Shutdown

[tjts1]

Lockheed to Furlough 3,000 Workers on Shutdown

Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), the biggest U.S. defense contractor, said it was ready to furlough 3,000 employees on Oct. 7 because of the partial government shutdown.

Boeing “is seeing increasing effects on certain daily operations that involve U.S. government facilities and people,” Dan Beck, a company spokesman, said by e-mail.
“We expect more consequences could emerge in the coming days, including limited furloughs of employees in some areas,” Beck said. The Chicago-based defense and aerospace company won $30.3 billion in contracts in fiscal 2012, the BGOV study shows.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/lockheed-to-furlough-3-000-employees-due-to-government-shutdown.html

[z31maniac]

we still have not gotten a rate quote for the little woman yet. They want ALL KINDS of documentation it seems

What documentation?

No exclusions for pre-existing conditons, so income?

[mrsleeve]

All kinds of personal info, plus shit about my income and so on, because we are not "married" paper work wise, and she does not have an acctual day job or income our street address is considered a 1/2 number, that along with everything else seems to be throwing all kinds of red flags or somethingshe is a bit uneasy with all the documenntation they are wanting her to UPLOAD just make us both a little nervous.

Never in all of our h/c dealings have these types of question that are really a bit too nosey bee posed to us. Normaly its ok your approved or not and if you are this what you owes us every month. Never have they asked for copies of this much personal data, I don't know everthing that they are askig for as I have not talked to her in a coupe of days for more than a few mins, and she has become discouraged with it all for now


Doom: that would be "da wifey"

[nando]

FYI If your work coverage exceeds 9.5% of your income you are eligible for the exchange.

Are you guys getting insurance through work not?

yeah, I don't get it.. if you already had coverage, why are you going through the exchange?

[BraveUlysses]

Alright, mrsleeve, ive always wondered and I have to ask. whos rack is in your avatar?


and to stay on topic. interesting read.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2gnl2Xsnb

This is another meaningless circle jerk law passed by SC. States cannot do this.

[nando]

well, they can pass it - but it doesn't mean anything.

[mrsleeve]

This is another meaningless circle jerk law passed by SC. States cannot do this.

why cant they under the 9th and 10th, I dont recall the Feds and health care being part of the powers expressly granted to them.....

Granted its pointless even if it would hold some weight, the feds would find some other way to make them capitulate, like removing or at the very least threatening to with hold necessary funding for other things. Just like they did to get the legal Drinking limit down from .1 to .08 across the board, MT to give up its No speed limit, and many other things.

[BraveUlysses]

why cant they under the 9th and 10th, I dont recall the Feds and health care being part of the powers expressly granted to them.....

Granted its pointless even if it would hold some weight, the feds would find some other way to make them capitulate, like removing or at the very least threatening to with hold necessary funding for other things. Just like they did to get the legal Drinking limit down from .1 to .08 across the board, MT to give up its No speed limit, and many other things.

Nullification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_%28U.S._Constitution%29

read the first line.

---

Secondly, Montana's supreme court overturned that law because it was poorly written.

[2761377]

intentional infliction of emotional distress

while at another site, i read this regarding camping in the Eastern Sierra-

"Ok, called the company direct that is running almost all of the campgrounds in the Eastern Sierra. They told me that they have a DIRECT ORDER from the WHITE HOUSE to close all of their campgrounds, even though the Government does not run them. They have leased the campgrounds and paid a large fee to do so. They are really upset and told me that they will sue! Good luck trying to sue this Government"

scholarly rectitude requires further research- i got on the website of the company referred to and found that is their appreciation of the situation.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html

so we have Our Dear Leader making it as painful as possible for people who otherwise couldn't care less about a shutdown government. This is a gratuitous, probably actionable abrogation of a contract. imagine those people counting on a camping vacation being denied by the Prez. All In For The Win democraps.

brief synopsis of post tilte-INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: <H4 sab="168">(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; <H4 sab="171">(2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; <H4 sab="173">(3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and <H4 sab="176">(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498

</H4></H4></H4></H4>

[mrsleeve]

Well this still assumes that the ACA is constitutional in the 1st place. The SCOTUS has not ruled on this yet, only the Tax penalty portion of the individual mandate, which also was not ruled constitutional or not, only that the Govt has the authority to tax for what ever they wish.


If there has been another SCOTUS ruling that I have not been aware of please let me know


While yes the MT Courts did make the final ruling that did in fact put the final nail in the coffin and killed the more modern law in the 90's, The Feds had been threatening to with hold Highway dollars if the state did not succumb to their will for a while as well again. I was referring to pre 1974 though

Montana highways never had a daytime speed limit until 1974, when the Federal Government ordered all states to post one of 55 m.p.h. as a fuel conservation measure. Few laws have ever been so despised, and when given the choice of increasing the limit to 65 m.p.h., the state took it up.

Only after Federal officials threatened to withhold highway funds did the state enact the $5 speeding ticket.

''The only reason we've got any speed limit at all is Federal blackmail, pure and simple,'' said J. D. Lynch, a state senator from Butte who has thundered for years against Federal interference with Montanans' propensity for fast driving. Ticket for Wasting a Resource

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/10/us/speeding-is-easy-and-almost-free-in-montana.html

[nando]

Im sure whatever hate blog you found this at is a reliable source of facts...

while at another site, i read this regarding camping in the Eastern Sierra-

"Ok, called the company direct that is running almost all of the campgrounds in the Eastern Sierra. They told me that they have a DIRECT ORDER from the WHITE HOUSE to close all of their campgrounds, even though the Government does not run them. They have leased the campgrounds and paid a large fee to do so. They are really upset and told me that they will sue! Good luck trying to sue this Government"

scholarly rectitude requires further research- i got on the website of the company referred to and found that is their appreciation of the situation.

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/my-plea-to-stop-the-white-house-from-closing-privately-funded-privately-operated-parks.html

so we have Our Dear Leader making it as painful as possible for people who otherwise couldn't care less about a shutdown government. This is a gratuitous, probably actionable abrogation of a contract. imagine those people counting on a camping vacation being denied by the Prez. All In For The Win democraps.

brief synopsis of post tilte-INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The elements of a prima facie case for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: <H4 sab="168">(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant; <H4 sab="171">(2) the defendant's intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress; <H4 sab="173">(3) the plaintiff's suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and <H4 sab="176">(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498

</H4></H4></H4></H4>

[BraveUlysses]

Well this still assumes that the ACA is constitutional in the 1st place. The SCOTUS has not ruled on this yet, only the Tax penalty portion of the individual mandate, which also was not ruled constitutional or not, only that the Govt has the authority to tax for what ever they wish.


If there has been another SCOTUS ruling that I have not been aware of please let me know


While yes the MT Courts did make the final ruling that did in fact put the final nail in the coffin and killed the more modern law in the 90's, The Feds had been threatening to with hold Highway dollars if the state did not succumb to their will for a while as well again. I was referring to pre 1974 though



http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/10/us...n-montana.html

Keep moving those goal posts

[mrsleeve]

Its not my fault you didnt know how or why MT had a speed limit in the 1st place, and your the one who called me out on it. Just merely pointing out that you were not as well informed as you thought you were. AGAIN

And where am I mistaken about the SCOTUS ruling, they only ruled on the Individual mandate, not the whole law, and we have at least 1 federal judge that tossed the whole thing out as unconstitutional, so there are more cases based on the whole law not just a small portion of it working their way though the system. (Unless I missed where those have been stalled or refused by the higher courts)

[herbivor]

Heres a good one. Had a talk with my dad the other day. Insurance for him, his wife, and three kids was $250 a month. Now theres this affordable care act, right? His insurance is now $1k a month. thats up 400%. so the break down is this: Affordable care act.

sounds like a smoking deal to me. And we have the right to a trial so if we get fined for not having health care is it fightable? or did they forget about that right too?

I call bullshit on this. If he paid $250 a month for a family it was shitty insurance with a super high deductible that only covered meniscus tears from leprechaun fighting. $1000 a month is the going rate for a reasonable family plan of someone in there mid 30s. Ask me how I know.

[z31maniac]

Its not my fault you didnt know how or why MT had a speed limit in the 1st place, and your the one who called me out on it. Just merely pointing out that you were not as well informed as you thought you were. AGAIN

And where am I mistaken about the SCOTUS ruling, they only ruled on the Individual mandate, not the whole law, and we have at least 1 federal judge that tossed the whole thing out as unconstitutional, so there are more cases based on the whole law not just a small portion of it working their way though the system. (Unless I missed where those have been stalled or refused by the higher courts)

I'll indulge you.

IF the individual mandate has been ruled on and considered constitutional, what else could they possibly rule on to make Obamacare unconstitutional?