70% blame the GOP

[Jarhead]

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?

Enough.

Simply tried to engage in a valid debate.

Go toss your insults elsewhere.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

The part your missing is what the GOP offered as part of making their demands. They didn't offer anything, except to allow the government to operate as normal. That's what is known as hostage taking. You're not offering anything except to free the hostage.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Calm down. I didn't get to your post when I typed my response.

I'm just glad we're on the same page now....sort of.

I still don't see what the GOP is offering. Voting on the budget isn't an offer, that's their job.

 

[Nyvin]

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.

What more is there to say on this? The individual mandate and the open enrollment parts of ACA were made with these issues in mind. If people do "game the system" or problems do arise (which yes...problems will arise in a law this massive...) then increase the mandate tax or make the enrollment process more strict.

Things are adaptable and you underestimate how much ACA can change.

 

[Pop23]

Considering that out of 24 news stories about the shutdown, 22 of them blamed the Republicans, 0 the Democrats, and 2 blamed both, Are you surprised?


The Liberal Media is backing Obama and the Democrats all the way.

It is amazing how the media chooses stories

Can't say I've seen one locally talking about how thousands of DoD employees were furloughed illegally by the Administration?

 

[RDD_1210]

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?

Enough.

Simply tried to engage in a valid debate.

Go toss your insults elsewhere.

Listen, for someone who was being extremely obtuse and combative when they were clearly not comprehending what was being asked, I had a lot of patience with you. Maybe you shouldn't get so defensive so quickly when you admitted you were in the wrong.

I can't "debate" someone who gets worked up so easily. I asked a simple question and first you didn't understand it and now you are "insulted" when I point out that their still not offering anything in return for their demands.....and THAT is the point I was trying to make. Why should democrats negotiate with people who are only making demands and not offering anything in return.

 

[Nyvin]

Considering that out of 24 news stories about the shutdown, 22 of them blamed the Republicans, 0 the Democrats, and 2 blamed both, Are you surprised?


The Liberal Media is backing Obama and the Democrats all the way.

It is amazing how the media chooses stories

Can't say I've seen one locally talking about how thousands of DoD employees were furloughed illegally by the Administration?

First off, you can't "furlough illegally" they aren't elected officials. Obama could fire all those government workers and contractors if he wanted to by executive order. What he "can't" do is spend money without congressional approval...which is why they are currently furloughed. The federal government (the president...) doesn't have the money to pay their paychecks because the funding isn't approved of by the congress.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

What more is there to say on this? The individual mandate and the open enrollment parts of ACA were made with these issues in mind. If people do "game the system" or problems do arise (which yes...problems will arise in a law this massive...) then increase the mandate tax or make the enrollment process more strict.

Things are adaptable and you underestimate how much ACA can change.

Finally!

An honest response.

I agree.

The tax should be less palatable than the cost to insure yourself.

Truth is, that is why the penalty was imposed in the plan. The problem is, it is way too low. Do I blame President Obama? No. If that penalty (tax) was $7000, support for the plan would plummet.

But anything less than the cost to insure yourself is useless.

Question.

I am not insured. I break my leg. I am poor and cant afford to get it set properly. What do I do?

Go to the ER. Just like folks have been doing for years. They get the ER bill. Show their income. And viola! The bill is waived. It has been that way for years.

Now? That choice or pay 4000 premium and 3000 deductible.

What to do....what to do.

It WILL be gamed. Changes need to be made before it happens.

Thus why the need for a delay.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

Enough.

Simply tried to engage in a valid debate.

Go toss your insults elsewhere.

Listen, for someone who was being extremely obtuse and combative when they were clearly not comprehending what was being asked, I had a lot of patience with you. Maybe you shouldn't get so defensive so quickly when you admitted you were in the wrong.

I can't "debate" someone who gets worked up so easily. I asked a simple question and first you didn't understand it and now you are "insulted" when I point out that their still not offering anything in return for their demands.....and THAT is the point I was trying to make. Why should democrats negotiate with people who are only making demands and not offering anything in return.

I got heated?

I insulted you?

Whatever.

I am quite comfortable in my ability to reason, to debate, and to admit error.

I trust you are the same.

No hard feelings.

 

[RDD_1210]

Enough.

Simply tried to engage in a valid debate.

Go toss your insults elsewhere.

Listen, for someone who was being extremely obtuse and combative when they were clearly not comprehending what was being asked, I had a lot of patience with you. Maybe you shouldn't get so defensive so quickly when you admitted you were in the wrong.

I can't "debate" someone who gets worked up so easily. I asked a simple question and first you didn't understand it and now you are "insulted" when I point out that their still not offering anything in return for their demands.....and THAT is the point I was trying to make. Why should democrats negotiate with people who are only making demands and not offering anything in return.

I got heated?

I insulted you?

Whatever.

I am quite comfortable in my ability to reason, to debate, and to admit error.

I trust you are the same.

No hard feelings.

No hard feelings at all, I just don't understand why you are so quick to get upset when there was clearly a misunderstanding in what was being asked. I am in no way insulted, just disappointed in the way this all unfolded.

 

[RDD_1210]

For the record, I think the ACA is a shitty law. It could have been SOOO much better but unfortunately, it's not. However, I do believe that it at least allows everyone to access our shitty system now where as before way too many people were searching for solutions to solve their health care costs. No we can all be on the same shitty system together.

So in summary, the ACA is better than what we had before (which isn't saying much).

 

[Nyvin]

Question.

I am not insured. I break my leg. I am poor and cant afford to get it set properly. What do I do?

Go to the ER. Just like folks have been doing for years. They get the ER bill. Show their income. And viola! The bill is waived. It has been that way for years.

Now? That choice or pay 4000 premium and 3000 deductible.

What to do....what to do.

It WILL be gamed. Changes need to be made before it happens.

Thus why the need for a delay.

No there really isn't a need for a delay. The first year is more or less a trial year anyway, with ANYTHING that happens.

The mandate tax is just $95 dollars for a single person in 2014, that's obviously peanuts, but it's just to get the process started. Also only 25 states are expanding medicaid, once people in those states see how beneficial federal funding for expanded medicaid is they'll start switching to expand it too probably.

2014 is a trial period...it's "let's give this a try!" If we have no trial, no experimentation, then nothing will happen...we won't know anything!! If ACA is such a disaster in 2014 then shut it down *after* that...go back to how things were (and we know how great things are now...).

The GOP's approach to this is dumbfounding..."We don't know if it's a good or bad system...so let's go back to the nightmarish system we have now"

???

 

[hortysir]

Huffpo. What do you expect? They are another move on or media matters.

What's really weird is that I found my poll results by following a Huff&Puff link

Who do you think is most responsible for the government shutting down?
President Obama and Democrats in Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
Republicans in Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36%
Both are equally responsible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6%

https://today.yougov.com/news/2013/10/04/poll-results-federal-shutdown-hp/

Not even close to 70, though

 

[rdean]

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.

Republicans are spending millions on this "fear" campaign turning affordable healthcare into "ObamaSCARE".

Remember, during the last election, most of the GOP's money came from CEO's and BOD's and big corporations. Democrats money came from millions of small donations. Even the large donations that came from big companies were actually bundled and came from the employees. That's how Bain Capital was able to give so much to Obama.

GOP minions simply don't have the money to send to their party Lords. And there is no way corporations will support Teanuts who want to bring down the economy and destroy the government. Republicans are spending money they will have a hard time replacing.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Then what happens when someone leaves a job in Feb and gets a new job that doesn't offer health insurance ... they have to wait until Oct to sign up for the exchanges?

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

A lot of companies are dropping coverage (at least for individuals) because they are not ACA compliant. Finding a plan that is not on the exchanges will be more difficult.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Then what happens when someone leaves a job in Feb and gets a new job that doesn't offer health insurance ... they have to wait until Oct to sign up for the exchanges?

That would probably be considered a qualifying event and that person would be allowed to purchase insurance at that point.

 

[Nyvin]

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.

Then what happens when someone leaves a job in Feb and gets a new job that doesn't offer health insurance ... they have to wait until Oct to sign up for the exchanges?

They would probably either qualify for a waiver of the mandate tax or be given the option to continue their insurance plan under their own payments probably with some kind of tax deductions. Or Just be qualified to purchase a new plan

Believe me they thought these things through...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Too bad the willfully ignorant (as well as the very dumb) members of the echo chamber didn't listen to President Obama's News Conference.

Fear of cognitive dissonance (by the few members who actually cogitate)?

 

[hortysir]

Too bad the willfully ignorant (as well as the very dumb) members of the echo chamber didn't listen to President Obama's News Conference.

Fear of cognitive dissonance (by the few members who actually cogitate)?

I heard him constantly try to tell Americans that the Republicans don't want to compromise when they have submitted 3 different options...each one trimming back their restraints on Obamacare, while funding every single other line on the budget resolution.
Problem is most Americans are as short-sighted and lazy as you are and won't research any further than what they hear their dear leader tell them.


Wait until their EIC Tax Refund gets attached, next spring!!
They won't be rushing to the polls to save your Dem-Asses in the fall