Health Care Legislation: USA

[roni]

Originally Posted by Mr Cancun

Kinda wondering why most of the unions are exempt from Obamacare if it so good?

My union does not pay for my health insurance.

My employer and I share the cost.

What the F are you talking about?

[eccentrictinker]

Originally Posted by roni

My union does not pay for my health insurance.

My employer and I share the cost.

What the F are you talking about?

Have you been asleep for the last several months, Ron?

Moot point, anyway. Obamacare's going down, mainly due to arrogance and the fact that the smartest professor of of Constitutional law doesn't know His ass from third base.

Labor unions continued to receive the overwhelming majority of waivers from the president’s health care reform law since the Obama administration tightened application rules last summer
.
Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.

By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.

The Department of Health and Human Services revised the rules governing applications for health reform waivers June 17, 2011, amid a steady stream of controversial news reports, including The Daily Caller’s story that nearly 20 percent of last May’s waivers went to businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district in California.

Read more: Labor Unions | Obamacare Waivers | The Daily Caller

[STOGEY]

Originally Posted by gingele

If the ACA gets overturned, I honestly don't know which will be the hardest, most painful thing to deal with: a) the thought that once again my youngest son, my baby, is uninsurable, or b) DH's insufferable gloating.

By the way eventually under Obama care. Your youngest son will not get the care he needs.

[Al from NY]

Hi All,
Years ago I was an active member of the forums. I have subsequently devolved into a less and less frequent lurker. I’ve read a few pages of the dialogue in this discussion and would like to share an idea. It’s not pro or con, but an interesting concept which applies here. The bulk of opinions expressed in this thread are supported by ‘reason’. We logically lay out the facts and concepts which support our position. We have ‘reasons’ for our position and suspect others of not being ‘reasonable’ when they disagree.
We think the metaphor for our reason here is that of a scientist. We lay a foundation of facts that leads to a logical conclusion. We believe we have found our position in this fashion.
What if the metaphor is not that of a scientist but a lawyer. Is it possible that our conclusions on an issue such as ACA are emotional and precede reason? Then human reason, like a good attorney, steps in and defends our emotional stand. We think we are reasoned, reasonable, but our positions were formed emotionally NOT logically. Reason steps in and creates the logic AFTER our position has been established. In a thread such as this we can share with each other the ‘logic’ of our stance. We point out the flaws in the reasoning of opposing views….. but I suspect this methodology is more useful in a hard scientific forum, as opposed to one brimming with emotion.
Sorry I waited 500 pages to make this suggestion.
Does this seem reasonable? <g>

[roni]

Hi Al,

It is good to see you!

Say hi to Betty.

We are moving down to Merida in 2013. It will be good to see you guys down there.

I know this had nothing to do with your post

Ron y Kathy

Originally Posted by Al from NY

Hi All,
Years ago I was an active member of the forums. I have subsequently devolved into a less and less frequent lurker. I’ve read a few pages of the dialogue in this discussion and would like to share an idea. It’s not pro or con, but an interesting concept which applies here. The bulk of opinions expressed in this thread are supported by ‘reason’. We logically lay out the facts and concepts which support our position. We have ‘reasons’ for our position and suspect others of not being ‘reasonable’ when they disagree.
We think the metaphor for our reason here is that of a scientist. We lay a foundation of facts that leads to a logical conclusion. We believe we have found our position in this fashion.
What if the metaphor is not that of a scientist but a lawyer. Is it possible that our conclusions on an issue such as ACA are emotional and precede reason? Then human reason, like a good attorney, steps in and defends our emotional stand. We think we are reasoned, reasonable, but our positions were formed emotionally NOT logically. Reason steps in and creates the logic AFTER our position has been established. In a thread such as this we can share with each other the ‘logic’ of our stance. We point out the flaws in the reasoning of opposing views….. but I suspect this methodology is more useful in a hard scientific forum, as opposed to one brimming with emotion.
Sorry I waited 500 pages to make this suggestion.
Does this seem reasonable? <g>

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Al from NY

Hi All,
Years ago I was an active member of the forums. I have subsequently devolved into a less and less frequent lurker. I’ve read a few pages of the dialogue in this discussion and would like to share an idea. It’s not pro or con, but an interesting concept which applies here. The bulk of opinions expressed in this thread are supported by ‘reason’. We logically lay out the facts and concepts which support our position. We have ‘reasons’ for our position and suspect others of not being ‘reasonable’ when they disagree.
We think the metaphor for our reason here is that of a scientist. We lay a foundation of facts that leads to a logical conclusion. We believe we have found our position in this fashion.
What if the metaphor is not that of a scientist but a lawyer. Is it possible that our conclusions on an issue such as ACA are emotional and precede reason? Then human reason, like a good attorney, steps in and defends our emotional stand. We think we are reasoned, reasonable, but our positions were formed emotionally NOT logically. Reason steps in and creates the logic AFTER our position has been established. In a thread such as this we can share with each other the ‘logic’ of our stance. We point out the flaws in the reasoning of opposing views….. but I suspect this methodology is more useful in a hard scientific forum, as opposed to one brimming with emotion.
Sorry I waited 500 pages to make this suggestion.
Does this seem reasonable? <g>

I suspect it IS reasonable to believe you are correct.

[Al from NY]

Hey Roni,
Long time no digitally communicate!
Glad to hear you guys at OK. Your plans are exciting. Is there a discussion of your choice of Merida discussed elsewhere??... don't want to wander from this thread.

Hello Jacko,

We all believe we are correct... but did we arrive at that conclusion because we went through a logical sequence of reason, or did our reason superimpose a rational on our predispositon?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Al from NY

Hey Roni,
Long time no digitally communicate!
Glad to hear you guys at OK. Your plans are exciting. Is there a discussion of your choice of Merida discussed elsewhere??... don't want to wander from this thread.

Hello Jacko,

We all believe we are correct... but did we arrive at that conclusion because we went through a logical sequence of reason, or did our reason superimpose a rational on our predispositon?

I don't know about everyone else, but it seems to me that I clearly took the first path, and those other folks must have taken the second...

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I suspect it IS reasonable to believe you are correct.

It all really just a matter of the Constitution... And its LIMITING Powers of the FEDERAL Govenment... it doesn't really matter if a majority likes it or dislikes it .. its a matter of Consitutionality..

The Mandate is Un-Constitutional and most people that can read will and have come to that logical-Not emotional conclusion...

Our forefathers limited the power of the federal government for a reason .. You can look it up...

A government that has the power to give you everything , Has the power to take everything you have ... Our Forefathers did not want them to have that kind of power..That was the purpose of the constitution.. to LIMIT their Power...

Obamacare is nothing more than a Federal Power Grab...and the Left should be as scared of this kind of MANDATE as the Right... IMO...

[Jacko]

Happy Easter!

Matthew 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."

[gingele]

Originally Posted by Al from NY

Hi All,
Years ago I was an active member of the forums. I have subsequently devolved into a less and less frequent lurker. I’ve read a few pages of the dialogue in this discussion and would like to share an idea. It’s not pro or con, but an interesting concept which applies here. The bulk of opinions expressed in this thread are supported by ‘reason’. We logically lay out the facts and concepts which support our position. We have ‘reasons’ for our position and suspect others of not being ‘reasonable’ when they disagree.
We think the metaphor for our reason here is that of a scientist. We lay a foundation of facts that leads to a logical conclusion. We believe we have found our position in this fashion.
What if the metaphor is not that of a scientist but a lawyer. Is it possible that our conclusions on an issue such as ACA are emotional and precede reason? Then human reason, like a good attorney, steps in and defends our emotional stand. We think we are reasoned, reasonable, but our positions were formed emotionally NOT logically. Reason steps in and creates the logic AFTER our position has been established. In a thread such as this we can share with each other the ‘logic’ of our stance. We point out the flaws in the reasoning of opposing views….. but I suspect this methodology is more useful in a hard scientific forum, as opposed to one brimming with emotion.
Sorry I waited 500 pages to make this suggestion.
Does this seem reasonable? <g>

Confirmation bias? HERE? On PI? Pshaw.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by gingele

Confirmation bias? HERE? On PI? Pshaw.

Not at all unusual to see confirmation of people being biased, here.

[ProfessorPibil]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

It all really just a matter of the Constitution... And its LIMITING Powers of the FEDERAL Govenment... it doesn't really matter if a majority likes it or dislikes it .. its a matter of Consitutionality..

The Mandate is Un-Constitutional and most people that can read will and have come to that logical-Not emotional conclusion...

Well, I don't think you can read, but I'm sure you're aware the constitution can be changed.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Al from NY

Hey Roni,
Long time no digitally communicate!
Glad to hear you guys at OK. Your plans are exciting. Is there a discussion of your choice of Merida discussed elsewhere??... don't want to wander from this thread.

Hello Jacko,

We all believe we are correct... but did we arrive at that conclusion because we went through a logical sequence of reason, or did our reason superimpose a rational on our predispositon?

I am not sure that there is, other than on my blog, which really isn't a discussion

Maybe a bit on our trip reports on this site

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by ProfessorPibil

Well, I don't think you can read, but I'm sure you're aware the constitution can be changed.

Good luck with that idea in this case... maybe Obama and the Democrats should have taken that route instead.. ?