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 > Shut it down!

View Poll Results: Will the Govt. get shutdown?
Poll Options:
Yup 9 votes (64.29%)
Nope 5 votes (35.71%)
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll
Shut it down! (Page 4)
Thread Tools
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There are some weird loopholes like this, to be sure, but if some significant percentage of these people get themselves insurance, it's at least a step forward towards cost control.
I'm not sure how it's a step forward towards cost control. That's completely counter-intuitive given what we already understand about government-run public services.

Medicare doesn't control costs, it just limits coverage. Meanwhile, those doctors or devices with successful lobbyists end up pushing Medicare to accept things with marginal benefits at the expense of other treatments that don't make it through the "impartial" death panels. And doctors and services are constantly being withdrawn from the market while fraudsters step up and fill their pockets. Good piece on 60 minutes about that last night with respect to federal disability.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 02:57 PM
 
I find it humorous to that their solution to high insurance premiums was to require everyone to pay them. Like they need more customers to hit some magic economy of scale tipping point.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 03:01 PM
 
So an approach that is expanding the private health insurance system is the epitome of socialism. Yeah. Ok.

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The point is that the GOP is not asking for anything BUDGET related. This government shutdown is only because the GOP is not getting its way when it comes to defunding or delaying the implementation of Obamacare. Congress passed Obamacare. The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. And the 2012 election where Obamacare was a major issue resulted in Pres. Obama being reelected. As I said Obamacare has made it through the legislative, judicial, and electoral process. If the GOP is still having a hissy fit about it then perhaps they should win enough elections so they can repeal it. IJS

OAW
Funding the ACA, with more borrowed money, no less, isn't "budget related"? Riiiight.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 04:14 PM
 
Even if this budget had passed, do you for one second believe that congress would have approved another hike in the debt ceiling? I have some beach property in Oklahoma for sale, cheap, if you're interested.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Yes. Mandated HSA or FSA for every citizen starting at birth. Anyone who shows up for medical service without any means to pay, cash, debit, or insurance, or can't prove they're legally here can be refused medical. If you can't pay, you better be able to prove you're a legal USR/C and set up a payment plan that is non-dischargeable like a student loan.

Bam I think I just solved our immigration problem and lowered your medical bills by 80% (although honestly I'm probably shooting low there).

I think you've made things worse.

Having unhealthy people not being treated is expense. Disease can be spread, desperation often turns to crime, stimulation of poverty is expensive in a multitude of ways.

I'm okay with the HSA idea, but I don't see this as controlling cost, which is the real problem. The expense of us having to pay for people that can't pay for themselves is a symptom of this problem.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 05:12 PM
 
Shaddim: regarding your cutting off padlocks and stuff, have you considered the idea that the idea is not to keep people away from the parks, but to keep the parks away from people, meaning their open invitation to deface/vandalize/abuse/dealing drugs/crime?

I'm sure park management is a limited deterrent at best, but it would seem to me that absolutely no supervision is an open-invitation for all of this sort of bottom feeding activity.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 05:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Funding the ACA, with more borrowed money, no less, isn't "budget related"? Riiiight.

I'll ask the same question I asked somebody else: what evidence do you have that the debt ceiling increase is needed to fund the ACA? CBO projections indicate that the ACA won't be running deficits, and while there are those (such as that foundation I linked to) who say that these projections are far from guarantees, they don't foresee significant deviation from these projections.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
I'm not sure how it's a step forward towards cost control. That's completely counter-intuitive given what we already understand about government-run public services.

Medicare doesn't control costs, it just limits coverage.

How much would it cost our society if we didn't have Medicare? I'm interested in both the direct and indirect costs.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Funding the ACA, with more borrowed money, no less, isn't "budget related"? Riiiight.
The ACA is an entitlement program. It is predominantly funded by mandatory spending that is exempt from the annual appropriations process which covers discretionary spending only. It is what it is until it is either repealed or modified through the legislative process.

Now the GOP hammered the Dem controlled Senate for not producing a budget in 4 years. And rightly so I might add. So last spring the Dems called their bluff and passed one after the House passed its budget. But for 6 months and counting the GOP controlled house has refused to even appoint representatives to the budget reconciliation conference committee that would finalize the budget using "regular order" that they have been harping about. After that the normal appropriations process can begin. But since the GOP apparently isn't all that enamored with "regular order" as they claimed ... they chose to sit on their hands until the last CR expired … thereby giving themselves what they consider to be additional "leverage" for the next CR. So-called leverage to "defund Obamacare" …. which is legislatively impossible via the annual appropriations process!

Many of the core parts of the health care law are funded through mandatory appropriations and wouldn’t be affected,” Gary Cohen, the Health and Human Services Department official overseeing the health care rollout, told reporters this week.

Translation: Obamacare’s good to go.

That’s pretty much how a former top GOP congressional budget expert sees it too. “A government shutdown, absent any legislation, does not fundamentally alter the Affordable Care Act,” said Bill Hoagland, now a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center, an advocacy group that’s trying to bridge the political divide in Washington.

Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, chief economic adviser to 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, concurs. “As a policy matter, it won’t succeed in stopping Obamacare,” he said of a government shutdown. “We have put much of the government on cruise control.”

The main benefits of the health care law – tax credits and expanded Medicaid – are mandatory spending and cannot be unwound through an annual funding bill for government operations. As for implementation money, much of it was provided under the law itself. Core functions such as operating call centers and building online systems are being handled by private contractors, not government employees. When money has run short, the administration has been able to divert unspent funds in other accounts.

In a report for Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., the Congressional Research Service concluded it’s likely the administration would continue to rely on alternative sources of implementation funding in the event of a shutdown.

So why are some Republicans prepared to go through with it? They’re betting that the public will blame Obama for being stubborn, although polls don’t bear that out. GOP party elders in the Senate are calling it a foolhardy strategy.
Not even a government shutdown can stop Obamacare now - Salon.com

This is why this entire fiasco is so freaking brain dead! We have a group of Tea Party wing nuts who either A) don't understand the legislative process at all because the only thing they bother to do in DC is vote to repeal Obamacare 40+ times and further restrict abortion, or B) they are cynically trying to get the Fox News crowd to believe that the annual appropriations process magically involves mandatory spending when Obamacare is involved even though they know better.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 06:24 PM
 
And in case that wasn't enough to convince you, here's this from a more conservative leaning media outlet ….

Money to fund Obamacare comes from two sources. A relatively small part of it, including some of the funds used to get the program going, comes from Congress' regular yearly appropriations. Congress could raise or lower the amounts without changing Obamacare itself. The defund-Obamacare Republicans in the Senate hope to strip out that discretionary funding from a continuing resolution needed to fund the government that Congress will debate in September.

They know they won't succeed. Democrats, with 54 votes, have enough to pass anything that requires a simple majority, and won't have much trouble getting to a filibuster-proof 60 votes, either. "I could count six or seven Republicans who would vote for full funding of the continuing resolution without breaking a sweat," says one Senate aide who supports defunding. "So they're going to get to 60."

But that's just the discretionary part of Obamacare. The far bigger portions of the program, including the billions and billions of dollars in subsidies that will start going to Americans on Jan. 1, are mandatory spending, an entitlement funded by an automatic appropriation which is written into law and runs without further congressional action. To change that, Congress would have to change Obamacare.

In the Senate, that would take 67 votes -- the amount needed to overcome a guaranteed presidential veto. If the 46 Senate Republicans voted unanimously to end the Obamacare entitlement, they would have to persuade 21 Democrats to go along.


The Senate Republicans advocating defunding know that's not going to happen. And since Senate Republicans are not even united themselves, they also don't have the power to shut down the government.

Of course, Republicans in the House do have the power to shut down the government, but even the most enthusiastic of the defund-Obamacare lawmakers in the Senate have real doubts as to whether Speaker John Boehner would do such a thing.

A shutdown would be "madness," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office who opposes Obamacare. "There is no exit strategy. It'll go on for a while, people will say Republicans shut down the government again, Republicans will cave, fund the government, and go on weakened and divided."

Some senators believe that if they could somehow shut off just the implementation funds, there would be no mechanism for the government to spend the mandatory money and, bingo, all of Obamacare would be effectively defunded. But Democrats thought of that back in 2009. A lot of Obamacare's implementation money comes from mandatory spending. It's going to flow no matter what, unless Republicans find those 67 votes.
No, the GOP is not going to defund Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com

Can we all agree that putting 800K - 1M people out of work as a result of this farcical "strategy" is just plain stupid any way you slice it?

The only way to eliminate the ACA is for the GOP to sweep the 2016 elections. Keep control of House. Win a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And win the White House. Shenanigans like this might play well in gerrymandered GOP districts in the South ... but on a national level its political suicide. So umm …. good luck with that.

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 07:16 PM
 
You know what, I'm so tired of you twisting things around that I'm not even going to address anything else you write until you decide to stop doing it. (Because I end up spending 2/3rds of a post playing whack-a-mole and correcting that crap, and by the time I do get to the meat of the issue, I find that I'm simply too annoyed to care anymore. By then, you've already started moving the focus again and acting like what was said before doesn't matter, and start the process again. I'm over it. Seriously, really, really.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 07:17 PM
 
So waht you're saying is, we should just keep financing all this crap by printing money. Great, let's crash our currency.

To be fair, ACA is only part of the problem. The massive fiscal irresponsibility and reckless debt accumulation over the last 20 years will come home to roost. There WILL be a day of reckoning.

-t
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 07:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
So waht you're saying is, we should just keep financing all this crap by printing money. Great, let's crash our currency.

To be fair, ACA is only part of the problem. The massive fiscal irresponsibility and reckless debt accumulation over the last 20 years will come home to roost. There WILL be a day of reckoning.

-t
When was the last time we had a real budget? 1997? Geezus...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 07:46 PM
 
On the plus side, my commute today around the beltway was gravy.

For once I actually got to spend more time with my client then scheduled. My business has become more efficient since the government shut down. Go Figure.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I think, if you are being intellectually honest, you will admit this had more to do with gerrymandering than the will of the people.
Are you going to be intellectually honest in your next post by backpedaling to pretend you really didn't think this phenomena was exclusive to one political party in the US?

egadz.

This is what we're dealing with here, folks. A complete shutdown.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
So waht you're saying is, we should just keep financing all this crap by printing money. Great, let's crash our currency.
This reminds me of the argument against delaying the individual mandate. It needs to be there they argued, because it is the young, healthy people that must help fund the whole scheme. I argued that too many are going to visit the site, determine it behooves them to pay the penalty ($300 Premiums vs much smaller fee), and leave the site. I was told "No they won't, it won't cost them $300 -- they'll be subsidized." Well then they won't be the young, healthy type of people we're hoping will help fund the whole scheme! Someone said math and politics don't mix, I'm beginning to agree.

To be fair, ACA is only part of the problem. The massive fiscal irresponsibility and reckless debt accumulation over the last 20 years will come home to roost. There WILL be a day of reckoning.
-t
Too true. I keep asking when it's okay to talk about spending without it being "terrorist", "Taliban-like", "hostage-taking". Though I do at least welcome their very recent concern over the budget process.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
And in case that wasn't enough to convince you, here's this from a more conservative leaning media outlet ….
No, the GOP is not going to defund Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
Article posted July 25th, 2013.

Can we all agree that putting 800K - 1M people out of work as a result of this farcical "strategy" is just plain stupid any way you slice it?
Can we first agree that the debate has shifted at least 5 different ways since July 25th? You might know, since then it has gone from de-fund to de-lay, but let's not let these pesky details get in our way right? At least we know they're political calculus in whether or not Boehner would actually let the Democrats shut down the government was incorrect. He certainly did.

The only way to eliminate the ACA is for the GOP to sweep the 2016 elections. Keep control of House. Win a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. And win the White House. Shenanigans like this might play well in gerrymandered GOP districts in the South ... but on a national level its political suicide. So umm …. good luck with that.

OAW
There's evidence to suggest the longer this plays out, the worse it gets for the Administration. They're at least as motivated to "win" as the GOP and IMO Dems are overplaying their hand here. Granted, the American people are a little slow from distraction, but they're catching on.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
You know what, I'm so tired of you twisting things around that I'm not even going to address anything else you write until you decide to stop doing it. (Because I end up spending 2/3rds of a post playing whack-a-mole and correcting that crap, and by the time I do get to the meat of the issue, I find that I'm simply too annoyed to care anymore. By then, you've already started moving the focus again and acting like what was said before doesn't matter, and start the process again. I'm over it. Seriously, really, really.
And what exactly am I twisting? I said the ACA wasn't related to the budget discussions included in the CR. You scoffed at that notion. I responded with these little things called FACTS that differentiate between mandatory spending and discretionary spending. Pointing out that the CR is all about the latter and that the ACA is primarily funded by the former. And now because you have no comeback you want to act all "exasperated". As if I said something that was in error. To borrow your words. "Riiiight".

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 09:52 PM
 
ebuddy,

The fundamental point my friend is that there are two buckets of federal spending. Mandatory and discretionary. The annual appropriations process deals with the latter. The ACA is funded primarily by the former. So this notion that hijacking the CR is in anyway going to actually "defund Obamacare" when it's funding comes from automatic spending is nonsensical at best. Yet we have members of the Tea Party faction of the GOP on record, in writing demanding this very thing. I trust you realize that I am not making this up.

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The fundamental point my friend is that there are two buckets of federal spending. Mandatory and discretionary.
Are you f*cking kidding me by trying to get "technical" on us ?'

How the hell does mandatory and discretionary matter when Obama has been operating WITHOUT A BUDGET for his entire life as the POTUS ?

How the hell does mandatory and discretionary matter when the $1 Trillion+ shortfall is just printed by the Fed ?

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 10:31 PM
 
Oh, and just in case you didn't know: Obama is on the side of the "shut downers".



-t
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 10:44 PM
 
He's been too busy making inappropriate comments about his opinions to remember this minor detail.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2013, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
ebuddy,

The fundamental point my friend is that there are two buckets of federal spending. Mandatory and discretionary. The annual appropriations process deals with the latter. The ACA is funded primarily by the former... with substantial delays to several provisions based on political whimsy and expediency. It's current iteration is no Law of the Land. This is not how law is implemented or enforced. So this notion that hijacking the CR is in anyway going to actually "defund Obamacare" when it's funding comes from automatic spending is nonsensical at best. Yet we have members of the Tea Party faction of the GOP on record, in writing demanding this very thing. I trust you realize that I am not making this up.

OAW
*Edited for perspective.

What you're making up is "defunding" being the demand hanging over this shutdown and the notion that it is Republicans hijacking the budget process. The budget process has been hijacked by Democrats since 2009. While I welcome your very recent concern for this process, you're a day late and as usual -- several trillion dollars short. There are members of both sides saying all kinds of crazy things. And then you post a conservative article about how it's impossible to defund Obamacare and Republicans know it. Exactly. That's why defunding has nothing to do with it. That's a Dem FUD campaign.

What's at issue here is political calculus; Dems are goading a shutdown with vitriol and outright refusal to compromise on a delay of the individual mandate and a very bipartisan-popular repeal of the medical device tax. Again, several provisions have already been delayed in an inequitable fashion, it's time to come clean with compromise on a fair implementation across the board. They could discuss and/or pass that which there is overwhelming bipartisan agreement such as again -- the medical device tax and/or various provisions to fund the most important functions of govt. Dems are playing what they believe is a favorable hand, but they're overplaying it IMO.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I was expecting somebody to bring up the competing across state lines thing. I've been thinking about that, and I don't think this makes sense.
The thing is, it is not a given that any business would *want* to expand across state lines if they are doing exceedingly well operating within a smaller geographic area.
There is no better accelerant for insurers than volume. It is the absolute cornerstone of any insurers' business model. Notwithstanding the administrative burden of breaking your entity into 50 parts to comply with 50 different packages of regulation. Worse, federalization of this already-distorted marketplace will only further discourage smaller start-ups that might specialize in specific coverage-types.

Expansion like this carries risk in falling under the company's own weight in a number of ways. If every company's desired M.O. was to expand to be as big as possible, every successful local franchise would aspire to nationalize (e.g. In N' Out Burger).
Health insurance is not a profitable industry without volume; their profit margins are very low. This is why most of the noteworthy health insurers are invested in multiple ventures. They have to make it worth their while to operate by setting up deals with States that makes any competition impossible. The overwhelming majority would love nothing more than to release themselves from such a bizarre arrangement and get their actuaries to work on substantially growing their volume.

Some businesses may feel that they operate best at a capped size/scope, some may feel like the same opportunity doesn't exist elsewhere because of competition elsewhere, some may simply feel little incentive if they are doing exceedingly well financially. You're right though, some may opt to nationalize, I'm not against that, my point is simply that it is far from a given that these companies would want to.
Okay, so let's say only half of the 3400 insurers would jump at the national market; that's 1698 more insurers than the average Joe has available to him today.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There is no better accelerant for insurers than volume. It is the absolute cornerstone of any insurers' business model. Notwithstanding the administrative burden of breaking your entity into 50 parts to comply with 50 different packages of regulation. Worse, federalization of this already-distorted marketplace will only further discourage smaller start-ups that might specialize in specific coverage-types.


Health insurance is not a profitable industry without volume; their profit margins are very low. This is why most of the noteworthy health insurers are invested in multiple ventures. They have to make it worth their while to operate by setting up deals with States that makes any competition impossible. The overwhelming majority would love nothing more than to release themselves from such a bizarre arrangement and get their actuaries to work on substantially growing their volume.


Okay, so let's say only half of the 3400 insurers would jump at the national market; that's 1698 more insurers than the average Joe has available to him today.


How would you propose to untangle the state by state regulation? If all restrictions were lifted, wouldn't companies just aim to compete in states with the least amount of regulation? What would force these companies from competing in all states, or would you be in favor of competition for the most lax regulation? Or, would you be in favor of some sort of national regulation?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 02:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post


What over-reactionary FUD....
Yup. Thats what was said of critics of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. And look where we're at now... A system that looks OK to those who don't use it much. And quite broken; but usable to those of us with very serious long term illnesses or family members of such. Of course I say usable, to me, while remembering it didn't work out that well for my friend who died a few months ago because the doc told her to stop being a hypochondriac when she had skin cancer. Thanks for the HMO Act liberals. It's been great!. As you can see we weren't able to rescind it once it failed saying "lets go back to the way things used to be". Most the people who think the current US system is great haven't ever really needed to use it. Everybody, who supports Obamacare are just people who supported everything about Obama before hand and don't have a clue what Obamacare is - because why would anyone support expansion in the direction of an already tried and failed philosophy?
the largest problem for Americans today is they eat too much food and dont have enough work to do to keep their heart healthy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 02:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Everybody, who supports Obamacare are just people who supported everything about Obama before hand and don't have a clue what Obamacare is - because why would anyone support expansion in the direction of an already tried and failed philosophy?

When did we try Obamacare in the past?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 08:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How would you propose to untangle the state by state regulation? If all restrictions were lifted, wouldn't companies just aim to compete in states with the least amount of regulation? What would force these companies from competing in all states, or would you be in favor of competition for the most lax regulation? Or, would you be in favor of some sort of national regulation?
One of the primary conundrums is the disparity in cost of coverages due to state-by-state mandates. If ever a situation existed for the oft abused Commerce clause, I should think this would be one of them. A policy for a 25 year old male in New Jersey is on average 5 times the cost of a policy in Kentucky and that has entirely to do with silly mandates for cadillac coverages including fertility treatments whether you need them or not, acupuncture if you want it or not... etc...

Larger employers (those employing 500+ people) who self-insure are allowed amnesty from their respective State-by-State regulations instead falling under ERISA Law administered by the US Dept of Labor. Federally authorized HSAs and compatible High Deductible Health Policies (HDHPs) are also exempt from most State regulations because they constitute loopholes in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 that grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. By going the HSA route as I have been suggesting, you have a natural means around the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Otherwise, the Act needs to be either repealed or amended to allow for greater interstate commerce.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Not sure where you're getting $50, unless you talking about a minimum wage job. If I put in $30k /yr as salary (typical), as a normal non-smoking 24 y/o dude, it comes up as $210 /mo.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

"Screw that, that's 4 new games for my PS4. It's bad enough I have to pay payroll taxes and car insurance, which are both lame, I'm not forking out another 200 bucks every month when I'm never sick, dude."
60% of 24 year olds make $24k/yr or less.

So according to the subsidy calculator, a 24 year olds making $24k/yr will by paying:

Bronze Plan: $192/yr or $16/mo after subsidy
Silver Plan: $628/yr or $52.33/mo after subsidy

$16/mo is nothing.

( Last edited by hyteckit; Oct 8, 2013 at 11:39 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 11:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
When did we try Obamacare in the past?
el chupacabra is just confused and doesn't have a clue about what Obamacare is.

I think he is trying to tell us he hates HMO's because his friend died from skin cancer and somehow this is why he is against Obamacare.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Yup. Thats what was said of critics of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. And look where we're at now... A system that looks OK to those who don't use it much. And quite broken; but usable to those of us with very serious long term illnesses or family members of such. Of course I say usable, to me, while remembering it didn't work out that well for my friend who died a few months ago because the doc told her to stop being a hypochondriac when she had skin cancer. Thanks for the HMO Act liberals. It's been great!. As you can see we weren't able to rescind it once it failed saying "lets go back to the way things used to be". Most the people who think the current US system is great haven't ever really needed to use it. Everybody, who supports Obamacare are just people who supported everything about Obama before hand and don't have a clue what Obamacare is - because why would anyone support expansion in the direction of an already tried and failed philosophy?
So US Doctors suck, HMO's suck, private health insurance suck, US healthcare system suck, liberals suck, and therefore Obamacare sucks?

Wait a minute. Didn't you just argue about how great the US healthcare system is and how "Europe and Canada are dependent on the US medical system for their current state of survival."

You think Obamacare is the expansion of HMO's?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
So US Doctors suck, HMO's suck, private health insurance suck, US healthcare system suck, liberals suck, and therefore Obamacare sucks?

Wait a minute. Didn't you just argue about how great the US healthcare system is and how "Europe and Canada are dependent on the US medical system for their current state of survival."

You think Obamacare is the expansion of HMO's?
No point in responding seriously to your nonsense if the best you can do is try to change what I said by putting words in my mouth for no reason other than to cheerlead dear leader and the great plans he has for your health. Have fun with the ACA. Here's a cartoon for you. Drink up. ObamaCare Videos

If ACA supporters can't see an obvious conflict of interest in having an organization rather than yourself, whether private insurance or government, determine the testing and treatment guidelines for your health when their profit is directly related to it, then there's nothing I can say to educate you.

"Here take this pill it will fix everything in your life." "How bout you take it first senator?" "Oh no.. I wouldn't touch that with a 20ft poll, I've got my own pill". "Wow sounds great!"
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 03:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
No point in responding seriously to your nonsense if the best you can do is try to change what I said by putting words in my mouth for no reason other than to cheerlead dear leader and the great plans he has for your health. Have fun with the ACA. Here's a cartoon for you. Drink up. ObamaCare Videos
Translation: "no sense responding to your nonsense because you like our communist leader, so here's a cartoon for you, suck on it!"

There is nothing better than taking what you think is nonsense and upping the ante with this kind of, uh, discourse?

His post may or may not have been nonsense, but I have to admit, what you wrote that inspired his response was kind of incoherent. Obamacare has not been tried before.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
60% of 24 year olds make $24k/yr or less.

So according to the subsidy calculator, a 24 year olds making $24k/yr will by paying:

Bronze Plan: $192/yr or $16/mo after subsidy
Silver Plan: $628/yr or $52.33/mo after subsidy

$16/mo is nothing.
Entirely bogus.



The premium and subsidy amounts above are based on a Silver plan. You have the option to apply the subsidy toward the purchase of other levels of coverage, such as a Gold plan (which would be more comprehensive) or a Bronze plan (which would be less comprehensive).

For example, you could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $1,153 per year (which is 4.8% of your household income, after taking into account $949 in subsidies). For most people, the Bronze plan represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although you would pay less in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, you will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if you enrolled in a Silver plan.


$16 /month, huh?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 03:28 PM
 
Yeah Hyteckit, I think Shaddim is right on that. I guess we won't know for certain until the official website starts working consistently, but I think $16/month for this salary is off.

Even if it were more like $130/month, that's still a substantial savings over what existed prior.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 03:30 PM
 
If the Right is as concerned with our debt as they say they are, maybe there are other ways to gain leverage other than compounding the problem with this shutdown? There are some estimates (although I don't know if they are accurate) that say that the shutdown has cost us $2,400,000,000 so far...
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Are you f*cking kidding me by trying to get "technical" on us ?'

How the hell does mandatory and discretionary matter when Obama has been operating WITHOUT A BUDGET for his entire life as the POTUS ?

How the hell does mandatory and discretionary matter when the $1 Trillion+ shortfall is just printed by the Fed ?

-t
The "budget" proposed by the POTUS and passed by Congress is essentially symbolic. Where the rubber meets the road is in the appropriations process. That's where federal agencies receive their true budgets. Like it or not, a CR is a budget. It says that federal agencies will continue to operate at existing funding levels ... because Congress can't get its act together and come to an agreement on how to change it. And the responsibility for that lies with Congress and Congress alone.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 08:49 PM
 
@ebuddy,

I agree that operating 50 different exchanges with 50 different sets of regulations is silly. Even prior to the ACA that's the way insurance works in America. One nationwide market makes a lot more sense. Increased competition and all that jazz. The problem is that politically there are those who exhibit an irrational fear at worst or distrust at best towards anything with the word "federal" in it. Which is why such an approach was a non-starter.

Did I think we should have done single-payer and called it a day? Absolutely. But short of that a federally regulated national health exchange would have been a lot better than what the Obama Administration could get past the conservative Dems in the Senate. Oh well.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 09:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If the Right is as concerned with our debt as they say they are, maybe there are other ways to gain leverage other than compounding the problem with this shutdown? There are some estimates (although I don't know if they are accurate) that say that the shutdown has cost us $2,400,000,000 so far...
The historical record makes it UNDENIABLY clear that the GOP only concerns itself with the national debt when a Dem is in the White House. I truly hope no one is foolish enough to deny that. Since 1980 deficits explode the MOST under GOP controlled White House and Congress. And they decrease the most under Dem Administrations. That's a fact. Make mistake about it. The GOP is only concerned about lower taxes. Deficits don't matter as VP Cheney said. Remember? Anyone concerned about DEFICITS and SPENDING would not pursue a path that would increase borrowing costs and further add to the deficit. And that's exactly what a default or another credit downgrade would do.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The historical record makes it UNDENIABLY clear that the GOP only concerns itself with the national debt when a Dem is in the White House. I truly hope no one is foolish enough to deny that. Since 1980 deficits explode the MOST under GOP controlled White House and Congress. And they decrease the most under Dem Administrations. That's a fact. Make mistake about it. The GOP is only concerned about lower taxes. Deficits don't matter as VP Cheney said. Remember? Anyone concerned about DEFICITS and SPENDING would not pursue a path that would increase borrowing costs and further add to the deficit. And that's exactly what a default or another credit downgrade would do.

OAW

I think both parties concern themselves with making money and preserving power, any of this actual debt lowering business is just happenstance.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 09:48 PM
 
^^^

Well the Dems pushed for PAYGO during the Clinton Administration. The GOP opposed it. Naturally when it worked and led to the only federal surpluses that any of us can remember they tried to take credit even though they were against the very mechanism that led to them. And as soon as GWB was elected they eliminated it. Then passed the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and two wars on the national credit card. And predictably enough the deficit exploded again. So let's not do the false equivalence thing. The ACA is paid for. Predicted by the CBO to reduce the deficit. Even if one is skeptical about the projections paying for it was undeniably attempted. Which is a far cry from what the GOP did for Medicare Part D. So ask yourself why this is the state of affairs?

The ACA ... passed by Dems ... levied taxes to pay for its cost yet the GOP decries it as a program that will bankrupt the nation.

Medicare Part D ... passed by the GOP ... made no attempt whatsoever to pay for itself but the GOP is as quiet as a church mouse about that.

Really?

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2013, 09:58 PM
 
And for the record. Sen. Obama voting against a debt ceiling increase was stupid. He is certainly not the only one who has done so when it was certainly a symbolic protest vote. On both sides of the aisle. But it has come back to bite him in the ass now that he is POTUS. That being said, the debt ceiling itself is just as stupid. If Congress doesn't want the national debt to exceed a certain limit then do your freaking job and make sure you have enough revenues to cover your expenditures. By whatever combination of revenue increases or spending decreases the public supports. But naturally that would be too much like right.

OAW
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 12:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Are you going to be intellectually honest in your next post by backpedaling to pretend you really didn't think this phenomena was exclusive to one political party in the US?

egadz.

This is what we're dealing with here, folks. A complete shutdown.
Sure, gerrymandering has historically benefitted both parties, however the republicans have been much more successful at it of late as they control more state legislatures. This is how they managed to go down in popularity, get far less congressional votes nationally, and still control the house by a healthy margin. I'm not saying anything radical here, do five minuets of research if you were generally not aware that this is true.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 12:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I think, if you are being intellectually honest, you will admit this had more to do with gerrymandering than the will of the people.
Oh, in the same manner that ObamaCare has little to do with the will of the [majority of the] people ?

-t
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 02:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Translation: "no sense responding to your nonsense because you like our communist leader, so here's a cartoon for you, suck on it!"

There is nothing better than taking what you think is nonsense and upping the ante with this kind of, uh, discourse?
As I made clear, that wasn't meant for discourse... And since you're so good at translating words into the mouths of others now, how bout you translate the forum troll's post into something constructive, and inform me how it didn't up the ante, since you seem to think the post has value.
His post may or may not have been nonsense, but I have to admit, what you wrote that inspired his response was kind of incoherent. Obamacare has not been tried before.
I didn't say Obamacare has been tried before. I did say something to the effect of people who support Obamacare don't understand it. Was that upping the ante? As you can see the troll accused me of not understanding ACA a few posts above. This coming from the person who thought it cute to joke about a pre-existing condition with an insurance company... over the phone... He thought they'd think he was funny... That they would care about his health... Then he come's crying about the consequences on macnn. He who constantly proclaims intellectual superiority on issues yet clearly has trouble understanding and working within the current system thats been around for...

Moving on. I'll try to clarify. The health care debate mostly focuses on 2 sides, the democrat-fantasy way and republican-status-quo way. I Don't support either. I don't like either. I don't have to like either. I came up with another way. But if I had to choose between the dem way and the republican way, I'd choose the republican way. I'm sorry if that's too incoherent and makes me cynical. I'm sorry if that's so complicated it elicits "you said everything sucks!" responses from our teenage forums trolls and you feel compelled to defend them. The correct healthcare solution is one that encourages and relies on personal responsibility rather than discourage it. Nobody in the government or insurance world is going to bend over backwards for your health. I'm just saying, that's fantasy, and it's been proven by the fact that every time personal responsibilities get shifted more to government or certain corporations, things go south. I don't see how people can be so vehemently against the personal-responsibility way.
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Oct 9, 2013 at 02:20 AM. )
the largest problem for Americans today is they eat too much food and dont have enough work to do to keep their heart healthy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 03:34 AM
 
If we're going to require a mandate, why not make everyone have a HSA instead (the added benefit being that their money is still theirs, and earning interest in a mutual fund) and expand Medicaid to cover all "catastrophic care" for everyone who can't afford a private policy? This way the HSAs have the added benefit of actually benefitting the economy.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 03:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Oh, in the same manner that ObamaCare has little to do with the will of the [majority of the] people ?

-t

This is not a given. There are polls that show when you refer to the ACA as the ACA rather than Obamacare, the results are significantly different. This illustrates a lot of confusion.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 03:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
As I made clear, that wasn't meant for discourse... And since you're so good at translating words into the mouths of others now, how bout you translate the forum troll's post into something constructive, and inform me how it didn't up the ante, since you seem to think the post has value.

I didn't say Obamacare has been tried before. I did say something to the effect of people who support Obamacare don't understand it. Was that upping the ante? As you can see the troll accused me of not understanding ACA a few posts above. This coming from the person who thought it cute to joke about a pre-existing condition with an insurance company... over the phone... He thought they'd think he was funny... That they would care about his health... Then he come's crying about the consequences on macnn. He who constantly proclaims intellectual superiority on issues yet clearly has trouble understanding and working within the current system thats been around for...

Moving on. I'll try to clarify. The health care debate mostly focuses on 2 sides, the democrat-fantasy way and republican-status-quo way. I Don't support either. I don't like either. I don't have to like either. I came up with another way. But if I had to choose between the dem way and the republican way, I'd choose the republican way. I'm sorry if that's too incoherent and makes me cynical. I'm sorry if that's so complicated it elicits "you said everything sucks!" responses from our teenage forums trolls and you feel compelled to defend them. The correct healthcare solution is one that encourages and relies on personal responsibility rather than discourage it. Nobody in the government or insurance world is going to bend over backwards for your health. I'm just saying, that's fantasy, and it's been proven by the fact that every time personal responsibilities get shifted more to government or certain corporations, things go south. I don't see how people can be so vehemently against the personal-responsibility way.

This is all fair, but what you original said, if I recall, is that the Dem way will have predictable results because we have tried this before.

Moving on...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 9, 2013, 03:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
If we're going to require a mandate, why not make everyone have a HSA instead (the added benefit being that their money is still theirs, and earning interest in a mutual fund) and expand Medicaid to cover all "catastrophic care" for everyone who can't afford a private policy? This way the HSAs have the added benefit of actually benefitting the economy.

What would the role of employers be?
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,