GOP House refuses to pay for ACA.

[Eastoff]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._to_push_budget_with_defunded_aca_119987.html

"Shutting down our government is the one thing Al Qaeda couldn't pull off. They must be so proud of their beloved GOP."

It's nice to know I can stop paying the part of my taxes that goes to the programs I don't like. So long NSA and war funding! That's like 40% of my taxes right there! WOO!!! Thanks GOP!

 

[maxiep]

Refusing to pay for the ACA is no different than delaying its implementation. I, for one, think that no law should be implemented that isn't 100% ready to go. They've provided waivers for businesses and special interests, so why not waive the requirement for individuals?

What you're seeing is just kabuki theater. It's a tactic meant to move the ACA debate to the Senate, where senators will go on record either supporting or opposing it. Then it will go into conference where the spending for it will be approved.

Best case scenario, they delay implementation for one year so they can get the thing up to speed. Not even its supporters think it's ready to go.

 

[maxiep]

By the way, this kind of shit is what happens when you ram through major social legislation with only one party supporting it. Other social programs of comparable impact (Social Security, Welfare) were passed on a bipartisan basis, with broad support.

The Democrat Party owns this entire thing. They shut the Republicans out of the conference, they voted down every single amendment and basically told the party that represents a huge swath of the country to sit in a corner.

When the American people responded to their actions by electing Republican governors in purple Virginia and deep blue New Jersey, they didn't listen. When Massachusetts--the most liberal state in the country that already has a version of this bill--sent a Republican to the Senate to stop the bill, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed it on a procedural basis. NEVER has anything like this been done with a major piece of legislation.

I'm sorry, but in this case, you reap what you sow.

 

[maxiep]

Also, everything else will be funded. How is it the responsibility of the Republicans if the Senate Democrats and the President decide to shut down the government over one piddling part of the government?

Is Obamacare more important than the entire Federal Government? If so, I'd like an explanation as to why.

 

[Denny Crane]

House of Representatives controls the purse strings. I see nothing constitutionally wrong with them deciding what to fund, how much to fund things, what not to fund at all.

The exception are the trust funds like Social Security. Those have separate revenue sources (FICA) and the law mandates the trust fund pay benefits.

I'm sure there are some anti-abortion laws somewhere they could find that they decide to fund to a massive degree that would turn people complaining about this underfunding into hypocrites.

 

[Eastoff]

Also, everything else will be funded. How is it the responsibility of the Republicans if the Senate Democrats and the President decide to shut down the government over one piddling part of the government?

Is Obamacare more important than the entire Federal Government? If so, I'd like an explanation as to why.

Glad to hear you're okay with holding people hostage for things you want.

 

[Nate4Prez]

When the American people responded to their actions by electing Republican governors in purple Virginia and deep blue New Jersey, they didn't listen. When Massachusetts--the most liberal state in the country that already has a version of this bill--sent a Republican to the Senate to stop the bill, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed it on a procedural basis. NEVER has anything like this been done with a major piece of legislation.

And when the American people voted Republican in the Presidential election! Oh, wait, no... that didn't happen. I love Republicans trying to make a case that the majority of American's oppose the ACA. When, in reality the majority of American's don't care one way or the other, and then there's a small but very vocal group opposed to the ACA. The whole thing is a cluster fuck and both parties are equally to blame.

 

[Eastoff]

What I would LOVE to see is a better system for the House of Representatives. As it stands now, they spend most of their time trying to get re-elected, and not legislating. They also work in gerrymandered districts that clearly do not represent a proper cross section of their state. Finally, and the most galling, the number of representatives is not proportional across the country.

 

[Denny Crane]

What I would LOVE to see is a better system for the House of Representatives. As it stands now, they spend most of their time trying to get re-elected, and not legislating. They also work in gerrymandered districts that clearly do not represent a proper cross section of their state. Finally, and the most galling, the number of representatives is not proportional across the country.

Donut or slice of pie. That's how gerrymandering is done. Donut means the inner cities get the hole vote. Pie means the minority is a minority of each slice.

It's not galling about the representation. The smallest states deserve some representation. If they made one rep per 100,000 people, there would be over 3,000 reps and they'd never get things done.

What is galling is that the Feds spend so much when it could be your state doing the spending. There your state house has wayyyy fewer people per rep, and everything is geared to help locally.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Glad to hear you're okay with holding people hostage for things you want.

how do you equate an attempt to delay a very poorly written pos as holding people hostage?

 

[Eastoff]

It's not galling about the representation. The smallest states deserve some representation.

Isn't that what the Senate is for?

 

[Eastoff]

how do you equate an attempt to delay a very poorly written pos as holding people hostage?

Because our countries credit rating will go down when the country defaults on it's loans, like it did last time this happened.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Because our countries credit rating will go down when the country defaults on it's loans, like it did last time this happened.

so you want to blame this train wreck on those who are trying to apply the brakes? so typical..your Furher is the one that crammed this pos down the throat of the nation..choke all you want, but dont blame those who would do CPR.

 

[Eastoff]

so you want to blame this train wreck on those who are trying to apply the brakes? so typical..your Furher is the one that crammed this pos down the throat of the nation..choke all you want, but dont blame those who would do CPR.

This is not CPR, this is trying to cut off a limb with a mole that looks odd.

 

[maxiep]

Glad to hear you're okay with holding people hostage for things you want.

You mean passing what you want by a democratically elected majority of the people, reflecting the will of their voters? Yes. Yes I am.

 

[maxiep]

And when the American people voted Republican in the Presidential election! Oh, wait, no... that didn't happen. I love Republicans trying to make a case that the majority of American's oppose the ACA. When, in reality the majority of American's don't care one way or the other, and then there's a small but very vocal group opposed to the ACA. The whole thing is a cluster fuck and both parties are equally to blame.

The American people handed the House of Representatives over to the GOP after the passage of Obamacare. One of the most liberal states in the union sent a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy specifically to uphold a filibuster to stop this legislation.

Barack Obama was re-elected two years after the ACA was passed. It was a fait accompli by that time. My question is this: Why are Democrats so afraid of the debate? If it's a great idea, then they should be able to sell it. So far, the more people find out about it, the more they don't like it.

As for your contention that the majority of Americans don't care one way or the other, and that opposition is small, the polling says differently. As for both parties being to blame for Obamacare, that's simply not the case. We can disagree on opinions, but we can't disagree on the facts.

 

[Denny Crane]

Isn't that what the Senate is for?

No.

 

[maxiep]

Because our countries credit rating will go down when the country defaults on it's loans, like it did last time this happened.

Newsflash: We wouldn't default on our loans. The incoming weekly revenue is more than enough to cover our debt.

 

[Nate4Prez]

As for your contention that the majority of Americans don't care one way or the other, and that opposition is small, the polling says differently. As for both parties being to blame for Obamacare, that's simply not the case. We can disagree on opinions, but we can't disagree on the facts.

I can blame Republicans if Obamacare fails. It's funny how the states that want it to succeed and work to make that happen seem to have no problem with it, but the states that want it to fail will be successful at that. So yes, both parties are to blame for "this cluster fuck" that is going on right now.

 

[maxiep]

I can blame Republicans if Obamacare fails. It's funny how the states that want it to succeed and work to make that happen seem to have no problem with it, but the states that want it to fail will be successful at that. So yes, both parties are to blame for "this cluster fuck" that is going on right now.

On what metric would you call it a failure? I'm interested.

We were promised if we liked our health plan, we could keep our health plan.

We were promised if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor.

We were promised that it would bend the cost curve down.

We were promised there would be no death panels.

Every single one of those primary promises have been broken. They're not even debated by supporters any more. Why? They knew they were lies when they sold it. Are those lies the fault of the Republicans?

 

[Nate4Prez]

On what metric would you call it a failure? I'm interested.

We were promised if we liked our health plan, we could keep our health plan.

We were promised if we liked our doctor, we could keep our doctor.

We were promised that it would bend the cost curve down.

We were promised there would be no death panels.

Every single one of those primary promises have been broken. They're not even debated by supporters any more. Why? They knew they were lies when they sold it. Are those lies the fault of the Republicans?

I don't believe a single one of the promises you listed has been broken. Are you serious about "death panels"? If so, I'm done debating anything with you because you're beyond any rational discussion.

"For 2009, "death panel" was named as PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society."

 

[maxiep]

I don't believe a single one of the promises you listed has been broken. Are you serious about "death panels"? If so, I'm done debating anything with you because you're beyond any rational discussion.

"For 2009, "death panel" was named as PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year", one of FactCheck's "whoppers", and the most outrageous term by the American Dialect Society."

Really? Let me ask you the following questions:

1. For everyone who liked their health plan, have they been able to keep it?

2. For everyone who liked their doctor, have they been able to keep him or her?

3. Is health insurance more or less expensive on an inflation adjusted basis since 2010? I'll even give you more slack. Have health insurance rates grown more or less than historical growth figures since 2010?

4. What do you think this development is, if not a "death panel"? http://www.futurity.org/cost-study-calls-change-breast-cancer-screenings/ Anyone who is denied care by a bureaucrat for cost reasons is participating in death panel activities.

Health care will become more expensive, less efficient and less efficacious. This country will produce fewer physicians, as the incentives for the best and brightest to enter medicine will be diminished. This country will have fewer nurses staffing hospitals because there won't be room in the budget. There will be fewer medical devices sold, as their cost will increase due to their taxation. Bottom line, demand will increase and supply will fall precipitously. Does that sound like a prescription for a successful system?

 

[jlprk]

Is Obamacare more important than the entire Federal Government? If so, I'd like an explanation as to why.

It's a large humanitarian program which will push up the average life expectancy, just as previous Democratic programs did--Social Security and Medicare. Of those three, it's the one under attack from every dirty trick the rich people's party can think of. Those three help Americans more than the rest of the entire Federal government combined.

 

[Nate4Prez]

Really? Let me ask you the following questions:

1. For everyone who liked their health plan, have they been able to keep it?

Sure, some people employers have dropped their health plans, but only because there was another option available. Losing a plan they "liked" is different than losing health care. If your employer drops their coverage because other options are available that is on the employer, not the law.

2. For everyone who liked their doctor, have they been able to keep him or her?

That is a generalization, some people will not be able to keep their doctor. Over the past 5 years I have had to change my dentist and my optometrist because the doctor either stopped accepting my insurance, or my employer changed their plan. Each had nothing to do with the ACA. Yes, the majority of people who liked their doctor have been able and will be able to keep their doctor. Again, the law does not make you change your doctor, if your coverage changes and as a result you have to change your doctor that's different. Calling it a "broken promise" is just a Republican tagline.

3. Is health insurance more or less expensive on an inflation adjusted basis since 2010? I'll even give you more slack. Have health insurance rates grown more or less than historical growth figures since 2010?

The 4 percent increase for a family is relatively tame, at least compared with the roughly 10 percent annual increases experienced a decade ago... The data also suggest that the new health care law is not leading, at least so far, to a rapid escalation of insurance costs. Link

4. What do you think this development is, if not a "death panel"? http://www.futurity.org/cost-study-calls-change-breast-cancer-screenings/ Anyone who is denied care by a bureaucrat for cost reasons is participating in death panel activities.

"Lie of The Year"

Health care will become more expensive, less efficient and less efficacious. This country will produce fewer physicians, as the incentives for the best and brightest to enter medicine will be diminished. This country will have fewer nurses staffing hospitals because there won't be room in the budget. There will be fewer medical devices sold, as their cost will increase due to their taxation. Bottom line, demand will increase and supply will fall precipitously. Does that sound like a prescription for a successful system?

All of that is speculation. I thought you wanted to talk facts?

 

[MarAzul]

Sure, some people employers have dropped their health plans, but only because there was another option available. Losing a plan they "liked" is different than losing health care. If your employer drops their coverage because other options are available that is on the employer, not the law.



That is a generalization, some people will not be able to keep their doctor. Over the past 5 years I have had to change my dentist and my optometrist because the doctor either stopped accepting my insurance, or my employer changed their plan. Each had nothing to do with the ACA. Yes, the majority of people who liked their doctor have been able and will be able to keep their doctor. Again, the law does not make you change your doctor, if your coverage changes and as a result you have to change your doctor that's different. Calling it a "broken promise" is just a Republican tagline.



The 4 percent increase for a family is relatively tame, at least compared with the roughly 10 percent annual increases experienced a decade ago... The data also suggest that the new health care law is not leading, at least so far, to a rapid escalation of insurance costs. Link



"Lie of The Year"



All of that is speculation. I thought you wanted to talk facts?

Bull Shit! If this figgin thing wasn't put there by the government, totally out side the business of the government as authorized in the Constitution, employers would not be dropping their employees and or retirees.

I am getting stuffed with one of these friggin exchanges and I have no fucking idea what it is going to cost, what it covers nor any other information on the thing. After a whole lot of years, now here comes this shit with no information what so ever. How the hell can this be a good thing when there is no information period and I have to make a
fucking selection next month???? What the fuck it has been the law this long and there is zero information to inform a person on what they are getting?? What sort of fucking idiot would come up with a plan like this????
Barrack Hussian OBama!!!

 

[maxiep]

Sure, some people employers have dropped their health plans, but only because there was another option available. Losing a plan they "liked" is different than losing health care. If your employer drops their coverage because other options are available that is on the employer, not the law.

That is a generalization, some people will not be able to keep their doctor. Over the past 5 years I have had to change my dentist and my optometrist because the doctor either stopped accepting my insurance, or my employer changed their plan. Each had nothing to do with the ACA. Yes, the majority of people who liked their doctor have been able and will be able to keep their doctor. Again, the law does not make you change your doctor, if your coverage changes and as a result you have to change your doctor that's different. Calling it a "broken promise" is just a Republican tagline.

[video=youtube;KoV0NeHNklk]

Those weren't just taglines, they were promises made to the American people to get this legislation passed. That's what President Obama means when he adds "Period".

The 4 percent increase for a family is relatively tame, at least compared with the roughly 10 percent annual increases experienced a decade ago... The data also suggest that the new health care law is not leading, at least so far, to a rapid escalation of insurance costs. Link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/health-insurance-premium-increases_n_2932704.html

"Lie of The Year"

You're hung up on the name rather than the fact that a rationing board exists and will dictate treatment available. It's using bureaucrats to allocate increasingly scarce resources. We were told they were a lie. Now we know better.

All of that is speculation. I thought you wanted to talk facts?

Don't hate me. Hate economics. It is a discipline of few immutable laws. Sadly, for you, The Law of Supply & Demand is one of them.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

hey man, I want my free healthcare../facepalm