• 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!

Obama Address the Nation on the government shutdown.

You answer my questions with questions. First off, what I'm saying is that republicans asking for a delay so that obamacare can be implemented correctly is an outright lie that they won't even try to defend, they don't want it done right they want it gone as a best possible scenario (from their perspective) or done wrong as a 2nd best scenario.

Morning Shagg....:2wave:

That's an excuse for inaction on the part of demo's that want to just keep this law in place. If it is known by both sides that there are real problems with implementation of the law, and refuse to take at face value a minor delay while these issues are addressed, but just go ahead with it anyway for the purpose of cementing it in stone, then who is to blame when we start to hear the stories of lives destroyed by the law when they come out?

To address your post:

Thats 3 questions in 1 sentence
A) not necessarily, it was rushed and certainly could have been written better, with more consideration to certain issues. But when your writing in pencil (effectively) you don't crumple the whole crossword puzzle up because one of your answers doesn't fit in light of more recent developments, you flip the pencil around, use the eraser, and fix it.

If it could have been written better as you say, then why weren't these issues addressed before the demo's jammed this through on a party line vote, in the middle of the night? Is that 'working for the people'? I say no. But, to use an analogy that I think fits here...If you are replacing the light fixture in your dining room say, and you pull the old one down, and notice that the wiring needs to be fixed or it could be a fire hazard, do you put up the light, and turn it on anyway without fixing the wiring first? Or do you just let the house possibly burn down because you want to say look at that shiny new light fixture?


No, this is not what we are seeing so far....Reports are that in fact most of the nation will see increases to their premiums.

C) that's not the point of the ACA, its to make coverage affordable and available. However, the ACA should increase competition, which should cause quality to improve over time.

We know that is the theory that is being pushed, but, can you point to one government program, or entitlement that costs less today, than was projected when it was implemented?

There's tons of contradictory evidence that points to both sides being both right and wrong. There's also a lot of evidence of dishonesty with statistics, misrepresentation of facts, deliberately misleading sound bytes, and most everyone (but republicans far more so) working backwards from their conclusion and trying to find something that supports their own position, at times taking actions that create said evidence without any real need to do so (business owners ****ting on their workers in anticipation of obamacare, when they didn't need to take a dump anyway and could have done so elsewhere if they needed to). I trust none of it, let the ACA happen and lets see how it goes. America is strong enough to make the corrections needed and endure should the ACA prove to be as bad as the right makes it out to be. On the other hand, it could end up working really really well with a few adjustments, which is what the right is really scared of.

And this is the problem you have when a bill that is over bloated, and jammed with all kinds of hidden taxation and dishonest regulation hidden in over 2800 pages that NO ONE read, and the speaker at the time said "we have to pass the bill, before we can know what is in the bill", and in fact didn't read it herself, and rammed it through in the middle of the night on a one part line vote, what do you expect? Demo's don't want this law dissected, because the people know of it, the less they like it, and start to see that the trade off of liberty contained within, as opposed to the goodies contained within, are not a fair trade off.

Bad analogies are bad. You suggest that obamacare will ruin the lives of those in congress if they don't exempt themselves. Do you think any of them would have a hard time buying health insurance, top tier, out of pocket? Just another empty talking point that sounds good but makes no sense if you stop to think about it.

So then why'd they exempt themselves? And why are they screaming like stuck pigs if they have to pay like everyone else? Dismissing it as a talking point is a pure dodge in addressing why it is that these members feel that the laws they pass only apply to the little people.
 
That's what they want, more for them and less for us....grubbynutt the true evil.


For the same reason that Obamacare would force people who already have insurance into a whole new insurance regime.

If Obamacare is so awesome, why not put everyone on it?
 
Only if it adds that Congress doesn't get paid until it's done and after one month past the deadline new elections are held for ALL congress members. I'm not up for some wishy washy amendment with no teeth.

I'd agree to that....I'd even suggest 2 weeks.
 
Actually it is a big deal for world markets, stock markets, and how the world looks at us from a economic stability point, etc.

This just makes us look bad and hurts us in many ways. I blame both sides and the president for this crap.

Making decisions based on what the world thinks, and what is best for the stock market, is what got us in 90 percent of our mess to begin with.
 
For the same reason that Obamacare would force people who already have insurance into a whole new insurance regime.

If Obamacare is so awesome, why not put everyone on it?

Because that is not what the AHC act was about. It is meant to allow the UNINSURED to finally be able to purchase HC. That is its purpose. I am not surprised that you are clueless about it most who oppose it are.
 
For the same reason that Obamacare would force people who already have insurance into a whole new insurance regime.

If Obamacare is so awesome, why not put everyone on it?
Um, possibly because....it was designed from the start to get those WITHOUT insurance..... to purchase it.

Have you forgotten the basics?
 
Um, possibly because....it was designed from the start to get those WITHOUT insurance..... to purchase it.

Have you forgotten the basics?

Oh, is that what it's for? LMAO!!!! Two-thousand pages, just to force people to purchase health insurance???

If that's the case, then everyone who already has health insurance should receive the same exemption.
 
The debt limit doesn't limit future spending, it pays for spending that's already been passed.

Congress doesn't have a credit limit, but they do have to pay their bills. They can vote to spend whatever they want and sell T bills to make up the difference. They can continue to do this until they can't pay for what they spend. If that happens,T note will be risky investments. They'll demand high rates. The cost of financing the debt will explode destroying the US economy.

And all of this happens if GOP refuses to pay for what they spent. Not raising the debt ceiling would harm the US more than any terrorist ever could.

I wonder which Obama is accurate and which one the Obamabots support?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...9422.1073741827.168840759932592&type=1&ref=nf

2006
Raising America's debt ceiling is a sign of leadership failure

2011
Not raising the debt ceiling would be absurd and irresponsible.
 
Because that is not what the AHC act was about. It is meant to allow the UNINSURED to finally be able to purchase HC. That is its purpose. I am not surprised that you are clueless about it most who oppose it are.

So, raising insurance premiums is supposed to allow uninsured folks to more easily purchase insurance?? :lamo
 
The debt limit doesn't limit future spending, it pays for spending that's already been passed.

Congress doesn't have a credit limit, but they do have to pay their bills. They can vote to spend whatever they want and sell T bills to make up the difference. They can continue to do this until they can't pay for what they spend. If that happens,T note will be risky investments. They'll demand high rates. The cost of financing the debt will explode destroying the US economy.

And all of this happens if GOP refuses to pay for what they spent. Not raising the debt ceiling would harm the US more than any terrorist ever could.

Raising the debt limit pays for nothing. It creates more debt.

You can try this at home. Get in touch with your credit card(s) companies and get them to raise your limit. Then go out and max the card(s) out.


Get back with us on how raising your debt limits paid for anything.
 
Um, possibly because....it was designed from the start to get those WITHOUT insurance..... to purchase it.

Have you forgotten the basics?

Morning there Gimmie,

Can you please point me to the part in the Constitution of the United States where the authority lies for the government to 'Force' people to buy any private product?
 
Oh, is that what it's for? LMAO!!!! Two-thousand pages, just to force people to purchase health insurance???

If that's the case, then everyone who already has health insurance should receive the same exemption.
The same "exemption".....that if you have employer provided insurance, you should be forced to drop it so that you have to purchase insurance on the private market? The purpose being......what?
I mean if the grand idea is to delink insurance from employment....fine.....but that is not the intent, your intent is to try to blow up the whole plan.......which was originally a conservative plan to counter single payer/socialized medicine.

It still amazes me how this point is still lost on cons.
 
Actually its purpose is to take the over burdened middle class health care system and share it with the poor and under privileged so they will continue to vote for democrats. The elites aren't being touched as is evidenced in the fact the congress exempts itself, the administration exempted itself, large corps exempted, and public employee unions exempted.


Because that is not what the AHC act was about. It is meant to allow the UNINSURED to finally be able to purchase HC. That is its purpose. I am not surprised that you are clueless about it most who oppose it are.
 
Morning there Gimmie,

Can you please point me to the part in the Constitution of the United States where the authority lies for the government to 'Force' people to buy any private product?

Good luck getting an answer to that one from any Obama supporter for you see the Constitution doesn't matter nor do economic results when it comes to Obama and Obamanomics. Apparently negative results only matter when a Republican is in the WH
 
The same "exemption".....that if you have employer provided insurance, you should be forced to drop it so that you have to purchase insurance on the private market? The purpose being......what?
I mean if the grand idea is to delink insurance from employment....fine.....but that is not the intent, your intent is to try to blow up the whole plan.......which was originally a conservative plan to counter single payer/socialized medicine.

It still amazes me how this point is still lost on cons.

Still sticking to it being Heritage's plan eh, even when that has been debunked....:doh
 
Because that is not what the AHC act was about. It is meant to allow the UNINSURED to finally be able to purchase HC. That is its purpose. I am not surprised that you are clueless about it most who oppose it are.

LOL. And the millions of new qualifiers for Medicaid are purchasing it how? What prevented anybody from purchasing health insurance to begin with?

Somebody else is "clueless" on this issue? LOL.
 
You have yet to show me how raising the debt each year is going to pay it off.

Yet? I didn't know that was my job, but I did manage to show that not raising the debt ceiling will make the debt impossible to pay off. I'd think that sufficient to answer you question.

Even though the amount of debt has exploded, the low interest rates has kept the cost of servicing the debt very low. But those interest rates will go up substantially if we default. This will exponentially increase the cost to service the debt.

052213rates2.jpg

Even now, the ludicrously childish House Tea Partiers are making it more expensive to borrow money. The net effect is an INCREASE in government spending.
 
Morning there Gimmie,

Can you please point me to the part in the Constitution of the United States where the authority lies for the government to 'Force' people to buy any private product?
I never said 'force'. And besides, you already have it. But I suppose you are fighting for the right to be irresponsible.....after all, that is a guaranteed right...right?
 
This is what is so weird about Grassley's provision, why would he insist that those already with insurance (Congressional employees) be forced into a whole new insurance regime? The only thing that makes sense is a sabotage.

The thing that makes sense is Congress should always be forced into programs they create and live under all the same rules and regulations that apply to the rest of us.
 
Actually its purpose is to take the over burdened middle class health care system and share it with the poor and under privileged so they will continue to vote for democrats. The elites aren't being touched as is evidenced in the fact the congress exempts itself, the administration exempted itself, large corps exempted, and public employee unions exempted.

And the Republican position is to deny millions coverage so they can gloat about how much better they are than "them".
 
The same "exemption".....that if you have employer provided insurance, you should be forced to drop it so that you have to purchase insurance on the private market? The purpose being......what?
I mean if the grand idea is to delink insurance from employment....fine.....but that is not the intent, your intent is to try to blow up the whole plan.......which was originally a conservative plan to counter single payer/socialized medicine.

It still amazes me how this point is still lost on cons.

Obamacare is going to blowup, all by itself. :lamo
 
Still sticking to it being Heritage's plan eh, even when that has been debunked....:doh
It certainly was a concept they ascribed to. Of course there is a whole lot of walking back and scrubbing going on now.
 
I never said 'force'. And besides, you already have it. But I suppose you are fighting for the right to be irresponsible.....after all, that is a guaranteed right...right?

Of course it's a right. The Libbos actually pay people to be irresponsible.
 
And the Republican position is to deny millions coverage so they can gloat about how much better they are than "them".

Who is denying millions coverage? where in the hell do you get your information and what is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty and ignorance?
 
Back
Top Bottom