More Obamacare fuckups

[Jeril]

Hmm, I wonder what the European governments are cutting now to reign-in their run-away social spending expenditures in austerity efforts to regain control of their balance sheets?

Just because the Europeans did it, and are paying (literally) for their mistake, does not mean that the U.S. have to repeat it.

With the government/people paying a bit more directly for it(healthcare) there is one less share of profits that they have to pay for, so done right, they are actually paying less.

[cwolff]

You're missing that Ashliana is not intelligent enough to grasp that anything that is a 'government burden' is essentially passed on to the taxpayers who foot the bill.

This is the reason why SCOTUS determined Obamacare to be a tax.

The sick joke is that taxpayers are paying twice. Higher premiums & higher taxes by extension (subsidies).

Sounds like Ashliana has a pretty good grasp of this thing. He/she's not freaking out over it. Recognizes it's benefits and challenges and is pretty ok with it to date but wants to see it get better. Seems pretty reasonable actually.

[Tgo01]

Uh.. Okay. You're making a totally meaningless semantic argument.

Semantic argument? SEMANTIC ARGUMENT?!

This is what you said, word for word so there is no confusion:

As for the cost, yes, rates may rise, and some of the burden is shifted on to the government.

You say rates may rise then go on to say "some of the burden (of the rate increases) is shifted on to the government" as if the government is some sort of entity that provides us with goods and services and doesn't ask for a thing in return.

The rates will rise and the burden is shifted to EVERYONE. I understand you're trying to back peddle now but just don't.

Context does matter. Democrats and Republicans might agree on the statement "the ACA is flawed," but the solution Democrats have is "let's fix it" and the Republicans' delusional solution is "Let's go back to what we had before, and pretend we don't need to do anything else." Not going to happen.

Republicans have not said this. Turn off MSNBC news.

Likewise, you're ignoring the context under which the law was passed. To suit your own ideology, and not history. No one knew until the last minute that the Republicans were going to totally turn against it

!!!

Even if that were true all I have to say in response is; so? If Republicans dropped support of the bill at the last minute the Democrats could have then just proceeded without them.

Republicans are, without a doubt, the reason the law isn't better than it is.

Even though the current bill passed without a single Republican voting for it. Amazing how that happen.

Your lack of wanting to know what the bill does has absolutely no impact on the bill.

It's not my "lack of wanting to know what the bill does" it's that it's worded so stupidly only sheeple would repeat that as if it's going to do shit. Did you even read that part in full and understand it?

Let's quote the bit I quoted again:

The Act ensures that, in any State, large proposed increases

So only large proposed increases are scrutinized? So insurance companies have to raise premiums by a "large" amount because of increased costs so they go ahead and add some profit in there while they're at it and some government bean counter says "Okay, looks legit." Then throughout the year the insurance companies just pass many "smaller" increases so it doesn't raise any red flags.

Failure!

Yeah... Not that I said. And actually, the annual rise of healthcare costs has been slowing for years, again, contrary to your ideological desires.

You mean healthcare spending took a dive because of the bad economy? Shocker!

As to the future projected costs...just no. Stop it.

[Tgo01]

You win this one, Ashliana. Only because I have a limit on nonsense I can handle in a single day and you've already pushed me past my limit in 3 posts.

[Jeril]

Haha! How delusional can a person be? The answer is obvious: EXTREMELY. Republicans have been running on "we can't afford it, repeal the whole thing" since the day it was passed, your presidential candidate ran on its repeal, and lost.

He lost for other reasons as well and considering that the ACA wasn't even really implemented until after the election and won't be in full effect until after the next it seems like a rather moot point. I didn't even bother keeping track of the election campaign soon after it began because it was obvious that Obama would win again, not because of anything he did but because the other guy screwed it up that badly.

[cwolff]

He lost for other reasons as well and considering that the ACA wasn't even really implemented until after the election and won't be in full effect until after the next it seems like a rather moot point. I didn't even bother keeping track of the election campaign soon after it began because it was obvious that Obama would win again, not because of anything he did but because the other guy screwed it up that badly.

The big reason he lost is also the most obvious. It's damn hard to knock out an incumbent president. If you want to do it you better be able to clearly show that his leadership is taking us the wrong direction or split his vote with a 3rd party like Perot did.

edit: Which may be exactly what you're saying or near enough.

[Tgo01]

the Republicans as a whole ran on the platform of repealing Obamacare. Are people really disputing that?

At this point you are arguing with yourself. I don't think anyone has denied Republicans ran on the platform of repealing Obamacare nor denied that Republicans still want to repeal Obamacare.

Problem is that's not what you said. What you said was...

the Republicans' delusional solution is "Let's go back to what we had before, and pretend we don't need to do anything else."

I'm almost 100% positive the Republicans' battle cry for a while was "Repeal and Replace", y'know, as in Obamacare is such a failure let's scrape it altogether but we realize there is a problem so we'll start over. Republicans have put forth several healthcare laws that would replace Obamacare.

You do understand the difference between repealing a law and replacing it with a (at least in their mind) better one and repealing a law and doing nothing, right?

[Tgo01]

You denied it. "Republicans never said that! Turn off MSNBC!"

Major flaw in reading comprehension detected!

Back peddling attempt detected!

Nonsense meter at 200% capacity!

ABORT! ABORT!

[cwolff]

At this point you are arguing with yourself. I don't think anyone has denied Republicans ran on the platform of repealing Obamacare nor denied that Republicans still want to repeal Obamacare.

Problem is that's not what you said. What you said was...



I'm almost 100% positive the Republicans' battle cry for a while was "Repeal and Replace", y'know, as in Obamacare is such a failure let's scrape it altogether but we realize there is a problem so we'll start over. Republicans have put forth several healthcare laws that would replace Obamacare.

You do understand the difference between repealing a law and replacing it with a (at least in their mind) better one and repealing a law and doing nothing, right?

I don't know about that. If you recall I asked earlier about whether it's Repeal or Repeal and Replace or what's the deal because it sure as shit doesn't seem like the GOP has a coherent plan in place. From what you wrote here I gather that the GOP has some robust plans ready to go to replace ACA? Is that accurate? Sounds a bit like you're trying to shine the best light on it because they are oddly quiet on the subject. We also know that their "plans" aren't going anywhere in the run up to implementing obamacare. They could pass the house but not the senate and they're begging for a presidential veto. I think, in this case, you're putting too much faith into the politics.

[cwolff]

This is interesting. The site is gop.gov and is hailed as the website for the house republican majority. Is it legit? Doesn't look like they are updating it.

http://www.gop.gov/healthcare/house-actions