kapkomet

I have never heard of a company increasing your comp for opting out of health insurance. Also, there's a lot of companies (this is Tex's subject, btw) that pay out unused vacation. The company I'm working at now gives you three weeks vacation, but you have to use one for the week between Christmas and New Year as they have a plant shutdown.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 08:51 PM) I assume then that you feel the same way about the procedural filibuster then? It's not the same thing. Not even close. You can't even begin to compare that to this. I spelled it out a few posts back. The filibuster is senate rules but they do vote, whether you like the procedure or not. No, I don't really care for it, but this is a whole different and explicit level.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) Dennis voting yes. Thanks dude. Dennis must have gotten a nice blowjob on Air Force One.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 17, 2010 -> 11:51 AM) The "slaughter solution" or "deem and pass" which are "non-voting" measures in the Congress actually consist of a vote. The vote is to approve the reconciliation amendment to the Senate bill, and then the house would deem the Senate bill approved. So by voting no to the reconciliation amendment, you are voting no to the Senate bill as well. From what I understand of it, and granted my knowledge of Congressional parliamentary procedure is not the greatest, in either case the Senate bill is considered. It'll be awful hard to talk about the Congress not voting on the bill when they vote on the bill in the "deem and pass" procedure, if that happens. Kucinich announced he's flipping to a yes vote on the Senate bill with reconciliation fixes. Whip count is 208 - Yes. With the Eric Massa resignation, majority in the house is currently 216. 15 Democratic Representatives have yet to commit to voting on this package. Of those 15, 10 of them voted for the original House measure. Unless two of those people flip to no, this passes and health care reform happens. You people who want to defend the Slaughter rule as something that is "just part of the game" are f***ing nuts.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:28 PM) He's talking about how Texas textbooks are going to emphasize the decline of the dollar and the move off the gold standard (kind of ignores all the other reasons that happened and was necessary to do) Oh... gotcha. I can't wait for my kids to learn BS that's BS.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 06:47 PM) We had no national broadband policy and we left it to private industry or whatever the hell, and look: http://gizmodo.com/5390014/internet-speeds...-shown-visually For as technologically advanced as we are, that kind of sucks. Japan and S. Korea especially are just b****-slapping everybody else and paying a fraction of the cost for it. That's where we need to be but we're kind of running in place behind everyone else. Blame it on AT&T. Government saves!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 06:40 PM) I don't mean voters, I mean mainstream politicians and the support structure around it. If you look at the positions of each conservative in government they are almost all exactly the same because they all revolve around the same philosophy. For example who is the last Republican to vote for a tax increase since 1994? Yes and no. John McCain certainly isn't 1994 breed. But he's a douchbag anyway.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 07:59 PM) the obsession with the declining dollar...an instant clue that the person is not worth talking to. ?? What'd I miss?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:13 PM) Kap I can say with high confidence that probably 90% of people don't know, or even care, about anything that was talked about in the last 2 pages of this thread. Later on, nobody is going to remember this just like nobody remembers all of the other times it happened. My point. Really? I think people will remember. This isn't some random name a post office bill on some stupid procedural vote. BIG difference. With all the crap said here, my bottom line is, I hope there's either enough votes for this to pass or it dies. We don't need this bulls*** from Congress. But, the mere fact that they are talking about doing this makes it CLEAR that they will do whatever it takes, constitutional issue be damned.

EVERY BILL, not just hand picked ones that they don't want to go on record for voting. That's for starters. The veto language is about as specific as anything in the Constitution. You have to vote, go on record. Now, you weenies who want to make this some f***ing bulls*** argument to get your way, or on the flip side say rather flippantly "the Republicans did it" will twist this and say it doesn't mean the same thing. Ya'll want to parse it and get something out of it. f*** that. The part in bold, even though it's talking about vetos, is explicit. And if the intent was to circumvent actually voting for something, then why bother? Kaperbole ™ aside, this one pisses me off, and anyone that has an ounce of support for this is f***ing nuts, I don't care what party you are. You just absolutely are looking for a way to shove this up our ass without being held accountable. And it's wrong. Why isn't that clear? The process here kind of is the point. When you do this "deem the bill" crap on common business, wrong is wrong, but it's not a policy decision that rams unpopular legislation up our ass. Furthermore, the filibuster exists within the existing confines of the system, people vote, now you can't pass legislation (it was Ted Kennedy's seat for Chriss' sakes!). Get the f*** off it and move on. Oh, government knows better. I forgot. People don't, government officials do. WTF happened to common sense? I also like the quotes from the Obama staff... "PROCESS DOESN'T MATTER". Really? REALLY? But it sure as f*** does when you're trying to try war criminals. Oh, the hypocracy. \

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 06:33 PM) Congress makes its own rules, I mean whoever the minority party is might not like it, but they kind of can do whatever the f*** they want. The Republicans did this too, extensively, when they were in power, so they really don't have much credibility on the issue. On a policy matter this big? And I'll say it again. Just because the f***ing Republicans did it doesn't make it right, so get that s*** out of here.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:54 AM) Hey guys nancy pelosi is a big stupid idiot. But so is George Bush. (I'm good right?)

I sure as hell don't see myself as a part of a "movement". I just want to be left the hell alone. And I think most people do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 11:51 AM) Really, you'd argue that the Fed has become increasingly more folded into the executive branch? I would agree with that, and without regard to political party.

CKNOLLS, I know your avy was way before the accident, but it's pretty poor taste now, you know.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 11:50 AM) Interesting that it seems to have been done many times before. I'm still unclear on the end result. Will the house and senate have both voted on the same bill at some point? Or, will they have voted on slightly different bills, but go through the generally accepted practice of Reconciliation? Or does this solution mean the House never votes on a similar bill at all? Who give a s*** who did it? Article I, section 7 is pretty damn clear.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 10:50 AM) No one is crying life is hard except you. Small businesses, the ones least likely to outsource jobs, face the challenge of spending 25% or more of their payroll on health insurance benefits for their employees or have their employees do without. Your solution is saying life sucks, work for a health insurance company that can afford higher salaries and better benefits. Or they can just pay the government tax penalties, not offer it, and drive people to the "government saves" plan. Yea, that works. Right.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:55 AM) Well, then I guess we just have to hope this transparency in pricing thing works out to drive costs down. And there's the key, not the taking over of health insurance companies or so heavily regulating them that they go under. What you said is pretty much the point. You can do this without the government taking it all over. I think I said that in the very first post of this thread.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) So...here's my question, especially to Y2HH...how exactly do we accomplish this without completely blowing up the entire current insurance system? A big part of the reason why shopping around is impossible is that once you're affiliated with an insurer, especially an HMO, you're basically locked in to their network. There's never going to be a price advantage to going outside of their network once you're insured, thus, the only way to get actual competition I see would be to get insurance companies to massively expand their network, at great cost to them. Not true. And even if it was, you still have some pretty damn big networks out there. And if not, you've got your precious medicaid/medicare.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 07:42 AM) Kap, you really have gone off the deep end here. Not with being frustrated with this particular bill, which some people indeed don't want. But with this absurd idea that the Dems are somehow being less than legal or somehow worse than the GOP, when various versions of this bill have already had majority support that was knocked down by GOP Filibusters. Here it is Kap. One, you are a huge supporter of the Republicans, so stop acting like you are not. Two, you are in complete denial of the fact that they TRIED to pass this health care bill "the right way", and couldn't. Three, your first post above is Rush Limbaugh territory - its THAT over the top ridiculous. I don't even like this particular health care solution, as I've said before - but you have personally laid waste to any sort of reasonable discussion on the matter with these kids of posts. Stop right there. DONE. There doesn't need to be another word said, now does there?

Canada is the model of the Western Euroweenie socialism. They (well maybe not you) even admit it. And then b**** about their taxes while they're at it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/15/...in6300344.shtml Keep preachin', brother. You think we have a cost crisis now... just wait.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 09:03 PM) LOL. How can anyone say that with a straight face? Also can someone provide a reasonably unbiased explanation of the "Slaughter Solution"? A google search just returns a bunch of conservative blogs and opinion pieces. Because they don't live in the Obama fantasy land that you do? Sounds pretty simple to me. You all want your health care at all costs, and don't care that the MAJORITY of the people DO NOT WANT THIS BILL. That's crystal f***ing clear for you, although I know you can't understand English like this. Without the political crap it will start, the Slaughter rule is being pushed so that the senate bill will be "deemed to already be voted upon and passed" by the House so that it can go to the president's desk for signing. It is against Article I Section 7 CLEARLY where it says both houses of congress must vote on the same bill before it can get signed. The argument is that since reconciliation is going to happen after the "slaughter rule" occurs, that there's no harm in it. The political crowd (like me) now comes in and says that if you monkeyf***s can't pass it the right way, then don't pass it. Get the f***ing message that people DO NOT WANT THIS BILL. Health industry reform? Yep. All about that. This bill? f*** no.

All private industry sucks. Government saves!

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) Anyone else here get the feeling that this will wind up in the Supreme Court? If the "Slaughter Rule" is implemented, it should end up there. And it should be a 9-0 unanimous decision against the bill. You want to talk about a constitutional crisis... if they do that the filibuster is a pimple on an elephant's ass in scale of sleazability. Let's all hope that doesn't happen, because that would be devastating to our rule of law.