EvilMonkey

QUOTE (Jake @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) There are plenty of doctors, but our current system discourages people from becoming primary care physicians. It is well known that fixing our immigration system and the way the medical industry looks at foreign medical training would easily fix this, as there are lots of doctors from across the world that want to be primary care physicians in the USA. We generally treat all foreign medical training as null and void, requiring any doctor that can manage to immigrate here to then go to school for several years to receive American certification. Part of the reason nobody in the USA wants to become a primary care physician is because we don't help people go to college, so they must choose their specialty based almost solely on the most lucrative thing they could possibly be allowed to do since they are forced to take on an ungodly amount of debt to perform such an essential service. Instead of 'we don't help' how about 'college is just too damn expensive'. Put the blame right where it belongs, at the people providing it. it costs too much. Figure a way to make it cost too much instead of using taxpayer monies to go to pay for people to go to college.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 04:29 PM) And in that scenario young Barack Obama led a democratic revolt that led Democrats to bring country to the brink of default... Oh wait, that never happened, sorry, yeah, I got lost in your equivocations again. Yeah, you do daydream a lot.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 04:20 PM) If the roles were reversed and Democrats were to demand complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts as a part of a CR to fund the government or fund the debt ceiling, would you believe that the Republicans should compromise anything to keep the government functioning and the economy not-blowing-up? What are Republicans giving up? Increasing the debt ceiling. remember, that is supposed to be a sign of a failed leadership to raise the debt ceiling.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) So is the answer that we should instead work to ensure that these millions of Americans can't access our health care system (i.e. wait time=∞) so that the wait time for those of us with access doesn't increase? Or? Didn't say anything, other than whoever said there was no shortage of doctors was wrong. Read into that whatever you want, but don't pretend it's all going to be milk and honey.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 04:15 PM) Continued funding at sequestration levels. What are Republicans giving up? That's not a compromise, they didn't have choice thanks to Obama setting that up last time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 02:57 PM) Clearly, both sides are at fault and Democrats should compromise some more. edit: Captain Phillips is a cleverly timed propaganda piece from the Obama administration, meant to remind the radical politicians willing to shut down the government and default on the debt if their demands aren't met, exactly how he negotiates with irrational hostage-takers. What have they compromised on yet?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 01:46 PM) GOP actually needs to produce viable candidates who can win. Might be good to start with a person of color/minority. They would just be called an uncle tom, or told they don't really represent that race/ethnicity. Look at the people saying Ted Cruz isn't Latino. He is as much Latino as Obama is black.

I remember someone saying earlier that there was no shortage of doctors. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/health/obama...harebar_twitter First 2 paragraphs:

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 12:38 PM) There's a great process for that to happen. Congress has ability to pass a budget. A very stupid and childish and purposefully harmful act would be to approve funds, and then refuse to pay them. For crying so much about the consitution and founding fathers, you don't really seem to give a damn about the institutions to run this country. See, when Obama, and you, say 'pass a budget', what you really mean is pass MY budget so I get what I want. The house passed at least 3 CR's in the last day or two, all of which were just ignored out of hand by Harry Reid. Even in the reagan days with Tip O'Neil, they compromised sometimes. Tip was a two-faced liar like most politicians, but you still negotiated and gave up something to get something. What do the Dems want to give up to get? Nothing.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 2, 2013 -> 12:24 PM) Obama to meet with congress about shutdown/debt limit. Because...I have no idea. Stupid move. Very stupid move. Opens up country to a potential crisis every time republicans have a Dem prez in office. Unless this ends in the removal of the debt ceiling vote, I don't see how anyone but politico could see this as a good move. How about it ends with the government stop spending money it doesn't have? That would be a good place for it end up.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 1, 2013 -> 03:06 PM) and not telling the whole truth. Like you can keep your health coverage if you want it, it won't cost any more, etc.? yeah.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 1, 2013 -> 12:12 PM) Congress gave the EPA the power to regulate those things. And they are acting at the President's behest. Just like the IRS did, whether directly stated or implied.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 1, 2013 -> 11:57 AM) you realize the President can't do things without congress right? and that the GOPs in congress stated they would never cooperate with any policy brought forth by Obama right? and this shutdown is EVIDENCE of that fact. let me repeat: WITHOUT A CONGRESS A PRESIDENT CANNOT DO ANYTHING. I don't like Obama, but he had the hardest opposition any president has ever faced in history - an opposition that is willing to SHUT DOWN the government instead of cooperate. He has managed to put the coal industry on the path to extinction without congressional approval. Signing statements, executive orders and directions given to unelected agency officials to steer 'policy' can do an awful lot.

Alexei

Alexei

A. Garcia

Josh P.

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 25, 2013 -> 07:08 PM) If you want what many liberals think Obama did wrong on this bill, beyond the aforementioned capitulation, I would tell you that he did a very poor job of selling it. He didn't spend time or resources trying to correct misconceptions and fears about the law, presumably out of some half-brained strategy to avoid doing so. Critics on the left are still upset that he isn't doing more to educate people on what the law is and encouraging the enrollment that is central to its success. The inattentive public heard very few things about Obamacare and that was pretty much "death panels" and other overt lies about what the law does. In political communication circles, we think the conservatives were brilliant in the way they were able to control public discourse about that law. As a citizen, it is very upsetting. So he did a poor job of selling it? Didn't 'get the message out'? That is always the fallback when liberal ideas get rejected. The message DID get out, and it was rejected.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2013 -> 03:57 PM) This actually isn't true, it's just a talking point completely ignorant of the actual law. The law required Obamacare options to be open to Congress and their staffers as well. However, the law also does not open the exchanges to large employers until 2017, and I think you'll probably agree the Federal Government is something of a large employer. Consequently, the Office of Personnel Management had to pass a rule allowing the federal government to contribute to plans in the exchanges which otherwise would not have been authorized until 2017 in order to follow the spirit of the law. Otherwise, the combination of these 2 competing claims would have effectively banned the government from providing insurance to its employees. So yes, federal workers get special treatment...they get special treatment by being allowed into the exchanges. Their special treatment is getting the health plans created on the Obamacare exchanges. They get subsidies, special treatment. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/35937...jonathan-strong

However both sides managed to make it so that they and their workers aren't subject to it. Too bad they get to miss out from the awesomeness that is Obamacare!

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 25, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) President Obama saw how important this law can be (and will be) to the future of the USA and thus bent over very far backwards to try to get it passed with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, he had no idea that the only attempts at cooperation by the right were going to be disingenuous (such as them having basically promoted the current law until Obama capitulated, at which point they no longer liked it). Likewise, he had no idea that this great degree of capitulation would still cause the moderates and other members of competitive districts to lose in the mid-terms. I have a feeling the Dem leadership would have approached things much differently with hindsight, by enacting either a single-payer system or at least implementing the public option. There is another, not often spoken about aspect to this law: voter registration. Per federal law, Obamacare exchanges and other providers must give citizens the opportunity to register to vote (ala DMVs). I believe this is a huge, unspoken aspect to the Republican opposition to this law. This makes voter registration much easier for a lot of folks that are currently struggling to get registered and thus not turning out. These people will also presumably like having healthcare and will vote to keep/enhance the institutions that provide them with healthcare. The current Republican establishment hates when people vote and they really hate it when people like a government service. Unlike voter ID and other voter-suppressive movements from the right, there is no good way to talk openly about the aforementioned issue. They can't complain that people can register to vote, because that is the process that helps to prevent the fraud they are so worried about. There have been a few cries about identity theft, but these haven't been picked up by mainstream voices because they don't make sense. Voter registration isn't easy NOW? f*** it all, why not just have them be able to vote when they go to the doctor as well? And screw you and your supposed racism in every damn thing that happens. Republican didn't bipartisan support the program because they think it is a BAD PROGRAM. Not because Obama is black, or a Democrat or that they want to put registration in it. However much you think he 'gave in', the bill still sucks. If all his 'capitulation' still caused moderates and such to lose, maybe it is because the bill still sucks.

Viceado or however you spell his name.

Dunn

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 22, 2013 -> 08:44 PM) You want to merge into a 70+ ft. long 80,000 lb monster that cannot see you? And I wouldn't call trucks "useless", I mean were just enabling the American economy to function. Duke, he called the basic elimination of use of the right lane if you are never to drive there while trucks are in the middle lane useless. Read it again. As for merging, there are a whole lot of people that need to retake driver's ed and learn that skill again, or fir the first time. I have over a million miles on the various interstates and tollways, I can't tell you how many times I have seen people just about stop (or actually stop!!!!) because they were too afraid to actually accelerate and MERGE into the flow of traffic.

QUOTE (Jake @ Sep 22, 2013 -> 12:12 AM) This is why so many countries with the means don't like to leave healthcare to the markets. The markets don't have morals, for better and for worse. A greater overall economic good can be achieved by stringing kids like this along, allowing them to die if he strains things too much. Only public policy interventions can prevent the injustice that is leaving healthcare (which should be seen as an inalienable right) to market conditions. Of course, even in the most benign of circumstances, the cornerstone of market philosophy is that our desire for a thing is measured by how much we're willing to pay for it. So, in market theory, this young man doesn't want life enough as evidenced by his not paying for it. When society as a whole is paying for it, there is still a finite supply. If it takes 25% of the available supply to keep him healthy, and that same 25% can keep 100 other people health, who gets the care? Do you tell the 100 people that they can't get what they need because his care is so extreme and expensive that he has used it all up? Because it will happen. There is only so much money, time and facilities to go around, and those may be shrinking as less people decide to become doctors.