• 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!

'Delay’ suddenly not a dirty word at White House

Michael66 said:
Your ignorant charge of Obama acting like a spoiled child is irrelevant. It's no more than political rhetoric. What is relevant is that the blame for the shutdown has been firmly placed where it belongs in the minds of the majority of the electorate. I need not remind you of the facts.
Click to expand...
Nothing ignorant about stating facts. Obama pouted and acted like a spoiled petulant little child. His actions and that of his administration were the ultimate in embarrassing. That he refused to even consider a delay in the individual mandate (in light of the fact that the system was not worthy of being brought on line and that he had already recognized the failure that is the business mandate) contributed significantly to the shutdown. Of course...mindless ideologues will ONLY see 'the other guys' as the problem.
 
Summerwind said:
Obama et al, never said they wouldn't consider a delay in anything, or to discuss any other ideas.

What he said was he wouldn't discuss in relation to re-opening the government. He said over and over he was open to hearing all ideas, after and not relating to the government paying bills already incurred, and allowing government to function as it is currently mandated to through all the bills Congress has passed over the centuries.
Click to expand...


What he and the demo's say, and what they do, are two totally different things....

House Republicans are starting to fill in the details of what health-care policies they would prefer over Obamacare. The 175 conservative representatives in the Republican Study Committee released a plan last week. It’s a good start, but there’s room for improvement.

The plan, which is mostly the work of Representatives Phil Roe and Steve Scalise, repeals President Barack Obama’s health-care law. It replaces the unlimited tax break for employer-provided health insurance with a new tax deduction -- $7,500 for individuals or $20,000 for families -- to purchase health insurance, whether through an employer or on their own. It would let insurers sell policies across state lines. And it would put $25 billion into high-risk pools to help people who would still be unable to buy insurance.

The prevailing liberal reaction to the plan has been to dismiss it. It isn’t a serious alternative to the Affordable Care Act, they say, because it doesn’t provide health insurance to as many people or offer the same protections to those with pre-existing conditions. Obamacare supporters expect the law to increase the number of people with insurance by 25 million. The Lewin Group has estimated that a tax deduction would increase that number by only about 9 million.

A Serious Republican Health-Care Plan - Bloomberg
Click to expand...

And this isn't the only "suggestion" or "being open to hearing all ideas".... Instead the M.O. for Barry O. and Co. is to say wonderful things like this, then when repubs bring forth their ideas, instead of listening, all they do is dismiss them, and then go out on the same old media tour, talking about how repubs haven't offered anything....It's a lie period.
 
Michael66 said:
In actual fact, you could take away the sarcasm and you would be dead right for all of the world's wealthy first world countries. In regards to health care, the US doesn't fit anymore. Even Switzerland, one of the most firmly established capitalist systems in the world say the light and joined the rest of the world.

The fact is, Americans know they need to do the same. Some of them just can't stomach having it done for them by a black president. That's a poor reason to object and for that reason alone it will happen eventually. Perhaps some satisfaction could come out of it happening later under some other president's watch. Who the **** cares other than those who are being bankrupted by the lousy system in place now.
Click to expand...

Again, other countries that aren't governed by the Constitution, which is built around a premise that it's not the Government's JOB to take care of you, it's your job. And rightly so. So much is wrong with the single payer system, so much reliance on an uncaring bureaucratic machine that will dictate to you your life. Why do people want that?
 
MrVicchio said:
Again, other countries that aren't governed by the Constitution, which is built around a premise that it's not the Government's JOB to take care of you, it's your job. And rightly so. So much is wrong with the single payer system, so much reliance on an uncaring bureaucratic machine that will dictate to you your life. Why do people want that?
Click to expand...

Hey Vicchio, I haven't seen you in a while. How've ya been?
 
MaggieD said:
Medicare is the single best thing that happened for seniors in the United States of America since its founding. Extending Medicare-type coverage to every American would not be a stunt.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, they handed of preparing to care for themselves and passed it on to their kids and grand kids. Socialism is always a great idea... till you bleed the money dry.
[Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund] expenditures have exceeded income annually since 2008 and are projected to continue doing so under current law in all future years. Trust Fund interest earnings and asset redemptions are required to cover the difference. HI assets are projected to cover annual deficits through 2023, with asset depletion in 2024. After asset depletion, if Congress were to take no further action, projected HI Trust Fund revenue would be adequate to cover 87 percent of estimated expenditures in 2024 and 67 percent of projected costs in 2050. In practice, Congress has never allowed a Medicare trust fund to exhaust its assets.

The financial projections for Medicare reflect substantial cost savings resulting from the Affordable Care Act, but also show that further action is needed to address the program’s continuing cost growth.
Click to expand...
MEDICARE STABLE, BUT REQUIRES STRENGTHENING


But hey, enjoy it while you can. Just like all the other insolvent social programs, the piper is coming, and it's not gonna be pretty.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Hey Vicchio, I haven't seen you in a while. How've ya been?
Click to expand...
Busy, got an interweb job doing sports writing. ten points to the first person aside a certain mod that knows to send it to me in an IM :)
 
Slyfox696 said:
So they are willing to delay in the interest of fairness to Americans, rather than partisan politics, and this is news?
Click to expand...

Well yeah, considering they have refused to do so up to this point......
 
j-mac said:
What he and the demo's say, and what they do, are two totally different things....



And this isn't the only "suggestion" or "being open to hearing all ideas".... Instead the M.O. for Barry O. and Co. is to say wonderful things like this, then when repubs bring forth their ideas, instead of listening, all they do is dismiss them, and then go out on the same old media tour, talking about how repubs haven't offered anything....It's a lie period.
Click to expand...
He/they agreed hearing all ideas, he didn't commit to taking inane ones seriously.
 
Slyfox696 said:
How is that spin? Obama and the Democrats believe in the ACA. Their refusal to delay when Republicans demanded it was because they believed in the legislation. The reason they may be willing to delay now, however, would not be based upon the quality of the legislation, but rather in fairness to those who have been unable to comply with the law for reasons outside the citizen's control.

It's not spin to tell the truth. It's quite telling of team politics when you think it is.
Click to expand...

Impossible for them to believe in that bill. None of them read it when they passed it and Obama sure didn't read it when he signed it. The reason they may be willing to delay now is, it's hot garbage and it's beginning to smell. Just like the GOP told them it was from the very beginning. The Dems though, played politics with peoples lives, jobs, health insurance and so on, shut the government down in their political theater and now are starting to fess up to the facts of their disastrous creation because they are stuck in it.

The only good news for the Dems in any of this is so many of their supporters couldn't spell cat if you gave them the c and the a. But the productive people in America will continue to see how unfair this law is and many more will as soon as their rate increases hit or their hours get cut.

But keep spinning. It's pretty funny.
 
MrVicchio said:
Of course it is, they handed of preparing to care for themselves and passed it on to their kids and grand kids. Socialism is always a great idea... till you bleed the money dry.

MEDICARE STABLE, BUT REQUIRES STRENGTHENING

But hey, enjoy it while you can. Just like all the other insolvent social programs, the piper is coming, and it's not gonna be pretty.
Click to expand...

When you're only charging seniors $104 a month for their Medicare Part B and Part A is free, what would you expect? Of course there's a shortfall. And that shortfall should be taken up by the general fund, in my opinion...which -- it probably is. It would be interesting to know how that shortfall compares with the subsidies the government is going to hand out for Obamacare, wouldn't it?
 
MaggieD said:
When you're only charging seniors $104 a month for their Medicare Part B and Part A is free, what would you expect? Of course there's a shortfall. And that shortfall should be taken up by the general fund, in my opinion...which -- it probably is. It would be interesting to know how that shortfall compares with the subsidies the government is going to hand out for Obamacare, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

Again, this goes to your belief it's the governments job to forcibly take money from a group of people, and give it to another because you think it's for a good cause. If I took money from you and gave it to my sister cause she needed something, you'd call the cops.
 
MrVicchio said:
Again, this goes to your belief it's the governments job to forcibly take money from a group of people, and give it to another because you think it's for a good cause. If I took money from you and gave it to my sister cause she needed something, you'd call the cops.
Click to expand...

It is my belief that a society as great as the USA should have adequate healthcare for all of its citizens. That having a heart attack or cancer shouldn't result in some hard-working family going bankrupt and losing everything they have. I don't apologize for that one little bit.

That, in my opinion, is what government is best at -- protecting its citizens. Using the great resources of this country to uplift its citizens into a decent and secure life. And that means taking some extra from all the rest of us to make that happen.

We have safety nets for people who lose their jobs . . . we have safety nets for the disabled . . . we have safety nets for the mentally handicapped . . . we have safety nets for children . . . having a safety net for people who get sick so they can get the care they desperately need? Just stands to reason. I'm all for it.

Am I happy about abuse of "the system?" No. It makes me sick. But because people have found ways to work the system -- or because government itself allows it to happen -- doesn't mean it's not a good thing overall.
 
MaggieD said:
It is my belief that a society as great as the USA should have adequate healthcare for all of its citizens.
Click to expand...
We do have adequate healthcare.
MaggieD said:
That having a heart attack or cancer shouldn't result in some hard-working family going bankrupt and losing everything they have. I don't apologize for that one little bit.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't, guilt causes people to do things that aren't always the right thing to do.
MaggieD said:
That, in my opinion, is what government is best at -- protecting its citizens. Using the great resources of this country to uplift its citizens into a decent and secure life. And that means taking some extra from all the rest of us to make that happen.
Click to expand...
If you believe we are free individuals, then you wouldn't think that, you see each of us as a resource to be managed, I find that highly offensive to be honest.
MaggieD said:
We have safety nets for people who lose their jobs . . . we have safety nets for the disabled . . . we have safety nets for the mentally handicapped . . . we have safety nets for children . . . having a safety net for people who get sick so they can get the care they desperately need? Just stands to reason. I'm all for it.
Click to expand...
Do we have safety nets because it's the right thing to do, most effective way to handle business or because it's politically beneficial for unscrupulous politicians to use as leverage to buy votes?
MaggieD said:
Am I happy about abuse of "the system?" No. It makes me sick. But because people have found ways to work the system -- or because government itself allows it to happen -- doesn't mean it's not a good thing overall.
Click to expand...
The real people working the system are the politicians that think they know what's best for us, and oh by the way ensures that large segments of the population will keep voting for them to ensure they are taken care of.

The real answer is Health Savings accounts, catastrophic "INSURANCE" and handling things on the state/local level as much as possible. However that means some people will decide to forgo taking care of themselves, make bad choices then guilty feeling people like yourself will vote for the "Politician who will make sure NO ONE goes without..."

It's a vicious cycle that starts with irresponsible people, and ends with guilty fools thinking that somehow it's wrong people fail at life and can be fixed by "XXX government program".
 
MrVicchio said:
If you believe we are free individuals, then you wouldn't think that, you see each of us as a resource to be managed, I find that highly offensive to be honest.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I think you should save your "highly offensive" mode for something more offensive-worthy.

Do we have safety nets because it's the right thing to do, most effective way to handle business or because it's politically beneficial for unscrupulous politicians to use as leverage to buy votes?
Click to expand...

If it weren't political, every politician in Washington and every politician at the state level would demand that fraud be investigated and minimized. But because I can't get THAT done doesn't translate to the programs aren't worthwhile.

The real answer is Health Savings accounts, catastrophic "INSURANCE" and handling things on the state/local level as much as possible. However that means some people will decide to forgo taking care of themselves, make bad choices then guilty feeling people like yourself will vote for the "Politician who will make sure NO ONE goes without..."
Click to expand...

The "real answer" has always been mandated coverage. HSA's are great. If you can afford them. But as long as insurance companies wouldn't insure pre-existing conditions? (Pre-Obamacare) Hard-working well-intentioned people were left out of the mix.

It's a vicious cycle that starts with irresponsible people, and ends with guilty fools thinking that somehow it's wrong people fail at life and can be fixed by "XXX government program".
Click to expand...

I neither feel guilty nor am I a fool. I lived it.

An entrepreneur all my life, I have struggled with health insurance from time in memorial. Turned down for insurance because I'd had a bladder infection five years prior...really? Breast cancer excluded for two years because I'd had a benign cyst removed. Underwriters were ruthless. Ruthless.

When I finally entered Illinois' ICHIP program, I was paying $850 a month for my American Family insurance policy for a $5,200 deductible. Since I had health issues, that meant my insurance, bottom line, cost me $850 x 12 + $5,200 = $15,400 a year. Know anyone who can afford that? Well, I had to . . . because I had assets to protect. And when I changed to ICHIP? I had to KEEP that American Family policy for six months because I HAD a pre-existing condition. Total cost of my health insurance that one year? $12,900. Know anyone who can afford that? For one person?

I don't feel guilty. You help me with mine? I'll help you with yours. That's what insurance is all about.
 
Summerwind said:
He/they agreed hearing all ideas, he didn't commit to taking inane ones seriously.
Click to expand...

Then the offer was never serious. Whether you think the ideas are inane, or not is irrelevant...You don't start with 'it's my way', then offer to listen to suggestions, to expect only ideas that you agree with, that is called a non starter.
 
j-mac said:
Then the offer was never serious. Whether you think the ideas are inane, or not is irrelevant...You don't start with 'it's my way', then offer to listen to suggestions, to expect only ideas that you agree with, that is called a non starter.
Click to expand...

I've never seen Obama throw out an "it's my way" without consideration until the government shutdown. Wish he had, but alas, he's such a disappointment in how fairly he listens to inanity, as well as accepting some of it, as evidenced by the garbage and complications in ACA.
 
Summerwind said:
I've never seen Obama throw out an "it's my way" without consideration until the government shutdown. Wish he had, but alas, he's such a disappointment in how fairly he listens to inanity, as well as accepting some of it, as evidenced by the garbage and complications in ACA.
Click to expand...

What the....? Now the problems with the ACA are because of repubs? :lamo Oh my....that is funny.
 
Maggie, where does it stop? Healthcare, food, utilities, housing... why should I or you pay for another person for life? Cause that's what this is. Has not the abject failure of such been enough for oyu o realize it's great till it runs outta money? 17 TRILLION in debt says we're long past "outta money".
 
j-mac said:
What the....? Now the problems with the ACA are because of repubs? :lamo Oh my....that is funny.
Click to expand...
Democrats wanted single payer, all this insurance companies as the middle men, as well as the mandate, are Republican from their inception back when suggested during Clinton's day and clearly evidenced in Romneycare which is what ACA ended up fashioned after. Not at all what Democrats wanted but compromised to.
 
Summerwind said:
I don't know, but he should've done that. If delaying mandate for one group, do all groups, OR better yet, only delay for the group that is most hurting (if you're a democrat) and that doesn't seem to be these huge corporations, it'd be individuals.

He really, really screwed that up every possible way, and those Repubs couldn't care less about the those little individuals, but he left himself open for this attack. Open 'em, let be voluntary the first year, let kinks get worked out, and then... I could see that for being sensible, given the complications that the Repubs and insurance companies and Obama forced onto what should be uncomplicated and no need for any huge IT programs at all.
Click to expand...


Well, the problem is that the program can't work as a voluntary system as only the high risk people would apply and the insurers would go broke. He should have postponed the entire roll out for a year given the high risk of failure.

I do care about people getting hurt, all the people. In the rush to get a merit badge for Health Industry Overhaul Obama and the Democrats have pushed a load of crap that required a perfect roll out to be viable, then ignored all warning signs that the roll out would be far less than perfect, and tore the country apart in the process.

Sure is a shame that Obama had to learn the hard way why this kind of program is better left to the discretion of the states.
 
Summerwind said:
Democrats wanted single payer, all this insurance companies as the middle men, as well as the mandate, are Republican from their inception back when suggested during Clinton's day and clearly evidenced in Romneycare which is what ACA ended up fashioned after. Not at all what Democrats wanted but compromised to.
Click to expand...

No, they took similar parts to an op ed of a proposed plan that never would have worked, and placed it in as a trojan horse, to single payer...Why are liberals so dishonest?
 
Summerwind said:
Democrats wanted single payer, all this insurance companies as the middle men, as well as the mandate, are Republican from their inception back when suggested during Clinton's day and clearly evidenced in Romneycare which is what ACA ended up fashioned after. Not at all what Democrats wanted but compromised to.
Click to expand...


Two things:

1) NONE of the f*ck up here has anything to do with the private health insurers. The GOVERNMENT f*cked up here and you think the solution is to give them MORE responsibility.

2) As I have said many times, Republicans love when Democrats entertain Republican ideas... they just ask that you not pull them from their trash cans.
 
j-mac said:
Although they are stopping short of delaying the individual mandate, it is clear now that the WH is severely nervous about the roll out, and what their tantrum over the shut down, and their refusal to even negotiate the delay is now going to cost them politically.

This may have turned out to be the most brilliant strategy of the TEA Party to date...Think about it...Cruz, and the rest, have solidly established the republican party as the party against Obamacare, and the individual mandate. Now, it is failing right out of the gate, and those in the know, are saying that there are worse problems as it continues to go into effect. Setting up the antics of demo's, of refusing to talk, name calling, and the whole gambit of basic Alinsky tactics that demo's today employ as reasons NOT to vote for them any time in the future.

Obama's Job Approval Declines to 44.5% in 19th Quarter

Poll: Nearly half say replace everyone in Congress

I think demo's are in for a rough 2014, and 2016...It is possible to see the house majority strengthen, and the loss of the Senate to repub control in 2014, regardless of the MSM running cover for demo's as expected.

What say you?
Click to expand...

I remember when Bush rammed through his Medicare drug plan. The rollout was a disaster, and the Democrats wanted it done away with. Computer glitches made it so that senior citizens were unable to do the cost comparisons and choose the best price, and so that part of the program was delayed. In addition, some seniors were unable to get their prescriptions filled, due to computer glitches. Finally, it resulted in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the infamous donut hole. However, after some tweaking, things were much better than before the Bush plan, and seniors ended up saving a lot of money. I suspect that it will be the same here.

But there is one difference between Bush's plan and Obama's plan, and that difference sticks out like a sore thumb. Although Democrats wanted the Bush plan killed, they didn't advocate shutting down the government or defaulting on the nation's bills.
 
danarhea said:
I remember when Bush rammed through his Medicare drug plan. The rollout was a disaster, and the Democrats wanted it done away with. Computer glitches made it so that senior citizens were unable to do the cost comparisons and choose the best price, and so that part of the program was delayed. In addition, some seniors were unable to get their prescriptions filled, due to computer glitches. Finally, it resulted in the Medicare Part D coverage gap, also known as the infamous donut hole. However, after some tweaking, things were much better than before the Bush plan, and seniors ended up saving a lot of money. I suspect that it will be the same here.

But there is one difference between Bush's plan and Obama's plan, and that difference sticks out like a sore thumb. Although Democrats wanted the Bush plan killed, they didn't advocate shutting down the government or defaulting on the nation's bills.
Click to expand...

There is another 'sore thumb' difference...Medicare part D DID get several votes from Democrats especially in the Senate...PPACA Republican votes - 0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom