Damn those founding fathers for not having the foresight to know health insurance would become a thing!Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Senior Member
Damn those founding fathers for not having the foresight to know health insurance would become a thing!
yours truly,
PC's resident nihilist
Senior Member
What about those persons that aren't "dead man walking" that can't afford health care and don't qualify like this clearly not propaganda article you linked?
Also do why do we think doctors order so many tests before moving forward? Is it to get rich? Is it to get the insurance companies rich? Is it to truly help the patient by covering all aspects of a scenario? Is it to CYA so they aren't sued if they move forward with a treatment and it doesn't work?
Will the ACA fix all of these things?
I know you are, but what am I?
Come on man.. you can at least try to be better than that.
My point was this: You latch on to really stupid points you are trying to make and use it in multiple posts. "Obamacare was a Republican idea!", "Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand, AYN RAND!!", "Iraq War", etc...
We get it.
PC RETARD HALL OF FAME
Senior Member
You insult people, link images, and complain about Obama. There's source demands and a failure to actually read things too. I'm sure an infographic of your posts would be pretty sad. This is a bad road to go for you as both Kranar and Bob nailed down your posting style so accurately years ago that you could almost be a bot.
When you keep not responding to something obvious and I can tell it gets to you why would I not repeat it?
Last edited by Warriorbird; 10-24-2013 at 05:20 PM.
Senior Member
Why did that article offend you?
Amazing.
If those six Senate Democrats had actually voted to approve the House deal earlier wouldn't there have been enough votes to avoid the shutdown?WASHINGTON (AP) — After uniting against Republican efforts earlier this month to delay President Barack Obama's health care law, a growing number Democrats in Congress now want to extend the enrollment deadline, and one senator wants to delay the penalty for not complying.
Six Senate Democrats up for re-election next year have proposed delaying the new March 31 deadline for applying for coverage while the program's problems are ironed out. A seventh, West Virginia's Joe Manchin, is co-authoring a bill to postpone the $95 penalty for people who fail to meet the deadline for acquiring insurance.
While their proposals are short on details, all argue that it's not fair to hold millions of Americans accountable for buying insurance when the primary instrument for enrollment — the HealthCare.gov website — has prevented many people from doing it.
Even the law's biggest boosters are aggravated that enrollment process for the national health care law they had hoped to tout on the 2014 campaign trail has gotten off to such a bad start.
"If we want this law to work, we've got to make it right, we've got to fix it," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., one of the law's leading authors, said at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Thursday on the sign-up problems.
Contractors for the health insurance website told the committee the government failed to thoroughly test the complex enrollment system before its Oct. 1 launch. The system crashed as soon as consumers tried to use it. A web of confusing deadlines and penalties for not obtaining health insurance persists.
As Democrats began to fret about the political consequences ahead of the 2014 midterm elections, the administration late Wednesday said it was granting what amounts to a six-week filing extension. The March 31 deadline for having insurance became the new deadline for applying for it.
But that's not enough for a growing number of Senate Democrats.
Manchin is teaming with Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., on a bill that would waive for one year the $95 penalty for not enrolling in the program.
"It should be a transition year. For one year, there should be no fines," Manchin said Wednesday on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor."
The six Senate Democrats seeking re-election next year urged the Obama administration to postpone the March 31 deadline.
"As you continue to fix problems with the website and the enrollment process, it is critical that the administration be open to modifications that provide greater flexibility for the American people seeking to access health insurance," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., wrote to Obama on Tuesday. Extending the open enrollment period and clarifying other parts of the law, she added, "would be a great start."
Also supporting Shaheen's effort are Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall of Colorado, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, aides to the lawmakers said.
"I am asking the administration to extend the open enrollment period by two months, and waive the penalty for the individual mandate for the same period of time, to make up for time that is being lost while the website for the federal exchange is not functioning," Hagan said Thursday.
All of the Senate Democrats earlier this month joined in rejecting legislation passed by the House to delay for a year the law's requirement that people buy health insurance as well as the tax subsidies for helping them do it, as a condition for ending the partial government shutdown.
I guess we can now officially blame that shutdown on Democrats.
Last edited by Tgo01; 10-24-2013 at 07:02 PM.
Senior Member
No, of course not. This viewpoint is just revisionist history.
If the house votes on a bill to waive the individual mandate for 1 year they are just doing their job. That's what they are supposed to do. Create bills, take a vote and send it to the Senate. If people are found to be incapable of getting insurance because the application process is too glitchy, then why penalize them? It's not like it's an atrocious penalty anyway.
The shutdown was a totally different animal. They didn't vote on defunding ACA, because they'd already done that 40+ times and lost, they attached defunding the business of our whole gov't in some stupid game of chicken, and they lost.
Trying to now say that this is some sort of proof that the individual mandate is immoral or invalid is just not logical.
Whether or not the mandate is immoral or invalid is besides the point.
It seems pretty simple to me. The House passed a bill that would have ended the government shutdown if they delayed the individual mandate for a year, all Senate Democrats rejected the bill. Six Senate Democrats now support delaying the mandate, if they had done that earlier we could have avoided the shutdown.
How else are we supposed to look at it?
Senior Member
Objectively
I am. We could have avoided the shutdown (or part of it at least) if Democrats weren't playing partisan dick measuring games.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
