quote:

mnottertail
I see your befuddlement, appropriations are not budgets. We have not had a signed budget since 1997, but even then it is not a law, it is a statement of policy. You might be unnerved to find out that budgets are political eyewash deals, and are immediately disgregarded and appropriations bills are what makes money flow, and that is one reason the rightwing is not 'fiscally conservative', since they appropriate wildly but do not resolve that with revenue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Even without all the political machinations, the complexity of Obamacare seems staggering to me.

When I contrast it to the simplicity of our national health scheme here, I have no doubt which system is better. Leaving aside the duplication of costs between the various healthcare providers, it seems very inefficient to have so much time and energy invested in devising marketing and administering the various plans with their differing levels of coverage. How the average consumer negotiates the maze is not immediately clear to me.

Here we have a single payment - 1% of taxable income with a surcharge for high income earners - and it covers everything. So there's no stress for healthcare consumers about whether their condition is covered, or whether that coverage pays all costs or only a part of them. And that's it - no worries about what is covered and what isn't, no worries about the extent of coverage, no worries if one's insurance is going to hit the limit before one recovers, and none of the endless political games the Right is playing to subvert Obamacare.

I get that the final shape of Obamacare is a compromise necessitated by the over-riding need to garner sufficient votes in Congress to ensure its passage into law. But I do shake my head and think; guys there's a much easier way to do this. The sooner Americans adopt a universal health insurance scheme, the better off US healthcare consumers will be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage. Your typical libertarian.....

It does not benefit your credibility to be continually advertising how disconnected from reality you are .

Its called a 'metaphor'. That you can not understand the concept, does not surprise me. That in your chance to post something useful, you once more showed how little you understand that concept as well!

please go read the definition for "metaphor" and you will hopefully see what you have done there does not qualify.

at best its exaggeration, at worst, its outright fabrication. in either event, its not an accurate representation of libertarian or conservative opposition to obamacare.

What do you think the defintion of metaphor is, dumbass?

It is most telling of libertarians and conservatives on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). You can not even stated the name of the law; that should show anyone whom is more 'right' in this argument. You behave in the very manner to which I was describing when you state 'Obamacare'. Because defining it correctly or its abbreviation, is just to much for you.

Have you read the law to which your attacking yet? Not anymore than someone:

"Flapping their arms around, spewing forth babbles of nonsense, and foaming at the mouth in rage."

Perhaps its not so much a metaphor in your case....

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

mnottertail
I see your befuddlement, appropriations are not budgets. We have not had a signed budget since 1997, but even then it is not a law, it is a statement of policy. You might be unnerved to find out that budgets are political eyewash deals, and are immediately disgregarded and appropriations bills are what makes money flow, and that is one reason the rightwing is not 'fiscally conservative', since they appropriate wildly but do not resolve that with revenue.

OK assuming you are correct, then failing to pay for the appropriatins as authorized would violate the law and is, at least in my opinion, grounds to have POTUS make it right.

quote:

...you're an idiot...

...you're an idiot...

...you're a PARTISAN idiot.

quote:

should show anyone whom is more 'right' in this argument.

quote:

its WHO, not whom. seems like ive told you this before but you just cannot learn. "who" is a subject, "whom" is an object. maybe you can hunt me up your old high school English teacher's email address and she can help you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

mnottertail
I see your befuddlement, appropriations are not budgets. We have not had a signed budget since 1997, but even then it is not a law, it is a statement of policy. You might be unnerved to find out that budgets are political eyewash deals, and are immediately disgregarded and appropriations bills are what makes money flow, and that is one reason the rightwing is not 'fiscally conservative', since they appropriate wildly but do not resolve that with revenue.

OK assuming you are correct, then failing to pay for the appropriatins as authorized would violate the law and is, at least in my opinion, grounds to have POTUS make it right.

Uh, the majority of appropriations are not that finely laid out. Read them. You might get a bill for 432 tanks we don't need, but most are continuing appropriations, that is: Fiscally irresponsible appropriation of $330 more billion to build defense till September 12th. Stuff like that. You know what an earmark is, I assume? Most earmarks in appropriations bills are small (relative to the universe, I suppose) sums to pork out constituencies, or insure lots of PAC or industry money for reelections. The majority of appropriations are general in nature. They are unspecified as to precise use. Also, look up impoundment (your opinion of violation of the law is not widely held in the circles that count, it is otherworldly in actual practice)

quote:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-113publ164/html/PLAW-113publ164.htm

Sec. 102. (a) No appropriation or funds made available or authority
granted pursuant to section 101 for the Department of Defense shall be
used for: (1) the new production of items not funded for production in
fiscal year 2014 or prior years; (2) the increase in production rates
above those sustained with fiscal year 2014 funds; or (3) the
initiation, resumption, or continuation of any project, activity,
operation, or organization (defined as any project, subproject,
activity, budget activity, program element, and subprogram within a
program element, and for any investment items defined as a P-1 line item
in a budget activity within an appropriation account and an R-1 line
item that includes a program element and subprogram element within an
appropriation account) for which appropriations, funds, or other
authority were not available during fiscal year 2014.
(b) <<NOTE: Contracts.>> No appropriation or funds made available
or authority granted pursuant to section 101 for the Department of
Defense shall be used to initiate multi-year procurements utilizing
advance procurement funding for economic order quantity procurement
unless specifically appropriated later.