Politics and Religion

“You are correct. It would fail.” THANK YOU
marikod 1 Reviews 1006 reads
posted

Jeez it only took 20 posts to wring that admission out of you LOL.  So we agree that the private sector  could not manage the existing VA system any better than the federal managers.

         Now let’s look at your point – “The entire point here is that federal government (and state and local governments that are the larger ones) have almost zero accountability in management at all levels.”

           You are overstating this. It would be accurate to say that accountability is more limited, maybe far more limited  bc of the employee protection provisions of the Merit System Protection Act, as I pointed out to Jack in an earlier post. But federal managers can and do get fired, even in the federal health care systems.  

          Playing my trump card, we can see this in the separate active duty military health care system run by the Dept of Defense.  While this system is not immune from problems (and EVERY private sector HOSPITAL has malpractice suits and other problems) , for the most part it has been reasonably managed by federal employees, unlike the VA system. In short, the problem is not the federal government per se but incompetent managers within any given system.

        Zero accountability? Mr. Hegel just fired the head of one of the DOD Army medical centers and ordered a 90 day comprehensive review.  

          Could both systems be improved? Of course but I don’t see the point of dissing the fed gov per se as Jack did unless we have a workable alternative. We don’t. At least you had the good sense not to say “let’s implement the Republican health care plan” and put the vets in that one. If you did 100% privatize the VA, you would have to put the vets in Obamacare, wouldn’t you?  

        Thanks for your info on HMOs and the ACA

JackDunphy3625 reads

He loses to Hobby Lobby and unions take it up the pooper.

Freedom of religion and freedom to tell the unions you cant steal money anymore restored!

Yes Libs, there really is something called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  

Barry was sick that week when they taught it at Law School. roflmao

wrps07721 reads

Of course the white house is saying that women access to birth control is restricted.  Bull they can still buy it on their own. The birth control coverage is an example of socialism out of control.

We just would not have the mandate.

         The mandate is severable from the rest of Obamacare as the lower court ruled. And by the way, Obamacare seems to be doing just fine so far even though no one has paid the mandate.

        Next April we will see how many knuckleheads have not made their "shared responsibility" payment.
But Obamacare is already a signature success as we see new insurers plan to enter the marketplace and  that the first tier insurers also plan to stay. Market forces will cover any failure of the young and healthy to sign up - the insurers will simply raise the premiums for the rest of us LOL.

-- Modified on 6/30/2014 7:39:45 AM

Obamacare did not have a severability clause, so if the Individual Mandate was struck down, the entire law could have been struck down.

That court concluded, however, that the mandate was severable. You do not have to have a severability clause to do this. In fact, severability is presumed:

“The individual mandate, however, can be severed from the
remainder of the Act's myriad reforms. The presumption of
severability is rooted in notions of judicial restraint and
respect for the separation of powers in our constitutional
system. The Act's other provisions remain legally operative
after the mandate's excision, and the high burden needed under
Supreme Court precedent to rebut the presumption of
severability has not been met.”

 
          The S Ct assigned amici to argue the correctness of this ruling. But since the Court held the mandate constitutional it did not have to reach this issue. The 11th Circuit ruling remains the law of the case.  

Posted By: gsee60606
Obamacare did not have a severability clause, so if the Individual Mandate was struck down, the entire law could have been struck down.

JackDunphy937 reads

With a guarantee that they will be bailed out, the ability to cut networks/costs now that the "keep your doc" was a lie and their massive increase in rates coming as predicted, why wouldn't they "stay?"



-- Modified on 6/30/2014 4:49:55 PM

If premiums don’t match up with payouts on an actuarial basis, the insurers will eventually go out of business. No Jack, Obamacare does not contain an insurer bailout clause – there is “corridor relief” and a few other safety nets but ultimately the market determines whether they will make money or not. And of course premium increase requests are regulated.

       Remember how I posted earlier how even public health care companies had a higher rate of bankruptcy than other companies, much to Ed’s dismay? That has not changed under Obamacare – they are still at risk.

      So far, the insurers have concluded that they can make money on the exchanges. And guess what - not all premiums will rise – insurers who priced their product too high –and got little business -  are planning TO LOWER PREMIUMS. It’s called the free market, Jack

GaGambler773 reads

Using "free market" and "Obamacare" in the same sentence.

and your definition of "success" must be much different than the rest of us. To call Obamacare a success is ridiculous, about as ridiculous as saying that Duke's season was a success last year. lol

JackDunphy1160 reads

There were two basic principles O-Care supporters loved to tout: universal coverage and affordability, right?  

Well a majority of UNinsured....say again...UNINSURED...don't approve of it. They say it cost too much. lol

And the CBO is saying in 2024 there will STILL be 31 MILLION uninsured.

So if it isn't "affordable" and it isn't anywhere close to "universal"...um...how can Mari call it a success?

His definition of success seems to be it will "survive."

My, how the bar has been lowered. lo

JackDunphy1144 reads

MY business is a free market one, Mari. I don't get "corridor" relief or ANY other "safety nets" for my business.  

Also in a "free market," patrons have the choice to buy or NOT to buy the insurance, like disability insurance for example, but O-care patrons are involved b/c they are FORCED to do so under IRS threat if they don't.

The insurance market in O-Care does NOT act like a free market by ANY reasonable definition.

And you better tell the insurance execs if their insureds premiums are going to be lowered.  

It would be news to them

It is just a question of the extent and nature of the regulation. Your business has to pay taxes and must comply with all state and federal  regulations. Within the framework of that regulation, the free market controls the success or failure of your business.

           You may not get “corridor relief,” Jack, but you get all sorts of other benefits.
Check out your tax filings again and see how many breaks Uncle Sam gives you.
Yes, the business expense deduction is quite large, isn’t it? And you get just as many personal benefits whether filing your 1040 form and otherwise. Those same safety nets are there for you Jack – Medicaid, subsidies, welfare, food stamps, Mediciare. No health insurance – you will still be screened and stabilized if you go to the ER.

   So within this framework of regulation and government give aways, you have a1000 free market business.

      So stop whining about favored treatment for the insurers – you get just as much if you need it

JackDunphy1071 reads

The risk corridors can cover up to 80% of their losses! All courtesy of the U.S. tax payer. THATS a bailout Mari, NOT a free market.  

And like I said, the consumer is FORCED to buy the product in the ACA, which again, is NOT a trait of a free market.

I'll give you credit for one thing. At least you were intelligent enough to stop arguing that premiums would drop.  

Good move dodging that part of my post. Even the insurers dont back up Obama on that crock of shit he was selling anymore. lol

 


-- Modified on 6/30/2014 10:09:34 PM

although your post seems to have disappeared for the moment.

         To your credit, you are willing to learn, along with me. This is really the value of the P & R Board - not whether you persuade anyone as to your view but as a basis to learn.  I looked up "corridor relief" for the first time about a month ago in the course of another debate. We’ll save discussion about how “corridor relief” works for another time. Your article is a little off.

       As to premiums, please try to stay on the rails Jack. I posted only that SOME insurers would lower rates –viz., the ones who charged excessive rates in the first place and lost business as a result. We know this as a fact from state filings made. Most will raise them bc they failed to get enough of the young and healthy to sign up so far - duh, as if that wasn't totally predictable.

      The attached link has the biggest proposed cut I’ve seen -16% by an Oregon insurer. That is a pretty good reduction, don't you think

JackDunphy927 reads

And hopefully I inform at times too.  

Since neither of us know for sure how the relief will actually work, I think you are premature to say my article is "off." But I dont know it is "on", either. lol

As to your rates issue, the decrease you cite is based on this past year as compared to next year, not from before O-Care was implemented. That is key b/c that is how it was sold to us, Mari.  

Obama campaigned on the "$2500 savings per family" line. I am sure you aren't saying something the insurers won't even say. The average family will see a premium RISE, not fall. The law, with all its expensive goodies, is the main reason for that spike. Common sense dictates that.

Now, will you find scattered pockets of premium decrease here and there from last year? I guess you will. But when the government announces quarterly GDP growth/decline, it does not say "well, we had a 2.9% decline for Q1 but in Oregon it was much better!"

It doesn't matter what happens in Oregon. There is no one saying premiums will fall nationally. No one. The best you get is that maybe the rate of growth will be slower, but even that is still a premium increase.

I contend that Obamacare is a failure since it cant/wont meet its two biggest objectives (reduction in cost & universal coverage) along with all the job killing, doctor losing, chaos causing, choice narrowing, tax increasing, etc measures it has/will impose.

The individual mandate will not be enforced to the degree necessary and I don't think the employer mandate will be enforced either. Couple that with the bogus/exaggerated savings that were never to come from Medicare to fund the thing, and you have a law that is unsustainable financially and that alone will doom it.

Something will exist 5-10 years from now, but it will be unrecognizable from the law that exists today.

DA_Flex971 reads

Your argument is quite weak actually as that the overwhelming of Health Insurance coverage is done through employer based plans.  The individual that you keep referring never had any choice in this market! The employer decided what your share of the premium would be, what your co-pays would be, what your deductibles would be. What the plans covered, IAW state and federal laws.

Posted By: JackDunphy
MY business is a free market one, Mari. I don't get "corridor" relief or ANY other "safety nets" for my business.  
   
 Also in a "free market," patrons have the choice to buy or NOT to buy the insurance, like disability insurance for example, but O-care patrons are involved b/c they are FORCED to do so under IRS threat if they don't.  
   
 The insurance market in O-Care does NOT act like a free market by ANY reasonable definition.  
   
 And you better tell the insurance execs if their insureds premiums are going to be lowered.  
   
 It would be news to them:  
 

JackDunphy958 reads

Employer sponsored HC is a PERK. The individual is not locked into it. He/she can opt out and get their own insurance independent of their employer.  

And had the employee opted out, THEY would have decided what their share of the premium would be, what their co-pays would be, what their deductibles would be.

There was never any mandate that employees had to accept it. A financial incentive, yes, but not a mandate

DA_Flex937 reads

And please tell me, exactly how many employee would opt out of coverages, especially if the employer didn't offer a healthcare savings account? I'll tell you, practically next to none.  Try making a valid argument next time.

Posted By: JackDunphy
Employer sponsored HC is a PERK. The individual is not locked into it. He/she can opt out and get their own insurance independent of their employer.  
   
 And had the employee opted out, THEY would have decided what their share of the premium would be, what their co-pays would be, what their deductibles would be.  
   
 There was never any mandate that employees had to accept it. A financial incentive, yes, but not a mandate.  
   
 

Oh sure.  Abandon a debate only to sneak back over one week later to quietly post a response? Does this mean I should be expecting your analysis, justifying the existence and great efficiency of the THOUSANDS of separate federal government entities I pointed out? The sheer number of entities would overwhelm any rational person’s stance that the government is not too big.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=228485&boardID=39&page=#228485
So for 2011, 11 bankruptcies in healthcare sector, out of 86 total bakruptices for all publicly traded companies. Of the roughly 5000 PTC 86 is 1.7%, which is the number I estimated back in the earlier debate you refer to. TWO PERCENT is a much more appropriate number to analyze than the 90% lifetime bankruptcy you thought was important, which of course was the debate (private vs. government).  Health care and medical sector bankruptcies? 11 out of approximately 240 PT HC Corps for a 4.5%! Shocking!  Care to venture what distressing event took place leading up to this? Wouldn’t be the ACA would it?

p.s.  You never returned to answer the several substantiated assertions by Jack and myself that the private sector could provide better healthcare to veterans than the government. Could it be your case has gotten worse over the past few weeks? More than just the Phoenix VA to complain about now?
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=228298&boardID=39&page=#228298

p.p.s. Due to your lack of response in said old thread is it safe to assume you now agree the ACA is reconstituting the legacy HMO system?
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=228300&boardID=39&page=#22830

. Does this mean I should be expecting your analysis, justifying the existence and great efficiency of the THOUSANDS of separate federal government entities I pointed out?

WTF? Whether the government is or is not “too big” was not an issue in the debate. You have completely run off the rails here. The only comment I made about size was that the giant size of the VA system was one reason the managers whether federal or civil could not run it well.

      2. “Of the roughly 5000 PTC 86 is 1.7%, which is the number I estimated back in the earlier debate you refer to.”

       That was in ONE YEAR. Do you want to look up the number for say a 20 year period? Do you want to include publicly held companies that did not file bankruptcy but were merged out of existence or sold their assets?  The number becomes huge.

Your and Jack’s assumption that the private  sector does better than the federal sector is dead wrong from a statistical standpoint. The history of the public sector is one of statistical failure, not success, whether count bankruptcies or simply use the SBA statistics that the majority of new businesses fail after three years. Public corporations are a small percentage of the total number of businesses but even they file with some frequency as I have pointed out.

 
          3. "You never returned to answer the several substantiated assertions by Jack and myself that the private sector could provide better healthcare to veterans than the government. "

        Kindly post what you are talking about. After I pointed out to Jack that none of his ideas would work given the structure of the VA system, his last idea was to decide that Congress was part of the federal government so you had to take all those federal rules that killed his ideas out of the equation.

         Fine but what Jack overlooked is that if you take Congress out and treat the VA system 100% as a private business, you have no funding.  So now you would have to charge the vets for their health care and run the VA as a for profit enterprise.  

         So there is no “substantiated assertion” that the private sector could provide better healthcare to veterans than the government. They simply could not do it, no matter how many times you and Jack change the original hypothetical and even if you charged the vets.

        The VA is an entitlement program. The federal government runs entitlement programs far better than the private sector could. The core point that you guys keep missing is that the private sector is superior to the federal government only (1) when the best and brightest of the private sector are involved and (2) when the business can be operated for a profit.  You can’t do that with an entitlement program

Since when are you the arbiter of what evidence is important or eligible to make a point? I contend the list demonstrates quite effectively that that federal government is so large and unwieldy that there is no possible way it can be managed either effectively of efficiently; and by extension neither can the things it tries to manage.

The number of bankruptcies becomes huge? What’s the number? Your origninal high bankruptcy rate includes every business, old and new, large and small. The vast majority of the failing ones aren’t involved in delivering critical services except maybe serving you your white wine spritzer and dinner. My point has shown the annual turnover of established companies is fairly small and quite manageable. There are also new companies growing to replace the lost ones. But THAT’s EXACTLY my point. They come and go over time but the total number doesn’t change much. There has been a slow reduction in the total numbers but I contend that is due to over regulation by government that hinders new startups and aides the large established ones and so the bigger ones buyout the smaller ones. The turnover of companies is actually good for the economy and efficiency. Darwinian survival of the fittest works for free enterprise but NOT government. Government just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Agencies hardly ever disappear. It’s impossible for government to fail because they simple tax or print more. Their sources of equity have thus far been unlimited, hence the list I posted.
 

Point 3 is no different than the argument above. Your inability to admit (I personally think you can see it) and your declaration that we are wrong also does not provide substantiation of correctness. I fear the only way you’ll ever come around is post cataclysm. Printing “equity” will come to an end at some point.

No one (at least not here) is suggesting that all of government services be moved into private enterprise. We’re just looking for some recognition that our present government does not work (and to a large extent many places where private enterprise has troubles is due to too much regulation but that’s another discussion). Neither private enterprise nor government is perfect, but the system of checks and balances still exists in private enterprise. In government, it’s totally broken.

p.s. Private health insurance, substantially paid for by employers, is also broken. But that’s because it is run essentially as an entitlement program. Maybe no one can run entitlement programs effectively?

p.p.s. And the ACA IS reconstituting the legacy HMOs.

-- Modified on 7/2/2014 11:08:25 AM

I don’t see what your points have to do with the original topic. Jack posted that  
“I just dont have any faith in our federal government, ether under R or D rule, to fix or run a massive HC program of any kind.”  
 
   I  challenged him with this question “But could a private company do better?”
“Tell how me Jack Dunphy, private citizen, can manage this mess better than federal employees. “
 
        I rebutted all of Jack’s ideas. You have yet to explain how a private company could do better. Your point seems to be that “the federal government is so large and unwieldy that there is no possible way it can be managed either effectively or efficiently.”

        I can easily disprove that with respect to running a health care system for vets (a trump card that I have yet to play) but let’s assume that you are correct – all you have established is that the fed gov can’t do it- you have not established that the private sector could do better.

         So let’s not get bogged down in the bankruptcy issue or whether generally “our present government does not work” or whether the ACA is reconstituting HMOs (although that does interest me and I would like to learn more about that).

         Just tell me how you could run the VA BETTER than the federal government. Throw out as much of the fed gov as you want long as you state  at the start what you are throwing out (unlike Jack). But remember that  if you throw out ALL  federal involvement you have to come up with some alternative source of funding. Is your plan to charge the vets?

       Stay focused on this issue or admit the inevitable – there is no way the private sector could do a better job bc the system cannot be run for a profit.
 

Posted By: ed2000
Since when are you the arbiter of what evidence is important or eligible to make a point? I contend the list demonstrates quite effectively that that federal government is so large and unwieldy that there is no possible way it can be managed either effectively of efficiently; and by extension neither can the things it tries to manage.  
   
 The number of bankruptcies becomes huge? What’s the number? Your origninal high bankruptcy rate includes every business, old and new, large and small. The vast majority of the failing ones aren’t involved in delivering critical services except maybe serving you your white wine spritzer and dinner. My point has shown the annual turnover of established companies is fairly small and quite manageable. There are also new companies growing to replace the lost ones. But THAT’s EXACTLY my point. They come and go over time but the total number doesn’t change much. There has been a slow reduction in the total numbers but I contend that is due to over regulation by government that hinders new startups and aides the large established ones and so the bigger ones buyout the smaller ones. The turnover of companies is actually good for the economy and efficiency. Darwinian survival of the fittest works for free enterprise but NOT government. Government just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Agencies hardly ever disappear. It’s impossible for government to fail because they simple tax or print more. Their sources of equity have thus far been unlimited, hence the list I posted.  
   
   
 Point 3 is no different than the argument above. Your inability to admit (I personally think you can see it) and your declaration that we are wrong also does not provide substantiation of correctness. I fear the only way you’ll ever come around is post cataclysm. Printing “equity” will come to an end at some point.  
   
 No one (at least not here) is suggesting that all of government services be moved into private enterprise. We’re just looking for some recognition that our present government does not work (and to a large extent many places where private enterprise has troubles is due to too much regulation but that’s another discussion). Neither private enterprise nor government is perfect, but the system of checks and balances still exists in private enterprise. In government, it’s totally broken.  
   
 p.s. Private health insurance, substantially paid for by employers, is also broken. But that’s because it is run essentially as an entitlement program. Maybe no one can run entitlement programs effectively?  
   
 p.p.s. And the ACA IS reconstituting the legacy HMOs.

-- Modified on 7/2/2014 11:08:25 AM

JackDunphy751 reads

So IF it is established that the feds cant "do it", what is the downside of letting a private firm, with governmental oversight, giving it a shot? A hybrid system, if thats what you want.

Shinsecki wasn't allowed to fire ANYBODY, Mari. Since you have never run a business, or apparently a lemonade stand, lol, you just simply don't understand why or how that is so crucially important to the succes of any enterprise.

The VA was, and still is, FULL of cancers. Just a few weeks ago they were caught putting the dead back in the software! LOL.  

In the private sector, heads would have rolled AGES ago, long before Barry found out about the scandal from watching CNN one day. lol

Of course you dont know what the answers are for you dont know what the problems are and teh causes for those problems. Big, gigantic, wasteful, corrupt, unaccountable federal goverment IS the problem, NOT the solution.

Did you see what Obama Admin said about govt I.T.? They FINALLY conceded the feds have a lot to learn from the private sector in that regard.

If Obama Inc. can admit that, why cant you?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
NBC News’ Chuck Todd said Sunday that the Obama administration has made an unmistakable “indictment” on the whole notion of “government as a solution” with one line in a progress report on the troubled healthcare.gov.

“While there is more work to be done, the team is operating with private sector velocity and effectiveness, and will continue their work to improve and enhance the website in the weeks and months ahead,” an administration report released Sunday states.

Todd, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said of the “private sector” mention: “That is an acknowledgement that, ‘You know what? If this was a government operation for a long time and it failed, now we’re bringing in the private sector folks.’ I mean, that is an indictment on the whole idea of government as a solution, frankly…”

-- Modified on 7/2/2014 11:31:17 PM

Your rules for transfer of power are totally arbitrary and unfair. The scoring of the comparison of two different types of management can’t start with a pile of shit, then turn it over to private enterprise (with no established source of funding) and then declare that it would never function or sustain itself. You are correct. It would fail.

The entire point here is that federal government (and state and local governments that are the larger ones) have almost zero accountability in management at all levels. When a private enterprise company (public or private) screws up then heads roll. Things are put back on the tracks or new tracks are laid or else they go out of existence (either through bankruptcy or takeover). NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING similar to that exists throughout most of government. Very occasionally, after circumstance become terribly intolerable does anything happen (Lois Lerner pled the 5th and nothing happened and then she was allowed to retire with full pension). Bureaucracies that have failed or are obviously useless or are clearly duplicative are almost never ended. They just keep getting funded in perpetuity.

I have no idea how to fix things but I would start with a Constitutional amendment forcing term limits (both Congress and one term for President) as these two are the ones shirking their oversight duties. The risk I see here is it could leave the real power in the hands of experienced career bureaucrats. Jack’s and my point is that the private enterprise model of management is far more efficient, far less corrupt. Is it perfect? Of course not. Criminals exist and will always attempt to implement their new and imaginative forms of corruption. But the point is Enron no longer exists yet the VA lives on. Can the government do some things very EFFECTIVELY? Yes. Case in point the Dept of Defense but it’s still ridiculously inefficient. (BTW, I’m not advocating privatization here.)
BTW, the VA (and other agencies) attempted a private enterprise-like tactics to improve things. The VA I know started giving bonuses to managers for meeting certain goals (e.g reducing wait times for Vets.) Well, without any proper oversight we all know how that turned out. Just more corruption.  

Regarding HMOs, just look at the doctor and hospital networks in almost all ACA policies. Most are forced networks, just like HMOs. You are correct that HMOs were dumped by private enterprise back in the 80s due to extreme unpopularity and push back from employees. They were replaced with PPOs. Instead of a forced network, the new networks are now called Preferred Provider networks. The only difference is that either two different networks are offered and sometimes three. The smallest, most preferred will pay at typically 90% to 100%. The secondary network might only pay 80% and if you go totally out of network the coverage is only 50% or maybe 60%. Harkin back to my relative who just rolled over into a new plan. Remember that they are in an State of Illinois union plan. It used to be all PPOs with 2 or 3 choices of insurance companies. Their company choices actually went up but the plans whose costs are closest to last year are all HMOs. There are still PPOs available but at a huge increase in costs. This is the Illinois unions doing this (and they BLAME ACA for the changes). I’ve looked into strictly ACA plans and they are almost all HMOs with no higher priced option to see a doctor or go to a hospital outside the network

Jeez it only took 20 posts to wring that admission out of you LOL.  So we agree that the private sector  could not manage the existing VA system any better than the federal managers.

         Now let’s look at your point – “The entire point here is that federal government (and state and local governments that are the larger ones) have almost zero accountability in management at all levels.”

           You are overstating this. It would be accurate to say that accountability is more limited, maybe far more limited  bc of the employee protection provisions of the Merit System Protection Act, as I pointed out to Jack in an earlier post. But federal managers can and do get fired, even in the federal health care systems.  

          Playing my trump card, we can see this in the separate active duty military health care system run by the Dept of Defense.  While this system is not immune from problems (and EVERY private sector HOSPITAL has malpractice suits and other problems) , for the most part it has been reasonably managed by federal employees, unlike the VA system. In short, the problem is not the federal government per se but incompetent managers within any given system.

        Zero accountability? Mr. Hegel just fired the head of one of the DOD Army medical centers and ordered a 90 day comprehensive review.  

          Could both systems be improved? Of course but I don’t see the point of dissing the fed gov per se as Jack did unless we have a workable alternative. We don’t. At least you had the good sense not to say “let’s implement the Republican health care plan” and put the vets in that one. If you did 100% privatize the VA, you would have to put the vets in Obamacare, wouldn’t you?  

        Thanks for your info on HMOs and the ACA

Just like the referee feels free to add arbitrary time to the clock you've attempted to do the same thing here.

I said it would fail due to what I've already identified as your rules of transfer being totally arbitrary and unfair. They don't even resemble reality. There is absolutely no reason a system that resembles private enterprise could not perform many present government functions, veterans healthcare included. Look, private enterprise administers my health care along with millions of fellow private enterprisers. It could certainly handle 20 million more. Not tomorrow, not immediately as in your fake rules, but it could handle them. Even considering how messed up private healthcare is today, it would certainly cost less to add the vets than what the VA budget is today and provider better care. It's very difficult, almost impossible to run any numbers due to the very high number of the 22 million vets that are also presently receiving private healthcare coverage.

p.s. I said ALMOST zero accountability.
p.p.s. The DOD is much more free to fire people than the rest of government. Too bad I guess the VA doesn't report to DOD.

Look, I wasn't arguing Jack's point (although in essence he is quite correct). I was trying to bring to light that the federal government has gotten sooooooo bloated (because it does not have to follow hardly any of the rules that private enterprise must adhere to) that it can manage almost nothing correctly.

-- Modified on 7/3/2014 9:15:24 PM

...got a Fourth Amendment smackdown, did you?

Surely you were on Obama's side in that case.  You would never be for anything that would hamstring your daddy and brother and make their job more difficult.  How dare the S.Ct. rule against those brave cops!

Yes Cons, there really is something called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

JackDunphy660 reads

And both dad and state trooper brother believe in the constitution, BP. They don't think the police should search people's cell phones w/o a warrant.

Oh, I forgot. You're the guy that believes ALL cops think alike. Sorry to destroy your Neanderthal view! ROFLMAO!!!! :

...post where you said I agreed with you that Obama was "a hypocritical a-hole."  How did we agree when you replied to my OP?

Either you have severe reading comprehension problems or you're just a prevaricating righty.  Either way, it's pretty sad.

I know this must be crushing for you bc that is the same way you evaluate Obamacare – whether people like it or not. It does not matter whether they understand Obamacare or not, or whether they are right or wrong – all that matters is that they do not approve of it.

         I’ve tried to explain to you that it is silly to gave credence to an opinion from someone who really has no idea what they are talking about, but I know you disagree with me.

      So whether Bigpappa is right or wrong about you, we have to fully credit his opinion, right?

Hang in there Buddy. Don’t worry – they can’t repeal posters LOL

JackDunphy1144 reads

And YOU do? You just told me you found out about corridor relief just last month. LOL

And wasnt it Obama Inc job to make the people understand it? How'd that turn out.

Guess what Mari? The crafters of the law dont understand it. Obama couldnt even understand the website. NO ONE fully understands all of it. And since no one does, it is by definition bad law.

They understand this dude. They have been sold a bill of goods by an out of control and deceitful federal govt and they DONT like the law. I am sure that is frustrating for you to deal with but thats what happens when know nothing idiots overhaul 1/6 of the American economy. Deal with it.

But keep believing a massive, inept, complex entitlement program will be a success w/o the consent and approval of the governed.  

Good luck with that bro! :D

And leave BP alone right now. He is still licking his wounds from last night on the GD. roflmao

Hobby Lobby was not decided on First Amendment grounds at all. The Court held that the HHS regs at issue violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The Court did not reach the First Amendment claim at:

“The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns.”

 
        And the decision was hardly a “smackdown” – the vote was 5 to 4 on strict partisan lines. More like a three point shot at the buzzer.

        But I will help you with the “smackdown” concept. Think of the responses to your posts on Obamacare, Jack. Now that’s what I call a “smackdown.” LO

JackDunphy1038 reads

Alito said this:

Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.”

Religious liberty is what was at stake in the case and the RFRA was born from the First Amendment, and you of all people know that Mari.

It is stupid ruling and a win for hobby lobby that is going to put them out of business. Who goes to hobby lobby more? Gun totting, rebukes or women?

Think long and hard before you answer.

They may have won but they are going to loose the business.  

Don't be so happy because it is not going to affect you. Next decision these shit heads make is going to get you sooner or later.  

If anyone is violating the constitution it is Supreme Court. They are supposed to be impartial, interpret the constitution based what is good for the country instead of, being dip shit partisans with an agenda. Time will come when people will get tired and throw them out. It is almost there. Public has the lowest confidence in the Supreme Court. Once that happens, it is bad news.

Timbow1059 reads

is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that ''substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.''

DA_Flex1212 reads

Individuals have religious rights....not corporations; especially for profit corporations.  Alito is wrong!

Posted By: JackDunphy
Alito said this:  
   
 Safeguarding the religious rights of corporations “protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.”  
   
 Religious liberty is what was at stake in the case and the RFRA was born from the First Amendment, and you of all people know that Mari.

DA_Flex959 reads

Except the the dunderheads on this Supreme Court. This is just another ruling by this court for the corporations.  They are literally crying that these corporation have religious and freedom so speech rights, something that would be considered an anathema just a few years ago.

This ruling further opens the door to increased litigation for other treatments that a so-called religious corporation finds objectionable, it does not mean haut contraception. Additionally, it opens the door for those that are religiously inclined to challenge any law based upon religious grounds.  I have read the complete dissent by Justice Brewer, but she is correct on this issue.

This is a bad ruling for all All Americans!

JackDunphy1053 reads

One does not lose their religious liberty b/c they join into a corporation. Shocking, isn't it

widely held corporations.

a distinction lost on anyone who breaks into hives at the mear mention of the C word.

Posted By: JackDunphy
One does not lose their religious liberty b/c they join into a corporation. Shocking, isn't it?  
 

DA_Flex1121 reads

There is no legal distinction between closely held corporations and others. This is just some B.S. That the conservatives on the court made up to try to limit the scope of this ruling.  This is another sorry ruling by this court and it draws a straight line to the Citizens United ruling which has completely bastardized our political process.  You so-called conservatives will rue the day these ruling were ever made.  Corporations have never, ever have been granted personhood status in any previous legal precedent.  If you guys take off your Obama hating and anti-abortion hating blinders you will see how devastating these rulings are to the general public.  

According to Justice Ginsburg
"There is in the case law no support for the notion that free exercise rights pertain to for-profit corporations,” she wrote. “Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law…. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial entities.”

She is right

Timbow669 reads

Posted By: DA_Flex
Corporations have never, ever have been granted personhood status in any previous legal precedent.  
   
-- Modified on 7/1/2014 10:51:40 PM

News flash: "religious liberty" does NOT mean imposing idiotic beliefs on others.

If a corporation wants to have religion, they should have to tithe the 10% right off the yearly gross, in order to establish the religious precedent.
That would shut them up!

JackDunphy836 reads

You don't like religious liberty, you want the govt to FORCE them to tithe and now you are not in favor of freedom of speech?  

What part of Iran are you from?

randomvr3011131 reads

I am a staunch Hindu religious person and own my own IT consulting business.    Now I can tell my 53 employees, no more meat in the company cafeteria.     Hinduism prohibits food consisting of meat from killed animals.    

So folks, like it nor not, you got to eat veggie or go out and eat whatever you want.   No meat in my house.    I am making it effective July 4th.

Thank you Supreme Court.

JackDunphy833 reads

Running your private biz as you see fit w/o Obama up your ass. Feels great doesn't it? Welcome on board bro!

GaGambler830 reads

but in my house, Not only is meat mandatory, but so is tequila. My house, my rules. Aint America great??? Happy fourth.

FWIW silly Hindu rules are no sillier than silly Christian rules, but as I said, "Your house, your rules" as long as you don't try to make the rules in my house, we're good.

Is the government mandating that you provide a cafeteria?

St. Croix812 reads

Gee, and I always thought Indians were good with money. Though I like your sarcasm!

GaGambler1066 reads

49 I can see, but 53???

I would suggest you find your four weakest employees and dump them. As almost every small employer knows, 50 is the magic number. So, just like St. C. I appreciate your sarcasm,  but I do call bullshit on your story.

St. Croix1039 reads

Guess I was too focused on what dumb shit would operate a cafeteria for 53 employees, who by the way, if they are truly IT consultants, should be eating at their clients cafeteria.  

P.S. I'm trying really hard not to just respond with a stereotypical remark, but sometimes I fall off the wagon. Thank God he doesn't own a call center (LMAO)

Posted By: GaGambler
49 I can see, but 53???  

I would suggest you find your four weakest employees and dump them. As almost every small employer knows, 50 is the magic number. So, just like St. C. I appreciate your sarcasm,  but I do call bullshit on your story.

GaGambler984 reads

You can usually tell when people are full of shit when they supply too many details without knowing WTF they are talking about. Anyone who actually had anywhere near the "magic number" of employees would have known this.

As they say, "It's much easier for a smart person to pretend they are dumb than it is for a dumb person to pretend they are smart"

They know the real effect of this on women's health is tiny, even non existent. From what I've heard, Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, instructed Obama on how to use his existing power to remedy this, but of course he has chosen not to do so.  

This ruling provides a huge opportunity (given the willing assistance of their media lapdogs) to further lie and demonize their way through the next phase of the TRULY PHONY war on women.

Register Now!