• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paul Ryan repeatedly refuses to tell Fox host how the GOP would replace Obamacare

S

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
WATCH: Paul Ryan repeatedly refuses to tell skeptical Fox host how the GOP would replace Obamacare

“For all the complaints, we’re five years into Obamacare and Republicans have still not come up with a coherent plan that will ensure that all of those millions of uninsured people will get coverage,” Wallace said, only to have Ryan brush him off, saying the GOP wants to “see the details” of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling before unveiling their plan to the public.

Multiple times Ryan parried Wallace’s questions, saying, “We will have an answer, we will have a solution,” skipping every opportunity to provide even the simplest details of the Republican plan. Ryan instead insisted that that party only wants to give the American people “freedom from Obamacare,” including the 16 million who gained coverage under the law, and the 129 million who no longer have to worry about losing coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...

Farkin weasel.
:shock:

If only they hadn't tried to call it "Obamacare", maybe they could get on the winning side of the issue. But no, "ACA" wasn't villifiable enough.

As SCOTUS Decision Looms, Obamacare Satisfaction Reaches 86 Percent - Forbes

With a Supreme Court ruling that could pull subsidies from millions of newly insured Americans expected within two weeks, new data indicates those with coverage are happy and getting the health care they need.

Eighty-six percent of Americans receiving coverage under the Affordable Care Act from either government-run exchanges or the expanded Medicaid program for the poor are “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with their health insurance, according to the latest tracking survey out Friday from the Commonwealth Fund.
Click to expand...

06ULAoy.jpg
 
SlevinKelevra said:
WATCH: Paul Ryan repeatedly refuses to tell skeptical Fox host how the GOP would replace Obamacare



Farkin weasel.
:shock:

If only they hadn't tried to call it "Obamacare", maybe they could get on the winning side of the issue. But no, "ACA" wasn't villifiable enough.

As SCOTUS Decision Looms, Obamacare Satisfaction Reaches 86 Percent - Forbes



06ULAoy.jpg
Click to expand...
1. He didn't weasel anything.
2. The GOP doesn't have to replace it with anything nor to they have to have a solution that he said they would have.
He does not have to iterate the how.
Your bad as well as the the bad of the biased reporting you choose to be interested in.

3. He clearly said they would come up with a solution to the Obamacare fiasco and to cover the transition and make sure it is in the hands of the states where it belongs.
 
I wouldn't give the opposition any new weapons either.

NO members of the GOP had anything to do with passing ObamaCare...just leave it at that.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
...Eighty-six percent of Americans receiving coverage under the Affordable Care Act from either government-run exchanges or the expanded Medicaid program for the poor are “very” or “somewhat” satisfied with their health insurance, according to the latest tracking survey out Friday from the Commonwealth Fund....
Click to expand...

Oh really. So if a vast majority of Americans are very or somewhat satisfied with their healthcare.... then we shouldn't engage in massive changes to the system?

How Very Interesting:

...• Quinnipiac University, Sept. 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 54 percent very satisfied, 34 percent somewhat. Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• Quinnipiac University, June 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 49 percent very satisfied, 36 somewhat satisfied. Total: 85 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2009. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 21 percent extremely satisfied, 37 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." 31 percent extremely satisfied, 41 percent very satisfied, 23 somewhat satisfied. Total: 95 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Overall satisfaction with my health (insurance) care plan." 23 percent extremely satisfied, 38 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 91 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2008. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 17 percent extremely satisfied, 36 percent very satisfied, 33 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 86 percent satisfaction....​



In the meantime, I missed the point at which it became Republican's job to save a poorly-thought-out mish-mashed disaster of a law passed against the will of the populace from the fact that those implementing it chose to do so in illegal ways?
 
"Paul Ryan repeatedly refuses to tell Fox host how the GOP would replace Obamacare"

Perhaps they have no replacement for it. Perhaps they just want to put it out of its misery. Can't do that until Jaunuary, 2017.
 
cpwill said:
Oh really. So if a vast majority of Americans are very or somewhat satisfied with their healthcare.... then we shouldn't engage in massive changes to the system?

How Very Interesting:

...• Quinnipiac University, Sept. 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 54 percent very satisfied, 34 percent somewhat. Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• Quinnipiac University, June 2009. "How satisfied are you with your health insurance plan?" 49 percent very satisfied, 36 somewhat satisfied. Total: 85 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2009. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 21 percent extremely satisfied, 37 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 88 percent satisfaction.

• ABC News/Washington Post, June 2009. "For each specific item I name, please tell me whether you are very satisfied with it, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. ... Your health insurance coverage." 42 percent very satisfied, 39 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 81 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Quality of health care I receive through my (health insurance) plan." 31 percent extremely satisfied, 41 percent very satisfied, 23 somewhat satisfied. Total: 95 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Aug. 2008. "Please rate your satisfaction with each of the following aspects of your health care. ... Overall satisfaction with my health (insurance) care plan." 23 percent extremely satisfied, 38 percent very satisfied, 30 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 91 percent satisfaction.

• Mathew Greenwald & Associates for the Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2008. "Overall, how satisfied are you with your current health insurance plan?" 17 percent extremely satisfied, 36 percent very satisfied, 33 percent somewhat satisfied. Total: 86 percent satisfaction....​



In the meantime, I missed the point at which it became Republican's job to save a poorly-thought-out mish-mashed disaster of a law passed against the will of the populace from the fact that those implementing it chose to do so in illegal ways?
Click to expand...

It's not their job to save it. But if your going to pull health insurance from millions of people without offering them any kind of substitute and making it go back to where people were constantly worried of getting dropped by their health insurance company then they need to own it. When asked, they can answer with "they'll lose their insurance and it's up to them and go find it elsewhere. They're better off without it." or something like that (I understand that isn't the best way to put it).


Also, those polls are asking people if they are happy with their current health insurance. It leaves out all together people that don't have health insurance. Most people didn't see much of a change with their health insurance policies from ObamaCare. But it did help people to obtain health insurance.

I'm only more satisfied with my insurance after ObamaCare. It got rid of my million dollar lifetime cap and premium hikes have been minimal.
 
roughdraft274 said:
It's not their job to save it. But if your going to pull health insurance from millions of people without offering them any kind of substitute
Click to expand...

:shrug: no one is doing that. What is happening (assuming the SCOTUS decides to strictly enforce the law) is that the federal government will be halted from making illegal subsidy payments, and people will get to see the full cost of insurance under the ACA. Republicans are not responsible for the fact that Democrats wrote the bill in that way, they are not responsible for the fact that Democrats chose to ignore the law when it came to setting up the Federal Exchange, Republicans are not responsible for the actions of the Supreme Court, and Republicans are not responsible if, should people discover that Democrats have put them in a bit of a bind by pushing/coercing them to purchase a product they can't afford, that they stop purchasing it. Republicans haven't pulled anything from anyone.

Also, those polls are asking people if they are happy with their current health insurance. It leaves out all together people that don't have health insurance.
Click to expand...

:doh so did the poll they were being compared to.

OP said:
...Eighty-six percent of Americans receiving coverage under the Affordable Care Act...
Click to expand...

Most people didn't see much of a change with their health insurance policies from ObamaCare
Click to expand...

Naturally. Except for the millions that were thrown of of their plans. But screw them if they were too stupid to realize that their masters in DC understood their needs better than they did.

I'm only more satisfied with my insurance after ObamaCare. It got rid of my million dollar lifetime cap and premium hikes have been minimal.
Click to expand...

:shrug: the cost of ACA insurance is currently hidden due to the subsidies. We'll let people see the full cost when/if the SCOTUS gets rid of them in states without state exchanges, and my bet is you are going to see satisfaction drop somewhat.

By "somewhat", of course, I mean "precipitously".
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: no one is doing that. What is happening (assuming the SCOTUS decides to strictly enforce the law) is that the federal government will be halted from making illegal subsidy payments, and people will get to see the full cost of insurance under the ACA. Republicans are not responsible for the fact that Democrats wrote the bill in that way, they are not responsible for the fact that Democrats chose to ignore the law when it came to setting up the Federal Exchange, Republicans are not responsible for the actions of the Supreme Court, and Republicans are not responsible if, should people discover that Democrats have put them in a bit of a bind by pushing/coercing them to purchase a product they can't afford, that they stop purchasing it. Republicans haven't pulled anything from anyone.



:doh so did the poll they were being compared to.





Naturally. Except for the millions that were thrown of of their plans. But screw them if they were too stupid to realize that their masters in DC understood their needs better than they did.



:shrug: the cost of ACA insurance is currently hidden due to the subsidies. We'll let people see the full cost when/if the SCOTUS gets rid of them in states without state exchanges, and my bet is you are going to see satisfaction drop somewhat.

By "somewhat", of course, I mean "precipitously".
Click to expand...

1. I didn't cite a poll. I think you're confused.

2. Illegal subsidy payments? Don't be stupid. The bill was clearly intending that the subsidy payments would also go towards the federal exchange.

3. People already see the full cost of the insurance premiums. I helped my father sign up for health insurance through the federal website. It tells you how much your subsidy will be based on your info, then you pick your plan (and it tells you the full cost of your plan) then you pick how much of your subsidy you want to go towards your plans monthly premiums. If you tell them you only make 20,000 a year and then next year you make 60,000, if you told them that you wanted all of your subsidy to apply to your premiums then you'd have to pay back a good bit of money at the end of the year. So with my dad we only applied some of his subsidy and that way if he makes more next year than last he's not having to cut a large check. But the point is, he completely sees the full cost of the insurance plan, and it's similar in cost and benefits of what I get through work as an experienced civil engineer at a mid size engineering firm.

4. If the supreme court decides that the subsidies won't apply to the fed exchange (highly doubtful) and the republicans refuse to alter it, then that is their position. And when people are unable to afford the insurance because Republicans refuse to vote for a change, that will be on them. This is no different than when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire. If the democrats did nothing then all of the tax rates went back to before the tax cuts. And all of the republican/conservatives were screaming about how Obama was "raising taxes". Even though all he had to do was let them expire and do nothing. This is the same thing. You can say all you want that it isn't their problem but **** them. They are in a position to govern the country. If they don't want to fix ObamaCare and would rather have it to where all of the people that currently have subsidized insurance through the fed exchange no longer get any assistance, that's fine, they can do that, but don't act like they're helpless children that just can't do anything about it. When you are in an elected position to govern and you choose to do nothing, that's still a decision that you can be criticized on. And I think if that's what they choose in that highly unlikely scenario, they will be.
 
roughdraft274 said:
1. I didn't cite a poll. I think you're confused.
Click to expand...

...did you.... did you read the post you were responding to?

2. Illegal subsidy payments? Don't be stupid. The bill was clearly intending that the subsidy payments would also go towards the federal exchange.
Click to expand...

Ah. Okay. Where did it say that?

3. People already see the full cost of the insurance premiums
Click to expand...

No they don't - they see the cost of their portion after the subsidies because that's what they have to pay. It is similar to how tax-withholding serves to minimize people's awareness of their tax costs - all they see is the take-home pay.

:) But hey, we'll get a chance to test this hypothesis, perhaps, in a few weeks.

4. If the supreme court decides that the subsidies won't apply to the fed exchange (highly doubtful) and the republicans refuse to alter it, then that is their position. And when people are unable to afford the insurance because Republicans refuse to vote for a change, that will be on them.
Click to expand...

:shrug: about as much as it will be on Democrats when they refuse to vote to get rid of the ACA altogether.

It's not on Republicans to make a Democrat program work. You don't get to build a bomb, start the timer, and then demand that the explosion is the GOP's fault if they don't race to defuse it. You're the one that built and set the stinkin' bomb.

They are in a position to govern the country. If they don't want to fix ObamaCare and would rather have it to where all of the people that currently have subsidized insurance through the fed exchange no longer get any assistance, that's fine, they can do that, but don't act like they're helpless children that just can't do anything about it. When you are in an elected position to govern and you choose to do nothing, that's still a decision that you can be criticized on. And I think if that's what they choose in that highly unlikely scenario, they will be.
Click to expand...

Oh I have no doubt that Democrat leadership and most of the media will rush to blame Republicans for the disastrous results of Democrat decision-making. I just don't have to sell my intellectual integrity to swallow that crap.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
Paul Ryan repeatedly refuses to tell skeptical Fox host how the GOP would replace Obamacare.

Farkin weasel.
Click to expand...

Why would he want to replace a failed program? The question was moot. It's like someone brings a cow into your house and you tell them to get it out but they ask you instead what you're going to find to replace the cow with if it's gone.

Come on, folks. :roll:
 
cpwill said:
No they don't - they see the cost of their portion after the subsidies because that's what they have to pay. It is similar to how tax-withholding serves to minimize people's awareness of their tax costs - all they see is the take-home pay.
Click to expand...


Every plan lists "premium before tax credit" in the premium box, along with the after tax credit amount.
 
Greenbeard said:
Every plan lists "premium before tax credit" in the premium box, along with the after tax credit amount.
Click to expand...

:) Well then in that case, no one will be surprised to find out what it costs when/if SCOTUS takes away the subsidies, and the ACA's satisfaction level will remain roughly where it's currently at.
 
There are a record number of job openings. Healthcare availability and home values / underwater mortgages are the major obstacles preventing people from moving around the country to fill those positions. Its also a drag on wages as workers stay in positions longer. Its too bad Ryan and the republicans offer nothing to help this situation. I hope the media continues to ask them similar questions. All they offer is supply side bull****. Working great in Kansas and Louisiana.
 
cpwill said:
Ah. Okay. Where did it say that?
Click to expand...
Every congressman that has talked on the matter has said that the intention was that the federal exchange would recieve subsidies. No one anywhere has said that the intention was to not allow subsidies. Even Republican congressmen have said this.


I know that you don't care about that, but the supreme court does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent

cpwill said:
No they don't - they see the cost of their portion after the subsidies because that's what they have to pay. It is similar to how tax-withholding serves to minimize people's awareness of their tax costs - all they see is the take-home pay.

Click to expand...

I just told you that I helped my dad sign up for health insurance through the exchange. It gave us all the information on the full price of the plan and then it gave us what it would be after his subsidy.

You're wording is retarded. They won't be as happy because they will have to pay more, not because they'll "see the cost of their portion".

And if they supreme court rules subsidies illegal and Republicans refuse to alter anything, thats on them. ObamaCare is already passed. We are over that. At that point we would be facing the dilemma of "should we give these people subsidies that they should have recieved anyways or should we say **** em?" And the two parties can pick what they want.


cpwill said:
It's not on Republicans to make a Democrat program work. You don't get to build a bomb, start the timer, and then demand that the explosion is the GOP's fault if they don't race to defuse it. You're the one that built and set the stinkin' bomb.
Click to expand...

They are elected officials in the government. It is their job to govern. If they think the right choice is to leave subsidies out of the law then that is their choice. But this stupid "well its not our job" **** is something you'd hear from a child. They can make a choice, but they have to defend their choice.

Also, comparing this to a bomb is silly. I get that the conservative elders have been spoon feeding you that talking point but ti makes you look silly.
cpwill said:
Oh I have no doubt that Democrat leadership and most of the media will rush to blame Republicans for the disastrous results of Democrat decision-making. I just don't have to sell my intellectual integrity to swallow that crap.
Click to expand...

For starters, your intellectual integrity would have to be worth something for you to sell it.

But again you don't understand. If ObamaCare doesn't work, it's not the republicans fault. If Republicans vote to reinstate the subsidies if they get removed, and then obamacare doesn't work, it's still not their fault. But if a typo results in people losing their subsidies and the Republican stance is "**** em, it's not our fault" then they shouldn't be in government anyways. Even if the law wasn't theirs its still their job to govern.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Every congressman that has talked on the matter has said that the intention was that the federal exchange would recieve subsidies.
Click to expand...

No one thought there would be a federal exchange. Every Congressman that is talking on the matter saying that was their intention is coming up with post-hoc justifications because all of a sudden this is a problem.

I know that you don't care about that, but the supreme court does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
Click to expand...

:shrug: "intent" can't overrule the LETTER.

I just told you that I helped my dad sign up for health insurance through the exchange. It gave us all the information on the full price of the plan and then it gave us what it would be after his subsidy.
Click to expand...

:shrug: good for you. People also see their pay stubs, or have it available to them. What do you want to bet that they only really pay attention to take-home?

And if they supreme court rules subsidies illegal and Republicans refuse to alter anything, thats on them.
Click to expand...

:shrug: Democrat failures and follow-on illegal actions are not on Republicans. If Republicans want to offer a fix, then good on them. I don't necessarily see any reason why they should save Obamacare from it's own failures.

ObamaCare is already passed. We are over that
Click to expand...

No we aren't. When you pass a massive reorganization of 12% of our economy effecting every man woman and child in the country in a partisan manner against the will of the populace, there isn't a "we're past that". Remember the day after when conservatives were promising that the fight had only started? We mean that.

At that point we would be facing the dilemma of "should we give these people subsidies that they should have recieved anyways or should we say **** em?" And the two parties can pick what they want.
Click to expand...

:shrug: it's no more a "**** them" to not give someone money that is not in the law than it is Congress saying "**** Veterans" by not giving them each an annual $25,000 bonus.

They are elected officials in the government. It is their job to govern. If they think the right choice is to leave subsidies out of the law then that is their choice.
Click to expand...

They aren't writing the law. The subsidies have already been left out of the law. It is the GOP position that we should get rid of the law. It is not the GOP's responsibility to save it.

Also, comparing this to a bomb is silly. I get that the conservative elders have been spoon feeding you that talking point but ti makes you look silly.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's blowing up in people's faces and the disaster was inherent in it. Conservative elders? What Conservative Elder has been feeding anyone that talking point? I made that up on my own. Projecting at all?

For starters, your intellectual integrity would have to be worth something for you to sell it.
Click to expand...

:lol:

But again you don't understand. If ObamaCare doesn't work, it's not the republicans fault. If Republicans vote to reinstate the subsidies if they get removed, and then obamacare doesn't work, it's still not their fault. But if a typo results in people losing their subsidies and the Republican stance is "**** em, it's not our fault" then they shouldn't be in government anyways. Even if the law wasn't theirs its still their job to govern.
Click to expand...

It' wasn't a typo, it was an incentive to force the states on-board
...What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.... by not setting up an exchange, the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars....That is really the ultimate threat, is, will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn't set up an exchange, you're losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens​
 
cpwill said:
No one thought there would be a federal exchange. Every Congressman that is talking on the matter saying that was their intention is coming up with post-hoc justifications because all of a sudden this is a problem.
Click to expand...

Are you joking? The law was specifically written so that there would be a federal exchange that would service states that couldn't or wouldn't set up their own exchange.


ObamaCare drafters: We never intended to limit federal subsidies to state exchanges « Hot Air

But senators and staff lawyers came to believe that some states — “five or 10 at the most” — would choose not to set up exchanges, said Christopher E. Condeluci, who was a staff lawyer for Republicans on the Finance Committee.

At that point, senators authorized a backup plan to allow the federal government to establish an exchange in any state that did not have its own, but they failed to include that language in the section of the tax code providing subsidies. “We failed to include a cross-reference to the federal exchange,” Mr. Condeluci said. “In my opinion, due to a drafting error, we overlooked it. It was an oversight. Congress, in my experience, always intended for the federal exchange to deliver subsidies.”…

The idea of a federal backstop came later, [Russ Sullivan] said, when people started asking what would happen if some states did not set up an exchange.
Click to expand...

They drafted the bill and included subsidies. They thought of the issue "what would happen if the states didn't set up an exchange? so they added in the federal exchange. And it was just neglected to add the federal exchange to the section talking about reimbursements. But everyone who has discussed the matter has said that the full intention of the law, 100%, was that the federal exchange would be just like any other.

And as I've pointed out, even republican congressman have said that this was the intent.

This wasn't a problem that arose after the bill was passed. It was thought of before the bill passed and they addressed it but made an error in one part of the bill.

I'll gladly put up money that the supreme court will rule that the federal exchange should continue to receive subsidies if your so sure on this. A 25$ donation in the other persons name to the board?
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: Democrat failures and follow-on illegal actions are not on Republicans. If Republicans want to offer a fix, then good on them. I don't necessarily see any reason why they should save Obamacare from it's own failures.
Click to expand...

Can you read? That's what I've been saying all along. If Republicans want to say "we think you'd be better off without ObamaCare, therefor we are going to leave the law like this, where no one on the federal exchange can receive subsidies, so that we have a better chance of getting rid of it entirely later. They can choose to do that. But if they choose that it's still their choice and they will be judged on that, for better or worse.

All I'm saying is that as a politician you are judged and evaluated on every decision you make, even if your decision is that you won't do anything. Are you stubborn enough to really argue this point? Or do you just not understand whats being said to you?
 
SlevinKelevra said:
WATCH: Paul Ryan repeatedly refuses to tell skeptical Fox host how the GOP would replace Obamacare



Farkin weasel.
:shock:

If only they hadn't tried to call it "Obamacare", maybe they could get on the winning side of the issue. But no, "ACA" wasn't villifiable enough.

As SCOTUS Decision Looms, Obamacare Satisfaction Reaches 86 Percent - Forbes



06ULAoy.jpg
Click to expand...

1) Ryan did say they would replace Obamacare. Is your point really that he didn't produce the details in his 5 minute interview?
2) As for "Obamacare satisfaction reaches 86 percent", what was the very or somewhat satisfaction level of the Americans BEFORE the Federal Government takeover.

Keep in mind, the employer mandate/penalty isn't in effect yet.
 
bubbabgone said:
1) Ryan did say they would replace Obamacare. Is your point really that he didn't produce the details in his 5 minute interview?
2) As for "Obamacare satisfaction reaches 86 percent", what was the very or somewhat satisfaction level of the Americans BEFORE the Federal Government takeover.

Keep in mind, the employer mandate/penalty isn't in effect yet.
Click to expand...

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

Who said that Obamacare satisfaction has reached 86 percent, and when did that happen? Everything I've read suggests that's not accurate at all! Depends on who they're polling, I guess. :confused:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

Who said that Obamacare satisfaction has reached 86 percent,
Click to expand...
and when did that happen? Everything I've read suggests that's not accurate at all! Depends on who they're polling, I guess. :confused:
Click to expand...

Why it was the guy at the link, of course, and why would anyone want to challenge him ... he has such a nice face.

Like I've said before but have to keep repeating, if you read anything that says there are 16 million people with health insurance now who didn't have it before and it doesn't mention the millions who lost their insurance because of Obamacare, you can stop reading because it'll be a skewed piece written solely to defend Obamacare.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Are you joking? The law was specifically written so that there would be a federal exchange that would service states that couldn't or wouldn't set up their own exchange.
Click to expand...

Not - according to your source - when they actually came to the agreement on the subsidies.

ObamaCare drafters: We never intended to limit federal subsidies to state exchanges

They drafted the bill and included subsidies. They thought of the issue "what would happen if the states didn't set up an exchange? so they added in the federal exchange. And it was just neglected to add the federal exchange to the section talking about reimbursements. But everyone who has discussed the matter has said that the full intention of the law, 100%, was that the federal exchange would be just like any other.

And as I've pointed out, even republican congressman have said that this was the intent.

This wasn't a problem that arose after the bill was passed. It was thought of before the bill passed and they addressed it but made an error in one part of the bill.
Click to expand...

....did you read your source? It kinda sorta goes on at length throwing cold water on your arguments.

1. Not even the Administration is making the "oh, it's a drafting error" argument. They're arguing that "State" didn't mean "States", but rather meant the more elusive "Government".
2. SCOTUS on Post-Hoc Statements of Legislative Intent: Since such statements cannot possibly have informed the vote of the legislators who earlier enacted the law, there is no more basis for considering them than there is to conduct post-enactment polls of the original legislators.
3. If that was the intent, then one would have to also ask why the authors chose the exact same methodology to push States to expand Medicaid, excepting, of course, that the states lost all Medicaid funding.

People at the time recognized that the law wouldn't give subsidies to the states that did not set up their own exchanges, including people who today claim that they didn't. Memory is an imperfect tool, especially when dealing with the details of massive piece of constantly-in-motion legislation prone to large changes at a moment's notice in a supercharged atmosphere.

But, back then.....



It was an incentive to force the states on-board:

...What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.... by not setting up an exchange, the politicians of a state are costing state residents hundreds and millions and billions of dollars....​

I'll gladly put up money that the supreme court will rule that the federal exchange should continue to receive subsidies if your so sure on this. A 25$ donation in the other persons name to the board?
Click to expand...

Hm. Well, frankly, I'm not sure on how SCOTUS will rule - in fact, I think I will lose - but it's a good cause. :) I accept.

Can you read?
Click to expand...

:) Says the man who thought that my original post you responded to wasn't responding to a poll?

Hey, weren't you supposed to be identifying the Conservative Elders who were spoonfeeding me my talking points?

That's what I've been saying all along.
Click to expand...

Sort of. You have been claiming that the onus is on Republicans to act, and that the subsequent mess is somehow their fault if they do not do so. It is not. It is an excellent opportunity for Republicans to see some victories on the ACA front (for example, extend federal subsidies for a year in return for getting rid of the mandates / 30 hour restrictions that even Democrat allies are describing as disastrous). But they are in no way responsible for the harm inflicted by Obamacare.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Not - according to your source - when they actually came to the agreement on the subsidies.

....did you read your source? It kinda sorta goes on at length throwing cold water on your arguments.



Hm. Well, frankly, I'm not sure on how SCOTUS will rule - in fact, I think I will lose - but it's a good cause. :) I accept.

....

Sort of. You have been claiming that the onus is on Republicans to act, and that the subsequent mess is somehow their fault if they do not do so.
Click to expand...

1. They agreed on the subsidies before the federal exchange was in the bill, but it was still added with that intention. Every congressman that has spoke on it has agreed to this even Republicans. I used that source to show that the federal exchange was put there with forethought, not like you had said. I didn't care about all of the opinion crap from hat air. I was using what they had quoted.

2. I'm sure you do. Because you know what the full intent was even if you won't be honest about it. It's a bet then. I'd like a year long gold membership when I win, lol.

3. It's not on them to act. I'm just saying that if they choose not to, that's still they're decision and they can be judged on it. It's just like when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire. The democrats weren't forced to act. They could have chosen to let them all expire. But when people started asking why their taxes went up the democrats would have had to answer along the lines of "we didn't want to extend them. You need to pay more in taxes." This is the same thing. If they would choose to not fix it, then they need to explain it and own their choice. That's reality. Neither side gets to use the excuse "we had nothing to do with it, therefor I don't have to do my job." The only way an elected official could say that is if they didn't give a **** about the country or the people in it. Your position seemed to indicate that you think they can refuse to do anything about it and at the same time it's wrong to criticize them for doing nothing about it. That's just stupid. They can pick and then they get judged by the people, good or bad. That's how it always works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom