The "Shut 'er downers"

Wait a minute, please. Are you saying regardless of what the Constitution says; i.e. the President is the executor of the law of the law, that he can pick and choose which laws he wishes to enforce and the others can be, at his discretion, either ignored, or crapped on? Please, oh please, even a pretty please with chocolate syrup on it, show me where the Constitution says that.

 

Solution: Let the government take over liability insurance.
After all, the government licenses these professionals.
Malpractice liability insurance is a major overhead and scam on health care providers.
The penalty is being sued, not wrong doing, to the health care provider. It leaves a record.


Moi M.D. ret.

 

I think it is a great idea. It is only one piece of the puzzle but I think it would be a real addressing of the problem. How to deal with dead beat hospital emergency room patients? Actually I have a great solution that Democrats will never accept.

I say there should be government single payer health insurance but not mandatory at all. Instead of replacing private insurance it should instead be a safety net only. It should not provide anything but basic care. Not heart surgery or lung transplants or anything that is very expensive. Keep the care basic and free. If this were done then private insurance costs would plummet and county hospitals would start turning a profit again.

But this will not fly with Democrats. They will say it is unfair to poor people that they should have great care for free not just basic care.

 

I remember the last debate over the debt ceiling. The DNC and GOP fought to the death over what amounted to pocket change. Despite the rhetoric, I don't buy the fact that the GOP wishes to reduce spending or shut down the government.

What occurred after the last debt ceiling debate was that the US government was downgraded, thus hurting the buying power of Americans. However, this was all blamed on the GOP, specifically the Tea Party. I suspect something similar will happen. The GOP will cave to the continuing massive deficit spending but put up enough of a fight to get the credit rating lowered even further, and it will all get blamed once again on the Tea Party.

The irony here is that no one in the GOP ever listens to the Tea Party. Had they done so, they would not have caved last go round. However, they still get blamed for things like the credit down grade even though they have no power in government and never will have.

In the end, anytime someone suggests that the government reduce its spending they are scoffed at as draconian and will be demonized as someone who wishes to have people dying in the streets.

I guess everyone agrees with Dick Cheney, deficits really don't matter. So I guess the sky and beyond is the limit. So whether the Fed prints $5 trillion or $100 trillion it really does not matter, does it?

As for myself, I recognize that desiring Congress to balance budgets is mere fantasy. What is needed is for states to rise up as Mark Levin suggests in his book, "Liberty Amendments". States need to amend the Constitution and bypass the federal government and demand that the Federal government balance their books. Hell, just passing budgets would be novel at this point.

 

Why Not.
Why Avoid or Fear a Shut Down​

For Topicalness sake:
I cannot understand all the hub bub about a government shut down.
I guess government people hate to see their staff not get paid, but what does a "shut down" mean to we the people?

It might be a good thing for government people to experience a slow down or lay off just like real people.
Why not?

Moi

 

I won't be making any arguments towards Obama being a fantastic president, but if your absolutist rubbish of a statement wasn't even true of Bush, it's certainly not true of Obama. Grow up.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not a compromise, that's brinkmanship. What are the Republicans giving up here? Are they truly interested in a non-functioning government but are willing to give that up in return for an Obamacare repeal?

 

Its a very good point.

 

Nope
http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/resources/datacenter/chargeschart/
http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Average_Cost_of_Childbirth
http://womantowomancbe.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/average-cost-of-a-birth/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061026113906AAQQ8H7

The US also has the best neo-natal care for prematures in the world which is very expensive are you suggesting we just let them die to bring down the lumped together "cost of birth" number?

- - - Updated - - -

You mean if Obama does so by not stopping this train wreck of Obamacare and outrageous government spending the Democrats won't be elected for a long time?

 

So what?

Doesn't take a government shutdown to delay it does it, red herring. Obama could stop the government from shutting down and his failed health care from bringing down by delaying it as a first step. Else why doesn't he implement it all and get rid of the exceptions he has granted. I mean if it is that great why doesn't he put his own family under it too?

- - - Updated - - -

So you have no problem with any future Presidents deciding which laws are valid and will be enforced?

 

And forcing more doctors to stop taking Medicaid patients in the process and/or passing more of the cost on to private payers.

 

So your goal is to get more Democrats elected....

 

Man you libs have no shame anymore. If obamacare isn't funded you intend to shut down the entire government by denying funding to everything. Then you threaten to blame the GOP as if nobody could see you denying funding for the government. You (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s should just wrap it up, cause you're done. I mean how absurd....your'e not even clever anymore, just naked liars who think they're bullet proof, or that if you close your eyes, no-one can see your nakedness. Lol!, what a sorry bunch of unbalanced losers you've become. sheesh!

 

I'm willing to try anything because the capitalist idea of charging whatever you want in the healthcare industry 1) has also been a failure and 2) I'm tired of fancy boys making off with 30% of my premium.

 

that's inevitable. When you have limited resources, it is the role of the President to decide how much to allocate. It's not only what the president should do, it's what the president MUST do. And every president does it. It is one of the essential roles of the executive branch. Why do you think these elections are so important? It's cause the president actually has quite a bit of power.

 

Thank YOU
But, the frequent uploaders are making this another ObamaCare thread and NOT
about the "shut down" and Why Not !


I remain, Pro Shut Down, regardless.
A shut down every now and then is a good thing to knock the complacency out of those who just
do a mediocre, butt kissing, I am here by family connections job and collect tax supported wages.
A Shut Down does NOT ground national defense systems or turn off the utilities.


Moi

 

well, the president has to execute all laws, but he has the authority to allocate funding. And so he has significant leeway, as to how much enforcement he wants to provide for certain laws versus others. This is well within his constitutional authority as chief executive.

 

Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, having passed by a 60-39 vote in the Senate and 219-212 in the House, was signed into law by the popularly-elected President, and about which any Constitutional questions were resolved by the Supreme Court, refusing to fund the law would be a breach of legislative responsibility equivalent to refusing to fund the Department of Defense.

The berserkers can spin, distort, and pervert as the fancy strikes them, but the American people would ignore the strident antics of the ideological whirling dervishes, and properly assign culpability if either were to occur.

 

Say what? The Pres has the right to allocate funding? Holy Moly, Gadzooks, ods bodkin, throw in a sockdolager for good measure and a Hi Yo Silver, Away.

Man this re-writing of the Constitution seems to be easy, doesn't it?






ONLY THE CONGRESS CAN ALLOCATE FUNDS!

 

Yes I noticed that.

 

Who elected the House of Representatives that we have today? Spin it any way you like, Veritas...

 

congress allocates funds on a grander scale, but microallocation occurs via the executive branch. For example, congress may allocate a certain amount of money for a DOD project. But Obama gets to decide exactly who gets what within that project. That's well within his constitutional authority. And no, even though I am right and you are wrong, i didn't need any pictures of monkeys to make my point.

 

I see. Did the Congress give the Prez that authority? Did the Constitution give the Prez that authority? Did he just usuarp that authority?

 

Who elected the House of Representatives that we have today?

Money.
Monied interests.
Money Controlled Media void of better journalistic quality such as fair and honest representation.
Its' the money that elects these peoples' representatives.


Moi
Dare YOU to vote for a Third Party of your choice, 2014 and 2016.
Stop being a parrot and stooge of the RepubloCratic Party managed my the Inc.'s.

 

The House of Representatives that passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? The same electorate that elected the Senate and the President.

There is no need to spin facts.

 

well, the authority is based on a unitary executive, which is granted by article 2 of the United States Constitution. Ironically, the concept of a unitary executive (which means that the president has full control over the ENTIRE executive branch of government), was originally supported by republicans (beginning with Reagan). But of course, now that a liberal democrat is in the white house, expansion of executive power is to be shunned!!!! The conservative flip flops just keep coming.

- - - Updated - - -

actually, the House was elected unfairly, through the process of redistricting, which made votes for democrats count less than republican votes. Had the vote been conducted fairly, both houses of congress would be controlled by democrats.