Even More Obamacare Follies

#1,057
#1,057
DC_Vol said:
I agree 100% it will not get repealed while Obama is president.

That does not, however, lead me to the conclusion that the GOP needs to work to make the law better. They need to continue to hammer away at this POS legislation and hang it around the Democrats' necks.
Click to expand...

This is our big disagreement. IMO our elected officials are sent to DC to do all they can to improve America. Pointing fingers and doing nothing is why congress is polling so low. This pertains to borh sides.

The employer mandate is going to hurt worse than the individual mandate. More opportunities ahead. If they can get pieces of it repealed in between now and then, they should.
Click to expand...

Do a little research. The employer mandate was a republican idea .

The difference between the Republican party and Democratic party are pretty stark - not just in ideas but in tactics and strategy. The ACA is a perfect demonstration of that difference. They never quit. This has been decades in the making, and they keep pounding away until they get what they are after. When they are turned back, they put on more steam.

The Republican's tuck their tail and run. They allow themselves to be shouted down, bullied, cornered, and coerced.
Click to expand...

The ACA is pretty much the plan the GOP supported when they were fighting Hillarycare. It was a republican idea. That is where the idea for Romeycare came from.

If the Republicans are so weak, why do you support such wimps.

he law itself should have been viewed as radical when it was being debated. The method in which it was passed...the irresponsibility of those who passed it...the lies that were told to push it through. Yet those who now insist on compromise to fix the results of the law are willing to overlook that, call it water under the bridge, and then demonize those who oppose it.

Loser mentality in my book. The R's need to take a page out of the D's playbook here. Will not happen under current leadership. Make no mistake, the goal of the Democrat's now is to try to make the implementation failure a GOP problem.
Click to expand...

The law was passed in a shatty way. That does not change the fact that it is a law we must live with. With the bad rollout the GOP has a golden opportunity to be the party that made the changes to make the ACA a good law instead they will continue to do nothing. Just a few simple changes could make it a much better law.
 
Last edited:
#1,059
#1,059
Gramps said:
The ACA is pretty much the plan the GOP supported when they were fighting Hillarycare. It was a republican idea. That is where the idea for Romeycare came from.
Click to expand...

Okay I know the individual mandate has some roots here but are you sure about things community rating, the mandated coverages (e.g. maternity, vision, fertility, etc.), the Medicaid expansion, the role of Federal administrators in determining standards of care, etc.?

ACA is more than the individual mandate which is primarily a tool to address pre-existing conditions.
 
#1,061
#1,061
PKT_VOL said:
I've had a couple conservatives say pretty much the same thing to me as a young guy facing Obamacare or just taking the fine.
Click to expand...

It's. Just. I'm almost speechless. I would love for folks to educate themselves beyond the classroom and think of everything, not just themselves. My 18-year old sister needs the swiftness kick in the A.
 
#1,062
#1,062
volinbham said:
Okay I know the individual mandate has some roots here but are you sure about things community rating, the mandated coverages (e.g. maternity, vision, fertility, etc.), the Medicaid expansion, the role of Federal administrators in determining standards of care, etc.?

ACA is more than the individual mandate which is primarily a tool to address pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...


Here is the GOP healthcare plan of 1993


http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx

It is a state plan but also take a look at Romneycare, very similar plan
 
#1,063
#1,063
Gramps - we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Actually not that uncommon. Regardless, my retorts below.

Gramps said:
This is our big disagreement. IMO our elected officials are sent to DC to do all they can to improve America. Pointing fingers and doing nothing is why congress is polling so low. This pertains to borh sides.
Click to expand...

We have a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. I see government as a necessary evil. Elected officials jobs' are not to improve America. It may sometimes be a consequence of their action, but that is not what they are there for. Granted, in this day in age, a lot of people disagree. Hence where we are today.

Ideally, they should be minding the areas of government that were originally enumerated to them. I would be happy for these "officials" and "experts" as they are so often called (Hah!!) to run on a platform of legislation by taking laws off the books.

Gramps said:
Do a little research. The employer mandate was a republican idea .
Click to expand...

Perhaps you've mistaken me for a Republican party guy. While it's true I pulled the lever for Romney over Obama, you shouldn't infer from that I am loyal the party.

I'm not registered as a Republican, and I haven't given money to the Republican party since the mid 2000's. And I won't as long as they keep running candidates like McCain and Romney.

You see why they can't win? For exactly the reasons you point out below. They run as Democrats lite.

Gramps said:
The ACA is pretty much the plan the GOP supported when they were fighting Hillarycare. It was a republican idea. That is where the idea for Romeycare came from.
Click to expand...

So because some Republicans and the Heritage Foundation (for disclosure, I have and will continue to support this group, because I think they do a lot of good work) proposed a similar idea, I should just fall in line and get behind it?

This idea is certainly what is now being pushed very hard by a lot of Democrats running for cover. And now I suppose by those who insist on reaching across the aisle.

It's irrelevant to me. I don't care who is pushing this idea...I will remain opposed to it.


Gramps said:
If the Republicans are so weak, why do you support such wimps.
Click to expand...

I think that is answered above. I do not support much of the current Republican party and have some very specific issues with the leadership of the party.


Gramps said:
The law was passed in a shatty way. That does not change the fact that it is a law we must live with. With the bad rollout the GOP has a golden opportunity to be the party that made the changes to make the ACA a good law instead they will continue to do nothing. Just a few simple changes could make it a much better law.
Click to expand...

Obama picks and chooses which laws he lives with. Why can't we? A rhetorical question, but I think you get the point. We can't invalidate the law, but we can certainly make it apparent what a terrible piece of legislation this is.

From an economic standpoint, it's not workable. I personally don't believe it's fixable. Just because it sounds like a great idea doesn't make it immune to the laws of economics.

It's such a POS that Obama is handing out exemptions to all his big supporters. Time to go to the American people and point out what a fraud was sold to them. Then go about getting the thing junked.

As stated before, it was intentionally passed with a big FU from Obama to anyone who pointed out that what he was selling was a fraud. Now let him and the radicals in his party own the consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,065
#1,065
tumscalcium said:
It's. Just. I'm almost speechless. I would love for folks to educate themselves beyond the classroom and think of everything, not just themselves. My 18-year old sister needs the swiftness kick in the A.
Click to expand...

What does his quote have to do with young people educating themselves?

If young people, like myself, look at the decision from strictly a self-interested perspective, we have absolutely no reason to buy in. Healthy, don't use the system, no assets to seize if we get the huge medical bill, etc. However, other people who have to pay in due to kids, spouse, assets, etc will have to pay for our off-chance medical bills. Thus, if we give a damn at all about being "responsible" or other people/"the collective"/"peers" (as alluded to in his quote), then we might feel it is our duty not to burden the rest of you from our potential medical bills.
 
#1,066
#1,066
DC_Vol said:
Gramps - we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Actually not that uncommon. Regardless, my retorts below.



We have a fundamental disagreement on the purpose of government. I see government as a necessary evil. Elected officials jobs' are not to improve America. It may sometimes be a consequence of their action, but that is not what they are there for. Granted, in this day in age, a lot of people disagree. Hence where we are today.

Ideally, they should be minding the areas of government that were originally enumerated to them. I would be happy for these "officials" and "experts" as they are so often called (Hah!!) to run on a platform of legislation by taking laws off the books.



Perhaps you've mistaken me for a Republican party guy. While it's true I pulled the lever for Romney over Obama, you shouldn't infer from that I am loyal the party.

I'm not registered as a Republican, and I haven't given money to the Republican party since the mid 2000's. And I won't as long as they keep running candidates like McCain and Romney.

You see why they can't win? For exactly the reasons you point out below. They run as Democrats lite.



So because some Republicans and the Heritage Foundation (for disclosure, I have and will continue to support this group, because I think they do a lot of good work) proposed a similar idea, I should just fall in line and get behind it?

This idea is certainly what is now being pushed very hard by a lot of Democrats running for cover. And now I suppose by those who insist on reaching across the aisle.

It's irrelevant to me. I don't care who is pushing this idea...I will remain opposed to it.




I think that is answered above. I do not support much of the current Republican party and have some very specific issues with the leadership of the party.




Obama picks and chooses which laws he lives with. Why can't we? A rhetorical question, but I think you get the point. We can't invalidate the law, but we can certainly make it apparent what a terrible piece of legislation this is.

From an economic standpoint, it's not workable. I personally don't believe it's fixable. Just because it sounds like a great idea doesn't make it immune to the laws of economics.

It's such a POS that Obama is handing out exemptions to all his big supporters. Time to go to the American people and point out what a fraud was sold to them. Then go about getting the thing junked.

As stated before, it was intentionally passed with a big FU from Obama to anyone who pointed out that what he was selling was a fraud. Now let him and the radicals in his party own the consequences.
Click to expand...

Fair enough DC..
If we all agreed on every issue it would be a boring world.
 
#1,068
#1,068
Gramps said:
Here is the GOP healthcare plan of 1993


Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health News

It is a state plan but also take a look at Romneycare, very similar plan
Click to expand...

good link.

Some notable differences to ACA

1. 12 years to get to the mandate
2. Exceptions to the mandate for religious or spiritual reasons (odd how the GOP is more tolerant of other beliefs than the current Dems)
3. Tort reform
4. No community rating
5. No mention of young subsidizing old or men subsidizing women (see community rating comment)
6. Use of purchasing groups vs exchanges

In short, I agree that the mandate part is similar but the 1993 bill is significantly different than ACA from my reading.

The 1993 bill would be a better solution (IMHO) than the current law
 
#1,069
#1,069
PKT_VOL said:
What does his quote have to do with young people educating themselves?

If young people, like myself, look at the decision from strictly a self-interested perspective, we have absolutely no reason to buy in. Healthy, don't use the system, no assets to seize if we get the huge medical bill, etc. However, other people who have to pay in due to kids, spouse, assets, etc will have to pay for our off-chance medical bills. Thus, if we give a damn at all about being "responsible" or other people/"the collective"/"peers" (as alluded to in his quote), then we might feel it is our duty not to burden the rest of you from our potential medical bills.
Click to expand...

TRUTWANNABE, stop. Please. Just stop. I gave you the benefit if doubt in regards to your response of mine. Everyone needs to pay their way. I have and do. Others need to pay their way too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,070
#1,070
tumscalcium said:
TRUTWANNABE, stop. Please. Just stop. I gave you the benefit if doubt in regards to your response of mine. Everyone needs to pay their way. I have and do. Others need to pay their way too.
Click to expand...

Dude, where am I going wrong? Millions of people like me are going to opt out. I will leave people (a lot of posters on here) on the hook if they get the off-chance medical bill. One is either self-centered or have some sense of personal responsibility/collective duty to not pass their risk/responsibility on to others.
 
#1,071
#1,071
If I didn't get decent health insurance from my job, I would opt out. I haven't had an illness where I felt I needed to go to the doctor in 10 years. It's all money down the drain to me.
 
#1,072
#1,072
PKT_VOL said:
One is either self-centered or have some sense of personal responsibility/collective duty to not pass their risk/responsibility on to others.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a 3rd option? Can't you take personal responsibility for yourself (insurance based on your actuarial risk) without having to subsidize some other SoB?

It sounds like the second situation you posted but ACA doesn't fit that bill since you are forced to take on someone else's responsibility
 
#1,073
#1,073
This is funny...

President Barack Obama's administration has found a short-term fix to pay insurance companies for plans selected on HealthCare.gov, the not-yet-complete government website used to shop for insurance required under Obama's healthcare program.

...

The administration is planning a "workaround" for payments, said Daniel Durham, vice president for policy and regulatory affairs at America's Health Insurance Plans.

Health plans will estimate how much they are owed, and submit that estimate to the government. Once the system is built, the government and insurers can reconcile the payments made with the plan data to "true up" payments, he said.
Click to expand...

Short-term fix eyed for another problem with U.S. healthcare website
 
#1,074
#1,074
volinbham said:
Isn't there a 3rd option? Can't you take personal responsibility for yourself (insurance based on your actuarial risk) without having to subsidize some other SoB?

It sounds like the second situation you posted but ACA doesn't fit that bill since you are forced to take on someone else's responsibility
Click to expand...

Totally agreed. However, like you said, that option has been taken off the table. Thus, you are given two choices.

Conservatives that I talk to are torn. On one hand, they laugh at millions of us young people walking away which would induce the "death spiral" of Obamacare because they can't wait for Obamacare and subsequently socialized medicine in general to fail. On the other hand, if I explain that they will be on the hook for my off-chance medical bills (if I choose to take the fine), they b*tch about personal responsiblity, something for nothing, etc. Valid points IMO. The Obama quote spoke to the latter.

Self-interest vs duty/collective. Long-term vs short term. In the short term, Conservatives value the latter. The long term, I think Conservatives value the former. Obama has a huge vested interest for the "death spiral" not happening; hence his quote which also speaks to the Conservatives' (at least the ones I talk to) concerns in the short-term.
 
#1,075
#1,075
PKT_VOL said:
Totally agreed. However, like you said, that option has been taken off the table. Thus, you are given two choices.

Conservatives that I talk to are torn. On one hand, they laugh at millions of us young people walking away which would induce the "death spiral" of Obamacare because they can't wait for Obamacare and subsequently socialized medicine in general to fail. On the other hand, if I explain that they will be on the hook for my off-chance medical bills (if I choose to take the fine), they b*tch about personal responsiblity, something for nothing, etc. Valid points IMO. The Obama quote spoke to the latter.

Self-interest vs duty/collective. Long-term vs short term. In the short term, Conservatives value the latter. The long term, I think Conservatives value the former. Obama has a huge vested interest for the "death spiral" not happening; hence his quote which also speaks to the Conservatives' (at least the ones I talk to) concerns in the short-term.
Click to expand...

The 2nd dilemma has been going on a long long time. This bs legislation will just shift those costs to the ones who play nice. If you take the penalty for most that will be a couple hundred taken from their few thousand they get in free money every year.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top