Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[skinsmarydu]

Well said, Elessar78.  I guess you've heard about the Congressman with 10 (yes, number is correct, some are adopted) kids on Medicaid, because it's "the only practical option" (his own words yes they are)...yet in his "statement of  purpose", he's against Medicaid. 

We can't buy better advertising.  I'll laugh my way through the voting line, I swear.

[chipwhich]

I thought the reason the gov't is forcing people to have health insurance is to cap the overall spending on healthcare by making sure people have medical care before they need more expensive emergency room visits. 

 

TWA, like many of his persuasion, will avail himself of it and rail against it vehemently. Like those people at Tea Party rallies who are on Medicare but don't want gov't involved in their healthcare. Facepalm. 

 

We get it, you guys hate it. Rationalize it however you want, but it all comes down to you hate Obama, hate his policies—never mind the fact that this is based on a Heritage Foundation blue print (no matter how much they walk it back), never mind the fact that Romney put in play a very similar plan in Massachusetts. 

 

The arguments in this thread are circular. One side throws out half-assed, fear mongered half-truths and another side gives rational rebuttals only to be met with a change of tack. Tomatoes stain your clothes . . . well, you can get the stain out with Shout . . . Tomatoes are too acidic. 

 

It all comes down to is, if you're a business owner or rich, you don't want to pay more. Tough. To flip the script as have been used against "us" before—"If you don't like it, you can get the hell out." Don't like how gov't is pushing you around by linking desired behavior to taxation? Please be the first to give back your deductions for kids and marriage and homeownership. Yes, it's wholly unfair to have to be taxed at a higher rate for every dollar above a threshold. Go ahead, find a better deal elsewhere. Sorry, American society as a whole doesn't believe in your right to buy your third, fully-loaded BMW before certain things are taken care of.  

 

Elessar, for someone who talks about one side giving rational rebuttals and one side giving lies, I would like to point out that your post here is nothing but political stone throwing.

If you have a point on Obamacare that is factual and rational, make it.  If you can rebut any post I have made on the reasons I don't like Obamacare (which by the way has nothing to do with the reasons in your posts) than rebut.

 

If anyone on this board as of late doesn't back up their posts, it's the left crowd.  It's easy to say evil GOP bad bad bad.  Those type of posts, like yours above, have no meat or substance.

 

If you want to debate Obamacare, lay out some things you think are good about it.

[Larry]

Elessar, for someone who talks about one side giving rational rebuttals and one side giving lies, I would like to point out that your post here is nothing but political stone throwing.

If you have a point on Obamacare that is factual and rational, make it. If you can rebut any post I have made on the reasons I don't like Obamacare (which by the way has nothing to do with the reasons in your posts) than rebut.

If anyone on this board as of late doesn't back up their posts, it's the left crowd. It's easy to say evil GOP bad bad bad. Those type of posts, like yours above, have no meat or substance.

If you want to debate Obamacare, lay out some things you think are good about it.

Perhaps if you read the first sentence in the post you quoted?

[chipwhich]

Perhaps if you read the first sentence in the post you quoted?

 

Oh, ok, sorry I missed it.

So yeah Obamacare FINES people who don't get health insurance.  I think this topic has been discussed in this thread as one of the things I don't like.  It doesn't even solve that problem as nobody is FORCED to actually buy the insurance.  It's a choice with a tax associated with not making the governments preferred choice.

Now the fact that the above statement is true has nothing to do with a political agenda.  And I don't hate Obama. 

[Larry]

Deleted post.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Larry

[twa]

I thought the reason the gov't is forcing people to have health insurance is to cap the overall spending on healthcare by making sure people have medical care before they need more expensive emergency room visits. 

 

TWA, like many of his persuasion, will avail himself of it and rail against it vehemently. Like those people at Tea Party rallies who are on Medicare but don't want gov't involved in their healthcare. Facepalm. 

 

 

 

 

Problem is ACA does next to nothing to eliminate more expensive emergency room visits

 

as to the other , remember that the next time ya fill up or heat your house 

[Jumbo]

Problem is ACA does <edit>

 

 What is wrong with you? Unless you're a libtard, you call it "Obamacare."

 

I just left a living room where Fox News (which rules there 24-7) had the word playing across the screen almost continuously, and tied to a dozen different stories in a little over 45 minutes, and the word was also spoken about 150 times (ok, I exaggerate. It was only around 100 times) in that same period.

 

The five people there (two women, three men---see if you can guess their three other major demographic components--all excellent potential message board posters--i.e. global historical sociopolitical geniuses) were either confused (two) or seriously annoyed (all) by my use of the term ACA. They tried to "group-correct" me quite animatedly, even though I was actually being critical of the ACA at the time (and without "blaming conservatives").

 

They edjikated me up good.

 

BTW, did you know the world may end Nov 13th and Obama is leading an international conspiracy with NASA and JPL cooperation to hide the fact that aliens disguising their ship as the comet Isotope (whatever) are heading here to do who knows what, and that an already-announced (by Janet Napalitano!) and huge military/defense exercise to protect us against possible massive cyber attacks from foreign enemies will be conducted on the same day as part the plan. It's bigger than the secret FEMA shock troops (100,000 strong, recruited from ghettos <not making this up--it was talked about in many places>, and buying up all the .40 cal ammo) that backed the secret takeover we just had on Oct. 1. Am I off topic? 

 

[twa]

I'd tell ya to avoid watching the news but then ya might think I'm trying to convert ya to Scientology  

 

A island sounds better every day amigo

[Wrong Direction]

I've been thinking a little more about the meaning of the website crashes. My conclusion: people who say the site has to be fixed by 11/15 are flat out wrong.  Here's why.

 

The ACA provides for an extended enrollment period this first year. I believe it ends on April 1. Lower enrollment by 12/31 is bad for plan bottom lines in year 2014. However, it does not necessarily mean there will be a death spiral. If the ACA signs enough people up by the end of the open enrollment period, Plans will have more confidence in 2015 enrollment and will base their premiums on those final numbers. Thus, enrollment by April 1 is what's really important to prevent a death spiral for the program.

 

With that said, the website is a huge setback, and it's not the only challenge. Ultimately deductibles, access to providers/hospitals, ability to process subsidies for poor enrollees, discontinuation of existing plan options and higher prices for private health plans are probably bigger risks to the ACA, in my opinion. All could suppress enrollment, leading to a death spiral, or have big effects on 2014 election.

 

All of those risks are real, but Obama will not let the program die under almost any scenario. It's more likely that if all of the above issues change public opinion, R's win a big 2014 election and force some D's to cave to change the program. 

[Larry]

With that said, the website is a huge setback, and it's not the only challenge. Ultimately deductibles, access to providers/hospitals, ability to process subsidies for poor enrollees, discontinuation of existing plan options and higher prices for private health plans are probably bigger risks to the ACA, in my opinion. All could suppress enrollment, leading to a death spiral, or have big effects on 2014 election.

 

All of those risks are real, but Obama will not let the program die under almost any scenario. It's more likely that if all of the above issues change public opinion, R's win a big 2014 election and force some D's to cave to change the program.

I agree with you, that the effects of website problems are much more significant as PR problems than actual threats to the program. (And that there are actual threats to the program working.)

And that PR problems could easily become real problems, given the political nature of things.

I do observe, though, that your closing statement seems to assume that the R's want to make the D's improve the program. They've made it very clear that they don't. Any change they suggest/force/whatever, will have the objective of killing it, or, failing that, to make it worse, so that then they'll have more ammo the next time they try to kill it.

[Wrong Direction]

Yeah, they want to kill it. At some point, they'll probably need to actually propose an alternative. Even poorly implemented ACA has changed the paradigm for what's acceptable, and taking away coverage isn't going to be viable w/o an alternative.

[Larry]

Yeah, they want to kill it. At some point, they'll probably need to actually propose an alternative. Even poorly implemented ACA has changed the paradigm for what's acceptable, and taking away coverage isn't going to be viable w/o an alternative.

Well, I have seen some Republican proposals.

Mostly, they seem to consist of having the Feds declare that states can't regulate insurance any more, and saying that if your insurance company breaks one of the few remaining regulations, and you take them to court, and you prove your case, then they still can't be punished for cheating you.

This, they claim, will make things better for CONSUMERS.

[Wrong Direction]

Well, I have seen some Republican proposals.

Mostly, they seem to consist of having the Feds declare that states can't regulate insurance any more, and saying that if your insurance company breaks one of the few remaining regulations, and you take them to court, and you prove your case, then they still can't be punished for cheating you.

This, they claim, will make things better for CONSUMERS.

 

I don't doubt that you've seen some of their proposals. I do doubt that you can articulate what type of system they'd put into place. In a nutshell, your assumption that any and all minimum standards would go away in a libertarian's dream system is probably not accurate.

[Larry]

I don't doubt that you've seen some of their proposals. I do doubt that you can articulate what type of system they'd put into place. In a nutshell, your assumption that any and all minimum standards would go away in a libertarian's dream system is probably not accurate.

No, they aren't proposing to get rid of ALL regulations.

Simply to have the states compete to see which state has the laws which most favor the insurance companies, the companies go to that state, and then sell insurance in all 50 states, ignoring the regulations of the other 49.

The slogan they're using, to sell this plan, is "allow people to buy across state lines".

[Wrong Direction]

No, they aren't proposing to get rid of ALL regulations.

Simply to have the states compete to see which state has the laws which most favor the insurance companies, the companies go to that state, and then sell insurance in all 50 states, ignoring the regulations of the other 49.

The slogan they're using, to sell this plan, is "allow people to buy across state lines".

 

Right. You envision a regulatory death spiral, as if there's no point of public reaction in between. You've basically picked the purest form of libertarian planning outside of no regulation whatsoever and assumed that's what the R party would stick with in the face of public opposition. 

 

You're reacting to theory, not projecting anything based on a two-party reality.

[nonniey]

A Headline fronm The Hill today.

 

"ObamaCare enrollees to join president in Rose Garden"

 

I immediately thought - All of them?

 

[Larry]

Right. You envision a regulatory death spiral, as if there's no point of public reaction in between. You've basically picked the purest form of libertarian planning outside of no regulation whatsoever and assumed that's what the R party would stick with in the face of public opposition.

.

I simply took the numerous times that "allow insurance companies to sell across state lines, and tort reform" has been pushed as a solution, by Republican politicians, Fox News pundits, and posters on ES, and concluded that the "solution" they've been proposing, multiple times, for years, is the solution they're proposing.

And what "public opposition"? 1) Near as I can tell, it's almost a majority who are believing it. They've found a sound bite phrase that makes it sound like they're empowering consumers. (When they're really empowering corporations). And 2) have you seen any indication that the modern day Republican Party lets some pesky fact (like the fact that less than half of Republicans approve of a tactic) stop them from unanimously proceeding with their objective?

----------

A Headline fronm The Hill today.

"ObamaCare enrollees to join president in Rose Garden"

I immediately thought - All of them?

Both of them.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Larry

[skinsmarydu]

And didn't I read that one of them almost fainted and got care from Obama?

See, it does work!

[Elessar78]

What about something more nefarious? Like cyber attacks on the ACA website (insert conspiracy music here). 

[twa]

What about something more nefarious? Like cyber attacks on the ACA website (insert conspiracy music here). 

 

 

So you are saying they are insecure as well as inoperable? ....is malicious next for a trifecta? 

[Elessar78]

Inoperable because they've been hacked. By the IT Party. 

[twa]

WASHINGTON—Responding to widespread criticism regarding its health care website, the federal government today unveiled its new, improved Obamacare program, which allows Americans to purchase health insurance after installing a software bundle contained on 35 floppy disks. “I have heard the complaints about the existing website, and I can assure you that with this revised system, finding the right health care option for you and your family is as easy as loading 35 floppy disks sequentially into your disk drive and following the onscreen prompts,” President Obama told reporters this morning, explaining that the nearly three dozen 3.5-inch diskettes contain all the data needed for individuals to enroll in the Health Insurance Marketplace, while noting that the updated Obamacare software is mouse-compatible and requires a 386 Pentium processor with at least 8 MB of system RAM to function properly. “Just fire up MS-DOS, enter ‘A:\>dir *.exe’ into the command line, and then follow the instructions to install the Obamacare batch files—it should only take four or five hours at the most. You can press F1 for help if you run into any problems. And be sure your monitor’s screen resolution is at 320 x 200 or it might not display properly.” Obama added that the federal government hopes to have a six–CD-ROM version of the program available by 2016.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-improved-obamacare-program-released-on-35-flop,34294/

 

[skinsmarydu]

as far as BS comments go,damn, twa, you might be fightin' for the title.

[Elessar78]

The Onion. Nice. 

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qtx_ZcHOjw