for like comparison... which of course none of them do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/22 03:53:21
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Yep... that's the right answer. Scrap it and start over. Either go single-payor (hello Canada!) or tweak the system incrementally.
We just had a massive political freak out from the right wing over the ACA, which we all know was originally a reform conceived by the Heritage Foundation (back when they were an actual think tank, and not just dedicated to making useful lies on behalf of the Republican party). So the idea that you can drop ACA and then somehow undertake an even greater reform is just not sensible.
Nor is incremental change either politically practical, nor a possible solution. It isn't practical because healthcare is a political landmine, between Clinton's failed healthcare reform and the ACA you had one attempt at reform, Medicare D, and that got over the line because it was a blank cheque to the pharmaceutical companies with no cost control measures at all. The idea that you could bring in incremental reforms that put any kind of control on costs without a lot of populists shouting 'rationing' is basically a no-go. Nor is incremental change going to fix anything - you can't incrementally add the right of coverage despite a pre-existing condition - you do it once and you do it for everything. And once you have it, then you need to make sure people don't stay off of insurance until they need it... which means a mandate. And once you have a mandate, then you need to codify insurance to stop people offering plans that are stupidly cheap and do nothing but get people 'covered'. And once you've done that, then you need to include subsidies for people on low incomes so they can afford the basic cost of decent medical insurance.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: As I said, I wanted too see if a Dakka member's experience matched the chart. There was no comment, nor endorsement, about it's credibility. But please don't let that try to stop you from distorting my intentions to your own ends
What's interesting is that I think you now actually believe that.
What's interesting is your attempt to see an innocuous statement in the worst possible light, and then when that fails try and paint the person you're talking to in a bad light
whembly wrote: Yep... that's the right answer. Scrap it and start over. Either go single-payor (hello Canada!) or tweak the system incrementally.
We just had a massive political freak out from the right wing over the ACA,
Which got derailed by the budget/debt ceiling ordeal.
which we all know was originally a reform conceived by the Heritage Foundation (back when they were an actual think tank, and not just dedicated to making useful lies on behalf of the Republican party).
fething stop perpetuating the idea that the ACA is a "Republican Idea TM"... it's not even fething close. This is an attempt to create the illusion of bipartisanship and promote the idea that the GOP only wants to argue about its name. Because... THANKS, OBAMA! O.o
Do some reading instead of parroting talking points... here, I'll help... here's that old Heritage plan way back when: http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf The individual mandate has roots within that proposal, however, it's a HUGE stretch to say that the ACA is a Republican idea because a specific concept out of 2,000 pages derives from a GOP platform back in the fething eighties.
So the idea that you can drop ACA and then somehow undertake an even greater reform is just not sensible.
Don't tell an American it's impossible to do anything... we'll fething try just to spite you.
Nor is incremental change either politically practical, nor a possible solution.
Poppycock... incremental change used to be the norm...
It isn't practical because healthcare is a political landmine, between Clinton's failed healthcare reform and the ACA you had one attempt at reform, Medicare D, and that got over the line because it was a blank cheque to the pharmaceutical companies with no cost control measures at all. The idea that you could bring in incremental reforms that put any kind of control on costs without a lot of populists shouting 'rationing' is basically a no-go. Nor is incremental change going to fix anything - you can't incrementally add the right of coverage despite a pre-existing condition - you do it once and you do it for everything. And once you have it, then you need to make sure people don't stay off of insurance until they need it... which means a mandate. And once you have a mandate, then you need to codify insurance to stop people offering plans that are stupidly cheap and do nothing but get people 'covered'. And once you've done that, then you need to include subsidies for people on low incomes so they can afford the basic cost of decent medical insurance.
Very vehemently disagree with you on ALL of this.
Incremental change is the fething norm. Because, how else did we get here? The bureaucracy is gigantic because if the incremental changes throughout the years. O.o
How can you NOTsee that?
The PPACA is 2,000 plus pages of law with so many moving parts. Some of these parts have been talked about in the past by Republicans. That doesn't mean that the Republican Party was the genesis of the PPACA.
Do some reading instead of parroting talking points..
Irony level 9000. Evacuate!
On a more serious note, didn't the Democrats run with what the Republicans said they'd endorse only to have them vote against it anyway? Hence "it's a Republican idea" and hence why people are so pissed at the Republicans for their obstructionism?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
whembly wrote: fething stop perpetuating the idea that the ACA is a "Republican Idea TM"... it's not even fething close. This is an attempt to create the illusion of bipartisanship and promote the idea that the GOP only wants to argue about its name. Because... THANKS, OBAMA! O.o
No matter how many font modifiers you use, it is a fact that the ACA was heavily influenced by conservative ideas. This is not really open to debate.
whembly wrote: fething stop perpetuating the idea that the ACA is a "Republican Idea TM"... it's not even fething close. This is an attempt to create the illusion of bipartisanship and promote the idea that the GOP only wants to argue about its name. Because... THANKS, OBAMA! O.o
No matter how many font modifiers you use, it is a fact that the ACA was heavily influenced by conservative ideas. This is not really open to debate.
On a more serious note, didn't the Democrats run with what the Republicans said they'd endorse only to have them vote against it anyway? Hence "it's a Republican idea" and hence why people are so pissed at the Republicans for their obstructionism?
Nope.
It stems from an old plan from think-tank back in the late eighties. The Republican (or Democrat for that matter) at the time never really engaged with this plan.
In fact, during the crafting of the PPACA, Reid/Pelosi shut out the Republicans from drafting the law.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/23 02:58:02
Link #1, shows that Democrats included some options that could be linked to Republicans, but does nothing to show that Republicans were involved with drafting of ACA. All it says is the ideas are similar to ideas in bills submitted by Republicans to counter the ACA.
Link #2, the only thing showing Republican involvement never got passed. That was an entirely seperate bill.
Link #3 refers to talks that lead to bill I pointed out in link #2. Round table talks where involved in the Affordable Health Choices Act. That is an entirely separate bill from what eventually got ramrodded down our throats.
whembly wrote: fething stop perpetuating the idea that the ACA is a "Republican Idea TM"... it's not even fething close. This is an attempt to create the illusion of bipartisanship and promote the idea that the GOP only wants to argue about its name. Because... THANKS, OBAMA! O.o
No matter how many font modifiers you use, it is a fact that the ACA was heavily influenced by conservative ideas. This is not really open to debate.
Hell yea its open to debate, because its, you know, a lie.
No Republican was consulted on it.
No Republican voted for it.
Its Obama's baby, win or lose. Ok actually its Pelosi's mostly but he "delegated" and this is what he got.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I seem to recall the Republicans being offered a peace offering meeting by the President, that they refused to go to. However, my memory is a bit iffy on this point and a quick google didn;t come up with anything recent.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Easy E wrote: So, you guys got some links or something?
I seem to recall the Republicans being offered a peace offering meeting by the President, that they refused to go to. However, my memory is a bit iffy on this point and a quick google didn;t come up with anything recent.
It would take a seriously intensive search. Google has become buried in the stuff that Ouze linked. It's like 2010 didn't exist or something...
So, how long until Healthcare.Gov's programiing issues become Obamacaregate, the next "big" scandal!
Per David Weigel
On Thursday, when contractors who helped build healthcare.gov come back to Congress, you will hear a lot more about CGI Federal. The Canadian-owned company built the website, and in testimony from Sept. 10, it told the skeptical House Energy and Commerce Committee that things were going just great.
To date, the FFM implementation has achieved all of its key milestones from the initial Architecture Review in October 2011 to Project Baseline Review in March 2012 and, most recently, the Operational Readiness Review in September 2013. Additionally, in April 2013, health insurers began submitting their plans to the system for review by CMS. Starting in August 2013, consumers were able to go into the system and register their accounts. At this time, CGI Federal is confident that it will deliver the functionality that CMS has directed to enable qualified individuals to begin enrolling in coverage when the initial enrollment period begins.
Well. In announcing this new hearing, Republicans complained that "[f]or months, administration officials and contractors alike assured committee members that implementation was 'on track' for the October 1 rollout, but the first three weeks of open enrollment have been defined by significant systems failures." There's a contradiction here, and there's a party remaining silent. What do HHS staffers think of the mess? How much did they know before Oct. 1?
If the investigations into Fast and Furious and the IRS scandal tell us anything, the next phase of GOP sleuthing into Obamacare will probably be subpoenas and other requests that produce awkward communication (emails, mostly) from HHS and contractors. There will be lower-level bureaucrats who get caught out for saying the wrong thing, or encouraging others not to say the wrong thing. It's incredible that HHS et al. built this system for years with nary a leak about possible glitches in the system.
And that plan was then taken up by one Newt Gingrich, and indeed most conservatives at the time, as his alternative to "Hillerycare", and later by one Mitt Romney, both of whom admitted that the individual mandate plan was a conservative idea:
The only thing is that the GOP decided that absolute opposition was the best way to combat Obama, no matter what was offered or how reasonable it was, and to refuse all overtures of compromise, and then to claim that it was Obama's fault that they couldn't agree. So they opposed even their own ideas when they came up as compromises, as part of that strategy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/23 14:47:21
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
Easy E wrote: So, you guys got some links or something?
I seem to recall the Republicans being offered a peace offering meeting by the President, that they refused to go to. However, my memory is a bit iffy on this point and a quick google didn;t come up with anything recent.
? I'm curious what you meant by that... I don't recall that even remotely being close to the ACA crafting process. Maybe you're remembering during one the budget/debt ceiling fights?
Ya know... shortly after Obama's first election, when all parties began negotiating for budget and the stimulus package... Obama uttered the "I won" phrase that drove the political acrimonious level to eleventy!!11!. It's not hard to see the amount of disdain the Prez/Democrat has towards the Republicans. It goes both way...
Again, let me restate... the Republicans were largely SHUT OUT during the crafting of this bill. Doesn't matter which concept started with in the beginning...
Congressional Democratic leaders are sidestepping a formal conference between the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate to merge their two versions of healthcare overhaul legislation. Instead, they will settle their differences in closed-door talks that also will include top White House officials.
The decision shuts Republican opponents out of the process in an effort to move a final bill quickly to the president's desk. It has prompted Republican leaders and even some Democrats to complain about a lack of transparency.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs faced two days of questioning this week over whether President Barack Obama was violating his campaign pledge to conduct an open process that would be televised on the C-Span network.
Here are some questions and answers about the final effort to reconcile the Senate and House versions of the bill.
Q: What is a conference committee?
A: A conference committee is appointed by the House and the Senate to settle differences between the two bodies on legislation. Who serves on the committee is up to House and Senate leaders, but it usually comprises senior members of the committees that originated the legislation. Both parties are represented, but the committee makeup would reflect the majority control of each chamber. In this case, Democrats control both chambers and a healthcare conference committee would have been controlled by Democrats.
Q: What is the advantage of bypassing a formal conference?
A: The process of going to conference takes time and Democrats are anxious to deliver a healthcare overhaul bill to Obama as quickly as possible, perhaps before his annual State of the Union address to Congress that is expected to take place later in January or early February.
Republicans solidly oppose the Democratic legislation and would likely have used the process of naming a conference to slow down the measure and build more opposition to it before the November congressional elections.
Since no Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill, and only one in the House supported it, the Democrats were always going to focus the negotiations on settling differences among themselves.
In theory, a conference committee is suppose to be open to the public, and the cable industry service channel C-Span was eager to broadcast deliberations on the healthcare bill.
The reality is that no matter which party controls Congress, bargaining over legislation takes place behind closed doors. Open conference committee sessions are used for little more than making statements about the bill.
Closed-door talks between the House and Senate are nothing new. Negotiations on President George W. Bush's tax cuts and legislation creating a Medicare prescription drug benefit for the elderly were held in closed-door sessions.
Q: What is the disadvantage?
A: Democrats are taking considerable political heat from Republicans over bypassing the conference process because Obama promised during his presidential campaign to keep deliberations over the healthcare bill open to public scrutiny.
Q: How will the two bills be merged.
A: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will lead negotiations between the two chambers and the White House. There are significant differences over abortion, taxes, insurance subsidies and regulatory control of proposed new insurance exchanges to be worked out. But the two bills are similar in their structure and many analysts believe a final bill will emerge within weeks.
The legislation will have to be submitted to the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan office that analyzes legislation, for an official cost estimate. That process could take up to two weeks. Then the final bill must be passed by the House and Senate before going to Obama to be signed into law.
The legislation could be open to amendment in the Senate, but Reid has some procedural tools he could use to shut out Republican efforts to change the bill. (Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by David Alexander and Peter Cooney)
The only thing is that the GOP decided that absolute opposition was the best way to combat Obama, no matter what was offered or how reasonable it was, and to refuse all overtures of compromise, and then to claim that it was Obama's fault that they couldn't agree. So they opposed even their own ideas when they came up as compromises, as part of that strategy.
How could've they compromised? Reid/Pelosi did everything they could to NOT engage with their Republican counter-parts?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/10/23 15:33:55
In an interview with CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta Tuesday night, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she won’t be enrolling in the problem-plagued health insurance system that she was charged to implement.
“I have created an account on the site. I have not tried signing up, because I have insurance,” she told Gupta.
But Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says government officials like Sebelius should be required to live under the same laws they impose on everyone else.
Paul is now plugging a constitutional amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.” The amendment also contains two provisions that apply that same principle to the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch of the federal government.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/23 17:12:16
Easy E wrote: So, you guys got some links or something?
I seem to recall the Republicans being offered a peace offering meeting by the President, that they refused to go to. However, my memory is a bit iffy on this point and a quick google didn;t come up with anything recent.
? I'm curious what you meant by that... I don't recall that even remotely being close to the ACA crafting process. Maybe you're remembering during one the budget/debt ceiling fights?
You maybe right.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Don't tell an American it's impossible to do anything... we'll fething try just to spite you. 
