I did. You said they acould ask for anythiing they want. That didn't even come close to answering the question that was asked. I didn't ask you if the GOP had the authority to ask. My question was whether or not their request was reasonable?

Do you not see the difference?

While you're playing with your fruit I'd note that number two is on its own a trick question. The need for the two mandates is not the same.

Without the individual mandate you're going to get a majority of sick people signing up for healthcare which is going to create a dramatic rise in costs. It's fundamental to the plan...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The GOP made a request.

I asked him if he though tthe request was reasonable.

That could only be called a trick question by someone who doesn't want to answer that question,m because then you have to choose between supporting fairness, or supporting your man-crush.

"Without the individual mandate you're going to get a majority of sick people signing up for healthcare "

Why doesn't that apply to small businesses? How is that any different from the many, many 1-man businesses that are out there? If I own my own business, I also have a big incentive to enroll if I'm sick, or to not enroll if I'm healthy, right?

Did create new spending or just allocate previously approved spending?

What's the legal basis to show that a death benefit meets the same burden as critical national defense to justify continued spending?

How do you separate death benefits from all other veterans benefits?

And executive order isn't a magic wand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

See below for what you originally asked. You didn't ask if their request was reasonable, you asked if it is "unreasonable for the GOP to ask ......" If you had asked that, I would have told you that w/o the individual mandate, the whole thing falls apart. Only a small amount of businesses where impacted by the postponement.

You can't help yourself but insult any one who doesn't agree with you:uhuh:

You called the Tea Party whiney and unreasonable. Your words.

So did i miss the announcement that only you get to insult those with whom you disagree?

"What's the legal basis to show that a death benefit meets the same burden as critical national defense to justify continued spending?
"

Spence, since you demanded proof from me, allow me to retort. Where is your evidence that every Executive Order needs to be as vital to national interests as the one I posted? Obama has signed many Executive Orders, with varying degrees of importance. You can gtoogle it, I'm sure.

"How do you separate death benefits from all other veterans benefits?"

I don't know. I don't know what other veterans benbefits were cut. But I know it's inhumane to deny those benefits at a time when your Dear Leader is taking record amounts of tax revenue from the citizenry, and he uses large chunks of that to go on the most expensive vacations imaginable. Priorities, I guess...

Maybe if you had chosen to serve in the military during a timne of war, you'd have a small grasp of the level of betrayal that represents.

"And executive order isn't a magic wand."

It is if it's legal. And NO ONE would have challenged an executive order that reinstated those payments. No one. Very, very few people are capable of such a total lack of empathy. And the vast majority who are capable of it, are on your side. Kudos.

Sorry, am I supposed to insert the nodding smiley face when I eviscerate your post?

Here goes.


:uhuh:

Has Obama created one cent of new spending in his 5 years? I hadn't noticed...

The death benefit I believe is paid from the Pentagon out of the defense budget. Someone made the decision that this be cut. I don't believe it needed an Executive Order to be restored ,the money just had to be reallocated within the defense budget.
I stand by my assertion that under Rumsfeld this never would've happened .
This is what happens when you have amateurs running the show.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

During the shutdown the DoD budget was divided into exempt and non exempt functions. They didn't see the death benefits as being covered by law.

Saying that Rummy would have never let it happened is silly, you have no way of knowing that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're wrong. So who set the budget computers? What kind of person sits there and creates that budget and sets that aside to be cut?
I stand by my statement. Not somebody like Rumsfeld!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is the key question. It's hard to imagine, isn't it? Cutting death benefits in a time of war, when the amount cut is far less than Obama spends on a typical vacation. Stupifying.

Not only would it never have happened under Rumsfeld, it never would have happened under Bill Clinton. He had no personal morals, but he had some clue of what an executive has to do.

So was it personal and directed directly at you like your insults usually are?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really, your suppose to be an actuary and you don't even know what anti selection is? pls tell me how you "eviscerated" my posts. This should be funny. Pls. Make sure your sentences are clear this time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are really talking out of your asses here. DoD lawyers reviewed the law and didn't think the payments were legal. It's a felony to spend government funds not appropriated by congress. This has been widely reported.

So far you've produced nothing to counter this and instead resort to tired ad hominem attacks.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

-spence

I hear what you are saying about anti-selection (the correct term is adverse selection). I'm just not sure I see the difference between the impact of individuals getting a year amnesty, versus small businesses.

It's also interesting that as a liberal, you are saying (with some validity) that it's OK to give corporations a break, but not the individual. because people on your side have a tendency for beating up those on my side, and accuse us of caring more about corporations than we care about individuals.

I'm actually in favor of requiring everyone to buy some basic level of insurance. For the reasons you say (many sick people are not responsible for being sick, so it's absolutely fair to pool that cost with those who are healthy). No one chooses to have pancreatic cancer, so I have no problem with pooling the cost of their care with healthy people who merely got lucky.

I just don't like the feds being so involved. And I don't like the way it was passed ("let's pass the bill, and then we'll see what's in it"). I also don't see why you'd pass health reform without enacting serious and fair tort reform, which is one thing that would actually reduce costs. Nothing in Obamacare can possibly reduce costs, and it was dishonestly marketed as something that would lower costs.

Please support your claim that Obama could not have fixed this with an executive order.

You are the one who has come up with one fabricated, desperate excuse after another, to justify this. Spence, one day, go to a military funeral, and maybe you'll learn something tat you won't learn by watching MSNBC or by reading The Daily Worker.

Spence, I just looked for support of your claim that lawyers determined that it would have been illegal to make those payments. I found nothing. Can you show us your evidence?

Even if that's true (and that's a very big if), since when did laws stop democrats from doing what they believe is just? For example, liberals support the disobedience of laws dealing with immigration. Don't our KIA's deserve the same courtesy as illegal aliens? You have fun with that one.

You mean like all the help he gave returning vets? Oh right he didn't.
It took groups like Wounded Warrior Project and a new president for all these guys coming home to actually get real help.

During Rummy's watch, guys suffering PTSD were offered 3 psych visits and thats it, no followup no nothing.

Rumsfeld didn't give a flying #^&#^&#^&#^& about the guys coming home. He did nothing for them.

Yea, but the government was fully funded back then. Had the government been shut down things would certainly been different.

Rummy wouldn't share a foxhole with Obama, that's for sure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Buckman made a complimentary assumption about Rummy, you chastised him, saying he "had no way of knowing that". How is your comment any different?

Oh, I forgot. Because racisthatecrimeintolerantwaronwomenwrongsideofhist oryteabagger...

There are a lot of other things we can do to lower costs (including some sort of tort reform) but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. in my opinion we're never going to lower costs as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want. But you can't stop that in a free market society.

Spence, WTH is that? LOL ,you goin all Ciammerizing on us? :huh:

It's French, the language of diplomacy. No wonder you guys don't recognize it :devil2: :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unfortunately for America, the GOP negotiates like the French do :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

By language of diplomacy", Spence is politely saying it's the language of surrender.

Back in the very early stages of the First Gulf War, at one point, the French decided they were sitting it out. A reporter asked General Norman Schwartzkoff what he thought of moving ahead without the French.

I will never, ever forget his reply..."going to war without the French, is like going deer hunting without your accordian."

Paul, I have to disagree with your last sentence. First of all, we are well into transforming our society from a free market to a government regulated one.

Secondly, in a free market, prices are not established by whatever the seller wants. Prices, in a free market, reach equilibrium when both seller and buyer agree. Government intervention in the business process and by price regulations, when excessive, destroy free markets, transforming them into command economies. Then price equilibriums are not possible, and the demand supply function is distorted to fit rigid patterns outlined by government fiat. Supply dwindles and prices rise. The price "signals" that business uses to determine output and feasibility are replaced by a host of regulatory demands that hide the "free market" portion of transactions which are buried under the cost of fulfilling the regulations.

In a free market, it is actually easier to lower prices if that is what reaches the equilibrium between seller and buyer. In a command economy that free exchange is eliminated and replaced by third party directives. In the case of socialistic governments the goal, supposedly, is to equalize outcomes for everybody. The one size fits all model. Prices, supply and demand, choice . . . and freedom . . . are irrelevant.

When I wrote that I was thinking along the lines of the government negotating the prices of drugs that it purchases through Medicare. I'm pretty sure that they are prohibited from doing so. I also think that in many other countries the govern. negotiates the prices of drugs and services and there may not be any 3rd parties (insurers). I think they also regulate things like what/how many hospitals can perform cat scans and negotiate with the seller what they'll pay for that equipment. So if Medicare negs. the cost of drugs does the cost curve still get altered given there are still 3rd parties? Also, with the price of some drugs over $100,000 per year or treatment as they may be under patent, isn't the supplt/demand curve being altered?

"but they won't be put into law for a # of reasons. "

For tort reform, there is only one thing stopping it...the Democratic party is pandering to the Trial Lawyers Lobby. I will freely admit that too many on my side are beholden to the NRA. Likewise, too many on your side are in the employ of the Trial Lawyers Lobby.

"as long as hospitals/drug companies can charge whatever they want."

I don't believe the hospitals/drug/companies are charging outrageous fees, not when you consider the underlying cost of the service provided. If they were simply price gouging, someone would simply open another hospital, charge a bit less, and acquire 100% share, becoming a billionaire in the process. I don't think they can lower prices much, not if we want them to provide current levels of service. I could be wrong.

I don't think the problem is entirely caused by the sticker price that the providers put on their services. The problem is the underlying cost. I have no idea how to lower the underlying cost (other than tort reform), but IMHO, that's the culprit. The prices are high because the cost of the service provided, is high.