[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

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!

So are you guys saying it's unreasonable to like Dances With Wolves and hate Avatar?

[OAW]

Nope. Just saying that it's a bit disingenuous to say you hate the plot of Avatar but love the same in Dances With Wolves. Naturally, there's more to an overall movie experience than just the plot. There's direction, acting, cinematography, production, special effects, etc. The point being made here is that when it comes to the major provisions of the legislation they are nearly identical:



OAW

[Chongo]

So, how do ACA supports feel about the Sarah Murnaghan situation?

[subego]

What does that have to do with ACA?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, how do ACA supports feel about the Sarah Murnaghan situation?

Seems the girl has some reason for hope now ...

Judge orders girl added to adult lung transplant list - Vitals

That being said, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) sets the donor organ allocation rules that the judge just suspended. Which, in all likelihood, will spur a flood of similar lawsuits. The ACA has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Nope. Just saying that it's a bit disingenuous to say you hate the plot of Avatar but love the same in Dances With Wolves. Naturally, there's more to an overall movie experience than just the plot. There's direction, acting, cinematography, production, special effects, etc. The point being made here is that when it comes to the major provisions of the legislation they are nearly identical:



OAW

Glad that you were able to find a citation with their similarities. The question, though, OAW, is can you address their differences? Ebuddy's post would be a good place to start.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Glad that you were able to find a citation with their similarities. The question, though, OAW, is can you address their differences? Ebuddy's post would be a good place to start.

Well ebuddy's position seems to be to deny that Romneycare is Republican legislation because it was passed in a blue state with a Dem controlled legislature. Conveniently overlooking the fact that its genesis is in the Heritage Foundation ... a decidedly Republican and conservative think tank. I've posted citations all over the PWL backing this up so I'm not inclined to do it yet again (especially on an iPhone) when clearly he chooses not to acknowledge this fundamental fact. The rest of his post seemed to criticize the Medicare funding cuts which are already noted in my graphic. And which are ... for the record ... the exact same cuts passed by the House GOP in the Ryan budget. So you guys are gonna have to spare me the "faux outrage" about that particular issue. As for the rest, the are decidedly minor provisions of the legislation. Which I've already conceded have differences compared to Romneycare.

OAW

[ebuddy]

First, an illustration of why the difference between State and Federal is everything;



You're hanging your entire hat on the age-old idea of an individual mandate. Period. That's it. That's all you've got. That's not Romney's idea and it's nothing like the "republican" idea written in a book cited by the Heritage Foundation in the late 1980's. More on that in a sec...

Originally Posted by OAW 

Obamacare is fundamentally a nationwide version Romneycare.

There is no such thing, there's no nationwide version of Romneycare. There can't be. It's an exponentially distorted piece of legislation with every variable you consider. For example; Massachusetts' unemployment rate was 4.7%. Their rate of uninsured was half that of the US. Their overall labor market, legislative environment, output, and economy are entirely different. Their budget was balanced, they have an obligation to 6 million people vs 313 million people, and they're among the top 10 lowest poverty rates in the country.

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

Romneycare did not find its genesis from the Heritage Foundation. What you're referring to is the individual mandate found in a book written in 1989; “A National Health System for America” and cited by the Heritage Foundation at that time. You're hanging your entire hat on the idea that the individual mandate of catastrophic-only care from that book looks at all like the individual mandate of comprehensive care in Obamacare... or a nationalization of the student loan industry. Two words; "individual" and "mandate". That's all you've got. No other, even remotely Republican proposal in there and certainly no ideals post-dating 2006. You may want to have a read of the Clinton Healthcare plan of 1993 if we're talking about what's "based on" what. I will say this for Romneycare, the plan did manage to decrease the percentage of uninsured in Massachusetts to a rate much lower than even the kindest of estimates project for Obamacare. Why? Economy of scale my friend. They're not the same at all. You're comparing Charlotte's Web to the Quran and there's nothing more horrific than a talking pig.

You don't think the differences between the two in penalties to employers are vastly different? Benefit limits? Preventive care? Pre-existing conditions? Even when considering the difference in obligation between 6 million and 313 million people? Under a balanced budget, 4.7% unemployment rate, and half the rate of both poverty and the uninsured?

If there is a modeling - one from the other, do you suppose the Obama Administration sought the Massachusetts model on accident? Do you really believe any of the aspects of Romneycare that inspired Obamacare were brand new ideas in 2006? If you say no, you'd be correct. They weren't, but you won't find them in any Republican proposal and you certainly won't find them in the 1989 book cited by the Heritage Foundation. I'll let you answer to whether or not the ideas you have left are "based on Republican" - anything. Otherwise, I think you know the truth.

[Snow-i]

Even if it was entirely Republican. Who cares? It's still an abomination that's going to raise prices for everyone, and exacerbate the problems it claims to solve, and cause more suffering then it will save. Not to mention the whole critical impact on a sluggish economy thing.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Romneycare did not find its genesis from the Heritage Foundation. What you're referring to is the individual mandate found in a book written in 1989; “A National Health System for America” and cited by the Heritage Foundation at that time. You're hanging your entire hat on the idea that the individual mandate of catastrophic-only care from that book looks at all like the individual mandate of comprehensive care in Obamacare...

Are you saying that Romneycare which has an "individual mandate" doesn't provide "comprehensive care". It certainly isn't "catastrophic care" only. Moreover, the "individual mandate" which you acknowledge has its origins in the Heritage Foundation is the lynchpin of the entire legislation for both Romneycare and Obamacare. But since you still seem reluctant to acknowledge just how involved the Heritage Foundation was in the genesis of Romneycare you might want to take a look at this ...

“Special thanks as well to the Heritage Foundation,” Romney continued. “Two of its leading scholars are the ones who helped design and craft what we now call the Connector, which is the centerpiece of the insurance reform portion.” Once Heritage’s Dr. Robert Emmet Moffit took the stage, he praised the law for establishing a new “patient centered” and “consumer-based” market where everyone can find affordable coverage.

Originally Posted by Dr. Moffit - Heritage Foundation

We’ve been honored by your request…to participate in giving our best advise and our technical assistance in designing a new and different kind of health insurance market. A market that is patient-centered and consumer-based, which will ease access to affordable coverage for thousands of Bay State citizens. This is new. It’s a new market, where individuals and families will be able to own and control their health insurance and take it with them to from job to job… Nothing like it has ever been attempted anywhere else in the United States. So Massachusetts has raised the bar for every state in the union. And that’s the applause you’ve given to your public officials here today is going to echo far beyond the hallow halls of this historic place.

6 Years Ago: Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building 'Patient-Centered' Health Care Market | ThinkProgress

And if the transcript isn't enough to convince you, there's always video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCZ8vK2oByU

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Are you saying that Romneycare which has an "individual mandate" doesn't provide "comprehensive care". It certainly isn't "catastrophic care" only. Moreover, the "individual mandate" which you acknowledge has its origins in the Heritage Foundation is the lynchpin of the entire legislation for both Romneycare and Obamacare. But since you still seem reluctant to acknowledge just how involved the Heritage Foundation was in the genesis of Romneycare you might want to take a look at this ...
6 Years Ago: Heritage Foundation Praised Romneycare For Building 'Patient-Centered' Health Care Market | ThinkProgress
And if the transcript isn't enough to convince you, there's always video ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCZ8vK2oByU
OAW

What you're talking about is what "Romneycare" became when Deval Patrick took over several months after the legislation was signed! Here's a detailed account by folks who were intimately involved in the process; Forbes - How Deval Patrick gutted Romneycare's market-oriented reform

Why didn't Romney run on this landmark legislation at the national level? If it were a Republican ideal, hailed by conservative think-tanks; why could they not garner the support of virtually any Republicans or conservative think-tanks? You act as if there isn't a public record on file here;

I love this. Yes, Romney signed the Massachusetts health care reform into law - shame on him. He should've known we'd come to a place where you'd either compromise to ensure you're not indicted for being an obstructionist member of the Party of NO! or take the credit for founding the ideal you compromised on! Romney vetoed sections 5, 29, 47, 112 113, 134 and 137 of the MassHealth bill. The Democratic legislature overrode all vetoes. These vetoes included --

• Romney vetoed the employer penalty - overode by legislature. Cornerstone of Obamacare. Not a Republican ideal and certainly not that hailed by the Heritage Foundation.
• Romney opposed the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector. Why? Romney wanted catastrophic-only coverage; inline with the ideal cited by the Heritage Foundation. Originally designed as a means of merely connecting prospective buyers with minimum coverage plans in the marketplace, he was concerned it would become a regulatory authority mandating comprehensive coverages. Exactly what it had become. Veto overridden by Democratic legislature. Cornerstone of Obamacare. Not the idea of the Heritage Foundation.

Since you're citing the fair-minded folks at "ThinkProgress", I figured I'd give you a little American Spectator for a different, more honest perspective behind the passage of Romneycare. No, you can't blame Bush and you can't even blame Romney or the Heritage Foundation.

I mean... far be it from me to break it to you that Obama's signature legislation was actually not conceived by conservative Republicans as Democrats run for the hills on this one!

[The Final Dakar]

This story is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Tea Partiers start calling the Affordable Care Act ‘BoehnerCare’ — MSNBC

A group of Tea Party activists held a rally outside of Boehner’s Ohio office Tuesday, threatening to start calling the Affordable Care Act “BoehnerCare” if the Speaker doesn’t block all spending legislation which doesn’t include a retraction of Obamacare. The filibuster these right-wing groups advocate would result in a government shutdown on Sept. 30th, the deadline for passing another continuing resolution to fund the government for the next fiscal year.

“BoehnerCare” is the brainchild of conservative radio host Mark Levin.

“I think I’m going to call it BoehnerCare, if I can remember from time to time, certainly more often, because Boehner won’t even fight,” Levin said on his show last week. “Boehner, he’s just-–is the word ‘pathetic’ appropriate? I think it’s appropriate.”

Rule 8: The ACA being passed by congress, upheld by SCOTUS and failing to be repealed in the house (which would still have no effect even it did) has nothing to do with Boehner. These are people looking for a scapegoat.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This story is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Tea Partiers start calling the Affordable Care Act ‘BoehnerCare’ — MSNBC

Rule 8: The ACA being passed by congress, upheld by SCOTUS and failing to be repealed in the house (which would still have no effect even it did) has nothing to do with Boehner. These are people looking for a scapegoat.

Boehner is the House leader. Many Republicans feel there is an across-the-board lack of bollocks and leadership. They see Boehner (and Mitch McConnell as the Senate Minority leader by the way) as poster-children of a gutless establishment leadership base. Why? Because they are in leadership.

As an aside; I'm glad Republicans are challenging and refining their base and while it might be fun for Democrats to watch, their time will come and I'm guessing pretty soon as we approach another military action outside Congressional approval. It's now getting to the point where I can't think of a single Bush Administration action upon which Obama and Biden were most vocally opposed, that they have not essentially blessed and endorsed themselves while in Executive office.

[subego]

You can still get free condoms.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

You can still get free condoms.

You seem to be competing with besson for the most quips in a single week. I've got $5 on ya, don't let me down.

[besson3c]

Your butt is a quip.

Other than Obamacare, how about gay marriage? Not challenging the state legalization of pot? I'm sure we could come up with other things, but your point is well taken, we've been given far less change than we were led to believe would materialize.

That being said, I think the problem with the Republicans have been too much guts, and not choosing their battles wisely at all. However, if a part of the Republican party wants to push Boehner to be even more obstructionist, they shouldn't expect to win the next election, even if their opponent is a lobotomized Mike Gravel. This will just galvanize the Democrats who will rally behind whomever the nominee will be. After all, if the far right does carry that much voice, the Republican nominee will probably be a loon.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Boehner is the House leader. Many Republicans feel there is an across-the-board lack of bollocks and leadership. They see Boehner (and Mitch McConnell as the Senate Minority leader by the way) as poster-children of a gutless establishment leadership base. Why? Because they are in leadership.

What is he supposed to do? Even if it passes the House and it won't get by the Senate and even if it were to pass that in a bizarro world, Obama would veto the repeal. Boehner has no power over the final outcome here. It's a split congress. This is what happens to both sides.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Your butt is a quip.

Weak!

Other than Obamacare, how about gay marriage? Not challenging the state legalization of pot?... not challenging the States granting amnesty for illegal immigrants while suing States that are utilizing Federal law to curb it. I'm sure we could come up with other things, but your point is well taken, we've been given far less change than we were led to believe would materialize.

I don't think picking and choosing which laws to enforce is progress while you're serving under the oath of office to uphold them. We've seen an awful lot of this under an Administration that, while it continues to remind us that Obamacare is "THE LAW OF THE LAND", they're repeatedly pushing the less politically tenable aspects of it out beyond the next election. Either it's the LAW OF THE LAND or its merely a suggestion we'll actually implement at some undetermined point in the future or when it's most politically advantageous. Imagine a President determining that he will no longer enforce labor violations for example or any other number of the pet laws of the left. Remember, whatever is done by the (D) will be the new norm for the next (R). WIth regard to violating the public trust, we've got some whoppers here to contend with in terms of expectations around the boundaries of the Executive Branch going forward.

That being said, I think the problem with the Republicans have been too much guts, and not choosing their battles wisely at all. However, if a part of the Republican party wants to push Boehner to be even more obstructionist, they shouldn't expect to win the next election, even if their opponent is a lobotomized Mike Gravel. This will just galvanize the Democrats who will rally behind whomever the nominee will be. After all, if the far right does carry that much voice, the Republican nominee will probably be a loon.

I don't agree with you on the "obstructionist" piece, but I do agree with you on which battlefields the party has decided to die on. All compromise has done is bring us to a place of unsustainable legislation across the board. The system was designed to make it difficult to legislate at whimsy. This is only new to the folks who've begun to follow politics from Obama's first Inauguration. People are ready for principled leadership. Anyone who can most effectively express this sentiment will win. Those who have proven they cannot lead by principles will have problems. This is the Democratic Party and a country primarily under their leadership... and it's a friggin' mess by all available metrics both foreign and domestic.

People are well aware of what Republicans are against, it's time they more effectively express what they're for and why the system's checks and balances are absolutely critical.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What is he supposed to do? Even if it passes the House and it won't get by the Senate and even if it were to pass that in a bizarro world, Obama would veto the repeal. Boehner has no power over the final outcome here. It's a split congress. This is what happens to both sides.

What votes like these do is put legislators and representatives on official record with their support or opposition. It's a means to set up the next election and it's generally a pretty shrewd move both parties exploit often. i.e. you put your vote where your mouth is. When the thing goes belly-up, you point out who supported and who opposed. By denying these opportunities, Democrats get to pretend they're distancing themselves from Obamacare in rhetoric alone without having to put any actual, political capital behind their bs.

*As an aside: this is why the Democratic Party has avoided compiling an actual budget, like the plague. They'll file cloture on "filibusters" which are nothing more than a means of obstructing public debate on a measure. Such and such has expressed disagreement - FILE CLOTURE! LOOK AT HOW THE REPUBLICANS ARE FILIBUSTERING- OBSTRUCTIONISTS! As people increasingly pay attention, these things will become more apparent. [/fingers crossed]

[besson3c]

ebuddy: we disagree on a few points, but I think the bottom line is that it is naive to think that a Republican president that is so-called "principled" is really going to bring about change either. Maybe America needs to hit rock bottom before things can really start to change. I think the "friggin' mess" is our entire system of government right now, both parties included.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What votes like these do is put legislators on official record with their support or opposition. It's a means to set up the next election and it's generally a pretty shrewd move both parties exploit often. i.e. you put your vote where your mouth is. When the thing goes belly-up, you point out who supported and who opposed. By denying these opportunities, Democrats get to pretend they're distancing themselves from Obamacare in rhetoric alone without having to put any actual, political capital behind their bs.

I think this is just a game of political leverage, those symbolic votes probably mostly just show who has been bought, because what's the harm in putting a weight behind a symbolic vote? The general public is not going to notice or care a whole lot, not even at election time.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What votes like these do is put legislators on official record with their support or opposition. It's a means to set up the next election and it's generally a pretty shrewd move both parties exploit often. i.e. you put your vote where your mouth is. When the thing goes belly-up, you point out who supported and who opposed. By denying these opportunities, Democrats get to pretend they're distancing themselves from Obamacare in rhetoric alone without having to put any actual, political capital behind their bs.

According to the OP we're up to 37 votes now. I think the record is pretty clear.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

According to the OP we're up to 37 votes now. I think the record is pretty clear.

This too. It's not like there aren't other things that congress can work on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This too. It's not like there aren't other things that congress can work on.

Like what, legislating soft drinks? I mean, they're not going to be busy expressing their vote on action in Syria as it seems they will not be consulted... again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

According to the OP we're up to 37 votes now. I think the record is pretty clear.

I disagree. People are forgetful. Especially with Miley Cyrus running about the place dressed like a deranged Care Bear dry-humping anything that gets in her way. They need to be reminded. Again and again.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree. People are forgetful.

That's why politicians get to stump. That's why they make attack-ads. There is nothing more memorable about a vote from two days ago compared to a vote from two months ago when you're telling people about today.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Like what, legislating soft drinks? I mean, they're not going to be busy expressing their vote on action in Syria as it seems they will not be consulted... again.

We'll see about that, they should be consulted.

I'm assuming your soft drinks comment was a flippant remark intended to be a setup for your comment about Syria.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's why politicians get to stump. That's why they make attack-ads. There is nothing more memorable about a vote from two days ago compared to a vote from two months ago when you're telling people about today.

I still disagree. The Republicans aren't going to get any help from the media. Whatever is communicated must be communicated over and over again as it competes with the Obama Administration/Democratic Party narrative combined with the full force of the majority of media at its disposal. We were duped and hoodwinked over Fast and Furious, duped and hoodwinked over Benghazi with "facts" coming out ONLY AFTER Obama's second inauguration, duped and hoodwinked over the EPA, IRS, and NSA with "facts" made available ONLY AFTER Obama's second inauguration and all of these things have now faded into the abyss of current events. They have all, but been forgotten. Attack ads will only cause upheaval at "money in politics" and how mean-spirited Republicans are. They need to use ALL methods available to them and forcing votes may or may not play a role. We'll see.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I still disagree. The Republicans aren't going to get any help from the media.

My example had nothing to do with the media helping; It was self-sufficient.

If you claim the media won't help on the old votes, why would it be any different for new ones?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

My example had nothing to do with the media helping; It was self-sufficient.

If you claim the media won't help on the old votes, why would it be any different for new ones?

It won't. The tactics won't change in the functions of government because unless significant authority has been usurped by the Executive Branch (happening with increasing regularity unfortunately) -- it's designed to work this way. The new votes will come from enlightenment. Enlightenment will only come from information and that information will not be coming from the now, defunct Fourth Estate.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The new votes will come from enlightenment. Enlightenment will only come from information and that information will not be coming from the now, defunct Fourth Estate.

Where is the enlightenment coming from? (and what does it have to do with new votes)


Edit: But more on point, the article is about funding. These nuts want to shut-down the entire government because of one piece of legislation. I might be sympathetic if we were talking NSA stuff here (and even then... no), but the ACA? Get a grip.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Where is the enlightenment coming from? (and what does it have to do with new votes)

Publication of votes, reminders, ads... all of it. The "new" votes will have to come from a greater number of Independents who are decidedly fed up. They need a better choice however. They don't need only to know what folks are against, they need to know what folks are for.

Edit: But more on point, the article is about funding. These nuts want to shut-down the entire government because of one piece of legislation. I might be sympathetic if we were talking NSA stuff here (and even then... no), but the ACA? Get a grip.

No one's going to shut down the government. It's just forcing an opportunity to once again put politicians on record. The impending economic crises like Obamacare are much, much worse than "shutting down the government". Democrats as majority purveyor of this mess would like nothing more than to simply move on, nothing to see here. Republicans would like to take every opportunity to remind the American public who is behind what.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Publication of votes, reminders, ads... all of it. The "new" votes will have to come from a greater number of Independents who are decidedly fed up. They need a better choice however. They don't need only to know what folks are against, they need to know what folks are for.

Publication of votes where? The media? Not according to you. Online? Please try to convince me more people will check congressional votes online than hear it from the media. I need a laugh. Ads? I already said that's self-sufficient and you don't need new votes to run them.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one's going to shut down the government. It's just forcing an opportunity to once again put politicians on record. The impending economic crises like Obamacare are much, much worse than "shutting down the government". Democrats as majority purveyor of this mess would like nothing more than to simply move on, nothing to see here. Republicans would like to take every opportunity to remind the American public who is behind what.

At this point, I'm really starting to think Rs are scared that Obamacare might not be a massive failure.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Publication of votes where? The media? Not according to you.

They would publicize votes on measures in the same places they always have; op-eds, biased rags, ads, online in articles and blog pieces, through email, by phone... shall I go on?

Online? Please try to convince me more people will check congressional votes online than hear it from the media. I need a laugh. Ads? I already said that's self-sufficient and you don't need new votes to run them.

Now I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Rs are forcing votes on contentious measures to get representatives on record. This isn't new to you is it? I mean, you're aware of the use of this strategy by all party affiliations from time immemorial right? The reason you get representatives on record is so you can hold them accountable for those new votes in debate and elsewhere including all mentioned means above. If you're talking about votes as in, poll strategy -- it translates into new votes. That's why so much $ is spent on them. They matter.

At this point, I'm really starting to think Rs are scared that Obamacare might not be a massive failure.

Right, that's why Republicans are trying so desperately to get them on record for support or opposition to it. I'm starting to think you might be scared it really will be.

[hyteckit]

I say we need to replace ACA with a single-payer health care system.

This ACA is based on stupid Republican ideas that Republicans now hate cause Obama supports it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They would publicize votes on measures in the same places they always have; op-eds, biased rags, ads, online in articles and blog pieces, through email, by phone... shall I go on?

No, that's plenty. Email and phone are good suggestions – though I'd posit this is a very small percentage of people that are likely already so highly engaged that they don't need to be told. I'd also consider op-eds and rags the media.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Rs are forcing votes on contentious measures to get representatives on record. This isn't new to you is it? I mean, you're aware of the use of this strategy by all party affiliations from time immemorial right? The reason you get representatives on record is so you can hold them accountable for those new votes in debate and elsewhere including all mentioned means above.

It's been voted on 37 times. The votes are already on record 37 times. There's already been at least three votes this year.

We'e going in circles. Somehow you think the record is somehow diminished by time. I pretty thoroughly disagree. That's what records are for – to prevent the passage of time from erasing the facts from memory.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, that's why Republicans are trying so desperately to get them on record for support or opposition to it. I'm starting to think you might be scared it really will be.

Unless you feel slighted by my comment on congressional republicans, was there really a reason to attack me personally?



Now, I find myself using bold, italics, and even size in a post, so its time for me to step away from this discussion. It obvious that I find the other point of view so unfathomable it'll give me aneurysm is we continue.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

No, that's plenty. Email and phone are good suggestions – though I'd posit this is a very small percentage of people that are likely already so highly engaged that they don't need to be told. I'd also consider op-eds and rags the media.

Now you're using the term media, not me. I referred to the Fourth Estate as being defunct, not all forms of general communication.

It's been voted on 37 times. The votes are already on record 37 times. There's already been at least three votes this year.

They're not all up-or-down votes on the whole of the ACA, they're picking apart specific elements of it and forcing votes on those elements.

We'e going in circles. Somehow you think the record is somehow diminished by time. I pretty thoroughly disagree. That's what records are for – to prevent the passage of time from erasing the facts from memory.

We'll have to agree to disagree. These multiple opportunities at forcing votes have put representatives on record throughout multiple elements of the ACA. All useful in one discussion/ad or another. I believe a significant portion of our population does not presently know where their car keys are and they set them down mere hours ago.

Unless you feel slighted by my comment on congressional republicans, was there really a reason to attack me personally?

My notion that perhaps you're scared of the implementation of the ACA is a personal attack? Seriously? eesh

Okay, if it's untrue and you're looking forward to the full enactment of the ACA, I apologize. Otherwise, it was speculation not unlike your speculation.

Now, I find myself using bold, italics, and even size in a post, so its time for me to step away from this discussion. It obvious that I find the other point of view so unfathomable it'll give me aneurysm is we continue.

I don't want that. TTFN

[besson3c]

So, is there a point where that number starts to draw questions from you, ebuddy? 40? 50? 75? 100?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, is there a point where that number starts to draw questions from you, ebuddy? 40? 50? 75? 100?

Not sure, but I guess I'll ask you an equally important question -- How many aspects of Obama's signature legislation must be delayed by the Obama Administration beyond the next election before it draws questions from you?

[besson3c]

What aspects are delayed beyond the next election now?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What aspects are delayed beyond the next election now?

Small business implementation, I think. Which affects a rather small % of Americans overall, I believe.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Small business implementation, I think. Which affects a rather small % of Americans overall, I believe.

So naturally ebuddy's bias leads him to believe that this delay is not for logistics, but to escape political backlash?

The worst of the backlash will come from prices not coming down post individual mandate.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So naturally ebuddy's bias leads him to believe that this delay is not for logistics, but to escape political backlash?

The worst of the backlash will come from prices not coming down post individual mandate.

Considering the amount of people it affects, its not unreasonable. The 2014 midterms around corner and I suppose this could be twisted around as hurting the little guy.

Of course I don't recall if the delay is until after the 2014 midterms.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Considering the amount of people it affects, its not unreasonable. The 2014 midterms around corner and I suppose this could be twisted around as hurting the little guy.

Of course I don't recall if the delay is until after the 2014 midterms.

Oh, I thought he was referring to the 2016 presidential election. I still say he's probably assuming the worst out of his bias though. He should at least explore the logistics in a thorough and objective manner.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Oh, I thought he was referring to the 2016 presidential election. I still say he's probably assuming the worst out of his bias though. He should at least explore the logistics in a thorough and objective manner.

You don't know when the provisions of Obamacare are being implemented and I'm the one who is merely biased and uninformed on the logistics of the legislation?

These are your faithful Obama voters ladies and gentlemen.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Considering the amount of people it affects, its not unreasonable. The 2014 midterms around corner and I suppose this could be twisted around as hurting the little guy.

Of course I don't recall if the delay is until after the 2014 midterms.

Now it's being "twisted around" as cited by yet another person who doesn't know when some of the plans most contentious measures are being implemented? You guys are killin' me.

• First, the Medicare cuts were delayed until 2015.
• Then the employer mandate was delayed until 2015. I shouldn't have to remind this audience, but I will -- you'll recall the Employer mandate is a major provision of the law that requires companies with over 50 full-time employees to provide health insurance or pay a penalty. Why would you conclude that this doesn't affect very many people??? Anyway - politically untenable and therefore delayed. The Individual mandate stays of course -- decidedly at the expense of the "little guy".
• The eligibility requirements for subsidized care delayed to 2015 now working on an "honor system".
• The latest delay is one of the costlier provisions of Obamacare and that is its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, delayed to 2015.

[ebuddy]

Comedy Central is not up to the task of informing the electorate. They're just not. 5-minute Daily Show blurb on the President's proposed war in Syria the other day and I heard the derision of several Republicans for supporting the action for more than 4 minutes and approximately 10 seconds on the guy who actually owns this nonsense.

Find another outlet for news, folks. It's not working.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• Then the employer mandate was delayed until 2015. I shouldn't have to remind this audience, but I will -- you'll recall the Employer mandate is a major provision of the law that requires companies with over 50 full-time employees to provide health insurance or pay a penalty. Why would you conclude that this doesn't affect very many people??? Anyway - politically untenable and therefore delayed. The Individual mandate stays of course -- decidedly at the expense of the "little guy".

STUDY: Delaying The Employer Mandate Will Have A Minimal Effect On Obamacare | ThinkProgress

That means that approximately 300,000 fewer Americans will have health benefits beginning next year than would have without the delay. All told, only 0.4 percent of all American firms are expected to pay penalties for offering no insurance to their workers at all.

That’s not surprising considering that the vast majority of companies — or 96 percent of all firms — with over 50 workers already offer acceptable employee health benefits. RAND’s study demonstrates that many companies that don’t will begin doing so next year anyways despite their option of waiting until 2015.

Feel free to rip on the source.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Comedy Central is not up to the task of informing the electorate. They're just not. 5-minute Daily Show blurb on the President's proposed war in Syria the other day and I heard the derision of several Republicans for supporting the action for more than 4 minutes and approximately 10 seconds on the guy who actually owns this nonsense.

Find another outlet for news, folks. It's not working.

I don't have cable. I don't watch the Daily Show.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You don't know when the provisions of Obamacare are being implemented and I'm the one who is merely biased and uninformed on the logistics of the legislation?

These are your faithful Obama voters ladies and gentlemen.

What is it that provokes you in and out of "being a dick" mode?

You're the one with the argument here. It's good that you know all the provisions, I never questioned your knowledge on the subject, but what I want to know is if there is a specific logistical reason for these delays. After all, implementing something as complicated as health care reform is a massive undertaking in a country of this size with a system this complex. That there is something wrong with these delays that Obama should be blamed for seems to me more like your gut feeling rather than an objective argument, at least until you delve into the specific reasons for these delays.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Comedy Central is not up to the task of informing the electorate. They're just not. 5-minute Daily Show blurb on the President's proposed war in Syria the other day and I heard the derision of several Republicans for supporting the action for more than 4 minutes and approximately 10 seconds on the guy who actually owns this nonsense.

Find another outlet for news, folks. It's not working.

I hope this phase of yours passes soon, it's incredibly obnoxious.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is it that provokes you in and out of "being a dick" mode?

*Hint: my disposition generally trends with the one to whom I'm speaking.

Originally Posted by besson3c

... I still say he's probably assuming the worst out of his bias though. He should at least explore the logistics in a thorough and objective manner.

The law was passed four years ago and when people argue aspects of the ACA, they're told IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND! Well... no, it really isn't. If you can simply ad hoc determine which aspects of it to enforce and when, it's not really something that can be taken seriously. Or worse -- prepared for. I've explored the logistics of this law exhaustively, the problem I have is the fact that our legislators did not.

You're the one with the argument here. It's good that you know all the provisions, I never questioned your knowledge on the subject, but what I want to know is if there is a specific logistical reason for these delays.

The single biggest reason for the delay is that no one understands the law. That's it. With so much misunderstanding and the worst of it among the bureaucracies who would administer the delayed provisions, they knew it was going to be a "train wreck" upon implementation and this would pose substantial political backlash. With the other side of the aisle hungry for any means of gutting the law, the last thing you want to do is hand them the House and Senate to duke it out with the President in his last two years of office because your most significant legislative achievement in the past 6 years of your majority proved as messy as the opposition told you it was going to be. This is the product of one of the most sloppily-crafted pieces of legislation in US history with so many moving parts that the drafters of the law don't fully understand it, Congress didn't read it, the bureaucracies aren't ready to administer it, and businesses and most of the public are scared of it. We've already been warned not only by Obama, but by one of the primary architects of the law and former Obama aide; Jeffrey Crowley that implementation was going to be "messy" (another Democrat who voted for the ACA referred to it as a "train wreck") How to handle it? Push the messiest stuff off until after the election. It's really just that simple.

After all, implementing something as complicated as health care reform is a massive undertaking in a country of this size with a system this complex. That there is something wrong with these delays that Obama should be blamed for seems to me more like your gut feeling rather than an objective argument, at least until you delve into the specific reasons for these delays.

You don't suppose those reasons include lack of bureaucratic readiness and political calculation?