The GOP shut down the government and Issa wants to investigate why it shut down. The farce is complete.
House Republicans seek probe of D.C. monument closures - Darren Goode - POLITICO.com
If vandalism is the concern for closing the state parks, please explain how somebody could vandalize the ocean.
It was proposed by some republicans. Other republicans proposed an entirely different kind of legislation. It never gained anything near across the board Republican support, and was even quickly abandoned the same year once additional information regarding the costs of the plan would occur. Furthermore, there are a plethora of differences between that 92 plan and the ACA in a variety of ways that makes the assertion that one is basically equal to the other and should be equally supported patently dishonest. Finally, you're speaking of a TWO DECADES old piece of legislation that never gained significant steam or support, put forward at a time where the historic norm of the day was that Republicans would likely rarely, if ever, have a chance of actually negotiating form a superior position within Congress and thus had to significantly compromise from the very onset for almost any measure...significantly different than the political climate now where we it's became clear that there is legitimate opportunities to control congress and thus massively compromising all the time isn't the ONLY chance the Republicans have to ever get anything passed.
But forgive me for interrupting your throw away bit of propaganda.
Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate
Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare "adopts the 'individual mandate' concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation," Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC's Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate "has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation." Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.
The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through "adverse selection" (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.
My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts.
What do your think the investigation would reveal? That politician do things for political reasons that Park Service rangers don't approve of?
This is classic political theater. The government is shutdown, and Obama's people believe that it's best to keep that in the forefront of peoples minds, because they believes it supports his position.
Do you really need an investigation for that?
I disagree.
Defunding the ACA will not save the USA money and The President never promised it would save country hundreds of billions when fully implemented.
You seem to be confusing the ACA with the original plan which was supposed to include a public option in the exchanges.
Once the public option was eliminated so were most of the savings.
With the ACA the rate of costs will be slowed but not necessarily lowered.
So can you tell us why letsmove.gov is still online if we don't have funding for momuments and Amber Alerts? OH WAIT A MINUTE THIS JUST IN, we do have funding for Amber Alerts. Seems this "lack of funding" you speak of is more political then reality.
It was proposed by some republicans. Other republicans proposed an entirely different kind of legislation. It never gained anything near across the board Republican support, and was even quickly abandoned the same year once additional information regarding the costs of the plan would occur. Furthermore, there are a plethora of differences between that 92 plan and the ACA in a variety of ways that makes the assertion that one is basically equal to the other and should be equally supported patently dishonest. Finally, you're speaking of a TWO DECADES old piece of legislation that never gained significant steam or support, put forward at a time where the historic norm of the day was that Republicans would likely rarely, if ever, have a chance of actually negotiating form a superior position within Congress and thus had to significantly compromise from the very onset for almost any measure...significantly different than the political climate now where we it's became clear that there is legitimate opportunities to control congress and thus massively compromising all the time isn't the ONLY chance the Republicans have to ever get anything passed.
But forgive me for interrupting your throw away bit of propaganda.
Considering the past behaviour of Republicans in this matter, that is demanding one concession this time then still more at the next round of talks, I think the President is right in refusing to negotiate on the ACA. Unlike the righties who continually babble about his Marxist tendencies, I see the President as slightly conservative and willing to accept many actions that have been proposed by Republicans during past administrations.
The whole framework of "Obamacare" was proposed by Republicans as an alternative to the Clinton's healthcare plans in 1992-3 but now that Black Guy in the White House has successfully moved it to the stage of implementation, it becomes socialism. Weird
:roll: Race card...again. Because of that this post is not even worth my time.
Race card card again. :roll:
Glad we agree it was a race card.
No your's is a race card card.
Firstly, defunding all or part of the ACA is showing an interest in the financial health of your country. Since Obama and Democrats promised that the ACA wouldn't cost the federal government any money and when fully implemented in 10 years would save the country hundreds of billions, just what funding is needed? Shouldn't it be self-funded if Obama and Democrats actually kept their election promises?...
I disagree.
Defunding the ACA will not save the USA money and The President never promised it would save country hundreds of billions when fully implemented.
You seem to be confusing the ACA with the original plan which was supposed to include a public option in the exchanges.
Once the public option was eliminated so were most of the savings.
With the ACA the rate of costs will be slowed but not necessarily lowered.
You can disagree, but you can't establish your own facts.
"This legislation will also lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. It is paid for. It is fiscally responsible. And it will help lift a decades-long drag on our economy."
President Barack Obama Remarks by the President and Vice President at Signing of the Health Insurance Reform Bill The White House, The Office of the Press Secretary March 23, 2010
Nope. I don't have any race card. Somerville has it. He's the one that played it. Not me. I just noted it and rejected it.
New Data Suggests Obamacare Is Actually Bending The Healthcare Cost Curve
A new Congressional Budget Office report out last week has the healthcare world scratching its head over the possibility that Obamacare might—in part—be responsible for what is being described as a significant slowdown in the growth of healthcare costs in America.
According to the report, hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid are being removed from government projections as federal healthcare spending is now expected to be full 15 percent less than what had been initially budgeted for 2012. The surprisingly low spending projections come as the growth in healthcare spending has hit a new low for the fourth consecutive year.
If its shut down, how are they paying people to block off parks?
I disagreed about your timeline that when the ACA was fully implemented in 10 years...it would save the country hundreds of billions.
Now you admit that the President said the savings over two decades which equals 20 years not 10 years.
And yes the country will see savings because of preventitive health care for all those who did not have insurance before the ACA is/was fully implemented.
Repubs get their negotiation as soon as the Russian Roulette stops.
Even for Repub supporters, Repubs have this Nation's stomachs in knots.
Well , my guess would be because of trying to prevent potential vandalism.
They just finished cleaning the Lincoln Memorial that was vandalized with green paint before the shut down.
Sorry Minnie, but you're usually more honest in your arguments than this.
Firstly, the ACA will be fully implemented well before the first ten years pass - to suggest otherwise is nonsense - and yes, if the act is going to save the federal government, as the President says, over $1 trillion in the next two decades - i.e. by 2030 - then it will have to save hundreds of billions in the first decade.
Even if one credits your wild take on the President's commitment, the CDC calls out the lie quite clearly. In their estimates attached below, they see the costs of the ACA to the federal government in the years 2012 to 2022 as $1.25 trillion - that's a cost of $1.76 trillion offset by $510 billion in receipts and efficiencies.
CBO | CBO Releases Updated Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act
No matter how you try to hide it, the truth has a way of coming out as my quote below shows. Best to own up to it now instead of looking increasingly foolish by trying to defend the lie.
Sorry , it is not going save much the first decade because it needs to implemented first.
The whole USA needs to set up data bases where all medical records of all patients are computerized and can be accessed by any doctor or hospital within the USA as an example.
Lee County , Florida for example has a good data base set up now, but rural areas do not.
If a patient is in the system in Lee County, Florida then any doctor or any hospital in the county can access the info.
They can access any tests such as an MRI , an X-ray , or a blood test for anyone in the system.
That means there will fewer duplicate tests done on a patient.
Now once all counties around the USA have their info in the system it will save our country tons of money.
BTW:
Your figures are from 2012 and the ACA does not effect until 2014
There's no security when it IS open. See, this is why a probe is needed. Someone is either incompetent or abusive.
That scenic pull-out at Mt Rushmore never had security. Why does it suddenly need it now?There is no security at our national monuments when they are open? Seriously? I was at DC 2 summers ago i saw many park rangers at just about every big monument...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?