Another Government Shutdown Thread

[TheDirector]

More MAGA denial.

Hey at least Democrats got a pinky swear for shutting down the Government.

 

[rekinhavoc]

I'm beginning to suspect Lawgator is not an independent.

 

[Sandman 423]

You guys criticizing the change made 20 years ago are wasting time. We are where we are.

If you don't like the ACA, replace it. You've had control over both houses and the presidency for extended periods, including now. And the GOP offers no replacement, just whining about what was done decades ago (that gave Obama a victory you just can't stand.)

We have a liberal democrat President, So.............

 

[rekinhavoc]

The media should not characterize this as caving.

This shutdown was always on shaky ground. 8 Democrats just got a seat at the table for meaningful negotiations.

Eff Schumer and his ego.

 

[McDad]

The media should not characterize this as caving.

This shutdown was always on shaky ground. 8 Democrats just got a seat at the table for meaningful negotiations.

Eff Schumer and his ego.

Everyone who wanted a bipartisan solution; got it.
If the shutdown was the Rs responsibility, they fixed it. If it was the Ds responsibility, they fixed it. Pay attention to the media narrative which will attempt to convince us it was the Rs fault and Ds fixed it. But that can't be bc the D leaders (Schumer, Sanders, AOC) didn't change their rhetoric or their vote.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I cannot for the life of me understand why people think the standards and procedures for things in the military are so much higher than civilian government. Whenever I say anything to that effect, I get told (or it's implied) that I hate the military.

No, man, what I hate is that you've got the same thing going on there as in the rest of government. You'll have 15 military dudes to do the job of three, and then a team of 40 contractors behind them to help "support" those three jobs, then at the end of the day those three jobs get done shittily because you're trying to delegate tiny, incoherent pieces to 50 people. Let's not even get into how each branch just has to have their own version of everything, with its own development and costs.

A retired NCO I know really well told me it was unreal what they had to go through and how many people would be involved in...

...changing a light bulb on his ship (the Truman).

 

[GroverCleveland]

So I'm not sure if it's been asked or answered. Extending the ACA subsidies cost $60M over the next 2 years, where's the rest of the $1.5T going?

Transgender Shakespearerian plays in the Congo.

 

[GroverCleveland]

The truth is blatantly obvious to anybody with two eyes. Donald Trump hates obamacare. Privileged Republicans also hate the fact that we have a socialist program that allows people to have basic health care.

The current shutdown exists virtually solely because the Republicans are trying to kneecap obamacare. You know it's true. I know it's true. Unless you are just trying to deny reality.

You may not like Obamacare but I do and the majority of Americans do. Sadly for you, in our Democratic Republic majority rules. So I'm happy that the Democrats are going to force Trump in the rest of his goons to fund obamacare.

I hated Obamacare when it passed. It was a lie then about what it would do and what the intent was; it has been a lie ever since. It did just about nothing that was openly promised, but is lurching towards its ultimate purpose: make us all dependent on government for our healthcare.

 

[TheDirector]

Last week the Ds were boasting about a supposed historic referendum election. The Rs were in deep deep trouble. This week the Ds want to replace their leader after the failed shutdown fiasco and the Rs are taking a victory lap. Funny how quickly the pendulum swings. What hasn't changed is the 80% disapproval rating for Congress as a whole.

 

[appvol]

 

[Sea Ray]

It doesn't matter and shouldn't cause you and the GOP to be so obsessed with taking the victory away from Obama's legacy. Fix it, replace it. Just killing it does neither.

No, it never was a victory. Look at it through this analogy:

Your friend Joe starts a business and says that it's doing great. 15 years later you see him filing for Chapter 7 because his line of credit was cut off by his bank. You then see that all this time his "successful" business was operating based on a a line of credit. You gonna call Joe's business a victory now?

 

[Sea Ray]

Everyone who wanted a bipartisan solution; got it.
If the shutdown was the Rs responsibility, they fixed it. If it was the Ds responsibility, they fixed it. Pay attention to the media narrative which will attempt to convince us it was the Rs fault and Ds fixed it. But that can't be bc the D leaders (Schumer, Sanders, AOC) didn't change their rhetoric or their vote.

The settlement was supported by 8 Dems. 40 Dems rejected it. I doubt the media will make this clear

 

[Sea Ray]

I hated Obamacare when it passed. It was a lie then about what it would do and what the intent was; it has been a lie ever since. It did just about nothing that was openly promised, but is lurching towards its ultimate purpose: make us all dependent on government for our healthcare.

As a self employed guy I hate Obamacare like crazy. I do consider myself a fair man. The pro OC folks can claim victory on the fact that it gave people with pre existing conditions a place to go. I'll give it that. I do think the overall price we paid, and who paid it, was excessive though which makes it a failure

 

[Orangeburst]

the gov let a $93M contract for the Obamacare website, and it ended up costing $2.1B.
just how in hades does a website cost that much? and these are the people you expected to lower your healthcare insurance.

 

[lawgator1]

No, it never was a victory. Look at it through this analogy:

Your friend Joe starts a business and says that it's doing great. 15 years later you see him filing for Chapter 7 because his line of credit was cut off by his bank. You then see that all this time his "successful" business was operating based on a a line of credit. You gonna call Joe's business a victory now?

The reason it has been problematic is because the Republicans later removed the requirement that everyone have health insurance.

Premiums for those of us who purchase through work or the private market are so high in large part because while everyone in this country gets emergent medical care, regardless of the ability to pay for it, not everyone is paying into that system. As the number of paying customers goes down -- but services remain available -- the cost to those of us who do pay goes up.

The ACA required everyone to pay in. You may think it not in proportion to need -- ok. But it required that everyone pay in something, which got us headed in the right direction. But the Republicans later crippled the entire concept by dropping the mandate that everyone have insurance, either through ACA or otherwise, shifting the cost back to those of us who do pay.

The irony is that the ACA with the mandate benefited everyone, and used the private carriers (not the government) as the platform for paying into the system, whereas now, under Republican control, the system rewards people for not buying health insurance and shifting it to those of us who do pay.

 

[Sea Ray]

The reason it has been problematic is because the Republicans later removed the requirement that everyone have health insurance.

Premiums for those of us who purchase through work or the private market are so high in large part because while everyone in this country gets emergent medical care, regardless of the ability to pay for it, not everyone is paying into that system. As the number of paying customers goes down -- but services remain available -- the cost to those of us who do pay goes up.

The ACA required everyone to pay in. You may think it not in proportion to need -- ok. But it required that everyone pay in something, which got us headed in the right direction. But the Republicans later crippled the entire concept by dropping the mandate that everyone have insurance, either through ACA or otherwise, shifting the cost back to those of us who do pay.

The irony is that the ACA with the mandate benefited everyone, and used the private carriers (not the government) as the platform for paying into the system, whereas now, under Republican control, the system rewards people for not buying health insurance and shifting it to those of us who do pay.

The mandate was without teeth. The penalty for not doing so was far less than the cost of insurance. Republicans don't believe that the gov't can force you to buy something. Apparently you do

 

[McDad]

The reason it has been problematic is because the Republicans later removed the requirement that everyone have health insurance.

Premiums for those of us who purchase through work or the private market are so high in large part because while everyone in this country gets emergent medical care, regardless of the ability to pay for it, not everyone is paying into that system. As the number of paying customers goes down -- but services remain available -- the cost to those of us who do pay goes up.

The ACA required everyone to pay in. You may think it not in proportion to need -- ok. But it required that everyone pay in something, which got us headed in the right direction. But the Republicans later crippled the entire concept by dropping the mandate that everyone have insurance, either through ACA or otherwise, shifting the cost back to those of us who do pay.

The irony is that the ACA with the mandate benefited everyone, and used the private carriers (not the government) as the platform for paying into the system, whereas now, under Republican control, the system rewards people for not buying health insurance and shifting it to those of us who do pay.

Rs removed the requirement?? They removed the penalty...uh fee....uh tax.

from google:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 2019 ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional because Congress had repealed the tax penalty enforcing the mandate, and sent the case back to a district court in Texas to determine which of the law's provisions could survive without the mandate.
Feb 10, 2021

 

[hog88]

The reason it has been problematic is because the Republicans later removed the requirement that everyone have health insurance.

Premiums for those of us who purchase through work or the private market are so high in large part because while everyone in this country gets emergent medical care, regardless of the ability to pay for it, not everyone is paying into that system. As the number of paying customers goes down -- but services remain available -- the cost to those of us who do pay goes up.

The ACA required everyone to pay in. You may think it not in proportion to need -- ok. But it required that everyone pay in something, which got us headed in the right direction. But the Republicans later crippled the entire concept by dropping the mandate that everyone have insurance, either through ACA or otherwise, shifting the cost back to those of us who do pay.

The irony is that the ACA with the mandate benefited everyone, and used the private carriers (not the government) as the platform for paying into the system, whereas now, under Republican control, the system rewards people for not buying health insurance and shifting it to those of us who do pay.

Premiums skyrocketed years before the mandate was removed.

The rest of your argument is crap, we're still paying for people who do not pay into the system. Nothing about that changed with the individual mandate or it's removal.

 

[Orangeburst]

since 2020, the number of people on Obamacare has doubled, so I doubt the end of the mandate had much effect since 2019.

again, it costs nothing to very little to purchase a plan for the poor or people economically limited.

so now we want everyone to pay something. what about taxes?

 

[LouderVol]

The reason it has been problematic is because the Republicans later removed the requirement that everyone have health insurance.

Premiums for those of us who purchase through work or the private market are so high in large part because while everyone in this country gets emergent medical care, regardless of the ability to pay for it, not everyone is paying into that system. As the number of paying customers goes down -- but services remain available -- the cost to those of us who do pay goes up.

The ACA required everyone to pay in. You may think it not in proportion to need -- ok. But it required that everyone pay in something, which got us headed in the right direction. But the Republicans later crippled the entire concept by dropping the mandate that everyone have insurance, either through ACA or otherwise, shifting the cost back to those of us who do pay.

The irony is that the ACA with the mandate benefited everyone, and used the private carriers (not the government) as the platform for paying into the system, whereas now, under Republican control, the system rewards people for not buying health insurance and shifting it to those of us who do pay.

you have a timeline issue. Emergency care has always been available to anyone who uses it, regardless of ability to pay. Private insurance was already covering that hidden cost, pre ACA.

in reality, ACA only added more people to the "takers" while pricing out some who were previously paying in. ACA required everyone to get insurance, and if you couldn't afford it, everyone else also had to pay for that too, on top of the emergency care.

it also removed competition, added red tape, and just generally didn't do most of what it started out to do.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[GVF]

ACA, or OC, or any gov't backed insurance such as Medicare, or locally at state level (TennCare), can easily be judged by how many doctor offices in my area DO NOT accept any government sponsored healthcare plans from any level of state or federal government. They don't get paid timely, too much red tape, etc., etc. There's a modest amount of doctor offices in my area with notices posted on the doors and at check-in that specify cash only options of pamyent if you only possess a government healthcare plan. And have had those up for quite sometime (years).

 

[Orangeburst]

the Old Guard is dead now..here come the ugly Radicals. I somehow doubt they would ever consider compromise.

 

[Sea Ray]

ACA, or OC, or any gov't backed insurance such as Medicare, or locally at state level (TennCare), can easily be judged by how many doctor offices in my area DO NOT accept any government sponsored healthcare plans from any level of state or federal government. They don't get paid timely, too much red tape, etc., etc. There's a modest amount of doctor offices in my area with notices posted on the doors and at check-in that specify cash only options of payment if you only possess a government healthcare plan. And have had those up for quite sometime (years).

So these doctors are not accepting Medicare?

 

[Orangeburst]

here is a novel idea, cut taxes so people can afford their insurance.