How will it affect YOU? U.S. Govt. Shuttered!

is this true - coming from a we'll respected magazine . they do not seem to follow everybody else's input here or agree with what you are saying . why would they print this if what you are saying is true , oh my -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... y-of-four/

is this true - coming from a we'll respected magazine ...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... y-of-four/

Yes, the "we'll respected" Forbes magazine, a periodical for the "typical family of four."

Some people are beyond gullible.

This is worth looking at again --->

The people have spoken.

The Republican party is blamed by a majority of Americans for this latest debacle.

Can't say that I disagree. People don't like bullies.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 (UPI) -- A majority of Americans blame Republicans for the government shutdown and would vote to replace every member of Congress if they could, a poll showed Thursday.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/10/53-percent-of-Americans-blame-GOP-for-government-shutdown-poll/UPI-96801381447323/

Similar reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-gop-gets-blame-shutdown-072856768--finance.html
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903624-nbcwsj-poll-shutdown-debate-damages-gop
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57606670/republicans-hammer-obama-over-government-shutdown-get-hammered-in-polls/

Under the ACA, more families, who are currently uninsured by choice, WILL be purchasing health insurance. (This refers to middle-class people of a certain income group, not those eligible for expanded Medicaid.) For many, they have gone without a net for a long time; that is not an option anymore, or they pay a tax. Because there are several tiers in the plans of most states who are implementing the ACA (and I will use the California arrangement by way of example), individuals can buy either "bronze," "silver," "gold" or "platinum" plans (or pay a tax, if they can afford to pay taxes), and families can choose their level of insurance coverage with insurers, or pay a tax, if they can afford to pay taxes.

Therefore, many more individuals and families (some are families of one, two, 4 or 10 people) will be paying "more" for health insurance, because many haven't been paying anything at all. They just show up at an emergency room, get minimal care - or good care and are saddled with enormous medical bills they cannot pay, and everyone pays eventually. Most especially the suddenly sick who never saw it coming. This is the way it is, and has been. It is not the way it will be. It will be a boom-time for small clinics and many physicians groups who will see patients who haven't seen a doctor in years.

Is it "true"? Only if you know how to lie with statistics. And that's easy-peasy. And oldie, but a goodie! http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-ebook/dp/B00351DSX2/ref=sr_1_1_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381461662&sr=1-1&keywords=how+to+lie+with+statistics

How many people had to take statistics or research methods in school? (I know I didn't have to take it in college; I only had to later in grad school. That means I never would have read that book if I hadn't gone on. I didn't have to take ANY math at all, in fact, but it was the era of "electives." And I elected to take "Biology For Non-Majors." Thank goodness my parents insisted on grad school, because college has its weak points, despite all the debt people incur for a degree nowadays.) If you haven't studied statistics and research methods, the books are readily available for your e-reader app on your phone.

rjm
P.S. -- I don't normally get into this type of detail work concerning current political issues, but I am doing it, to the best of my limited ability, literally

Is prevention of death a communist, or socialist ideal? Certainly NOT.

AGREED! I don't think staying out of debt is neither communist or socialist either. It's called 'common sense'.

And that can be achieved in times of ill health in America by having health insurance in the first place.

2kd, you were not engaging in that debate in a positive way because you were citing a family, telling us half of their story, but then refusing to tell us the other half but still expecting us to understand why a family on above-average income could not afford health insurance. You also say that losing a child is an important part of why they can't afford it, but yet refuse to tell us how that affects their outgoings after the event. Your argument doesn't make sense.

If you want to make a case that this is unaffordable to a family on $64000 per year, then provide us with the likely outgoings of a 2 adult, 2 children family and show us why they cant afford insurance. It's as simple as that - but that's not going to happen because it will be shown that there are luxuries being spent that could be dispensed with in favour of healthcare. You are talking to some people on these boards who don't earn half that money, and yet would have no problems affording it - so there is something amiss here somewhere.

One more time, for good measure.

No one has commented on this yet, and it's clearly because it says it all.

The American people can't be fooled ALL of the time.

The people have spoken.

The Republican party is blamed by a majority of Americans for this latest debacle.

Can't say that I disagree. People don't like bullies.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 (UPI) -- A majority of Americans blame Republicans for the government shutdown and would vote to replace every member of Congress if they could, a poll showed Thursday.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/10/53-percent-of-Americans-blame-GOP-for-government-shutdown-poll/UPI-96801381447323/

Similar reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-gop-gets-blame-shutdown-072856768--finance.html
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903624-nbcwsj-poll-shutdown-debate-damages-gop
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57606670/republicans-hammer-obama-over-government-shutdown-get-hammered-in-polls/

The people have spoken.

The Republican party is blamed by a majority of Americans for this latest debacle.

Can't say that I disagree. People don't like bullies.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 (UPI) -- A majority of Americans blame Republicans for the government shutdown and would vote to replace every member of Congress if they could, a poll showed Thursday.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/10/53-percent-of-Americans-blame-GOP-for-government-shutdown-poll/UPI-96801381447323/

Similar reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-gop-gets-blame-shutdown-072856768--finance.html
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903624-nbcwsj-poll-shutdown-debate-damages-gop
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57606670/republicans-hammer-obama-over-government-shutdown-get-hammered-in-polls/

Notice how the reports cited all come from entities of the state-controlled media.

good spot mike , yea doc people are gullable and you have proved that time and time again again one more time for the slower people on this board so we can move forward . obamacare is not the answer , the state of Tennessee tried this and it almost bankrupted the entire state , so they shut it down before it did . our government is broke , broke , broke . what goes around has to come around and pay back is rough . you cannot spend what you do not have , the usa owe's billions and trillion's of dollars ( i do not know if there is a word for the amount the usa owes in debt ) were is the money going to come from to fund this . also again you take the middle class who is bearley struggling along to make end's meet and and has no extra fund's are being forced to take part in this , the price for the premium may be within reason for some now but it in a few years it will blow up and many will not be able to pay it and then what happens . they get fined and do not have the extra fund's to pay that then what . this should be a option if you would like to participate that is great but do not force it upon someone who does not wish to be a part of it . we are supposed to be a free country , but common sense went out the window a long time ago. i know we are crap out of luck on this , and the bad part about was it was sent thru the senate before anyone really knew what was going on . i do hope we are wrong and it saves alot of people , but then the dream becomes reality and commen sense say's it cannot . thanks anyway .

drjohncarpenter wrote:

One more time, for good measure.

No one has commented on this yet, and it's clearly because it says it all.

The American people can't be fooled ALL of the time.

drjohncarpenter wrote:
The people have spoken.

The Republican party is blamed by a majority of Americans for this latest debacle.

Can't say that I disagree. People don't like bullies.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 (UPI) -- A majority of Americans blame Republicans for the government shutdown and would vote to replace every member of Congress if they could, a poll showed Thursday.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/ ... 381447323/


Similar reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-gop-gets-bla ... nance.html
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... amages-gop
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-576 ... -in-polls/

The NBC poll is seriously flawed.

First: The polsters conducted 800 interviews. 800 out of 300 million is hardly the "majority of Americans".

Second: The internals of the poll cited that of those polled the spread of Democrat to Republican is 43 32. So 43% in the poll are Democrats, 32% are Republicans. That's an 11 point difference there. That's not representative at all of the makeup.

Third: Of the 800 polled, the sampling of government employees was 20%. Do you know the percentage of the general population that works for government? 8%! So the percentage of people in our population that work for government is 8% and 20% of this sample is government workers.


This same poll, which you're not hearing reported, found that 51% believe that Obama "is putting advancing his agenda over what's good for the country."


How about the Associated Press poll that came out earlier this week that showed Obama's approval at it's lowest since he's been in office: 37%. How come we haven't heard a big deal made of those poll numbers?

Now when Bush's approval poll numbers hit 36% (his lowest) there was endless media coverage. Huh - why is that?



Polls are made to create news NOT to reflect public opinion.



RKS

The people have spoken.

The Republican party is blamed by a majority of Americans for this latest debacle.

Can't say that I disagree. People don't like bullies.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 (UPI) -- A majority of Americans blame Republicans for the government shutdown and would vote to replace every member of Congress if they could, a poll showed Thursday.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/10/53-percent-of-Americans-blame-GOP-for-government-shutdown-poll/UPI-96801381447323/

Similar reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-gop-gets-blame-shutdown-072856768--finance.html
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/10/20903624-nbcwsj-poll-shutdown-debate-damages-gop
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57606670/republicans-hammer-obama-over-government-shutdown-get-hammered-in-polls/

Notice how the reports cited all come from entities of the state-controlled media.

As y'all are so fond of saying, you're drinking the Kool-Aid again.

The reports all cite a poll by the non-partisan Associated Press-GfK.

drjohncarpenter wrote:

As y'all are so fond of saying, you're drinking the Kool-Aid again.

The reports all cite a poll by the non-partisan Associated Press-GfK.

Dude, seriously - if you think that the Associated Press is Non-partisian, you are totally drunk on the kool-aid!





RKS

RJM, I didn't "use" a deceased child to disgust or offend you! If you take it that way then you may want to rethink your whole way of viewing this. I didn't need to stir up anyone's emotions, but this is a very serious issue. If a family falls just a few dollars short, they WILL have to pay more than they can afford. You say that my reasoning of the ACA is irrational because you think you are right and I'm wrong. I say that we can both be right in that we're free to speak out [for or against] something we feel strongly about. Democracy. Remember? The ACA is flawed and it could be a great help to many, many people. But it was done in the dark, under the table. And when Pelosi, told us it had to pass "to find out what's in it", that was a slap in the face! You may not mind having someone like her telling you what to do, but I don't like it. And I don't have to.
The very first day that I joined this forum I was insulted by another person. We got straight, but I've learned that if posters here do not agree with every little detail of every little post they're bullied and bashed. Well I say have at it. It's pretty damn sad that if you're a conservative you instantly become a target. I don't much give a damn what anyone says, I will continue to be a conservative until I take my last breath. I don't begrudge you or anyone else the right to believe or vote as you see fit. I was merely engaging in a discussion, a debate. But now you've made remarks about me that you had no right to make. You took it too far. It's a shame that I have to leave on these terms.

Leave? Because I said I felt offended? If it was necessary to mention the child, then you implied strongly that those of us who support and will benefit from the ACA are COMPLICIT IN HARMING A GRIEVING FAMILY! You made me feel complicit in an an atrocity, simply because I need this health care, and can no longer afford my individual plan. Without the ACA, anyone with my pre-existing conditions would be out in the cold, and either soon, or already. And so, in addition to that, I have bear the guilt of a grieving family? Do you see how this hurts, and why I characterized it as I did? I wasn't actually blaming YOU: it is a tactic used by politicians and the media, and not only conservatives use it. So, it may not seem as though you "used" this child's family, but such tactics are so frequently employed by both politicians and the media that it seems natural to do it. The thing is that I didn't want to say it that way: I didn't want to say that an ordinary citizen sees this tactic on television and on the radio, and on the new media all the time. I did not wish to call anyone a "puppet" of those in powerful opinion-leading positions because I wanted to RESPECT you. Which means I wanted you to think about it.

It certainly IS a free country and you needn't support this law. But to try to fight it by making others feel complicit in the misery of a family who lost a child was an extremely questionable choice. I didn't hurt this family, just because I support and will use the ACA's individual plans! I did not hurt this family! Do you see what you were saying? And why it is often effective to make such an argument? It's effective because a lot of people are going to feel guilty about such a family, particularly since they are real. And I have nothing to feel guilty about, in this regard; I did not hurt this family by supporting and using the plans under this law. The very subsidized plans this family may have to pay for are those that will benefit people like me. So, it hurts when you say "his name is Samuel" as though *I* am among those who hurt his mother and daddy.

I hope you understand why I felt this was over-the-top. The arguments over schooling and suchlike are quite reasonable, and I would argue that there are affordable solutions. When I was bullied, they didn't have homeschooling, and I didn't want to go school anymore! I knew I had to go, no matter what. If you want to know just how bad bullying can get, ask me. Now, kids actually do not have to go to school! They can study at home or in a collective, in a great variety of programs. But it's a reasonable argument because when there *was* no home schooling, private school seemed like the only alternative. My parents took me out of Jr. High because of the bullying, and sent me to Woodward. (It was no picnic, either. I was "new" again. I didn't fit in, again. I didn't know the "correct" hem to put on that blasted ugly dress so the other girls wouldn't snicker at me . . . and more than that, much more than that.) Nowadays, there are many more choices in this situation, most of which are more affordable.

So, I just felt your argument went to a place that was out-of-bounds in fair discussion. School expenses? Fair. A dead child? Not fair.

rjm

RJM, I didn't "use" a deceased child to disgust or offend you! If you take it that way then you may want to rethink your whole way of viewing this. I didn't need to stir up anyone's emotions, but this is a very serious issue. If a family falls just a few dollars short, they WILL have to pay more than they can afford. You say that my reasoning of the ACA is irrational because you think you are right and I'm wrong. I say that we can both be right in that we're free to speak out [for or against] something we feel strongly about. Democracy. Remember? The ACA is flawed and it could be a great help to many, many people. But it was done in the dark, under the table. And when Pelosi, told us it had to pass "to find out what's in it", that was a slap in the face! You may not mind having someone like her telling you what to do, but I don't like it. And I don't have to.
The very first day that I joined this forum I was insulted by another person. We got straight, but I've learned that if posters here do not agree with every little detail of every little post they're bullied and bashed. Well I say have at it. It's pretty damn sad that if you're a conservative you instantly become a target. I don't much give a damn what anyone says, I will continue to be a conservative until I take my last breath. I don't begrudge you or anyone else the right to believe or vote as you see fit. I was merely engaging in a discussion, a debate. But now you've made remarks about me that you had no right to make. You took it too far. It's a shame that I have to leave on these terms.

Leave? Because I said I felt offended? If it was necessary to mention the child, then you implied strongly that those of us who support and will benefit from the ACA are COMPLICIT IN HARMING A GRIEVING FAMILY! You made me feel complicit in an an atrocity, simply because I need this health care, and can no longer afford my individual plan. Without the ACA, anyone with my pre-existing conditions would be out in the cold, and either soon, or already. And so, in addition to that, I have bear the guilt of a grieving family? Do you see how this hurts, and why I characterized it as I did? I wasn't actually blaming YOU: it is a tactic used by politicians and the media, and not only conservatives use it. So, it may not seem as though you "used" this child's family, but such tactics are so frequently employed by both politicians and the media that it seems natural to do it. The thing is that I didn't want to say it that way: I didn't want to say that an ordinary citizen sees this tactic on television and on the radio, and on the new media all the time. I did not wish to call anyone a "puppet" of those in powerful opinion-leading positions because I wanted to RESPECT you. Which means I wanted you to think about it.

It certainly IS a free country and you needn't support this law. But to try to fight it by making others feel complicit in the misery of a family who lost a child was an extremely questionable choice. I didn't hurt this family, just because I support and will use the ACA's individual plans! I did not hurt this family! Do you see what you were saying? And why it is often effective to make such an argument? It's effective because a lot of people are going to feel guilty about such a family, particularly since they are real. And I have nothing to feel guilty about, in this regard; I did not hurt this family by supporting and using the plans under this law. The very subsidized plans this family may have to pay for are those that will benefit people like me. So, it hurts when you say "his name is Samuel" as though *I* am among those who hurt his mother and daddy.

I hope you understand why I felt this was over-the-top. The arguments over schooling and suchlike are quite reasonable, and I would argue that there are affordable solutions. When I was bullied, they didn't have homeschooling, and I didn't want to go school anymore! I knew I had to go, no matter what. If you want to know just how bad bullying can get, ask me. Now, kids actually do not have to go to school! They can study at home or in a collective, in a great variety of programs. But it's a reasonable argument because when there *was* no home schooling, private school seemed like the only alternative. My parents took me out of Jr. High because of the bullying, and sent me to Woodward. (It was no picnic, either. I was "new" again. I didn't fit in, again. I didn't know the "correct" hem to put on that blasted ugly dress so the other girls wouldn't snicker at me . . . and more than that, much more than that.) Nowadays, there are many more choices in this situation, most of which are more affordable.

So, I just felt your argument went to a place that was out-of-bounds in fair discussion. School expenses? Fair. A dead child? Not fair.

rjm

You and I dealt with this in PM. (I told you then that I'd decided not to leave). You're right, a dead child is not fair. Not to you, the family or anyone else here. It's never "fair". You have a right to health care under the new law and I hope that you get everything you deserve under the law and more. I won't even try to defend my feelings about the law again, as I've learned that some people here are like sharks. When they smell blood they don't stop until they've devoured the injured. It appears (in some instances), if one's view is different or runs counter to other's views, it's perceived as wrong. If I don't agree with every little detail of this administration, I'm going to be bashed, eaten alive. Had I not cited an actual family, I would have been accused of making up a story to fit my views of the law. It's perfectly fine to be an individual here, as long as I "fit in". Looks like I'm eventually going to get kicked off the forum. I don't feel a need to fit in with everything or everyone. I like my individuality and will continue to be who I am. And when someone tries to kick my ass for it, I might get the crap beat out of me. But I'll go down fighting. I too have been through my own medical hell. And I'm still dealing with it every day. It will take a lot more than strangers on an Elvis forum to get to me. As I told you in PM, I came here to enjoy the information. I fully intend to continue doing just that. Hope you do too. Again, I apologize for hurting your feelings. I never meant to do that. Wishing you good health and hoping you find the help you need. M.

No worries. Even though we do not agree on this issue, you have done absolutely nothing to warrant "getting thrown off the forum". As long as topics like these continue to be handled with civility, there is not an issue. Differing opinions are embraced here at fecc. Those who have been banned previously decided not to take the path of civility. It's as simple as that .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RJM, I didn't "use" a deceased child to disgust or offend you! If you take it that way then you may want to rethink your whole way of viewing this. I didn't need to stir up anyone's emotions, but this is a very serious issue. If a family falls just a few dollars short, they WILL have to pay more than they can afford. You say that my reasoning of the ACA is irrational because you think you are right and I'm wrong. I say that we can both be right in that we're free to speak out [for or against] something we feel strongly about. Democracy. Remember? The ACA is flawed and it could be a great help to many, many people. But it was done in the dark, under the table. And when Pelosi, told us it had to pass "to find out what's in it", that was a slap in the face! You may not mind having someone like her telling you what to do, but I don't like it. And I don't have to.
The very first day that I joined this forum I was insulted by another person. We got straight, but I've learned that if posters here do not agree with every little detail of every little post they're bullied and bashed. Well I say have at it. It's pretty damn sad that if you're a conservative you instantly become a target. I don't much give a damn what anyone says, I will continue to be a conservative until I take my last breath. I don't begrudge you or anyone else the right to believe or vote as you see fit. I was merely engaging in a discussion, a debate. But now you've made remarks about me that you had no right to make. You took it too far. It's a shame that I have to leave on these terms.

Leave? Because I said I felt offended? If it was necessary to mention the child, then you implied strongly that those of us who support and will benefit from the ACA are COMPLICIT IN HARMING A GRIEVING FAMILY! You made me feel complicit in an an atrocity, simply because I need this health care, and can no longer afford my individual plan. Without the ACA, anyone with my pre-existing conditions would be out in the cold, and either soon, or already. And so, in addition to that, I have bear the guilt of a grieving family? Do you see how this hurts, and why I characterized it as I did? I wasn't actually blaming YOU: it is a tactic used by politicians and the media, and not only conservatives use it. So, it may not seem as though you "used" this child's family, but such tactics are so frequently employed by both politicians and the media that it seems natural to do it. The thing is that I didn't want to say it that way: I didn't want to say that an ordinary citizen sees this tactic on television and on the radio, and on the new media all the time. I did not wish to call anyone a "puppet" of those in powerful opinion-leading positions because I wanted to RESPECT you. Which means I wanted you to think about it.

It certainly IS a free country and you needn't support this law. But to try to fight it by making others feel complicit in the misery of a family who lost a child was an extremely questionable choice. I didn't hurt this family, just because I support and will use the ACA's individual plans! I did not hurt this family! Do you see what you were saying? And why it is often effective to make such an argument? It's effective because a lot of people are going to feel guilty about such a family, particularly since they are real. And I have nothing to feel guilty about, in this regard; I did not hurt this family by supporting and using the plans under this law. The very subsidized plans this family may have to pay for are those that will benefit people like me. So, it hurts when you say "his name is Samuel" as though *I* am among those who hurt his mother and daddy.

I hope you understand why I felt this was over-the-top. The arguments over schooling and suchlike are quite reasonable, and I would argue that there are affordable solutions. When I was bullied, they didn't have homeschooling, and I didn't want to go school anymore! I knew I had to go, no matter what. If you want to know just how bad bullying can get, ask me. Now, kids actually do not have to go to school! They can study at home or in a collective, in a great variety of programs. But it's a reasonable argument because when there *was* no home schooling, private school seemed like the only alternative. My parents took me out of Jr. High because of the bullying, and sent me to Woodward. (It was no picnic, either. I was "new" again. I didn't fit in, again. I didn't know the "correct" hem to put on that blasted ugly dress so the other girls wouldn't snicker at me . . . and more than that, much more than that.) Nowadays, there are many more choices in this situation, most of which are more affordable.

So, I just felt your argument went to a place that was out-of-bounds in fair discussion. School expenses? Fair. A dead child? Not fair.

rjm

You and I dealt with this in PM. (I told you then that I'd decided not to leave). You're right, a dead child is not fair. Not to you, the family or anyone else here. It's never "fair". You have a right to health care under the new law and I hope that you get everything you deserve under the law and more. I won't even try to defend my feelings about the law again, as I've learned that some people here are like sharks. When they smell blood they don't stop until they've devoured the injured. It appears (in some instances), if one's view is different or runs counter to other's views, it's perceived as wrong. If I don't agree with every little detail of this administration, I'm going to be bashed, eaten alive. Had I not cited an actual family, I would have been accused of making up a story to fit my views of the law. It's perfectly fine to be an individual here, as long as I "fit in". Looks like I'm eventually going to get kicked off the forum. I don't feel a need to fit in with everything or everyone. I like my individuality and will continue to be who I am. And when someone tries to kick my ass for it, I might get the crap beat out of me. But I'll go down fighting. I too have been through my own medical hell. And I'm still dealing with it every day. It will take a lot more than strangers on an Elvis forum to get to me. As I told you in PM, I came here to enjoy the information. I fully intend to continue doing just that. Hope you do too. Again, I apologize for hurting your feelings. I never meant to do that. Wishing you good health and hoping you find the help you need. M.

I never saw a follow-up, so I didn't know. (Using Tapatalk {4 Pro for Android a lot, and they keep working on the PM function.})

I hope we're okay. I respect everyone's opinions, and their right to share them. I usually get along with most everyone, but there are always misunderstandings of motive in life. It's good when you can work it out, and still maintain your own convictions. That's America to me.

I wish you the best of health and happiness!

rjm

Sent From My Phabulous Galaxy Note II Phablet Using Tapatalk 4

the sad part about being here , and i have been member since around 2001 starting with the old forum if i remember correctly , is that when someone voice's their opinion here and it does not match suit with someone else's that thinks they are the hi archy or the grand pu -ba or whatever they begin the to bash them and question why they don't think like they do . i do not know about you guy;s across the ocean but here in the usa we are proud of freedom and in that freedom we have our right to our own opinion and can believe however we feel . alot of hero's died fighting for this for us and we are still in debt to all who served and fought for our right's . i am offended as i know alot are when we voice our thought's on a topic and then have to keep arguing as to why we feel that way . no one on here is perfect and far from it including myself , i have yet to see any here walk on water , so it need's to be made known fecc mech that this would be a heck of alot nicer place if everyone would , even if they do not agree , respect everyone's opinion and not bash them when they give it . i mean this is a public forum to enjoy and appericate the wealth of elvis info and contribute to his legacy as i am sure he would be proud of . but the bickering and bashing need's to stop . we have lost some really good people from here due to the sad lack of respect on here and people thinking they are better than some or they know more than thou . why can't we all just get along , and celebrate the life of one of the greatest entertainer's in history , that is what brought us here together anyway . thanks randall

the sad part about being here , and i have been member since around 2001 starting with the old forum if i remember correctly , is that when someone voice's their opinion here and it does not match suit with someone else's that thinks they are the hi archy or the grand pu -ba or whatever they begin the to bash them and question why they don't think like they do . i do not know about you guy;s across the ocean but here in the usa we are proud of freedom and in that freedom we have our right to our own opinion and can believe however we feel . alot of hero's died fighting for this for us and we are still in debt to all who served and fought for our right's . i am offended as i know alot are when we voice our thought's on a topic and then have to keep arguing as to why we feel that way . no one on here is perfect and far from it including myself , i have yet to see any here walk on water , so it need's to be made known fecc mech that this would be a heck of alot nicer place if everyone would , even if they do not agree , respect everyone's opinion and not bash them when they give it . i mean this is a public forum to enjoy and appericate the wealth of elvis info and contribute to his legacy as i am sure he would be proud of . but the bickering and bashing need's to stop . we have lost some really good people from here due to the sad lack of respect on here and people thinking they are better than some or they know more than thou . why can't we all just get along , and celebrate the life of one of the greatest entertainer's in history , that is what brought us here together anyway . thanks randall

No-one is bashing anyone.

drjohncarpenter wrote:

One more time, for good measure.

No one has commented on this yet, and it's clearly because it says it all.

The American people can't be fooled ALL of the time.

drjohncarpenter wrote:
The people have spoken.

The Republican party is blamed by a majority of Americans for this latest debacle.

Can't say that I disagree. People don't like bullies.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 (UPI) -- A majority of Americans blame Republicans for the government shutdown and would vote to replace every member of Congress if they could, a poll showed Thursday.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/10/ ... 381447323/


Similar reports:
http://news.yahoo.com/poll-gop-gets-bla ... nance.html
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... amages-gop
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-576 ... -in-polls/

The NBC poll is seriously flawed.

First: The polsters conducted 800 interviews. 800 out of 300 million is hardly the "majority of Americans".

Second: The internals of the poll cited that of those polled the spread of Democrat to Republican is 43 32. So 43% in the poll are Democrats, 32% are Republicans. That's an 11 point difference there. That's not representative at all of the makeup.

Third: Of the 800 polled, the sampling of government employees was 20%. Do you know the percentage of the general population that works for government? 8%! So the percentage of people in our population that work for government is 8% and 20% of this sample is government workers.


This same poll, which you're not hearing reported, found that 51% believe that Obama "is putting advancing his agenda over what's good for the country."


How about the Associated Press poll that came out earlier this week that showed Obama's approval at it's lowest since he's been in office: 37%. How come we haven't heard a big deal made of those poll numbers?

Now when Bush's approval poll numbers hit 36% (his lowest) there was endless media coverage. Huh - why is that?



Polls are made to create news NOT to reflect public opinion.



RKS

Well spotted RKS. The media have told us that the AP poll with the President at 37% is an outlier but the new Wall Street Journal poll is gospel. Something just doesn't add up.

phpBB [video]

This video is very illuminating, and illustrates the lengths that the Republicans have taken to prevent the government from reopening. Basically what this house resolution has done, has made it impossible for ANYONE but the house leader (a republican) to request reopening the government. This was passed after the Republicans shut down the government. Prior to this any member of the house could make this request regardless of their party affiliation. This has effectively suspended democracy in the U.S.. Not good. Not good at all. And it certainly should be receiving more media attention than it is getting.

As an Australian visiting the USA, the shutdown had a huge impact and left a sour taste. I trained for months to do a 12 mile walk into Plateau Point in the Grand Canyon only to arrive and find a gate preventing me from even seeing the canyon. I did this walk 27 years ago and wanted, at 52, to do it again only to be denied that opportunity because of government in-fighting.
I won't pretend to know a lot about the Us System of government but it seems the obamacare plan is worth persisting with and the tea party actions have been deplorable.
I know workers and others have lost their livelihood during this tie any I suppose the issues if anturintnare major, but to lobe thy primary purpose of a visit was devastating.
I'll have t get to know the snakes again at my local state park and get back into training to try again next year.

However, as I said I am no expert on politics, just a mighty annoyed visitor. At least a road was open so I could drive through the smoky mountains.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 45371.html

AFGE Applauds Bill to Provide Federal Employees with 3.3% Pay Raise in 2015

Bill by Reps. Connolly, Moran would provide federal employees with fair increase

AFGE logo. (PRNewsFoto/American Federation of Government Employees)
WASHINGTON, March 26, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox Sr. today applauded legislation introduced by Reps. Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran of Virginia to provide federal employees with a 3.3 percent pay raise in 2015.

"Federal employees have seen their standard of living deteriorate in recent years due to a three-year pay freeze, unpaid furloughs, and higher retirement contributions for newer workers," Cox said. "A 3.3 percent pay raise would help federal employees recoup some of that lost income and ensure the government is able to recruit and retain the high caliber workers that taxpayers expect."

The Obama administration has proposed a 1 percent pay raise for federal employees in 2015, a pitiful increase in light of how much federal employees have sacrificed these past few years. Federal employee wages were frozen for three straight years. New federal employees are paying between four and six times as much for their retirement without getting anything in return. Roughly 750,000 federal employees lost up to a week of pay last year due to sequestration-related furloughs, costing them $1 billion in lost salary.

"Federal employees are on the hook for $138 billion in lost earnings thanks to years of policies that put slashing the deficit ahead of creating new jobs," Cox said. "A 3.3 percent increase would provide employees with a fair and meaningful raise for the first time this decade."

Cox also thanked the members who signed on to the legislation as original cosponsors, including at the time of this release Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, John Tierney of Massachusetts, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania and Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico.

Cox also applauded Reps. Connolly and Moran for ensuring that the 3.3 percent raise would apply both to General Schedule employees and hourly workers under the prevailing wage system.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 670,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.

For the latest AFGE news and information, follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20131120/MM21150LOGO

SOURCE American Federation of Government Employees

RELATED LINKS
http://www.afge.org

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/afge-applauds-bill-to-provide-federal-employees-with-33-pay-raise-in-2015-252445371.html

AFGE Applauds Bill to Provide Federal Employees with 3.3% Pay Raise in 2015

Bill by Reps. Connolly, Moran would provide federal employees with fair increase

AFGE logo. (PRNewsFoto/American Federation of Government Employees)
WASHINGTON, March 26, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox Sr. today applauded legislation introduced by Reps. Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran of Virginia to provide federal employees with a 3.3 percent pay raise in 2015.

"Federal employees have seen their standard of living deteriorate in recent years due to a three-year pay freeze, unpaid furloughs, and higher retirement contributions for newer workers," Cox said. "A 3.3 percent pay raise would help federal employees recoup some of that lost income and ensure the government is able to recruit and retain the high caliber workers that taxpayers expect."

The Obama administration has proposed a 1 percent pay raise for federal employees in 2015, a pitiful increase in light of how much federal employees have sacrificed these past few years. Federal employee wages were frozen for three straight years. New federal employees are paying between four and six times as much for their retirement without getting anything in return. Roughly 750,000 federal employees lost up to a week of pay last year due to sequestration-related furloughs, costing them $1 billion in lost salary.

"Federal employees are on the hook for $138 billion in lost earnings thanks to years of policies that put slashing the deficit ahead of creating new jobs," Cox said. "A 3.3 percent increase would provide employees with a fair and meaningful raise for the first time this decade."

Cox also thanked the members who signed on to the legislation as original cosponsors, including at the time of this release Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, John Tierney of Massachusetts, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania and Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico.

Cox also applauded Reps. Connolly and Moran for ensuring that the 3.3 percent raise would apply both to General Schedule employees and hourly workers under the prevailing wage system.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 670,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.

For the latest AFGE news and information, follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20131120/MM21150LOGO

SOURCE American Federation of Government Employees

RELATED LINKS
http://www.afge.org

What the press release does not tell you is that every time there has been a shutdown (including the most recent shutdown) Congress has voted to retroactively pay employees for the furloughed time. Three-year pay freeze? Remember, the massive stimulus bill jacked up employee earnings so that the freeze was appropriate when we are bleeding money. Notice how all Congress people thanked in the press release are Democrats who vote for such pay increases in exchange for campaign contributions in future election cycles. Of course, the money comes from taxpayers who have no say in such actions. In the private sector, this is known as money laundering.

I'll weigh in here, as I have a personal experience to share:

Before ACA, my wife and I were paying almost $400 a month for separate health plans, with (obviously) separate deductibles - mine was $4000, hers was $2500. That not "out of pocket maximum", just the deductible. The OPMs were $12,000 each or something crazy like that. Through the exchange, we'll be paying a bit over $200 a month and have a $1,000 deductible - TOGETHER - and a $2,000 "out of pocket maximum".. TOGETHER. You know what we'll be doing with that extra $200 a month? Putting it back into the economy, just like nearly every other family - the real job creators - who'll get something similar.

The people I had my insurance with denied my wife because a doctor told her ONCE to put a bit more iron in her diet as her blood was just a bit anemic. Next visit she was fine and it was 5 years prior to her applying, but that was enough for the insurance company to deny her. The company that she did have tried everything they could to get out of paying the $200 doctors visit she had where the doctor just took one look and said "oh, it's this - get such and such at walmart and you'll be fine," trying to claim "pre-existing condition" when that's not even possible for what it was. These companies don't generally give two damns about their customers, and the government is frankly the only one with the collective power to straighten them out.

Now, I'd MUCH rather see us adopt a modified version of Canada's or UK's system - it'd be better for the average citizen, and certainly better for employers and the economy in general. But the ACA is certainly a step up.

Also, if you don't make more than 133% of poverty level, in most states you now qualify for Medicaid. Most who truly can't afford it won't have to pay, and that includes small business employers.

Food for thought, from a personal experience that's "straight from the horse's mouth".

Oh, and another thing - BEWARE of insurance companies sending scary letters about how your premium will go up, etc etc. They sent one to Ronda like that, and after reading it carefully it didn't expressly say she HAD to change to a more expensive plan. She called and asked about "what would happen if I just stay on this plan", and they said "Oh, you'll just keep the plan and nothing will change. We just wanted to give you options." Those letters are worded very carefully to scare people into buying more expensive plans when it's really just a shakedown. Bastards. So FYI: watch out for that.

Thanks, Jamie. Similar story. My previous plan raised my premiums so much and so often that I was going to have to give up insurance and go on Medi-Cal. If I could.

Now I have NO deductible, 10% co-pays, annual max co-pay of $5,000 including hospital. MUCH lower premiums. Cheap prescriptions. No lifetime cap. Fully portable. No medical questions were asked!!!!!!! None!

I couldn't get the subsidy this time, because you have to include all the income in your household -- even if it's not you. But as soon as that changes, for any reason, I can get the subsidy.

For ages, I went through the mill struggling to find insurance. COBRA, hiring brokers to help me and they helped me into a plan that was a horror story. I had surgery in 2010, and they approved 2 days for a surgery. My doctor kept me for 5 due to some complications. The bills were unbelievable!

And I had to be grateful for anything!
This has been a lifesaver. Maybe a true lifesaver one day.

I, too, hope for single-payer. But meanwhile, I will survive. Literally.

rjm

Sent via mobile

More BS [IMO]:

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/201 ... raise-2015

Bill would give feds 3.3 percent pay raise in 2015

May. 27, 2014 - 06:00AM By ANDY MEDICI

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said the 3.3 percent pay raise will help balance out years of pay freezes. (Mike Morones/Federal Times) (Mike Morones/Federal Times)
Federal employees would receive a 3.3 percent pay raise in 2015 — more than triple the 1 percent given in 2014 — under legislation introduced May 23 by a pair of Democratic senators.

Senators Ben Cardin, D-Md., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, introduced the Federal Adjustment of Income Rates in part to offset years of pay freezes, pension contribution increases and sequestration.

“Hardworking federal employees did not cause our fiscal crises nor did they contribute to the legislative gridlock, but time and again they have been asked to pay the heaviest price toward a resolution,” Cardin said in a press release.

Schatz said Congress should support the hard work and dedication of federal employees by giving them a raise that will help offset some of the hardship they have endured.

“They deliver our mail, care for our veterans, protect our environment, and help keep us safe,” Schatz said. “Our federal employees bore the brunt of the sequester, enduring furloughs and a three-year pay freeze. Our bill would give these working families a raise they deserve.”

Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said the legislation would help federal pay get back on track.

“We appreciate Senator Schatz and Senator Cardin introducing this bill to provide a fair pay raise for federal employees in 2015 and will work to garner support for it,” Kelley said.

J. David Cox, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, said the bill would help agencies recruit and retain high caliber federal workers.

Another [IMO] BS update, until I actually see results of this of course:

http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/05/online_ ... hat_a.html

Online calculator shows what a pay raise would mean for federal workers next year

By Leada Gore | lgore@al.com AL.com
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on May 28, 2014 at 8:02 AM, updated May 28, 2014 at 8:04 AM

http://media.al.com/breaking/photo/13963908-large.jpg

A 3.3 percent raise? A 1 percent raise? No pay raise at all?

There are lots pay increase options: http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/05/lawmake ... t_pay.html on the table for federal employees next year. And unlike private-sector workers where such matters are discussed behind closed doors, government workers sit by while their pay is discussed in an open forum.

A three-year pay freeze for federal workers ended in January with a 1-percent across-the-board raise: http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/02/1_p ... y_say.html and President Barack Obama is proposing the same increase in 2015. Others, including a pair of Democratic Senators, want to see a 3.3 percent raise while federal employee unions want at least 4 percent.

"After several years of pay freezes, unpaid furloughs and government shutdowns, it is time for federal employee pay to get back on track," said National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley. "If the federal government is going to be competitive with the private sector in efforts to recruit and retain the high-quality employees necessary to serve the public, fair pay increases are a necessity."

Whatever raise occurs, there's a way to find out what it would mean to your bottom line.

FedSmith has an online calculator that shows the difference pay raises – ranging from 1 percent to 9 percent – would make. The calculator has a place for users to put in grade, step and locality.

Try it out here: http://fedsdatacenter.com/gs-pay-calculator/index.php .