Meanwhile back at the ranch,

[philly4life]

This depends on your state. In California rates for the self employed are significantly lower with the ACA. Plus, people can actually qualify. Before ACA, if you had a preexisting condition, you're out. Can't get insurance at all or so expensive it's as if you can't get it. Period! No chance you can be an entrepreneur and start your own business or even change jobs. It's called JOB-LOCK. Job Lock is now over!!!

Far more people are benefitting from the ACA than hurt by it. And if an employer has 50 or more full time employees and ISN'T offering health insurance for them? Then that employer isn't going to keep good employees and his business will likely fail anyway.

I have one main sticking point against the ACA, and it's that our government can't do anything cheaper or more efficiently than private industry. It just doesn't work that way, because the gov't is not just allowed, but supposed to operate at a loss.

As I posted last week (and that thread was soon deleted) it's already happening with the ACA. The cost JUST FOR THE WEBSITE of healthcare.gov was $634 million. Link: http://weaselzippers.us/2013/10/09/g...acare-website/

There's a gov link in there that shows how much was spent. So the gov't spent that much just to get a website up and running that crashed immediately after going live. To put that in perspective, they could just give $2 million to every US citizen for healthcare, and it would cost less than this website.

So, can anyone explain to me how the ACA is going to save money for anyone, if we already know that the gov't doesn't know how to not waste money.

[Eagle Road]

Well hey, bring on single payer and you solve a lot of that. If you want a for profit industry to rule a major aspect of our lives they are going to have impact on shaping public policy.

Well you see FG, this is where your "paint everybody that doesn't agree with me in that corner" doesn't fly. Don't you think that for one minute that I as an employer would JUMP at the chance to rid myself, and my company of the burden of HC costs?

It's NOT just the cost of the policies either, it's also the added cost of extra people in HR to handle it, added cost of time and money for seminars, literature, meetings and webcasts every freakin time something changes.

I CAN see how SP would have a lot of pluses, EVERYONE should have an individual HC plan of there own as soon as they are say 20 or so. That way your HC would be unaffected if you.

moved to another state,
changed jobs, or professions,
got married,
got divorced,
had kids,
have a PEC,

YES it answers all of those questions, sign me up for this utopia, but I do have one caveat, what is the guarantee, that after this system is up and running, and everyone is paying into it for HC, that some administration, down the road, doesn't open the lock box, and those funds are funneled to other programs and entitlements that have nothing to do with HC?

Does this sound familiar?

[FuriousXGeorge]

Well you see FG, this is where your "paint everybody that doesn't agree with me in that corner" doesn't fly. Don't you think that for one minute that I as an employer would JUMP at the chance to rid myself, and my company of the burden of HC costs?

It's NOT just the cost of the policies either, it's also the added cost of extra people in HR to handle it, added cost of time and money for seminars, literature, meetings and webcasts every freakin time something changes.

I CAN see how SP would have a lot of pluses, EVERYONE should have an individual HC plan of there own as soon as they are say 20 or so. That way your HC would be unaffected if you.

moved to another state,
changed jobs, or professions,
got married,
got divorced,
had kids,
have a PEC,

YES it answers all of those questions, sign me up for this utopia, but I do have one caveat, what is the guarantee, that after this system is up and running, and everyone is paying into it for HC, that some administration, down the road, doesn't open the lock box, and those funds are funneled to other programs and entitlements that have nothing to do with HC?

Does this sound familiar?

What prevents it is the same thing protecting Social Security and Medicare. The voters get really pissed when you talk about cutting them.

(Also, you sound like a douche when you describe a healthcare system that works all over the world as a "utopia". It's a real, workable system that gets better results for a nation as a whole. It's not a perfect unachievable utopia.)

[Eagle Road]

What prevents it is the same thing protecting Social Security and Medicare. The voters get really pissed when you talk about cutting them.

(Also, you sound like a douche when you describe a healthcare system that works all over the world as a "utopia". It's a real, workable system that gets better results for a nation as a whole. It's not a perfect unachievable utopia.)

Wow, you must have been the name calling champ of you 6th grade class,

Hey JACKASS, I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU! It would save me TIME and MONEY.

But just because something works in other countries is NO guarantee that it will work here.

[FuriousXGeorge]

Wow, you must have been the name calling champ of you 6th grade class,

Hey JACKASS, I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU! It would save me TIME and MONEY.

But just because something works in other countries is NO guarantee that it will work here.

No, you are not agreeing with me. You are agreeing the social method is the best but then coming up with excuses not to implement it to imply it is some sort of utopian ideal and not a practical reform. (It won't work here, the funding wouldn't be secure, etc)

The barriers to this system are people voting for conservative Dems, Republicans, and other conservatives. The barrier is the accusations of socialism aimed at the conservative plan we were forced to adopt instead that make it clear the political reality is that single payer will never be implemented here.

So knowing that you are one of the people who is going to continue to vote Libertarian against your interests and the interests of the country on this matter I'm not going to rhetorically coddle you and pretend you aren't an idiot, so I don't really care if you want to whine about name calling.

[TerpEagle]

First of all, you can deduce from that post whatever you want, but my intention of it being informational was the truth regardless what you may believe, had the supposed strike to take place in Az. I never would have mentioned it here.

As far as having an opinion on the trucking industry in general, may I ask what you do/ or did for a living?

If you posted that without an agenda of at least being provacative, what's the radius from the Linc that we can expect traffic updates from you in the future?

Everything from Washington DC to New York City?

[TerpEagle]

Didn't know I had mentioned your name. Since you are "good with political posts, do you think the Gov. should be trying to lower the debt?

Austerity measures should have been applied when the economy was doing well - like the early part of the last decade. Instead, spending went way up and revenue was reduced so when the economy took a downturn we're already neck deep in new debt.

Presently the economy is in recovery and when spending is needed to help it along people all of a sudden think it's time for austerity.

And reduction in spending is not the only way to lower the debt - revenue needs to be increased on those that can best withstand it. Even in this economic recession profits for many companies are still breaking records while they cry about their tax burdens.

[Eagle Road]

If you posted that without an agenda of at least being provacative, what's the radius from the Linc that we can expect traffic updates from you in the future?

Everything from Washington DC to New York City?

It was to be a "trucking/transportation" issue, something that I get regular updates on, it was on my daily lists of areas to avoid if possible, you know like construction, parades, closed bridges etc.

Or do you think a trucking fleet just directs employee's and millions of dollars of cargo and equipment by simply throwing a dart at the board, lol

Don't worry, I won't be posting any other transport news info on here, I can see you will do just fine on your own, continue on.

[TerpEagle]

I'll pick this up tom, if you want. 4am comes early.

Are there two personalities working this opinion piece?

[TerpEagle]

It was to be a "trucking/transportation" issue, something that I get regular updates on, it was on my daily lists of areas to avoid if possible, you know like construction, parades, closed bridges etc.

Or do you think a trucking fleet just directs employee's and millions of dollars of cargo and equipment by simply throwing a dart at the board, lol

Don't worry, I won't be posting any other transport news info on here, I can see you will do just fine on your own, continue on.

I can understand people confusing this site for an Eagles/Mudder/Political bored but I think it's a stretch to see it as a place to discuss/update on DC metro traffic with respect to trucking.

Unless it somehow involved one of those other topics.

[Eagle Road]

[QUOTE=FuriousXGeorge;1723615]No, you are not agreeing with me. You are agreeing the social method is the best but then coming up with excuses not to implement it to imply it is some sort of utopian ideal and not a practical reform. (It won't work here, the funding wouldn't be secure, etc)




So, your argument is that because it works in some other countries that it HAS to work here, OK, try this on for size, how many of those other countries are operating right now, and for the LAST FIVE YEARS, without a budget.


Seems kinda irresponsible to me, but I know, I am the crazy one because I choose to ask a couple of questions rather than swallowing the government mixed kool-aid.

[Eagle Road]

Are there two personalities working this opinion piece?

? Care to extrapolate on that?

[TerpEagle]

? Care to extrapolate on that?

That post didn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Eagle Road]

Are there two personalities working this opinion piece?

Neither did this one.

[philly4life]

Austerity measures should have been applied when the economy was doing well - like the early part of the last decade. Instead, spending went way up and revenue was reduced so when the economy took a downturn we're already neck deep in new debt.

Had to pay for those wars somehow, right? Shouldn't our government be constantly aware and continually trying to balance the budget? The two things are mutually exclusive...the gov't can cut wasteful spending WHILE funding programs/services that contribute to the greater good.

Presently the economy is in recovery and when spending is needed to help it along people all of a sudden think it's time for austerity.

Ever hear of "Throwing good money after bad"?

And reduction in spending is not the only way to lower the debt - revenue needs to be increased on those that can best withstand it. Even in this economic recession profits for many companies are still breaking records while they cry about their tax burdens.

By "those who can best withstand it" you mean the middle class, right? The companies/corporations don't just pay higher taxes when required. They raise their prices, which means we all pay more for their increased taxes.