70% blame the GOP

Negotiate? What are the republicans offering in this "negotiation"? We know what they want, but what are they offering.

All they asked for was a 1 year delay in the individual mandate of the ACA. They believe, as I do, that there are still way too many uncertainties and they need to be reviewed and possibly adjusted.

The President felt that way as it pertained to the corporate mandate...and he took it upon himself to enact the delay for them. He felt the same about certain special interest groups and he did the same.

Above was my answer to your original question.

Now, you may not like their offer...that is fine.

You may want to deny that was their offer.....but the facts are otherwise.

But I did answer your question.

Now....my scenario?

Yes, that was your answer, but nothing in your answer actually says what the GOP is offering. Please bold the portion in your response that outlines what the GOP is offering. This way I can clearly see it and there is no confusion.

You're smarter than this. Don't play games.
 
All they asked for was a 1 year delay in the individual mandate of the ACA. They believe, as I do, that there are still way too many uncertainties and they need to be reviewed and possibly adjusted.

The President felt that way as it pertained to the corporate mandate...and he took it upon himself to enact the delay for them. He felt the same about certain special interest groups and he did the same.

Above was my answer to your original question.

Now, you may not like their offer...that is fine.

You may want to deny that was their offer.....but the facts are otherwise.

But I did answer your question.

Now....my scenario?

Yes, that was your answer, but nothing in your answer actually says what the GOP is offering. Please bold the portion in your response that outlines what the GOP is offering. This way I can clearly see it and there is no confusion.

You're smarter than this. Don't play games.

SUPPOSE President Obama announced:

Unless Republicans agree to my proposal for gun control, I will use my authority as commander in chief to scuttle one aircraft carrier a week in the bottom of the ocean.

I invite Republican leaders to come to the White House and negotiate a deal on board.


Governing by Blackmail
 
Above was my answer to your original question.

Now, you may not like their offer...that is fine.

You may want to deny that was their offer.....but the facts are otherwise.

But I did answer your question.

Now....my scenario?

Yes, that was your answer, but nothing in your answer actually says what the GOP is offering. Please bold the portion in your response that outlines what the GOP is offering. This way I can clearly see it and there is no confusion.

You're smarter than this. Don't play games.

SUPPOSE President Obama announced:

Unless Republicans agree to my proposal for gun control, I will use my authority as commander in chief to scuttle one aircraft carrier a week in the bottom of the ocean.

I invite Republican leaders to come to the White House and negotiate a deal on board.


Governing by Blackmail

Of course it's blackmail. It's why they can't describe what is being offered by the GOP in this process.....except for allowing the country to operate again normally.
 
All they asked for was a 1 year delay in the individual mandate of the ACA. They believe, as I do, that there are still way too many uncertainties and they need to be reviewed and possibly adjusted.

The President felt that way as it pertained to the corporate mandate...and he took it upon himself to enact the delay for them. He felt the same about certain special interest groups and he did the same.

Above was my answer to your original question.

Now, you may not like their offer...that is fine.

You may want to deny that was their offer.....but the facts are otherwise.

But I did answer your question.

Now....my scenario?

Yes, that was your answer, but nothing in your answer actually says what the GOP is offering. Please bold the portion in your response that outlines what the GOP is offering. This way I can clearly see it and there is no confusion.

You're smarter than this. Don't play games.

THEY ASKED FOR A ONE YEAR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

How much clearer can that be?
 
Yes, that was your answer, but nothing in your answer actually says what the GOP is offering. Please bold the portion in your response that outlines what the GOP is offering. This way I can clearly see it and there is no confusion.

You're smarter than this. Don't play games.

SUPPOSE President Obama announced:

Unless Republicans agree to my proposal for gun control, I will use my authority as commander in chief to scuttle one aircraft carrier a week in the bottom of the ocean.

I invite Republican leaders to come to the White House and negotiate a deal on board.


Governing by Blackmail

Of course it's blackmail. It's why they can't describe what is being offered by the GOP in this process.....except for allowing the country to operate again normally.

what is it that you aren't getting?

They first asked to defund the ACA. They believe (per my scenario) that it will not be sustainable.

The Senate Majority leader said "no way".

SO they came back with a one year delay on the individual mandate.

I don't see what it is that you are missing.
 
Oh wait....you are asking "what are they offering?"

I didn't get it. My bad. I apologize.

They offered to vote on and pass the budget...

and to open a wider door for the debt limit talks.
 
Look. First off, I am not anti ACA by any means. I am anti ACA in its current form.

There are serious issues with it.

First of all....Insurance will no longer be insurance.

It will be a health care plan.

Why?

Because many people will only buy in when they need to. Most...if not all...would prefer to pay the tax of not having a plan and get a plan when they need it seeing as pre existing conditions is no longer an issue. So most will no longer be buying in "just in case". Instead they will be buying in "when they need it".

Except for who?

Those that regularly need it.

So when you have those that use it paying for it and those that don't only paying for it when they need it.......the costs will skyrocket.
 
Look. First off, I am not anti ACA by any means. I am anti ACA in its current form.

There are serious issues with it.

First of all....Insurance will no longer be insurance.

It will be a health care plan.

Why?

Because many people will only buy in when they need to. Most...if not all...would prefer to pay the tax of not having a plan and get a plan when they need it seeing as pre existing conditions is no longer an issue. So most will no longer be buying in "just in case". Instead they will be buying in "when they need it".

Except for who?

Those that regularly need it.

So when you have those that use it paying for it and those that don't only paying for it when they need it.......the costs will skyrocket.


Open enrollment prevents what you're talking about. Do you think this hasn't been thought out?

Covering people with pre-existing conditions has been one of the MOST popular topics of ACA and you're arguing against that? LOL good luck.
 
RDD...

Basic math...

I will pay 600 a year until I need insurance. Then if I break my leg, I will get a plan...pay the $4000 premium.....pay the 3000 deductible......my 10,000 surgery and after care will only cost me $7000.

Now the insurance company comes up 3000 short. Normally not an issue for the guy normally was paying 4000 a year for NO cost to insurance company when he was healthy....so 5 years of 4000 is 20,000 in premiums...one broken leg...10000 in costs to insurance company....leaving a 10000 profit off that individual over 5 years.
 
Oh wait....you are asking "what are they offering?"

I didn't get it. My bad. I apologize.

They offered to vote on and pass the budget...

and to open a wider door for the debt limit talks.

"Delay ACA or else the federal government gets it in the head"

Wow...that's such noble negotiating
 
RDD...

Basic math...

I will pay 600 a year until I need insurance. Then if I break my leg, I will get a plan...pay the $4000 premium.....pay the 3000 deductible......my 10,000 surgery and after care will only cost me $7000.

Now the insurance company comes up 3000 short. Normally not an issue for the guy normally was paying 4000 a year for NO cost to insurance company when he was healthy....so 5 years of 4000 is 20,000 in premiums...one broken leg...10000 in costs to insurance company....leaving a 10000 profit off that individual over 5 years.

You can get open enrollment between oct 1st and march 1st this year, and after that it will just be between October 15th and end December 7th.
 
Look. First off, I am not anti ACA by any means. I am anti ACA in its current form.

There are serious issues with it.

First of all....Insurance will no longer be insurance.

It will be a health care plan.

Why?

Because many people will only buy in when they need to. Most...if not all...would prefer to pay the tax of not having a plan and get a plan when they need it seeing as pre existing conditions is no longer an issue. So most will no longer be buying in "just in case". Instead they will be buying in "when they need it".

Except for who?

Those that regularly need it.

So when you have those that use it paying for it and those that don't only paying for it when they need it.......the costs will skyrocket.


Open enrollment prevents what you're talking about. Do you think this hasn't been thought out?

Covering people with pre-existing conditions has been one of the MOST popular topics of ACA and you're arguing against that? LOL good luck.

I am arguing against it?

Where?

Show me.

Stop acting like a dick and debate like a man.

The issue with it is people will game the game.

Did you know that insurance companies do not cover you for hurricanes for the first 30 days because they found people would buy it when they saw one coming?:

Did you know dental plans have a 6 month grace period for anything but preventative because they knew people were buying it AFTER they discovered a dental problem.

There was a reason for the pre existing condition clauses. People would game the game.

I am not against getting rid of the pre existing clauses. I am all for it.

But I just don't see how you can say "and premiums will go down"..

It doesn't add up.
 
RDD...

Basic math...

I will pay 600 a year until I need insurance. Then if I break my leg, I will get a plan...pay the $4000 premium.....pay the 3000 deductible......my 10,000 surgery and after care will only cost me $7000.

Now the insurance company comes up 3000 short. Normally not an issue for the guy normally was paying 4000 a year for NO cost to insurance company when he was healthy....so 5 years of 4000 is 20,000 in premiums...one broken leg...10000 in costs to insurance company....leaving a 10000 profit off that individual over 5 years.

You can get open enrollment between oct 1st and march 1st this year, and after that it will just be between October 15th and end December 7th.

So then I will simply buy a policy from a company that is not part of the exchanges.

They, too, must adhere to the no pre existing conditions exclusions.
 
Oh wait....you are asking "what are they offering?"

I didn't get it. My bad. I apologize.

They offered to vote on and pass the budget...

and to open a wider door for the debt limit talks.

"Delay ACA or else the federal government gets it in the head"

Wow...that's such noble negotiating

Wrong.

They first made an offer.

Obama said no...and didn't come back with anything.

So they went back with "delay it"

And Obama said no and didn't come back with anything.

So, as I see it....the President refused to negotiate and prevent the shutdown.
 
Umm, 70% don't blame the GOP. You might want to get your facts straight.

70% disapprove of the republicans
61% disapprove of the democrats
51% disapprove of Obama

The R went +7 in terms of disapproval from the last poll before the shutdown. Democrats went +5 in disapproval and Obama went +1.

This is different than saying who they blame (39% blame republicans, 30% blame democrats)

That's also a lot different than 1995 when Republicans were getting about 60% of the blame compared to 20% to Clinton.

IOW, 100% blame the government. And they're right. :eusa_whistle:

It's time for everyone to take a step back, put their big boy pants on and start negotiating. The game is over.
 
sigh...these polls are meaningless for the most part. Looking back at 1996 is meaningless as well. I wish you people would understand the current climate. The cycle has gotten even faster to the point that you might have 2 weeks to remain relevant. What happens now really wont matter that much come 2014.

Look at 2008 when the dems swept in, two years later the Repubs swept in the house.

This is just political football you guys are playing and it amounts to nothing.
 
IOW, 100% blame the government. And they're right. :eusa_whistle:

It's time for everyone to take a step back, put their big boy pants on and start negotiating. The game is over.

SURE! What does the GOP have to offer?
 
Above was my answer to your original question.

Now, you may not like their offer...that is fine.

You may want to deny that was their offer.....but the facts are otherwise.

But I did answer your question.

Now....my scenario?

Yes, that was your answer, but nothing in your answer actually says what the GOP is offering. Please bold the portion in your response that outlines what the GOP is offering. This way I can clearly see it and there is no confusion.

You're smarter than this. Don't play games.

THEY ASKED FOR A ONE YEAR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

How much clearer can that be?

I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GOP ASKED FOR. THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED.

Do you know that if you ASK for something you have to offer something in return. WHAT IS THE GOP OFFERING IN RETURN FOR THAT ONE YEAR DELAY THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR?

How the hell is this going over your head?
 
SUPPOSE President Obama announced:

Unless Republicans agree to my proposal for gun control, I will use my authority as commander in chief to scuttle one aircraft carrier a week in the bottom of the ocean.

I invite Republican leaders to come to the White House and negotiate a deal on board.


Governing by Blackmail

Of course it's blackmail. It's why they can't describe what is being offered by the GOP in this process.....except for allowing the country to operate again normally.

what is it that you aren't getting?

They first asked to defund the ACA. They believe (per my scenario) that it will not be sustainable.

The Senate Majority leader said "no way".

SO they came back with a one year delay on the individual mandate.

I don't see what it is that you are missing.

Lowering their hostage demands isn't offering anything, it's just lowering the demands they're making. They're still not offering anything in exchange for their demands. You must be able to understand that much, right?
 
Yes, that was your answer, but nothing in your answer actually says what the GOP is offering. Please bold the portion in your response that outlines what the GOP is offering. This way I can clearly see it and there is no confusion.

You're smarter than this. Don't play games.

THEY ASKED FOR A ONE YEAR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

How much clearer can that be?

I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GOP ASKED FOR. THAT IS NOT WHAT I ASKED.

Do you know that if you ASK for something you have to offer something in return. WHAT IS THE GOP OFFERING IN RETURN FOR THAT ONE YEAR DELAY THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR?

How the hell is this going over your head?

I had already admitted to my error.

Guess that wasn't good enough for you.

So next time I wont admit to the error and simply pass on the thread.

Like most do on this site.
 

Forum List

Back
Top