Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > How many times will there be a vote for a repeal of Obamacare?

How many times will there be a vote for a repeal of Obamacare?
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 05:47 AM
 
Apparently we're up to 37 now... Anybody want to place bets on what the final number will be?

It would be nice if Congress would instead try to improve Obamacare or put up an alternative for vote that would accompany the repeal instead, because evidently their tactics aren't working.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 09:58 AM
 
My state's completely blocked OC anyway, and we're currently backing it up with a constitutional amendment. So it doesn't mean anything to us.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
My state's completely blocked OC anyway, and we're currently backing it up with a constitutional amendment. So it doesn't mean anything to us.
As if federal law doesn't supersede state law?

OAW
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 01:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
As if federal law doesn't supersede state law?

OAW
State constitutional amendment vs controversial federal law? Even with the supremacy clause, I'll take those odds with today's USSC. I believe Roberts is just waiting for that to reach them, which is probably why the feds have been avoiding it.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 01:58 PM
 
It will be voted on as many times as it takes to repeal.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It will be voted on as many times as it takes to repeal.

So you like political theater, and/or doing the same things that have had a history of not working?

Like I said, maybe the appeal would pass if the Republican would put up something to replace Obamacare with? They don't seem to have the balls to do this though, this is more about political power than it is something constructive, which sucks no matter how strongly you feel for or against Obamacare.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2013, 05:23 PM
 
The CBO has said they will no longer "score" any more Obamacare Repeal bills because they have too much other work to do, and repealing it will still increase the deficit anyway:

House GOP to vote on Obamacare repeal - Vol. 37 - CBS News

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, told Congress on Wednesday that it doesn't have time to provide them with anymore estimates for the cost of repealing the legislation.

"You requested that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provide a cost estimate for that legislation," Director Doug Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "Unfortunately, we will not be able to do so. Preparing a new estimate of the budgetary impact of repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would take considerable time--probably several weeks."

He noted that the CBO provided the estimate for Congress the last time it voted to repeal the bill -- their report concluded repealing the law would raise the deficit by $109 billion over 10 years.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 12:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So you like political theater, and/or doing the same things that have had a history of not working?
Well, certainly, you can't be AGAINST those things, since Obummer in Chief does exactly that all the time.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Well, certainly, you can't be AGAINST those things, since Obummer in Chief does exactly that all the time.

-t

I think turtle777 and BadKosh are the same guy.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It will be voted on as many times as it takes to repeal.
They'll probably vote in the next few weeks to remove IRS' power to enforce it, and once it can't be enforced it won't make any difference.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It will be voted on as many times as it takes to repeal.
This is the process for when people don't know the outcome. Since they do, seems like a total waste.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is the process for when people don't know the outcome. Since they do, seems like a total waste.
Excuse me, but those laws were "passed to find out what's in it", so please allow for some weird repeal process...

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 19, 2013, 10:42 PM
 
That weird process is known as convincing the proper people it's the correct move for their constituency.

Or paying them enough not to care.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2013, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Like I said, maybe the appeal would pass if the Republican would put up something to replace Obamacare with? They don't seem to have the balls to do this though, this is more about political power than it is something constructive, which sucks no matter how strongly you feel for or against Obamacare.
Ugh... this is such a tired, uninformed narrative I can't believe people are still saying this. Do you read anything, I mean anything at all that would've cited a Republican alternative? This is definitely about political power and what sucks most about it is when the uninformed populace is opinionated and bold enough to perpetuate the worst aspects of it.

It'll get more constructive when Democrats are forced to run from this legislation like the plague and/or there are too few of them left in office to oppose a complete repeal and replace. When union voters are literally driven to the right in 2014, those otherwise non-existent Republican ideals such as state-by-state chartering, interstate exchanges opening the market nationally, catastrophic-only coverage, HSAs and compatible plans, and tort reform will start to sound better.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2013, 04:42 PM
 
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2013, 06:13 PM
 
He seems to be comparing the pricing for Bronze plans under the ACA with with cheapest plans on eHealthInsurance.com . Is it valid to do that without comparing the coverages in each plan? And does this guy own stock in eHealthInsurance or something?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2013, 07:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
He seems to be comparing the pricing for Bronze plans under the ACA with with cheapest plans on eHealthInsurance.com . Is it valid to do that without comparing the coverages in each plan? And does this guy own stock in eHealthInsurance or something?
While the details of individual plans might not be 100% comparable, is anyone shocked at the general direction of cost ?

In other words, were there really people dumb naive enough to think ACA was really going to make things cheaper ?

-t
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2013, 11:39 PM
 
All I am saying is that this article doesn't prove a thing one way or the other about the general direction of cost. He's comparing plans just based on price without knowing what is in them.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 01:29 AM
 
I know one thing that is for sure, my company is going to get hit with 40% excise tax. Our company self insures, with Aetna as the administrator.

https://www.aetna.com/health-reform-...xcise-tax.html

Under Section 9001 of the ACA, health insurance issuers and sponsors of self-funded group health plans will be assessed an excise tax on any benefits provided to employees that exceed a pre-determined threshold. The excise tax is imposed beginning in 2018.

I have seen references about a ‘Cadillac’ tax. Is this the same thing or something different?

This is the same tax that the general media has labeled as the “Cadillac” tax. We refer to it here using the actual language in the law.

What is the excise tax?

The amount of the excise tax is 40 percent of an amount considered to be an excess benefit.

What is the definition of “excess benefit”?

An excess benefit is the cost of coverage for health benefits that is more than the annual limit of $10,200 for self-only coverage and $27,500 for self and spouse or family coverage. The annual limit is subject to adjustment for health costs, age and gender and cost-of-living adjustments.

The "COBRA equivalent" will be used to determine the cost of coverage for self-funded plans -- in other words, what would the employer charge individuals on COBRA. The exact rules for determining the COBRA rate and how the tax will be paid are still to be determined.

Do any exceptions apply?

The annual limits described above are increased by $1,650 in the case of self-only coverage and $3,450 in the case of self and spouse or family coverage for retirees not entitled to Medicare benefits and individuals engaged in high-risk professions.

Who is responsible for paying the excise tax?

The plan sponsor is responsible for paying the excise tax for self-funded coverage. The IRS is expected to issue guidance for the administration of this excise tax including the method and timing for payment. Once regulations are issued, Aetna will work with plan sponsors to determine what assistance can be provided to administer this tax on their behalf
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 05:51 AM
 
40% on what? How much is your overage?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
While the details of individual plans might not be 100% comparable, is anyone shocked at the general direction of cost ?

In other words, were there really people dumb naive enough to think ACA was really going to make things cheaper ?

-t

Krugman:

Paul Krugman | The real shock may be in the success of Affordable Care Act | Opinion | CentreDaily.com

and he's more of an authority on this than you.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I stopped reading when he claimed Obamacare was "originally a Rebuplican Proposal"

Next please.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
40% on what? How much is your overage?
Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes

Read updates 2 and 3, where it is demonstrated that comparable plans will be significantly higher 38-58%. That's staggering to me.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 05:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
and he's more of an authority on this than you.
Krugman is an authority on being a dumb, ignorant f$ck, and on top of that, a complete d!ckhead.

And yes, much more than I am.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes

Read updates 2 and 3, where it is demonstrated that comparable plans will be significantly higher 38-58%. That's staggering to me.

What's staggering to me is the irony of a thousand word rant about apples to apples where his primary piece of evidence is comparing a program from which you can't be turned down with one from which you can.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 06:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's staggering to me is the irony of a thousand word rant about apples to apples where his primary piece of evidence is comparing a program from which you can't be turned down with one from which you can.
Your point is misguided.

The price increase will also hit all of those that WERE NOT turned down in the past.

In essence, all the ACA is is a gigantic tax on existing program participants in order to subsidize people that couldn't get "affordable" insurance before.

Obama lied on two points:

1) He said ACA was not a tax. It clearly turned out in a way tht it is.
2) He did not do a single f$cking thing to really make healthcare more affordable. All he did was finance one group by making another group pay.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 06:57 PM
 
What, pray tell, was my point?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I stopped reading when he claimed Obamacare was "originally a Rebuplican Proposal"

Next please.
What would you call Romneycare?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 2, 2013, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Krugman is an authority on being a dumb, ignorant f$ck, and on top of that, a complete d!ckhead.

And yes, much more than I am.

-t
Ha! I knew you'd respond this way...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 12:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What, pray tell, was my point?
Oh, sorry for thinking you were trying to make one.

-t
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What would you call Romneycare?

A state level solution in response to broken federal regulations. ObamaCare just doubles down on those broken regulations by adding wealth distribution to hide the failure of the system as a whole (for now).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
A state level solution in response to broken federal regulations. ObamaCare just doubles down on those broken regulations by adding wealth distribution to hide the failure of the system as a whole (for now).

You're ducking the issue.

I stopped reading when he claimed Obamacare was "originally a Rebuplican Proposal"
Romneycare, which Obamacare was based on, was Republican legislation.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 08:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What would you call Romneycare?
  • Romney was Governor of a decidedly blue State.
  • Romneycare was a 70-page bill of contributions from Massachusetts' labor interests and a predominantly Democratic State House that would ensure many of Romney's misgivings were overruled while offering enough concession for overall passage.
  • A bill conceived and implemented at the State level to address the needs of some 6 million people.
  • A bill that did not include tax increases or a raid on Medicare for its funding and beginning four years in advance of the implementation of the legislation.
  • A bill that was conceived and implemented only after the State budget was balanced.
  • A bill that the overwhelming majority of folks in Massachusetts supported.

Why would you compare Romneycare to a 2500+ page, one-size-fits-all Federal mandate that applies to 313 million people, includes tax increases and a raid on Medicare against the will of labor unions, against the will of a House full of Republicans, and against the will of a country that is not decidedly blue, while mired in a growing debt and deficit?
ebuddy
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Romneycare, which Obamacare was based on, was Republican legislation.
At the STATE LEVEL. This was an experiment at THE STATE LEVEL. Tried by ONE STATE. Do you get it yet?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
  • Romney was Governor of a decidedly blue State.
  • Romneycare was a 70-page bill of contributions from Massachusetts' labor interests and a predominantly Democratic State House that would ensure many of Romney's misgivings were overruled while offering enough concession for overall passage.
  • A bill conceived and implemented at the State level to address the needs of some 6 million people.
  • A bill that did not include tax increases or a raid on Medicare for its funding and beginning four years in advance of the implementation of the legislation.
  • A bill that was conceived and implemented only after the State budget was balanced.
  • A bill that the overwhelming majority of folks in Massachusetts supported.

Why would you compare Romneycare to a 2500+ page, one-size-fits-all Federal mandate that applies to 313 million people, includes tax increases and a raid on Medicare against the will of labor unions, against the will of a House full of Republicans, and against the will of a country that is not decidedly blue, while mired in a growing debt and deficit?

I didn't say they were directly comparable, nor did Krugman. Of course the scope of any sort of federal legislation of this nature is going to be different than the scope of state level legislation. "Based on" is not the same as "equal" or "comparable", based on means that there are similarities to the DNA and starting place.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 12:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I didn't say they were directly comparable, nor did Krugman. Of course the scope of any sort of federal legislation of this nature is going to be different than the scope of state level legislation. "Based on" is not the same as "equal" or "comparable", based on means that there are similarities to the DNA and starting place.
Are you high dude? Your very last post claimed that ObamaCare was "based" on RomneyCare. You're not comparing them?

So....they aren't comparable? If so, then why did you bring it up? Can you also point me to anything that shows that RomneyCare raises premiums by 30-50% in Apples to Apples comparisons from before and after it's implementation? That's the issue at hand (the one that, ironically, you're trying to duck).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Are you high dude? Your very last post claimed that ObamaCare was "based" on RomneyCare. You're not comparing them?

So....they aren't comparable? If so, then why did you bring it up? Can you also point me to anything that shows that RomneyCare raises premiums by 30-50% in Apples to Apples comparisons from before and after it's implementation? That's the issue at hand (the one that, ironically, you're trying to duck).

In what world does "based on" mean "the same as", or "directly comparable to"? The West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet, does this mean that they are the same thing, or that this connection isn't there because there are no gangs in Romeo and Juliet?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
In what world does "based on" mean "the same as", or "directly comparable to"? The West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet, does this mean that they are the same thing, or that this connection isn't there because there are no gangs in Romeo and Juliet?
Alright bess, I'll accept your premise.

So what does RomneyCare have to do with anything then? What's the purpose of discussing here?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Alright bess, I'll accept your premise.

So what does RomneyCare have to do with anything then? What's the purpose of discussing here?

Maybe you're the one that is high?

You said you stopped reading the Krugman article because of this very premise you've just accepted.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Oh, sorry for thinking you were trying to make one.

-t
What a big ****ing baby.

Sorry for thinking you were trying to have a discussion.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Maybe you're the one that is high?

You said you stopped reading the Krugman article because of this very premise you've just accepted.


So lets go over this again.

You posted some liberal hack bullshit to support a non-argument that you don't have. I objected because I refused to accept as a legitimate source such polarized BS.

You claimed that ObamaCare was originally a Republican proposal. I refuted that claim, and you said "please explain RomneyCare." ebuddy chimed in and demonstrated that they are in no way comparable, then you went on a semantic rant about how one thing can be based on another but in no way comparable. Once you admitted they were no way comparable, I asked what the relevance of RomneyCare was to the current issue at hand, which is how ObamaCare is having the opposite effect of what Obama claimed.

So which is it Besson? Are they comparable in your mind and worthy of analysis and discussion, or not?

If they are, your argument falls apart on its merit as ebuddy graciously demonstrated in just a few lines.
If they are not, then you've just wasted all of our time trying to draw a comparison while explicitly stating the two things are not comparable.

So, I'll ask again, please explain the relevance of bringing up RomneyCare to our discussion? What is your freaking point, bess?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What a big ****ing baby.

Sorry for thinking you were trying to have a discussion.
It's obviously not possible with you, since you just seem to post random shit, and if someone is dumb enough to challenge you and respond, you act like a retard, asking the other person what point *you* were trying to make.

-t
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 07:49 PM
 
Ah... Quick edit. Allow me a second.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
It's obviously not possible with you, since you just seem to post random shit, and if someone is dumb enough to challenge you and respond, you act like a retard, asking the other person what point *you* were trying to make.

-t
I foolishly restrained myself when I read your first response. I won't make that mistake again.

**** you.

I trust you won't have difficulty understanding the point I'm trying to make, though you've proudly behaved more dense in the past, so I'm not expecting much.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2013, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What a big ****ing baby.

Sorry for thinking you were trying to have a discussion.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I foolishly restrained myself when I read your first response. I won't make that mistake again.

**** you.

I trust you won't have difficulty understanding the point I'm trying to make, though you've proudly behaved more dense in the past, so I'm not expecting much.
Not sure what prompted this. I thought it might be a full moon, but that's not for another 20 days. Infractioned.


     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 02:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post


So lets go over this again.

You posted some liberal hack bullshit to support a non-argument that you don't have. I objected because I refused to accept as a legitimate source such polarized BS.

You claimed that ObamaCare was originally a Republican proposal. I refuted that claim, and you said "please explain RomneyCare." ebuddy chimed in and demonstrated that they are in no way comparable, then you went on a semantic rant about how one thing can be based on another but in no way comparable. Once you admitted they were no way comparable, I asked what the relevance of RomneyCare was to the current issue at hand, which is how ObamaCare is having the opposite effect of what Obama claimed.

So which is it Besson? Are they comparable in your mind and worthy of analysis and discussion, or not?

If they are, your argument falls apart on its merit as ebuddy graciously demonstrated in just a few lines.
If they are not, then you've just wasted all of our time trying to draw a comparison while explicitly stating the two things are not comparable.

So, I'll ask again, please explain the relevance of bringing up RomneyCare to our discussion? What is your freaking point, bess?

If your claim is that Obamacare has no common DNA with Romneycare, you could have made this much easier by just saying that, and I probably would have left this alone because I don't really care to have this argument.

If you are not making this claim, than what Paul Krugman said was technically accurate, end-of-story. You are projecting if you are saying that he is saying that they are directly comparable. He simply said it came out of Republican legislation. If you agree that there is common DNA in this legislation, which seems to be a commonly held belief, then I've made my point. This was the only point I was trying to make. This isn't terribly complicated.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 04:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If your claim is that Obamacare has no common DNA with Romneycare, you could have made this much easier by just saying that and I probably would have left this alone because I don't really care to have this argument. [
Isn't that what I originally said?

If you are not making this claim, than what Paul Krugman said was technically accurate, end-of-story. You are projecting if you are saying that he is saying that they are directly comparable. He simply said it came out of Republican legislation. If you agree that there is common DNA in this legislation, which seems to be a commonly held belief, then I've made my point. This was the only point I was trying to make. This isn't terribly complicated.
I told you I didn't read past the third paragraph. You haven't answered my question.

What is your point? So what if it was inspired by republican legislation? Does that change anything about the discussion we were having about it's astronomical premium increases which you cited this article in response to?

You posted that article in response to turtle commenting on the price trend. [b]What point are you trying to make about the ObamaCare cost increase by citing a biased hack who's claiming it's origin is "republican"?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I didn't say they were directly comparable, nor did Krugman. Of course the scope of any sort of federal legislation of this nature is going to be different than the scope of state level legislation. "Based on" is not the same as "equal" or "comparable", based on means that there are similarities to the DNA and starting place.
What Krugman is peddling (and you're lapping up) is the feigned, partisan-Democrat dismay at Republicans' refusal of anything Obama wants to do, even if it's a Republican idea, and then attempting to use Obamacare as exhibit A of Republican obstructionism by suggesting it is somehow "based on" or "comparable to" (really no difference here) Romneycare or "Republican legislation".

This is like saying Charlotte's Web is based on the Quran... because after all, they're both books! First, I've already explained why Romneycare wasn't a "Republican" proposal. I know folks like to gloss over this, but Romney was governor of a decidedly blue state and governed the whole state. The overwhelming majority of the whole State of Massachusetts supported the legislation. This is not so at the national level. In what alternate reality does this not make a huge difference alone?

The primary players in the Massachusetts legislation (unlike Obamacare) were labor interests and an overwhelmingly Democratic State House. This is an important distinction because it has to do with how the legislation is funded and why Romneycare enjoyed the backing of Big Labor while Obamacare is getting challenged by Big Labor -- the entire foundation of any entitlement legislation are the mechanisms for funding it with the key distinctions being the raiding of Medicare and the subsequent tax hikes and penalties on businesses and the Exchange-model taking choice and provisions away from the very businesses with which Labor seeks to negotiate for its members -- provisions that do not exist in Romneycare. Why? First and foremost because Democrats in Massachusetts didn't author or support those mechanisms. They really didn't support these mechanisms in Obamacare at the national level either, but gratuitous waivers from the legislation, kickbacks behind closed doors, and insulation from critical components of Obamacare were enough to woo them.

And then you seek to "compare" or "liken" them by suggesting that the 2000 page difference between them is merely the complexity of administering the legislation at the national level vs the State level. Aside from missing the critical distinction between State and Federal which is vast and must neglect the Constitutional challenges made against Obamacare, Krugman (and his faithful following) also fail to point out where in Romneycare you'll find the nationalization of the Student Loan industry. Show me the youth education on financial matters provision, or the Independent Payment Advisory Board, the 40% excise tax on "cadillac plans" (you know, the plans in many cases negotiated by Labor interests), the "funny money" clause, four-year advanced tax increases... yet all of these provisions add pages and make them decidedly different.

What you won't be able to show me is a bipartisan piece of legislation crafted for one State under a balanced budget and extremely low unemployment. Obamacare is nothing of the sort and the difference between State and Federal is everything. Read -- Everything.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is like saying Charlotte's Web is based on the Quran... because after all, they're both books! First, I've already explained why Romneycare wasn't a "Republican" proposal. I know folks like to gloss over this, but Romney was governor of a decidedly blue state and governed the whole state.
I get your point, it was "Republican" but not Republican.

The problem is, Republican and Democrat legislation sans quotes will never garner the votes needed to be passed so long as the house is split roughly 50/50, so is it even worth talking about these purest forms, rather than more practical ones that include compromise?

Romneycare, whether "Republican" or Republican, was still legislation a "Republican"/Republican was willing to touch, and Romney endorsed his health care. People liked Romney so much that they nominated him for president.
( Last edited by besson3c; Jun 4, 2013 at 03:42 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2013, 03:51 PM
 
Obamacare is fundamentally a nationwide version Romneycare. Romneycare found it's genesis in the Heritage Foundation. That's about as "Republican" as you can get. It's NOT "saying Charlotte's Web is based on the Quran... because after all, they're both books!". It's saying Avatar is based on Dances With Wolves because while there are significant differences in the story it's the same fundamental plot!

OAW
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2