DescentBB

in two days, cut food stamps by $39 Billion and then try to defund what is turning out to be a VERY affordable Healthcare Insurance program(any doubts, look at Delaware's numbers, released today) or risk closing down the government. Morons, every last one of them, and I cannot wait for 2014.
Payback is going to be significant, and if anyone doubts that, just watch Virginia's statewide races in November.

I was under the impression the repubs were going to fund the government with the exception of Obama care. If that is what they are doing then they certainly aren't shutting down the government.

And if what they are doing was truly going to be the end of them I think we wouldn't be hearing much of anything from you and the others on the left.

Will Robinson wrote:I was under the impression the repubs were going to fund the government with the exception of Obama care.

well. except that such cannot be done, and they know it. All they can pare out is around 8% of the total that is discretionary. The vast bulk of the implementation and ongoing costs are exempt from the law they just tried to pass in the House. Of course, they don't wish the faithful to find out about that little distraction.

If that is what they are doing then they certainly aren't shutting down the government.

if they refuse to vote for the bill without the goofy Obamacare stuff in it, which will doubtless emerge from the Senate, will you accept that they proved you wrong??

And if what they are doing was truly going to be the end of them I think we wouldn't be hearing much of anything from you and the others on the left.

you are only hearing from me because I am astounded at the pure political hari-kari they are engaged in. Look at the backlash welling up in NC, the rapid growth of the Democrats in Texas, of all places, the near-certain defeat of Conservative candidates for Lt Governor and Atty General in VA, and the very likely loss of the Governors race, as well, the extinction of the GOP in places like Delaware, and anyone who wishes for a little competition to keep things semi-honest ought to be alarmed.

oh, and the practical effect of 'defunding' Obamacare:

"The Congressional Research Service put it bluntly -- well, bluntly given the cautious, careful language favored by the CRS -- in a July report. "It appears that substantial ACA implementation might continue during a lapse in annual appropriations," they wrote.

There are a few reasons for this. For one thing, the lapse in appropriations only hits so-called "discretionary" funding. But the ACA's core functions are on the "mandatory" side of the budget. So, for instance, the money for tax credits and Medicaid expansion would arrive on schedule. State and federal exchanges would still operate. The individual mandate would still be in place.

So a lot of the law's funding would be unaffected. Meanwhile, the more marginal spending that is affected could be backfilled by the Obama administration moving mandatory money around, and even going beyond that, the White House could argue that crucial positions fall into the bucket of essential personnel who are protected during a government shutdown. So while it wouldn't be ideal, implementation would move forward."

plus, I just heard that one of the 'discretionary' cuts would be funding for insurance coverage for Congressional Aides....I'm sure that will go over just fine with the staff members.....oh, the sweet irony!

Everybody and their dog knows that no political party wants to shut down government. Someone's just making political meat of the fact that the Republicans are trying to use this as negative political leverage against Obamacare. The Democrats would do the same.

That's sounds bad.

callmeslick wrote:in two days, cut food stamps by $39 Billion and then try to defund what is turning out to be a VERY affordable Healthcare Insurance program(any doubts, look at Delaware's numbers, released today)

Are you taking into account all the people losing their full time job and being cut back to less than 30 hours a week? How "very affordable" is it to people who now have to get a second job, use up more gas to now travel to 2 jobs? And of course how affordable is it when they make just over the minimum and don't get any of those nice subsidies you think everyone will get to off set the cost of AHC ? Do you think those people will vote Democratic the next time around?

callmeslick wrote:...VERY affordable Healthcare Insurance program.

Yes, very affordable…as long as you don’t consider the 100 billion a year it’s going to cost to run the program.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:in two days, cut food stamps by $39 Billion and then try to defund what is turning out to be a VERY affordable Healthcare Insurance program(any doubts, look at Delaware's numbers, released today)

Are you taking into account all the people losing their full time job and being cut back to less than 30 hours a week? How "very affordable" is it to people who now have to get a second job, use up more gas to now travel to 2 jobs?

first off, anyone working part-time, unless they are making $25 per hour or more, is completely covered by expanded Medicaid, so yet another goofy-assed straw horse goes up in smoke.Also, these claims of people being cut back to 30 hours or less is WAY overblown. A couple employers have done so, but most don't. Much was made, last week, of Trader Joes taking folks under 30 hours off the healthcare plan. Turns out, they are giving them a small stipend, most will quality for Medicaid, and therefore, they actually will be making MORE than they do at present, in real terms.

And of course how affordable is it when they make just over the minimum and don't get any of those nice subsidies you think everyone will get to off set the cost of AHC ? Do you think those people will vote Democratic the next time around?

hell, I'm going to get a subsidy, if I remain retired and just live off of interest, dividends and agricultural rent. The ceiling for a couple goes up to around $150,000 to get some small subsidy. Most people will have some small subsidy. Once again, the 'scary spectre of Obamacare' just doesn't match reality. Which, of course, is why the GOP needs it stopped, before folks realize that the overwhelming majority are about the get a real break in 2014.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:in two days, cut food stamps by $39 Billion and then try to defund what is turning out to be a VERY affordable Healthcare Insurance program(any doubts, look at Delaware's numbers, released today)

Are you taking into account all the people losing their full time job and being cut back to less than 30 hours a week? How "very affordable" is it to people who now have to get a second job, use up more gas to now travel to 2 jobs?

first off, anyone working part-time, unless they are making $25 per hour or more, is completely covered by expanded Medicaid, so yet another goofy-assed straw horse goes up in smoke.Also, these claims of people being cut back to 30 hours or less is WAY overblown. A couple employers have done so, but most don't. Much was made, last week, of Trader Joes taking folks under 30 hours off the healthcare plan. Turns out, they are giving them a small stipend, most will quality for Medicaid, and therefore, they actually will be making MORE than they do at present, in real terms.

And of course how affordable is it when they make just over the minimum and don't get any of those nice subsidies you think everyone will get to off set the cost of AHC ? Do you think those people will vote Democratic the next time around?

hell, I'm going to get a subsidy, if I remain retired and just live off of interest, dividends and agricultural rent. The ceiling for a couple goes up to around $150,000 to get some small subsidy. Most people will have some small subsidy. Once again, the 'scary spectre of Obamacare' just doesn't match reality. Which, of course, is why the GOP needs it stopped, before folks realize that the overwhelming majority are about the get a real break in 2014.

Slick, if most people are going to receive instead of pay how long do you think the insurance companies will stay in business without raising costs to someone?
Or is this magic?

Will Robinson wrote:... how long do you think the insurance companies will stay in business without raising costs to someone?

Since when do insurance companies need a reason to raise costs? Isn't that pretty much what they all do, all the time? Sorry, no sympathy there.

It's no mystery in the company I work for. Our healthcare costs have risen already, and it would be dimwitted and irresponsible to expect it isn't going to go higher.

Hurting business hurts everyone.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's no mystery in the company I work for. Our healthcare costs have risen already, and it would be dimwitted and irresponsible to expect it isn't going to go higher.

Again, insurance companies don't need Obamacare to raise rates, they will do it no matter what. About 5 years ago I was working for a company where the median age was 53. One year the insurance company doubled everyone's rates because there were "too many claims." How dare people use the insurance they pay for! As it turns out, it was mostly because the wife of a co-worker got cancer and was in chemo. Just so you understand what I'm saying I'll say it again: the insurance rates doubled for the entire company because one person in the plan got cancer. Obamacare was still a dream back then. Oh, and to make it worse, the rise in rates lead to a few layoffs. Again, I have no sympathy for insurance companies. They don't give a flying frick about you, why should you care about them? You are a number. Let them all fail and we can rebuild something better from scratch.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:... how long do you think the insurance companies will stay in business without raising costs to someone?

Since when do insurance companies need a reason to raise costs? Isn't that pretty much what they all do, all the time? Sorry, no sympathy there.

ditto, I'm just rejecting the premise that they won't, nor will doctors and hospitals, refrain from hiking prices if they are required to cover more people/expenses under the plan that slick says will now provide more coverage AND subsidies to people who weren't receiving them before...all at lower cost to the consumer!

something is missing from that equation. I don't think we will be paying for it with hope and change.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:...VERY affordable Healthcare Insurance program.

Yes, very affordable…as long as you don’t consider the 100 billion a year it’s going to cost to run the program.

which will be more than offset by the 60 billion we were paying to pick up the tab for the uninsured under the Federal programs which were in place to reimburse hospitals for indigent care, along with the other efficiencies built in. That is why study after study has shown the 10-year effect on the budget from the ACA to be 250 billion to the plus(disclaimer, various estimates extant run from break-even to 1/2 trillion surplus, but not one reputable study shows this thing LOSING money for the govt. over the long-haul).

The numbers I posted were given by an advocate of the ACA and were after all was said and done…and to be offset by new taxes…such as the tax on “Cadillac” plans and on health care equipment suppliers…etc.

If the whole thing was going to pay for itself then there would be no need for new taxes…would there?

The source was PBS NewsHour.

there are no new taxes, beyond the incentive provisions to regulate compliance, Spidey. Every analysis of the entire program shows a net decrease in deficit spending.

Oh, and to the food stamp issue:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-kirel ... 63203.html

callmeslick wrote:there are no new taxes, beyond the incentive provisions to regulate compliance, Spidey.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes.php

its a shame you dont know what you are talking about. There are at least 20 new taxes associated with obama care

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 13745.html

Yea, I’ll have to write PBS a letter and tell them not to let those liars on their news shows. >deadpan<

Not to mention the supreme court ruled the whole law a tax

I'll totally pay more taxes so my friends without heath care can have some medical benefits. No problem with that at all.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:there are no new taxes, beyond the incentive provisions to regulate compliance, Spidey.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes.php

its a shame you dont know what you are talking about. There are at least 20 new taxes associated with obama care

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 13745.html

please, nothing that adds up to anything significant......as one might see if we went to true Universal Health Care.

CUDA wrote:Not to mention the supreme court ruled the whole law a tax

yes, they ruled the penalties a 'tax'......without further comment from me around how that was used as an excuse for Roberts.
As I posted on another board, the numbers are in for Delaware's exchanges, and this law is going to both save me around 2 grand per year, but give me the peace of mind that I will be shelling out less for uninsured young people who get into medical emergencies, and other folks using the Emergency Rooms as Primary Care centers.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:there are no new taxes, beyond the incentive provisions to regulate compliance, Spidey.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes.php

its a shame you dont know what you are talking about. There are at least 20 new taxes associated with obama care

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ti ... 13745.html

please, nothing that adds up to anything significant......as one might see if we went to true Universal Health Care.

WAIT!!!!!
you said there were NO NEW TAXES associated with obama care. Your wrong. Now you say there are new taxes but its nothing significant. Cmon slick lets keep your story straight.

According to the CBO the new taxes will amount to 500+ billion over the next 10 years. Seems significant to me, With a fair portion of that falling on the middle class. The same middle class that the president promised would not see a tax increase due to this law.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Not to mention the supreme court ruled the whole law a tax

yes, they ruled the penalties a 'tax'......without further comment from me around how that was used as an excuse for Roberts.

I'm sorry. Its Roberts fault? I guess the 4 liberal judges that voted the same way had nothing to do with it huh? Why just blame the one conservative that voted with the 4 liberals?
your moderate position is showing through

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Not to mention the supreme court ruled the whole law a tax

yes, they ruled the penalties a 'tax'......without further comment from me around how that was used as an excuse for Roberts.

Umm slickster, it was Obama's atty. arguing Obamacare was a tax and not a penalty. Lets not put the onus of blame on Roberts.

Vision wrote:Oh, and to make it worse, the rise in rates lead to a few layoffs. Again, I have no sympathy for insurance companies. They don't give a flying frick about you, why should you care about them? You are a number. Let them all fail and we can rebuild something better from scratch.

First, the highlighted part. Isn't that what I was just talking about? But you start talking about "sympathy" for insurance companies... Is that just a straw-man, or are there actually people who have "sympathy" for insurance companies? Raising prices on insurance companies will never do anything but raise prices on the people they insure. If they as companies fail, the businesses and the people who are insured by them suffer. If you take up a campaign against supermarkets and manage to sink them, you will suddenly realize that you don't have anywhere to buy groceries. Feeling that we can build better from scratch won't help you when everyone starts to go hungry in the mean-time. What is this, liberal anarchism? Raising prices on any part of our society in order to effect change is irresponsible because it causes collateral damage. If you don't like insurance companies (and I don't), then offer something better, or fix something that's wrong with them (they allow medical institutions to charge outrageous prices because they act as a buffer between the market and the medical industry). That would be the responsible thing to do.

vision wrote:I'll totally pay more taxes so my friends without heath care can have some medical benefits. No problem with that at all.

You are such a stooge. If this is an appropriate and selfless attitude, why did it have to wait for bureaucracy to intervene before being willing to help friends financially? You're a stooge because this is such a simplistic reason to allow for complex legislation which has much more far-reaching effects.

For anyone who believes that using the ER for primary care is going to stop…I have a bridge for sale.

Also the shift from direct reimbursement to paying for care thru insurance is going to cost more for the simple fact that paying for care thru insurance has a built in profit margin.

ACA, Affordable Care Act. Is precisely that, just an act.
They implemented a complex law that is still undefined other than to establish the governments authority to fill it full of whatever they want.
So when the system crumbles the authority is still there and the second act begins. Curtain opens on government single payer system which was the sole intent from the beginning.
Predictable as a B movie.

Oh Thorne, you can only see the post in front of you. The argument was that Obamacare will put insurance companies out of business and it will cause them to raise rates. As we all know, insurance companies don't need Obamacare as an excuse to raise rates, they do it when they want regardless of how it affect people or jobs. Obamacare will be used by insurance companies as an excuse to exert power in the same way 9/11 was used to invade Iraq. Totally unconnected. If not Obamacare, then they use another excuse to raise rates. It's endless.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

vision wrote:I'll totally pay more taxes so my friends without heath care can have some medical benefits. No problem with that at all.

You are such a stooge. If this is an appropriate and selfless attitude, why did it have to wait for bureaucracy to intervene before being willing to help friends financially? You're a stooge because this is such a simplistic reason to allow for complex legislation which has much more far-reaching effects.

Oh good, personal attacks now? A stooge? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? Yes, I help my friends out financially, but I can't afford to pay for a friend's organ transplant, thanks to all the greed in the heathcare and insurance system. I'm glad the legislation has far-reaching effects. The way we get medical assistance needs to be turned over and rebuilt from scratch.

No healthcare reform is going to be perfect right from the start. It's always a work in progress. But it's awesome progress is finally being made after years of people just dreaming about it (like during the Clinton era). I only wish we would enact universal health care and pay for it with the defense budget. We could use a few less bombs and more healthy babies.

Vision wrote:The way we get medical assistance needs to be turned over and rebuilt from scratch.

Well, I'll give you that this administration is going to turn it over. Who do you have picked to rebuild it from scratch?

Also, I want you to know that as much as I get on you I was not trying to say you are not willing to help your friends. All I was saying is why give the government a pass just because their program includes something you could do anyway if you put your mind to it. I mean heck, if there were enough will for it, why hasn't anyone started an insurance company where you pay a higher premium in order to specifically allow higher-risk folks to participate? It could be like a credit union. Why use it as justification for Obama-care? So is it lazyness or stoogery (new word score!)?

Spidey wrote:For anyone who believes that using the ER for primary care is going to stop…I have a bridge for sale.

Also the shift from direct reimbursement to paying for care thru insurance is going to cost more for the simple fact that paying for care thru insurance has a built in profit margin.

first off, the number presenting to ERs will drop, because of the mandatory insurance. The covered persons will owe the ER for the tab, and thus will not be inclined to use the ER when covered options are available. Second, the nonsense about insurance coverage costing more is just that, nonsense. Part of the act is to put profit margin caps on the insurers, and frankly, the insurers are far tougher negotiators of rates than private individuals ever would be. And, finally, to address this dreadful(estimated) $80 billion in taxation, the offset is far more than that in government spending that currently goes to prop up ERs around the nation. My comments re: Tax definition, of what are clearly Fees, and Justice Roberts is this. The argument was made thusly(and I agree it is specious, they are not Taxes) to appease Justice Roberts. The so-called 'Liberal' justices would have been just fine with any definition of the ACA. However, Roberts used the Taxation issue as his means of justification for letting the law stand.

So, slick, would it be accurate to say that you believe that aims of Republican political dominance are the only reason for resistance to Obama-care?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So, slick, would it be accurate to say that you believe that aims of Republican political dominance are the only reason for resistance to Obama-care?

yup, pretty much. A lot of public mistrust exists, and a lot of incomplete understanding of the workings of the Act, but those trace back to a GOP unified in an effort to stall implementation. Because, as I stated, and firmly believe, once this ACA is in full effect for 3 years or so, NO ONE is going to want to go back. It is my hope that by then, a critical mass will see that full-on cradle to grave Medicare would lower costs with better care more effectively, but that is another argument for another day.

callmeslick wrote:first off, the number presenting to ERs will drop, because of the mandatory insurance. The covered persons will owe the ER for the tab, and thus will not be inclined to use the ER when covered options are available.

People already get the bill for the services provided, and many of them are already eligible for Medicaid. It's more of a cultural mindset and habit that will take generations to fix. But yea, I'm sure it will "drop" note I said "stop".

callmeslick wrote:Second, the nonsense about insurance coverage costing more is just that, nonsense. Part of the act is to put profit margin caps on the insurers, and frankly, the insurers are far tougher negotiators of rates than private individuals ever would be.

The last I heard was that the government reimburses at a rate closer to what Medicare pays for any given treatment, at any rate I know it’s less than what is charged to an uninsured individual, or someone with private insurance. (even with caps)

And the rest about Taxes vs. Fees...well that's just a big joke. LOL

callmeslick wrote:....

first off, the number presenting to ERs will drop, because of the mandatory insurance. ....

Do you have a source for that? Or are you making stuff up again?
Considering the intent behind the laws that say you can't deny someone in dire need.....and the practice of allowing illegals to turn the emergency rooms into 24/7 free clinics... I'd like to see the actual law that makes these changes instead of your proclamation.

Will Robinson wrote:Do you have a source for that? Or are you making stuff up again?

mere common sense.....if someone has insurance, there is no need to run to the ER for what a lot of folks currently do. There are, in most areas, walk-in primary care clinics that will do the job quicker. Right now, the uninsured cannot use these, as they require some proof of insurance.

Considering the intent behind the laws that say you can't deny someone in dire need.....and the practice of allowing illegals to turn the emergency rooms into 24/7 freeclinics... I'd like to see the actual law that makes these changes instead of your proclamation.

you think it is 'illegals' that clog that system? Seriously? In most states, the bulk of the backlog is the uninsured working poor. Further, one of the side benefits of the ACA is actually that it would, by requiring all legal citizens to have insurance, rather quickly ID those folks who did not get same because of undocumented status. Given that the Obama administration has been a bit more aggressive in deportation, the combination might actually provide back pressure upon illegals. The hospitals will have no choice but to be more aggressive, as their stipend for compensation of free care plummets under the ACA.

callmeslick wrote:

Further, one of the side benefits of the ACA is actually that it would, by requiring all legal citizens to have insurance, rather quickly ID those folks who did not get same because of undocumented status. [/quote]

Well if the requirement is to have insurance and thus a means to ID the folks, I guess the same ID could be used at the voter polls. I bet the Libs didn't see that one coming.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Further, one of the side benefits of the ACA is actually that it would, by requiring all legal citizens to have insurance, rather quickly ID those folks who did not get same because of undocumented status.

Well if the requirement is to have insurance and thus a means to ID the folks, I guess the same ID could be used at the voter polls. I bet the Libs didn't see that one coming.

not a picture ID, nice try, Woody......do you have a picture ID on your health insurance card?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Further, one of the side benefits of the ACA is actually that it would, by requiring all legal citizens to have insurance, rather quickly ID those folks who did not get same because of undocumented status.

Well if the requirement is to have insurance and thus a means to ID the folks, I guess the same ID could be used at the voter polls. I bet the Libs didn't see that one coming.

not a picture ID, nice try, Woody......do you have a picture ID on your health insurance card?

No but it is a ID...as opposed to having nothing and being able to vote at 10 different precincts. Of course we could pass a law mandating the insurance ID have a picture on it.