Obamacare & Government Shutdowns

Mjollnir

nagilum2 wrote: »

*IF* any of the Republicans are uprooted at all, it won't be the teaparty types. It'll be whatever moderates are left, because they're the only ones in vulnerable districts. Meanwhile, the hardcore dem districts will elect more extreme left types and the hardcore repub districts will elect more teaparty types.

All that will happen is even greater polarization and greater gridlock.

Really? What's a 'extreme left type' democrat, and why do you think those districts would go that way?

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Except I didn't did I? I said its no reason to give up.

:P

InTheTrees

The difference in 2014 is that republicans are going to have to run on Repealing Obamacare.

It'll be interesting. I'm not saying it'll be easy for democrats to even get a few seats, but it'll be a good referendum on how well ObamaCare is doing after a year.

RichardoKhan

Yanks should stand by their convictions. If Obama/Democrats is good enough for President then they are good enough for Government. This Gridlock voting (Vote one way for President another way for Senate/Congress)by a certain % of the middle class is unhealthy & stupid.
Delighted its come back to haunt them. They need to Kop on fast..............

IvySlayer

RichardoKhan wrote: »

Yanks should stand by their convictions. If Obama/Democrats is good enough for President then they are good enough for Government. This Gridlock voting (Vote one way for President another way for Senate/Congress)by a certain % of the middle class is unhealthy & stupid.
Delighted its come back to haunt them. They need to Kop on fast..............

President is head of the federal government and commander in chief

Congress pass laws and is in charge of the budget

InTheTrees

RichardoKhan wrote: »

Yanks should stand by their convictions. If Obama/Democrats is good enough for President then they are good enough for Government. This Gridlock voting (Vote one way for President another way for Senate/Congress)by a certain % of the middle class is unhealthy & stupid.

Its a different system. Not a Parliamentary system. And it relies on a bit of bipartisan cooperation and as a way of keeping balance.

Of course when you get a bunch of barely literate obstructionists hell bent on not cooperating you end up with a situation like we currently have.

It will work itself out though.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a different system. Not a Parliamentary system. And it relies on a bit of bipartisan cooperation and as a way of keeping balance.

Of course when you get a bunch of barely literate obstructionists hell bent on not cooperating you end up with a situation like we currently have.

It will work itself out though.

It's designed to keep change slow. It's to avoid fascism.

InTheTrees

RichardoKhan wrote: »

Delighted its come back to haunt them.

Why? How would you do it?

Its easy enough to govern a tiny country like Ireland with one assembly,but with a massive place like the US with different states you need a Federal Government in addition to the State governments.

Filibuster

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a different system. Not a Parliamentary system. And it relies on a bit of bipartisan cooperation and as a way of keeping balance.

Of course when you get a bunch of barely literate obstructionists hell bent on not cooperating you end up with a situation like we currently have.

Who the Dems who pushed through Obamacare without a single bipartisan vote

nagilum2

Filibuster wrote: »

Who the Dems who pushed through Obamacare without a single bipartisan vote

Yes but they got hammered for it the following election.

Mjollnir

nagilum2 wrote: »

Yes but they got hammered for it the following election.

Yeah, that's pretty much what President Romney says, as well.

nagilum2

Mjollnir wrote: »

Yeah, that's pretty much what President Romney says, as well.

I'm sorry, I used the key word, "next", to indicate it was the next election (you know, the one where democrats lost 52 63 seats), not the next next election.

The Republican Party gained 63 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, recapturing the majority, and making it the largest seat change since 1948 and the largest for any midterm election since the 1938 midterm elections.

Amerika

Let's recap:

The majority of the American people didn't want mandated ObamaCare then, nor do they want it now. On a national average ObamaCare increases men's individual premiums by 99% and women's premiums by 62%. And more and more doctors won’t accept it. Seemingly not very good for the people, eh?

* So Congressional House Republicans voted to fully fund all of the government, except for ObamaCare. The House is supposed to be the most reflective branch of government to represent the people's will... Correct?

Employers are firing people or moving them into part-time status to avoid the law's mandates (97% of all the jobs added to the economy this year are part-time jobs). In response, the Obama administration delays the requirement that large employers provide health insurance coverage to workers – until after the 2014 midterm elections. But the individual mandate remains, as does the PPACA’s taxes and fees.

* Republicans then voted to fully fund the government, but delay the implementation of Obamacare for one year. Why should big business get a reprieve, but not the people?

ObamaCare is good for Thee, but not for Me? Congress has decided to exempt themselves and their staff, large business who are Democratic contributors, supportive unions, and many of Nancy Pelosi's constituents from ObamaCare mandates. So if Obamacare is so good for everyone, why are members of Congress, who wrote the legislation, and the unions who desperately lobbied for it, trying to get out of it when it became reality for the rest of us? Hmmm.

* So Republicans again voted to fully fund the government, but added a requirement that everyone, EVERYONE, live under the mandates of ObamaCare. No special waivers for Congress, no special waivers for big business, no special waivers for unions… unless the same waivers are given to the rest of the “People.”

The media hails the Democrats in the budget struggle as saviors and castigates the Republicans. Thankfully for the Democrats the media has chosen to play the people rather than serve them, and most of us buy into it... hook - line - and sinker.

Thank god for the low-information voter!!! A recent study, called the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, concluded that US adults are dumber than the average human. Hard to argue to the contrary anymore.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

Let's recap:

The majority of the American people didn't want mandated ObamaCare then, nor do they want it now.

Why didn't the majority just elect Romney then?

Also listen to Sen McCain on the matter and how he even sees this approach to stopping it is just not the will of the people!

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

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Let's recap:
The majority of the American people didn't want mandated ObamaCare then, nor do they want it now. On a national average ObamaCare increases men's individual premiums by 99% and women's premiums by 62%.

Funny. Republicans are getting more and more desperate. The talk for the last couple of days hasnt even mentioned ObamaCare, the argument is now over the debt limit.

They've gone strangely quiet on Obamacare.

From AP today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — GOP aides say House Speaker John Boehner will ask House Republicans to approve a short-term extension of the government's ability to borrow to meet its bills. The Ohio Republican is slated to urge his staunchly conservative GOP colleagues to act before the government runs out of borrowing authority next week.
Republicans have been insistent that budget cuts and other measures be added to the so-called debt ceiling legislation but the aides wouldn't say whether he'll seek to add other material to the measure.
The aides required anonymity to reveal the information before Boehner makes an announcement after a closed-door meeting with his GOP colleagues.

clairefontaine

Given the number of big business exemptions an people not see this is a way for these feudal corporations to destroy small business?

InTheTrees

Republicans hit a record low in popularity:

"There may be plenty of blame to go around for the nine-day government shutdown, but the Republican brand is taking the harder hit in public opinion. Just 28 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of the Republican Party, down 10 percentage points from last month, according to a Gallup poll. The polling firm called it a "record low," noting that "this is the lowest favorable rating measured for either party since Gallup began asking this question in 1992."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/09/republican-party-rating_n_4072716.html

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

Given the number of big business exemptions an people not see this is a way for these feudal corporations to destroy small business?

Because an exemption to a big corp doesnt mean the employees themselves cant go out and use the exchanges.

Besides cutting the tie between having a job and having healthcare can only empower employees.

Its much more likely that people tied to their big corporations benefits will be able to go out and work for themselves, or a small business that couldnt afford them before.

Amerika

With the administration desperate to get young people to sign up for ObamaCare, the Department of Heath and Human Services sponsored the "Health Young America" video contest to see who can produce the best videos to convince young people to sign up for health care insurance under the mandate. It offered a prize pool worth up to $30,000.

Here is my vote for best video. I doubt Remy wins the prize from the HHS, but as consolation he might expect visits from the IRS and NSA bearing something other than gifts.

It should be required viewing.

20Cent

Say a young person decides not to have health insurance, then something happens, serious injury or sickness. What happens then? Are republicans willing to let someone die because they don't have insurance?
Hopefully not, but then the state picks up the tap for this young person. Surely making everyone have insurance means that the state won't be picking up the cost of uninsured people.
Mandating that everyone has insurance seems a fairer way doing it. Unless you are ok with just letting people bleed out in traffic accidents.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Say a young person decides not to have health insurance, then something happens, serious injury or sickness. What happens then? Are republicans willing to let someone die because they don't have insurance?
Hopefully not, but then the state picks up the tap for this young person. Surely making everyone have insurance means that the state won't be picking up the cost of uninsured people.
Mandating that everyone has insurance seems a fairer way doing it. Unless you are ok with just letting people bleed out in traffic accidents.

Even with the insurance mandate, it is expected 30+ million still won't be insured. Are democrats willing to let someone die because they don't have insurance? Or will they be handled the same way they've always been?

nagilum2

20Cent wrote: »

Say a young person decides not to have health insurance, then something happens, serious injury or sickness. What happens then? Are republicans willing to let someone die because they don't have insurance?
Hopefully not, but then the state picks up the tap for this young person. Surely making everyone have insurance means that the state won't be picking up the cost of uninsured people.
Mandating that everyone has insurance seems a fairer way doing it. Unless you are ok with just letting people bleed out in traffic accidents.

As I've stated before Obamacare really does very little to cover uninsured. This has been covered loads: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/08/left-behind-stories-from-obamacares-31-million-uninsured/

But it definitely will cause premiums to skyrocket. That much we know.

The only BIG winners are the IRS (lots of new enforcement hammers to hit people with), and the big insurance/pharma/medical corporations & lobbyists (who also just happened to be the ones who wrote it).

Jonny7

I'll plead lack of interest/knowledge in Obamacare

What are the main differences between it and e.g. the NHS?

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Even with the insurance mandate, it is expected 30+ million still won't be insured. Are democrats willing to let someone die because they don't have insurance? Or will they be handled the same way they've always been?

30 million is a lot less than the current 48 million currently uninsured.
Assuming that people won't be left to die then those uninsured costs will be picked up by the state. So the cost has been shifted away from the state and onto the individual, thought that was what right wingers want, individual responsibility and all that.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

30 million is a lot less than the current 48 million currently uninsured.
Assuming that people won't be left to die then those uninsured costs will be picked up by the state. So the cost has been shifted away from the state and onto the individual, thought that was what right wingers want, individual responsibility and all that.

Picked up by the State? Dream on!

And if ObamaCare has little effect… except for massive and costly increases of the federal bureaucracy, massive increases to the national debt, decreases in wealth due to the huge premium increases for the middle and lower classes, causes millions to lose their jobs or be moved into part-time status because of employer mandates, and long waits for people needing medical attention... will you be storming the Capital with pitchforks and torches demanding an end to the train wreck, or continue to tout the wonders of ObamaCare because… well, just because?

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Picked up by the State? Dream on!

And if ObamaCare has little effect… except for massive and costly increases of the federal bureaucracy, massive increases to the national debt, decreases in wealth due to the huge premium increases for the middle and lower classes, causes millions to lose their jobs or be moved into part-time status because of employer mandates, and long waits for people needing medical attention... will you be storming the Capital with pitchforks and torches demanding an end to the train wreck, or continue to tout the wonders of ObamaCare because… well, just because?

So what happens to the person who arrives in A&E with no insurance? Who pays for that?

clairefontaine

20Cent wrote: »

So what happens to the person who arrives in A&E with no insurance? Who pays for that?

Its a write off.

Hospitals pad their bills all the time.

They send their inflated bills to the insurance companies who pay for it.

Who pays the insurance companies? People and businesses do.

So in effect the insurance companies are already paying for those who don't have insurance because the hospital billing departments inflate their bills.

Amerika

clairefontaine wrote: »

Its a write off.

Hospitals pad their bills all the time.

They send their inflated bills to the insurance companies who pay for it.

Who pays the insurance companies? People and businesses do.

So in effect the insurance companies are already paying for those who don't have insurance because the hospital billing departments inflate their bills.

And the process remains the same even under ObamaCare.

clairefontaine

Amerika wrote: »

And the process remains the same even under ObamaCare.

So instead of tackling all this complicit fraud, they decide to enable and expand it.

InTheTrees

20Cent wrote: »

So what happens to the person who arrives in A&E with no insurance? Who pays for that?

The hospital sells the debt to a "collection agency" that will try and recover the money, if it fails it claims it as an irrecoverable loss on its taxes and is allowed to write it off; which means the American Tax Payer is paying the bill.

Not the insurance company or the hospital.

Which is why the US Government already pays more per person in Healthcare than any other country in the world with a health "system" that ranks as worse than Morocco or costa rica. (38th in the world). Life expectancy in the USA is actually falling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

nagilum2

InTheTrees wrote: »

The hospital sells the debt to a "collection agency" that will try and recover the money, if it fails it claims it as an irrecoverable loss on its taxes and is allowed to write it off; which means the American Tax Payer is paying the bill.

Not the insurance company or the hospital.

Which is why the US Government already pays more per person in Healthcare than any other country in the world with a health "system" that ranks as worse than Morocco or costa rica. (38th in the world). Life expectancy in the USA is actually falling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems

You don't understand how tax writeoffs work. Their tax bill is reduced but not by the amount of the writeoff.

InTheTrees

nagilum2 wrote: »

You don't understand how tax writeoffs work. Their tax bill is reduced but not by the amount of the writeoff.

Here you go, from wiki:
"Shared costs of the uninsured

Main article: Uninsured in the United States
The costs of treating the uninsured must often be absorbed by providers as charity care, passed on to the insured via cost shifting and higher health insurance premiums, or paid by taxpayers through higher taxes.[81] However, hospitals and other providers are reimbursed for the cost of providing uncompensated care via a federal matching fund program."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Healthcare

InTheTrees

While I'm on the US Healthcare wiki page this info is relevant to this thread:

"The United States life expectancy of 78.4 years at birth, up from 75.2 years in 1990, ranks it 50th among 221 nations, and 27th out of the 34 industrialized OECD countries, down from 20th in 1990.[2][3] Of 17 high-income countries studied by the National Institutes of Health in 2013, the United States had the highest or near-highest prevalence of infant mortality, heart and lung disease, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancies, injuries, homicides, and disability. Together, such issues place the U.S. at the bottom of the list for life expectancy. On average, a U.S. male can be expected to live almost four fewer years than those in the top-ranked country.[4]
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.9%), than any other nation in 2011. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most. In a 2013 Bloomberg ranking of nations with the most efficient health care systems, the United States ranks 46th among the 48 countries included in the study.[5]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Healthcare

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

While I'm on the US Healthcare wiki page this info is relevant to this thread:

"The United States life expectancy of 78.4 years at birth, up from 75.2 years in 1990, ranks it 50th among 221 nations, and 27th out of the 34 industrialized OECD countries, down from 20th in 1990.[2][3] Of 17 high-income countries studied by the National Institutes of Health in 2013, the United States had the highest or near-highest prevalence of infant mortality, heart and lung disease, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancies, injuries, homicides, and disability. Together, such issues place the U.S. at the bottom of the list for life expectancy. On average, a U.S. male can be expected to live almost four fewer years than those in the top-ranked country.[4]
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.9%), than any other nation in 2011. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most. In a 2013 Bloomberg ranking of nations with the most efficient health care systems, the United States ranks 46th among the 48 countries included in the study.[5]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Healthcare

That has to do with guns and drugs.

Overheal

Of course I get a customer yesterday who dragged politics into retail, something I loathe.

He was upset that he couldn't budget for what he needed because his wife was furloughed "While Obama golf's every weekend"

I thought to myself 'ah sure he golfs but is that an exaggeration?' because I'm used to hyperbole. desensitized to it even.

It turns out no it is not.

http://obamagolfcounter.com/

InTheTrees

Overheal wrote: »

It turns out no it is not.

Really?

Did you go the site?

It says:

[SIZE=+1]As of September 29th, 2013[/SIZE]

When did the Shutdown begin?

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

That has to do with guns and drugs.

Does it matter?

It still ranks 38th which is lower than Colombia (22nd). The Cocaine and drug capital of South America.

InTheTrees

InTheTrees wrote: »

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the United States spent more on health care per capita ($8,608), and more on health care as percentage of its GDP (17.9%), than any other nation in 2011. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries, and notes U.S. care costs the most. In a 2013 Bloomberg ranking of nations with the most efficient health care systems, the United States ranks 46th among the 48 countries included in the study.[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Healthcare

clairefontaine wrote: »

That has to do with guns and drugs.

Not the second paragraph.

20Cent

clairefontaine wrote: »

Its a write off.

Hospitals pad their bills all the time.

They send their inflated bills to the insurance companies who pay for it.

Who pays the insurance companies? People and businesses do.

So in effect the insurance companies are already paying for those who don't have insurance because the hospital billing departments inflate their bills.

So surely in that case the more people who have insurance the better for everyone? 18 odd million more people will be insured under Obamacare according to the numbers Amerika posted, have seen larger numbers elsewhere. If you are going to be paying for it one way or the other insurance must be the best way.

Also you have all the people who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions can get it now. Another burden off the taxpayer. By having access to healthcare conditions can be diagnosed earlier and sorted more cheaply than the person landing into A&E at an advanced and more expensive stage.

I get the idea of the young person who is fit and healthy who might want to chance a few years without insurance but they seem like freeloaders to me. Even if they never need it the help is there in an emergency. They will also get old one day and will probably need it then. Even if one lives their whole lives without ever having to use it there is a benefit from the peace of mind. I have home insurance, I hope never to need it but at least I know I won't be wiped out financially just because of an accident.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

So surely in that case the more people who have insurance the better for everyone? 18 odd million more people will be insured under Obamacare according to the numbers Amerika posted, have seen larger numbers elsewhere. If you are going to be paying for it one way or the other insurance must be the best way.

Also you have all the people who can't get insurance because of pre-existing conditions can get it now. Another burden off the taxpayer. By having access to healthcare conditions can be diagnosed earlier and sorted more cheaply than the person landing into A&E at an advanced and more expensive stage.

I get the idea of the young person who is fit and healthy who might want to chance a few years without insurance but they seem like freeloaders to me. Even if they never need it the help is there in an emergency. They will also get old one day and will probably need it then. Even if one lives their whole lives without ever having to use it there is a benefit from the peace of mind. I have home insurance, I hope never to need it but at least I know I won't be wiped out financially just because of an accident.

Sorry, you don’t get to be half pregnant. Don’t forget ObamaCare is already driving up premium costs substantially. Add to that the premium increases that will be passed on to the premium payees if the young don’t sign up as expected to pay for the elderly and sick. And add to it the cost to hospitals for those that remain uninsured that will also be passed on to the insurance companies in the form of high operating costs and will be paid by even higher premiums to the payees. This ObamaCare thing will drive up health care premiums to unrealistic levels, will continue to force employers to fire and move employees to part-time, and add Trillions to the deficit. In a year or two we will be praying we could get back to the good old days of GW Bush... Unless you're one of those whose hand is perpetually extended expecting more and more handouts that is. Sorry, 18 million or so more just doesn't cut it.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Unless you're one of those whose hand is perpetually extended expecting more and more handouts that is.

Damn those poor people, they always just muddy everything up dont they?

:pac:

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

Damn those poor people, they always just muddy everything up dont they?

:pac:

Eh, that's quite a disparaging comment against poor people.

More like the limo sense liberals on the east and west coasts.

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

Eh, that's quite a disparaging comment against poor people.

More like the limo sense liberals on the east and west coasts.

Its sarcasm?

Directed at right wingers and their disregard for the unfortunate.

Also I think the expression is "Limousine Liberals".

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its sarcasm?

Directed at right wingers and their disregard for the unfortunate.

Also I think the expression is "Limousine Liberals".

He never said anything about the poor.

How can you support Obama care with all its corporate exemptions? Maybe he was talking about corporate handouts?

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

How can you support Obama care with all its corporate exemptions?

Its called compromise.

Because the debate over healthcare over the last eight years would never have got anywhere with the republicans if their beloved insurance companies hadnt got a break. Also the small business exemption.

Those were all republican conditions. (Healthcare reform in the USA has been held up for decades by the stranglehold of the Insurance lobby in congress and this is a way of loosening their grip.)

This has been debated since even before the 2008 election. And the work on the law was started in '09 I think. they've been haggling over this for years, which is why the shutdown is such a surprise seeing as its been engineered by a very small minority in the republican party.

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

Really?

Did you go the site?

It says:

[SIZE=+1]As of September 29th, 2013[/SIZE]

When did the Shutdown begin?

Read harder:

AS OF September 29th, when the data was most recently collected,

And if you scroll to the bottom there is a list of each golfing event with a source

Fact is he does his golfing with obscene frequency for a CIC. If he gets through the shutdown without a hole or two of golf I'll be inpressed

Edit: and sure enough http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/06/Obama-s-Golf-Course-Has-Been-Spared-from-the-Shutdown

The day of the deadline he packs a few swings in so he can avoid it for a few days. Can't imagine how long he will be abstinent for though

InTheTrees

Overheal wrote: »

Read harder:

AS OF September 29th, when the data was most recently collected,

And if you scroll to the bottom there is a list of each golfing event with a source

So he hasnt played since the shutdown then?

And the point is?

Overheal

InTheTrees wrote: »

So he hasnt played since the shutdown then?

And the point is?

More the overall point that he takes his leisure time seriously. And trust me he'd be out on the green right now (the weather is AMAZING today) if he wasn't worried about the media backlash aside from the off season he's missed very few weekends of golf in the last few years

Mjollnir

Overheal wrote: »

Read harder:

AS OF September 29th, when the data was most recently collected,

And if you scroll to the bottom there is a list of each golfing event with a source

Fact is he does his golfing with obscene frequency for a CIC. If he gets through the shutdown without a hole or two of golf I'll be inpressed

Edit: and sure enough http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/06/Obama-s-Golf-Course-Has-Been-Spared-from-the-Shutdown

The day of the deadline he packs a few swings in so he can avoid it for a few days. Can't imagine how long he will be abstinent for though

Some perspective might be in order: http://theweek.com/article/index/235844/deconstructing-the-5-most-ridiculous-myths-about-barack-obama

"And why is it an outrage if the president, who heads one of three branches of government, golfs 104 times in three-and-a-half-years, but the head of another branch of government, the Speaker of the House, plays four times as much? You heard correctly: John Boehner once told Golf Digest that he plays upwards of 100 rounds a year. Seems like a double standard, no?"

That, and typical of breitbart, Obama doesn't 'have' golf course.

That fact is that nothing about it is particularly 'obscene'.

Stupid hyperbole is stupid.

"Once told."