moosetracker 132 Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 How interesting is it going to be when Obama has to delay the individual mandate because not enough young people can/will enroll to support us old codgers? Since delaying the individual mandate for a year was one of the first bills the Repubs sent to the senate to re-start the Govt; this will expose the petty bullheadedness of Obama: "I refused to negotiate delaying the individual mandate back then, because that would have given the Republicans a 'win'. But let's delay the individual mandate now, because we have to fix it; errr because it's the right thing to do!" It was about the 3rd or 4th ransom demand.. http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/s/6/6/Republican-Compromise.jpg Link to post Share on other sites
Eagle92 110 Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 The doctors I work with are in it because they want to treat patients, not make money. With the way things are now they A) can't treat patients like they want to instead having to see so many patients an hour to break even, and B) they are not even making enough to cover expenses with medicare/aid patients. Link to post Share on other sites
JoeBob 606 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 How interesting is it going to be when Obama has to delay the individual mandate because not enough young people can/will enroll to support us old codgers? Since delaying the individual mandate for a year was one of the first bills the Repubs sent to the senate to re-start the Govt; this will expose the petty bullheadedness of Obama: "I refused to negotiate delaying the individual mandate back then, because that would have given the Republicans a 'win'. But let's delay the individual mandate now, because we have to fix it; errr because it's the right thing to do!" Uh Huh: http://www.brindlemedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Anti-ObamaCare1.jpg Link to post Share on other sites
moosetracker 132 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 How interesting is it going to be when Obama has to delay the individual mandate because not enough young people can/will enroll to support us old codgers? Since delaying the individual mandate for a year was one of the first bills the Repubs sent to the senate to re-start the Govt; this will expose the petty bullheadedness of Obama: "I refused to negotiate delaying the individual mandate back then, because that would have given the Republicans a 'win'. But let's delay the individual mandate now, because we have to fix it; errr because it's the right thing to do!" We already know what your political parties belief is, it is repeated ad nauseam. Tell me why that makes you tthink you have a right to destroy the economy purposefully or at least threatening to destroy the economy in order to force demands that rather then going into normal negotiations over the budget you should have things all your own way, and then turn around and call that valid negotiation.. How many years would junior there have to work to fix you not raising the debt ceiling and causing us to default?.. Yes, I know your political tea-party messiahs said it would have been no problem, may even help the economy.. They know much more then all the economists and the bankers, Wallstreet and buisnessmen who use to be fine with your group and now are demanding you be removed from the Republican party, or they will not continue to support Republicans. Now, the republican house will have to meet with the Senate and both debate and negotiate the budget on equal footing.. Now you are forced to work within the system.. Poor baby.. If you political party were not such spoiled brats I might even feel sorry for you. Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
Eagledad 2777 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 By the way, a lot of CPAs are presently going through training for the up and coming changes. Has anyone talked to their CPA yet about how Obamacare is changing the way things are going? I don't think political affiliation will bias their opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Are you a geocentrist too? Evolution has been observed. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. You don't know the laws of thermodynamics, and you're overlooking a huge energy source. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh I have no idea what you mean by "political evolution thingy" but I suspect it has absolutely nothing to do with science...which apparently neither do you. No law of thermodynamics says that. If I set up conditions to support the growth of a crystal, that process actually elaborates MORE structure as it proceeds, and is not a disintegration. If I plant a seed in my garden, the resulting organism will actually elaborate more structure by taking in minerals and converting them to complex organic forms. It will not disintegrate until it dies. Moreover, only the first law has been proven. The second law has not. We merely have never found contradictory evidence to the second law and plenty of evidence in support of it so we tentatively accept it as 'true'. Same with evolution. We can easily produce microevolutionary results in the lab. There's plenty of evidence to support it. Link to post Share on other sites
Basementdweller 608 Posted October 21, 2013 Author Share Posted October 21, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh I disagree, with the Evolution statement. Rattlesnakes no longer rattling. A genetic defect prevents the snake from rattling and they are reproducing because they are no killed by humans. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=216924322 http://naturalmissouri.blogspot.com/2010/07/timber-rattlesnakes.html Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Evolution has been assumed. No scientific evidence. If it has, please point me in that direction. I haven't ever seen any Blood-engorged mosquito fossil found About 46 million years ago, a mosquito sunk its proboscis into some animal, perhaps a bird or a mammal, and filled up on a meal of blood. Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. Why hasn't the mosquito "evolved"???? One would think that after 46 million years there should be some change.... Nope, the theory is just a guess at best. Somethings evolve and others don't? And that's a reliable conclusion we all need to buy into. Or in this case maybe evolution hasn't been observed correctly. On the other hand the decline of nature is obvious to anyone who has vividly observed that 99.9% of all species have NOT evolved, but become extinct. Of course, I sleep at night really well knowing that I am a mutated form of primordial pond scum. "Political evolution thingy" doesn't hold water either? Observably, it can only be concluded all political powers that have ever been created by man have deteriorated and collapsed. It has not "evolved" into a better system over the years, it simply declines, over and over again according to all observable evidence. One kinda gets a bit skeptic of all these new and better ideas that come along that simply are just a rehash of the same-old, same-old that isn't going anywhere and is definitely not "evolving" into something better. Political evolutionary thingy is based on the pseudo-sciences of psycology, sociology, anthropology, etc. They change constantly and not necessarily for the better. Kinda makes wonder why natural laws do not change, but stay constant... and all else evolves for the better? And yet simple observations are just the opposite? Like I said, show me the evidence. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Evolution has been assumed. No scientific evidence. Wrong. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Why hasn't the mosquito "evolved"???? One would think that after 46 million years there should be some change.... Nope, the theory is just a guess at best. Somethings evolve and others don't? Because you're ignorant about evolution. You can stay ignorant if you like. You do realize that you have to posit a worldwide conspiracy, don't you? Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Standard answer: When one is confronted with the lack of evidence to support one's beliefs, simply attack the other person. Name calling is not providing evidence. Stosh Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Standard answer: When one is confronted with the lack of evidence to support one's beliefs, simply attack the other person. Which is why I've provide links, and you've provided nothing. And you ARE ignorant. You can remain so. Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh 3452 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Theory of Evolution (no scientific evidence to support it) assumes things continually improve as time goes on. Natural Law of Thermaldynamics (scientifically proven) says things continually disintegrate as time goes on. So, how's that political evolution thingy working out for you? Stosh Did you even bother to read your "evidence"? And by the way, you haven't addressed my questions either. Link to post Share on other sites
Brewmeister 132 Posted October 21, 2013 Share Posted October 21, 2013 Well if ya listened to da Preezy today, the website is a resounding success because it shows how many people are interested in the program. Of course, the fact that we are all now required to buy insurance means that by definition about 313.9 million people should be interested. The fact that the central access to this program was not designed to handle the traffic anyone with half a brain should have expected, and was apparently built on arcane technology, is not only a major embarrassment but also an example of why government does little, if anything, better than a private sector driven by (gasp) profit and the things that drive it (efficiency, accuracy, etc...). Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now