No, but illegals can show up with life threatening conditions and be treated. Remember the original statements where as follows...

Of course you *could* be trying to say that getting treated in an emergency room isn't "health care" but you'd be wrong..

Truth.... But that just betrays what the REAL problem in health care was and is in this country. We've grown used to just letting somebody else pay for it, so it's grown more expensive without bounds because it doesn't matter to the consumer how much it costs, they won't have to write the check to pay for it.

I don't know what the democrats where trying to figure out so I cannot address that, but the ACA was NOT a republican authored plan and those who try and take Romney Care and the Heritage foundation's paper and say it is are misrepresenting the truth. Not a single republican in congress that I know of ever introduced legislation that looked like the ACA, and not a single republican voted for the passage of the ACA as written. It was authored by democrats, was voted for only by democrats and passed over the objections of republicans. It was their idea.

IF the states cannot get their act together, then it's NOT for the federal government to step in and "fix" the problem. The founders envisioned a system where the federal government's role was clearly defined and limited because they understood the problems of a power central government with absolute authority over everything down to the local level. I suggest we not abandon their genius because I see some real dangerous stuff happening on the slippery slope.

Try this: http://www.gitguys.com/

Also, you need to remember that GIT is designed to be self contained locally and you "push" and "pull" changes to/from public repos. My biggest problem when shifting from SVN to GIT was that all your changes are made LOCALLY to your local repository and not to the common shared repository. That means your commit is only on your local system in that directory tree and no place else. Now if you want to have a shared repository and work with others, you have to carefully think about the way you want changes to get "pushed" to the public repo so others can "pull" them.

Things can get pretty complex with GIT too, where you pull from one repo, branch, do your work and commit, then push to another repo. But it's this flexibility that gives you lots of control over how your development process works and how your source configuration management solution supports that.

Personally I suggest the CLI interface to GIT for a number of reasons. First, it's portable. If GIT runs on that system, the CLI will be there. Second, it helps you to keep track of what's going on with GIT because you are forced to type in things, instead of just letting the GUI do it for you. I also have the TortoiseGit GUI installed on my windows system, but I rarely use it for anything but the most simple steps.

I suggest you start by hammering out how you want your software development process to work, then hammer out what GIT commands you need by using the above web page. Try a number of scenarios with multiple developers and make sure you know how to make GIT work in that environment.. Test it to be sure your process works, then stick to the formula you come up with.

It has no business at the federal level due to the 10th amendment.

Republicans had absolutely zero control of this bill or they would have stopped it from passing. Democrats had an iron grip on congress with majorities in both the House and Senate, they could literally pass ANY law they wished with any content they wanted. Literally all the Republicans could do is stand in front of the TV cameras and complain about it, unless they could peal off enough democrat votes to stop something, the democrats had free reign to do anything and pass anything they wanted. This was true for the first part of Obama's first term, until Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat was filled in the special election by a republican, at which point, all the republicans could really do was block cloture and stop something. Still the democrats could still make a rule change (the nuclear option) and get *anything* they wished though congress and to the president until the midterms.

You are blaming the wrong group here...

The heck they can't. Just walk into an emergency room and voilà, free healthcare without anybody checking if you can pay or not. It's HOW this thing works you know. Yea, the ER can come after you for payment later, but they cannot refuse you lifesaving care and just dump you out on the street.

Looking at it that way, the whole law is like a virus, designed to destroy the system it claims to be fixing. They should have killed it when they called a fine, a tax, and a fine in order to stay within their constitutional authority. but they didn't. Awhh the virus code has a bug....

Even if the guy who wrote the sentence is saying otherwise? I don't think it's so clear cut in this case, but hey, it is what it is now.

They smile all the time while eating rubber chicken. What you are suggesting should be easy, for congress..... However, in this case they didn't have TIME to read the thing. It went from a single amendment replacing a house bill's entire text to a final vote in the Senate in a very short time because the Democrats where fighting to get it done before they lost their supermajority and the Republicans could block cloture. They squeaked in just under the wire, on a 100% partisan vote because the Democratic leadership turned the thumb screws on their caucus members. Remember the "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" quote? Pelosi wasn't kidding nor did she misspeak.

If Scallia says he found the time to read the thing, I see no reason to think he didn't. I'm sure he reads a LOT of stuff in his line of work. What's the ACA to him? After all it's been before the court TWICE so far, so I'm sure there has been time through all that. I expect they've all read the thing more than once.

Congress OBVIOUSLY didn't read the thing. It went from a draft, got dropped into a totally unrelated bill as an amendment, replacing the entire bill's text, in a blink of an eye. Then in a mad rush to get it passed before the republicans acquired enough seats to block cloture in the senate the democrats rammed it though the process. You remember the "We've got to pass it to find out what's in it" quote from the time right?. Few, if any, in congress had time to read the thing before it was on the president's desk to sign. The Democrats just put the word out to their caucus that you voted for the bill "or else" and that's what happened. They voted for this bill, sight unseen, because that's what the leadership told them to do.

So.... In fact you are *blaming* conservatives for this construct? Look, the issue is the ACA has no business being a law at the federal level, it is an issue, similar to many in the past, which should have been addressed at the state level. The eventually failure of the ACA will not be because the conservatives had any impact on it's drafting, but because the American people realize that the ACA was NOT what they where told it was.

Well...In the commercial software world users are still at fault, it's just that they have paid fees for support so the vendor hires people to answer the same inane (I didn't care to read the user's guide) questions over and over and be nice about it.

I'll be happy to consult with you on your problems with git... My fee is $200/hour with a three hour minimum per question, paid in advance. I promise to be nice, even if you ask the same question 50 times in a row..

OK.. Then arrest everybody who's breaking the law....

Again, it is not my problem that you have too many things on "I have to spend money on... " list, that's yours. Stop telling yourself that you cannot do it all so you won't try. Fix the problem, live within your means, prioritize and budget to meet your goals. PICK what you deem the most important and do that first. If that means you need a cheaper apartment, a less expensive car, a night job or what have you, do it.

What? And make it work like CVS?

I used to have issues with git, but the problem turned out to be that I didn't understand HOW the tool does what it does. It isn't the tool, it's the preconceived notions that folks bring to the table which don't match how the tool works.

You cannot fix this by wrapping git in some wrapper that makes it look like subversion or CVS...

Git is like any tool, it's useful under two conditions.. 1. It's the correct tool for the job at hand... AND 2. The person holding the tool has the necessary skill to use it correctly.

In my opinion, git is a useful tool for the designed function, however, it takes a bit more skill than most tools of it's kind to use effectively.

I think we know what that means if you don't find git useful.... You either are using the wrong tool, or you don't know what you are doing...