So... The Government is Shut Down...

[JoeRedskin]

The ACA is a terrible law. Further, it is a terrible law of the worst kind in that its costly ill-effects won't be felt until it is too soundly entrenched as policy to be repealed or radically altered.

- It does not address the underlying "brokenness" of health care in the country that drive costs up (costs not reflective/responsive to market forces on either the supply or demand side; inadequate regulation of malpractice and the litigation resulting from it)

- Within 30-40 years, eliminate employer health-care and replace it with subsidies for the insurance exchange which will provide less actual coverage (~my employer pays $100/mo. towards my family health coverage, I pay an additional $200 - for that I get top shelf care for my family. Once the inevitable happens and we are kicked into the insurance exchanges, my employer may offer a subsidy of $250 but my level of care will be substantially reduced).

- As the insurance exchanges become the single source of insurance and, because it uses the same pricing model that existed prior to the ACA, costs will continue to rise but be displaced from individual choice and, instead, be funded by the Federal budget. It will become the largest "entitlement" payments paid out by the Federal govt. - dwarfing medicare & social security.

BUT ... the sheeple voted for it. It is law. A horrible, terrible law and an indictment of Obama and the Democratic party - still a law. It is Congress reponsibility to pass the funding mechanisms. The delay sought by the Republicans is meaningless given the scope of ACA, brings unnecessary pain and suffering to many, is costly and may cause long term structural damage to the economy.

You lost. You failed to propose an alternative plan. You cannot repeal the law through your current actions and are likely only garnering it support. You are causing harm to individuals and the country as a whole.

Pass the f'ing budget.

If you are serious about the ACA (and I hope you are), develop an alternative plan not beholden to National Association of Trial Lawyers, the Insurance Industry and pharmaceutical companies. Such a plan would require creative thinking, radical changes to the existing system and bold leadership. I guess I don't think you have it in you.

I hate sheeple. I hate the entrenched political system. I weep for my children's future.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The ACA is a terrible law. Further, it is a terrible law of the worst kind in that its costly ill-effects won't be felt until it is too soundly entrenched as policy to be repealed or radically altered.

- It does not address the underlying "brokenness" of health care in the country that drive costs up (costs not reflective/responsive to market forces on either the supply or demand side; inadequate regulation of malpractice and the litigation resulting from it)

- Within 30-40 years, eliminate employer health-care and replace it with subsidies for the insurance exchange which will provide less actual coverage (~my employer pays $100/mo. towards my family health coverage, I pay an additional $200 - for that I get top shelf care for my family. Once the inevitable happens and we are kicked into the insurance exchanges, my employer may offer a subsidy of $250 but my level of care will be substantially reduced).

- As the insurance exchanges become the single source of insurance and, because it uses the same pricing model that existed prior to the ACA, costs will continue to rise but be displaced from individual choice and, instead, be funded by the Federal budget. It will become the largest "entitlement" payments paid out by the Federal govt. - dwarfing medicare & social security.

BUT ... the sheeple voted for it. It is law. A horrible, terrible law and an indictment of Obama and the Democratic party - still a law. It is Congress reponsibility to pass the funding mechanisms. The delay sought by the Republicans is meaningless given the scope of ACA, brings unnecessary pain and suffering to many, is costly and may cause long term structural damage to the economy.

You lost. You failed to propose an alternative plan. You cannot repeal the law through your current actions and are likely only garnering it support. You are causing harm to individuals and the country as a whole.

Pass the f'ing budget.

If you are serious about the ACA (and I hope you are), develop an alternative plan not beholden to National Association of Trial Lawyers, the Insurance Industry and pharmaceutical companies. Such a plan would require creative thinking, radical changes to the existing system and bold leadership. I guess I don't think you have it in you.

I hate sheeple. I hate the entrenched political system. I weep for my children's future.

Well said, Joe.

Although personally I do not view the ACA quite as darkly as you do, we are in essential agreement.

I'm sick of people acting in entitled ways as they moan about "entitlements."

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The ACA is a terrible law. Further, it is a terrible law of the worst kind in that its costly ill-effects won't be felt until it is too soundly entrenched as policy to be repealed or radically altered.

- It does not address the underlying "brokenness" of health care in the country that drive costs up (costs not reflective/responsive to market forces on either the supply or demand side; inadequate regulation of malpractice and the litigation resulting from it)

- Within 30-40 years, eliminate employer health-care and replace it with subsidies for the insurance exchange which will provide less actual coverage (~my employer pays $100/mo. towards my family health coverage, I pay an additional $200 - for that I get top shelf care for my family. Once the inevitable happens and we are kicked into the insurance exchanges, my employer may offer a subsidy of $250 but my level of care will be substantially reduced).

- As the insurance exchanges become the single source of insurance and, because it uses the same pricing model that existed prior to the ACA, costs will continue to rise but be displaced from individual choice and, instead, be funded by the Federal budget. It will become the largest "entitlement" payments paid out by the Federal govt. - dwarfing medicare & social security.

BUT ... the sheeple voted for it. It is law. A horrible, terrible law and an indictment of Obama and the Democratic party - still a law. It is Congress reponsibility to pass the funding mechanisms. The delay sought by the Republicans is meaningless given the scope of ACA, brings unnecessary pain and suffering to many, is costly and may cause long term structural damage to the economy.

You lost. You failed to propose an alternative plan. You cannot repeal the law through your current actions and are likely only garnering it support. You are causing harm to individuals and the country as a whole.

Pass the f'ing budget.

If you are serious about the ACA (and I hope you are), develop an alternative plan not beholden to National Association of Trial Lawyers, the Insurance Industry and pharmaceutical companies. Such a plan would require creative thinking, radical changes to the existing system and bold leadership. I guess I don't think you have it in you.

I hate sheeple. I hate the entrenched political system. I weep for my children's future.

Your correct and its why they must fight it now and not wait. What damage a shut down might do is very minor compared to what OBC will have on us.

You say your emp. pays $100 and you pay $200 a month for your health ins.? That sounds very low are sure about those numbers?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Your correct and its why they must fight it now and not wait. What damage a shut down might do is very minor compared to what OBC will have on us.

You say your emp. pays $100 and you pay $200 a month for your health ins.? That sounds very low are sure about those numbers?

1. They should fight it now -- but what they are doing is not fighting the law. Nothing they are doing will, or even can, effect any change in the law's long term effect. NOTHING. A one year delay? The adverse effects of this bill will be 10 years in the making. Further, they aren't seeking any fundamental change in the bad things underpinning the law. There is absolutely nothing they are doing that has any beneficial effect on health care in America.

Not. One. Thing.

They have no alternative. They propose no fundamental changes. They don't even pretend to have a plan. It's simply harm for harm's sake at this point.

If they want to fight it ... show me their proposal. While opinion polls may say folks don't like this bill, they also showed an overwhelming support for fundamentally changing to how health care was provided in this country. Obamacare was a bait and switch and the sheeple voted for it. If they want something different, they need to vote for that.

2. Just made'em up for sake of example. Pretty sure they are higher. In 20 years won't matter. The coverage I currently have will only be available for the incredibly wealthy.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

1. They should fight it now -- but what they are doing is not fighting the law. Nothing they are doing will, or even can, effect any change in the law's long term effect. NOTHING. A one year delay? The adverse effects of this bill will be 10 years in the making. Further, they aren't seeking any fundamental change in the bad things underpinning the law. There is absolutely nothing they are doing that has any beneficial effect on health care in America.

Not. One. Thing.

They have no alternative. They propose no fundamental changes. They don't even pretend to have a plan. It's simply harm for harm's sake at this point.

If they want to fight it ... show me their proposal. While opinion polls may say folks don't like this bill, they also showed an overwhelming support for fundamentally changing to how health care was provided in this country. Obamacare was a bait and switch and the sheeple voted for it. If they want something different, they need to vote for that.

2. Just made'em up for sake of example. Pretty sure they are higher. In 20 years won't matter. The coverage I currently have will only be available for the incredibly wealthy.

The Rep. have presented several option to change health ins over the years but had the door shut in thier face by Obama. If all they can get is a one year delay thats a start. If its law as you say how come Obama has had the pleasure of delaying parts of the bill that are law. You can't have it both ways.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The Rep. have presented several option to change health ins over the years but had the door shut in thier face by Obama. If all they can get is a one year delay thats a start. If its law as you say how come Obama has had the pleasure of delaying parts of the bill that are law. You can't have it both ways.

Really? Several options? Did they ever present a comprehensive alternative to Obamacare or just a "This is bad, don't vote for it" solution? They were asked for a comprehensive alternative when this thing first came up and failed to present one. Since then, their "proposals" have been about nit-picking an existing law. It's naysay politics at its worst.

As to the delay, Obama is playing politics too. Only much more astutely - with a specific goal in mind (delay certain costs until after the next election) and in a manner that is not destructive to the Country's over all economic health.

Tell me, if the Senate continues to reject demands to enact legislative changes to counter the way an enacted law is being administered, what's the end game? Even if they agree, it changes nothing in the law's fundamental flaws. I am waiting for you to provide me a solid, real benefit that the one-year delay creates. What is the plan for the alternative that will be submitted in that time? (hint: there isn't one).

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Really? Several options? Did they ever present a comprehensive alternative to Obamacare or just a "This is bad, don't vote for it" solution? They were asked for a comprehensive alternative when this thing first came up and failed to present one. Since then, their "proposals" have been about nit-picking an existing law. It's naysay politics at its worst.

As to the delay, Obama is playing politics too. Only much more astutely - with a specific goal in mind (delay certain costs until after the next election) and in a manner that is not destructive to the Country's over all economic health.

Tell me, if the Senate continues to reject demands to enact legislative changes to counter the way an enacted law is being administered, what's the end game? Even if they agree, it changes nothing in the law's fundamental flaws. I am waiting for you to provide me a solid, real benefit that the one-year delay creates. What is the plan for the alternative that will be submitted in that time? (hint: there isn't one).

We have to just disagree on the first bold area. On the second Obama is dlaying what he knows is going to be an economic kick in the balls when its done. Why do you think so many companies are hiring so many part time workers. They are scared of the real cost of Obama care so they stop hiring full time employees even on a greater scale then before.
How many companies are at around 45 to 49 employees just not hiring anyone else so they don't have to conform to the new Obama care.

You really think Obama does not know this?

As to the benefit it creats I don't know other then another year to maybe find the votes to overturn the bill. At worst it delays a bad law another year.

Ok this sounds like a great story. He was paying $12,000 a yr for health insurance and now will pay nothing under OC. Who the hell is picking up that tab and how can a person go from paying that much to nothing? Tax payers bend over its coming.

Meet Butch Matthews, A Republican Who Came To Love Obamacare After Realizing It Will Save Him $13,000 | ThinkProgress

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We have to just disagree on the first bold area. On the second Obama is dlaying what he knows is going to be an economic kick in the balls when its done. Why do you think so many companies are hiring so many part time workers. They are scared of the real cost of Obama care so they stop hiring full time employees even on a greater scale then before.

How many companies are at around 45 to 49 employees just not hiring anyone else so they don't have to conform to the new Obama care.

You really think Obama does not know this?

I do not "agree to disagree" with you. You are wrong. Period. For me to accept the "agree to disagree" cop out, you have to show me an alternative a comprehensive healthcare reform plan presented by the Republicans as a counter to the ACA. There is no such plan and to "agree to disagree" that there is one is intellectually lazy. You are wrong. You can refuse to accept that but it will not change the factually erroneous basis of your assertion.

[We can "agree to disagree" on the color of the sky when I say it is blue and you assert it is green with purple polka dots. Such an "agreement" It does not change the fact that your assertion is wrong and has no rational basis. Your assertion that Republicans presented true alternatives to the ACA has the same factual basis as an assertion that the sky is green with purple polka dots].

As to the rest, yes, Obama is playing politics and his actions will, ultimately, in the long term harm the infrastructure. Yes, I believe he is fully aware of the hidden costs of the ACA that you describe. As you assert, companies that might hire, won't hire or hire part-time rather than full-time. This, however, doesn't show as an immediate harm to most people ("I didn't have a job before the ACA, I don't have one now" OR "I didn't have a job before the ACA, but now I have a part time job").

Compare that to the people immediately put out of work, the loss of services caused by the Republicans' intransigence and you tell me who is playing the game of politics better at this point.

Originally Posted by firstdown

As to the benefit it creats I don't know other then another year to maybe find the votes to overturn the bill. At worst it delays a bad law another year.

By making it the reason they are defunding the entire federal Govt., the Republicans are ensuring that they will not have the votes to overturn it. The ACA is now a rallying point for Democrats and, in every close race, opposition to it will mark you a radical zealot ready to go nuclear - thus, alienating informed moderate voters of both parties and the largely uninformed sheeple.

If you can't see that the Republicans are cutting off their nose to spite their face on this ... well ... we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The Rep. have presented several option to change health ins over the years but had the door shut in thier face by Obama.

Newt Gingrich: Republicans Rip Obamacare, but Have ‘Zero Answer’ for Alternatives - ABC News

As normal, FD is talking out of his ass. The GOP have come up with ZERO alternatives. None. Zilch. Nada.

Their only alternative is.........."obamacare is bad".