• 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

No, I provided an example of how the total cost was not $640 million for the website on the first day it opened. The fact you're trying to twist words shows you know have a losing position.
There was at least four contractors working on that total failure of a web site. You showed what one was paid. There is at least three more tabs from contractors plus however many millions the government spend on it. You lost when you tried to use your typical spin.

Cute.
Yes, and you do spin nearly everything.

The right idea is to not have the government do its job, put thousands of people in an uncertain position with their job, cause billions of dollars of damage to the economy, put us at risk for a credit downgrade and possibly trigger a worldwide economic collapse?

Wow, if you think that's the right thing to do, then I hope you never become a politician.
The constitution does not require the government to implement Obamadon'tcare. But Obamadon'tcare has already cost people their jobs, reduced peoples hours and prevented many others from finding work. What Sen Cruz did not put us at risk of any credit downgrade. Our national debt and the Sec of the Treasury implying he might not pay the bills even though the treasury had enough to pay them, put us at risk for a credit downgrade. Add Obama and the Sen Dems not passing one of the bills sent forward by the house to creating some of that risk.

One more thing. Next time you get a chance, talk to Sen Reid about doing his job instead of preventing the Senate from doing theirs.
 
All Republican proposals including the one from the Heritage Foundation had an individual mandate, citing "personal responsibility" as the reason. Dems are the ones that opposed because it would hurt the poor. What happened to personal responsibility? Is it no longer a Right wing issue? Or is it how it seems....

This is an insidious little lie that persists through out this debate, that must be understood more clearly. As I have posted before, an article in Forbes outlines it rather well here,

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes

This explanation from Heritage, though not totally convincing, effectively changed its opinion on whether or not the 'individual mandate' in a totally comprehensive package like O-care is what they had in mind when writing the book that pondered it in the first place, and we see here,

"If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA."

So, to continually justify this law, as something that republicans endorsed, as it is written in this law, is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at its most likely.

So, I think it would be more useful in any debate on this to cut through the lies, and distortions, and get to the truth don't you?
 
This is an insidious little lie that persists through out this debate, that must be understood more clearly. As I have posted before, an article in Forbes outlines it rather well here,

How the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative Think Tank, Promoted the Individual Mandate - Forbes

This explanation from Heritage, though not totally convincing, effectively changed its opinion on whether or not the 'individual mandate' in a totally comprehensive package like O-care is what they had in mind when writing the book that pondered it in the first place, and we see here,

"If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA."

So, to continually justify this law, as something that republicans endorsed, as it is written in this law, is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at its most likely.

So, I think it would be more useful in any debate on this to cut through the lies, and distortions, and get to the truth don't you?

Backpedaling aside, what would happen to eliminating pre-existing conditions without the mandate? Doesn't Romneycare in Mass. have a similar mandate? Where was the Republican opposition to Romneycare?
 
There was at least four contractors working on that total failure of a web site. You showed what one was paid. There is at least three more tabs from contractors plus however many millions the government spend on it. You lost when you tried to use your typical spin.

And the $640 million number was what was reported for the one contractor. The only spin here is you trying to spin the number as presented for all contractors, not just the one, which it was originally reported to be.

The exact cost to build Healthcare.gov, according to U.S. government records, appears to have been $634,320,919, which we paid to a company you probably never heard of: CGI Federal.
https://web.archive.org/web/2013100...pinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/

I find it amusing you keep projecting your own actions of spin onto me, when all I'm doing is simply speaking the truth. I really wish you'd drop the politics in your posting and just start speaking facts.

One more thing. Next time you get a chance, talk to Sen Reid about doing his job instead of preventing the Senate from doing theirs.
I have never spoken to Reid, so I'm not sure why you think I would talk to him.
 
Backpedaling aside, what would happen to eliminating pre-existing conditions without the mandate? Doesn't Romneycare in Mass. have a similar mandate? Where was the Republican opposition to Romneycare?

Unlike you who seems to promote a massive central govt. Conservatives and Republicans believe in states' rights and that healthcare should reside in the states. You have yet to offer any reason for the Federal Govt. to do it.
 
[/B]And the $640 million number was what was reported for the one contractor. The only spin here is you trying to spin the number as presented for all contractors, not just the one, which it was originally reported to be.


https://web.archive.org/web/2013100...pinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/

I find it amusing you keep projecting your own actions of spin onto me, when all I'm doing is simply speaking the truth. I really wish you'd drop the politics in your posting and just start speaking facts.

I have never spoken to Reid, so I'm not sure why you think I would talk to him.

If the Federal Govt. with a 17 trillion dollar debt spent one dollar on the healthcare website that is too much. Like most liberals it is always about the accuracy of the number vs. the failures of the Federal Govt. to effectively and cost wise implement any social program successfully but like far too many that doesn't matter because it is always the intent that matters more than the end results.
 
Conservatives and Republicans believe in states' rights
No they don't. That's just their excuse to oppose legislation from the other party. Republicans do not support state's rights when it goes against what they want.
If the Federal Govt. with a 17 trillion dollar debt spent one dollar on the healthcare website that is too much. Like most liberals it is always about the accuracy of the number vs. the failures of the Federal Govt. to effectively and cost wise implement any social program successfully but like far too many that doesn't matter because it is always the intent that matters more than the end results.
And like most Republicans, you cannot discuss anything without trying to insult people by calling them liberals.

The fact you think I'm liberal suggests an extremism in your personal politics.
 
No they don't. That's just their excuse to oppose legislation from the other party. Republicans do not support state's rights when it goes against what they want.
And like most Republicans, you cannot discuss anything without trying to insult people by calling them liberals.

The fact you think I'm liberal suggests an extremism in your personal politics.

So it is an insult calling someone a liberal? Why then do liberals post that in their leanings. There is nothing wrong with being a liberal other than the fact that they let emotions get in the way of actual reality. The failed results of liberalism are there for all to see, far too many ignore them. If you don't want to be called a liberal then stop acting like one. Respond to the economic results and date instead of your own feelings.
 
So it is an insult calling someone a liberal?
That's not what I said. I said you try to use liberal as an insult.

If you don't want to be called a liberal then stop acting like one.
I'm not acting like a liberal, I'm just not acting like a political extremist, which is likely why you think I'm liberal.
 
That's not what I said. I said you try to use liberal as an insult.

I'm not acting like a liberal, I'm just not acting like a political extremist, which is likely why you think I'm liberal.

Good, then I am getting my point across as most liberal actions are an insult to intelligence and ignores actual results. You think promoting personal responsibility is being an political extremist? How about having healthcare as a state issue?
 
Good, then I am getting my point across as most liberal actions are an insult to intelligence and ignores actual results.
Like I said before, like most Republicans you cannot discuss things without trying to insult people by calling them liberal.

You think promoting personal responsibility is being an political extremist?
No, but arguing we should not spend a single dollar to implement a sweeping reform of healthcare is politically extreme.

How about having healthcare as a state issue?
I would say anytime someone wishes to keep an obviously flawed and broken status quo simply to achieve their personal politics is most definitely an extreme position.
 
Like I said before, like most Republicans you cannot discuss things without trying to insult people by calling them liberal.

No, but arguing we should not spend a single dollar to implement a sweeping reform of healthcare is politically extreme.

I would say anytime someone wishes to keep an obviously flawed and broken status quo simply to achieve their personal politics is most definitely an extreme position.

I grew up a liberal, believed in much of what is being promoted today until I grew out of it. I have no problem insulting how I was because facts trump liberal rhetoric.

You don't think a 17 trillion dollar debt is politically extreme? How much of that debt is healthcare related and what is the role of the Federal govt. in healthcare?
 
That's not what I said. I said you try to use liberal as an insult.

I'm not acting like a liberal, I'm just not acting like a political extremist, which is likely why you think I'm liberal.

Extremists never think they are acting like extremists. They believe, for example, that the government can do a good job running a health care system, despite a $17,000,000,000,000.00 debt that is growing daily. The government can't even protect the border, nor set up a computer system despite spending millions of dollars, and now you want them in charge of your health?

That would seem to be a very foolish idea. In fact an extremely foolish idea.
 
Extremists never think they are acting like extremists. They believe, for example, that the government can do a good job running a health care system, despite a $17,000,000,000,000.00 debt that is growing daily. The government can't even protect the border, nor set up a computer system despite spending millions of dollars, and now you want them in charge of your health?

That would seem to be a very foolish idea. In fact an extremely foolish idea.
But a non-extremist would realize Obamacare does not put the government in charge of your healthcare, but rather provide standards insurers must adhere to in order to provide a basic coverage. They'd also know the Obamacare website is simply a web-based market for people to browse various insurance plans. They'd know the required sign-up is so the government knows if you're eligible for a subsidy.

A non-extremist would also know a large part of the $17t in debt is owed to ourselves, that a debt has nothing to do with how well an entity can run a particular subject and that a website is nothing like a border.

So...which are you?
 
Nah, it's because you're giddy over the problems. Nobody, not even Obama knew there would be problems. Nobody but Max Baucus knew. He was the only-est one. And the software engineers. They knew. And Sebelius. And the insurance providers. But other than that, nobody knew.

Yes, and everyone that knew, that tried to warn the administration, was ignored.
 
But a non-extremist would realize Obamacare does not put the government in charge of your healthcare, but rather provide standards insurers must adhere to in order to provide a basic coverage. They'd also know the Obamacare website is simply a web-based market for people to browse various insurance plans. They'd know the required sign-up is so the government knows if you're eligible for a subsidy.

A non-extremist would also know a large part of the $17t in debt is owed to ourselves, that a debt has nothing to do with how well an entity can run a particular subject and that a website is nothing like a border.

So...which are you?

It's not basic coverage, it's comprehensive coverage.
 
But a non-extremist would realize Obamacare does not put the government in charge of your healthcare, but rather provide standards insurers must adhere to in order to provide a basic coverage.
Yes, standards that are impossible to meet, which is why so many people are being dropped from previous insurance plans. Even doctors are abandoning Obamacare. Barrack Obama has made no secret of the fact that he wants a single payer system and this is the start.

They'd also know the Obamacare website is simply a web-based market for people to browse various insurance plans. They'd know the required sign-up is so the government knows if you're eligible for a subsidy.
A market-based web site that will fine you, with the support of the politically biased IRS, if you don't use it?

A non-extremist would also know a large part of the $17t in debt is owed to ourselves, that a debt has nothing to do with how well an entity can run a particular subject and that a website is nothing like a border.
It's owed to yourselves and that means what? It still has to be paid, and where do you think that money is going to come from? Foreign lenders are now backing off and the government will continue to print money in order to meet expenses, leading to inflation. This sort of naivety from the American people is a huge problem for the future of the United States.
 
I agree. But since I'm not doing that investigation, how would I know who to fire? And the House is already doing investigations, that's why they had hearings last week.

See how that works now?

Yay for whitewashes.

I don't have to provide the specific correct number, just had to show the original number was wrong, which I've done.

If you want to debate honestly you would...

You still cannot provide a single thing I've said which is untrue. Go ahead, find one thing I've said in my last three posts which is untrue.

There's plenty that you've said that was untrue... BUT, since those falsehoods get published as fact you would be able to justify your points.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true...
 
Yes, and everyone that knew, that tried to warn the administration, was ignored.
Mainly because everybody else was incredibly stupid, or so it was said at the time. So, who's stupid now? Ya know, it's amazing how those who believe they're IQ surpasses all human understanding end up with egg on their faces so freaking often.
 
Backpedaling aside, what would happen to eliminating pre-existing conditions without the mandate? Doesn't Romneycare in Mass. have a similar mandate? Where was the Republican opposition to Romneycare?

Good questions. So allow me to address them one by one...

1. "Backpedaling aside, what would happen to eliminating pre-existing conditions without the mandate?" - Well, if you eliminated the pre existing condition mandate, along with the mandate to buy insurance, then we'd be at the starting gate again....However, I think I know what you were saying in that you think that a delay would be delaying the provision that insurance companies must cover pre existing conditions that have already been in place for some time now, and I think everyone likes. The problem you have is that Obama promised that insurance rates would save the average family $2500., but in turn have actually encountered a $10K swing according to the CBO, to wind up costing the average family $7500 more.

2. "Doesn't Romneycare in Mass. have a similar mandate?" - Possibly, but MassCare is running into some of the predictable problems that we are talking about such as longer wait times to see docs, shortage of docs, not to mention some of the highest premiums in the country (to the best of my knowledge)....

3. "Where was the Republican opposition to Romneycare?" - Well there was plenty of that, but the bottom line is that Romney was the Governor of a state, and outside opposition makes no difference in that this is where things like this are supposed to be done. That is how the country was set up...Also, it leaves an "out option" for the citizens of that state. For instance, I lived in Maryland for 20 years, raised my kids there, and loved the area we lived. But Maryland was getting so onerous under the Governorship of democrats like Martin O'Malley that it no longer made sense to continue to live there, so we moved to a state with lower taxation, lower pricing, and a better fit for us. IOW, we were able to "escape" the "perceived tyranny" if we wanted to, where do I go to escape the "tyranny" of a Federal system? You can't. And that is the definition of "tyranny".
 
Mainly because everybody else was incredibly stupid, or so it was said at the time. So, who's stupid now? Ya know, it's amazing how those who believe they're IQ surpasses all human understanding end up with egg on their faces so freaking often.
True enough ... but as long as the **** they've intentionally thrown against the wall will be damn near impossible to scrape off, they're willing to live with a little face-egg.
 
It's not basic coverage, it's comprehensive coverage.
It changed what defines basic coverage.
Yes, standards that are impossible to meet
Nonsense.

which is why so many people are being dropped from previous insurance plans.
People are being dropped from previous insurance plans for many reasons. The only people who are truly affected are those who had what amounted to catastrophic insurance coverage. Most other people who are being dropped are being dropped for various reasons.

Even doctors are abandoning Obamacare. Barrack Obama has made no secret of the fact that he wants a single payer system and this is the start.
And yet, he went with a plan mostly promoted by Republicans and implemented by Governor Romney, and yet Republicans still claim there's never been a compromise. I find that fascinating.

Sorry, I realize it was a little off-topic, it just amazes me. We'll get back on topic. And there are many doctors who support Obamacare as well, just like there are those who don't support it.

A market-based web site that will fine you, with the support of the politically biased IRS, if you don't use it?
I've never used it and I will not be fined. In fact, most people won't use it and won't be fined because they'll continue getting coverage under their employer's plan.

It's owed to yourselves and that means what?
It means the debt is not nearly as crushing as people want to pretend it is. For example, $2.7+ trillion is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund, because under law, the government was required to spend that money so it would not fall victim to inflation. The government spends the money and then basically writes itself an IOU.

This means several things. First of all, the Social Security Trust Fund has nothing to do with Social Security payments. The Trust Fund, as you may know, is the OVER-payments the citizenry has paid to the government in Social Security taxes. While this would never happen, for many reasons, on a very simple level, the government could say "we're not paying back the money to the Trust Fund". This would have virtually no impact on Social Security payments and would immediately lop off nearly $3 trillion of the debt.

And this sort of thing happens in many different areas. What it also means is that we'll never be able to "pay off" that debt, because the money we put back into the Social Security Trust Fund (for example) would come right back out because of law.

So, like I said, it's not nearly as big of a deal as people like to pretend it is.

It still has to be paid, and where do you think that money is going to come from?
Using my previous example, the Social Security Trust Fund debt will not have to be paid until current taxes from those working is not enough to cover the benefits of those retired. When that day comes, the money will come from either a reduction in benefits, higher taxes or (and most likely) savings from other areas of government expense.

Our national debt will never come due all at once.
Foreign lenders are now backing off
Given the number of times political extremism has led to a near default on debt payments, I don't blame them.

and the government will continue to print money in order to meet expenses, leading to inflation.
Inflation is going to happen and I think everyone recognizes you don't want deflation. But since we are the world leader and our currency is essentially the standard throughout the world, we have a lot of leverage other countries do not.
If you want to debate honestly you would...
It was not up for debate. Someone claimed something which was factually incorrect. I corrected it. There is no debate on simple facts.

There's plenty that you've said that was untrue
Then why have you not presented a single example? Present one example of what I've said to you in my last four posts of not being true.
 
Good questions. So allow me to address them one by one...

1. "Backpedaling aside, what would happen to eliminating pre-existing conditions without the mandate?" - Well, if you eliminated the pre existing condition mandate, along with the mandate to buy insurance, then we'd be at the starting gate again....However, I think I know what you were saying in that you think that a delay would be delaying the provision that insurance companies must cover pre existing conditions that have already been in place for some time now, and I think everyone likes. The problem you have is that Obama promised that insurance rates would save the average family $2500., but in turn have actually encountered a $10K swing according to the CBO, to wind up costing the average family $7500 more.

2. "Doesn't Romneycare in Mass. have a similar mandate?" - Possibly, but MassCare is running into some of the predictable problems that we are talking about such as longer wait times to see docs, shortage of docs, not to mention some of the highest premiums in the country (to the best of my knowledge)....

3. "Where was the Republican opposition to Romneycare?" - Well there was plenty of that, but the bottom line is that Romney was the Governor of a state, and outside opposition makes no difference in that this is where things like this are supposed to be done. That is how the country was set up...Also, it leaves an "out option" for the citizens of that state. For instance, I lived in Maryland for 20 years, raised my kids there, and loved the area we lived. But Maryland was getting so onerous under the Governorship of democrats like Martin O'Malley that it no longer made sense to continue to live there, so we moved to a state with lower taxation, lower pricing, and a better fit for us. IOW, we were able to "escape" the "perceived tyranny" if we wanted to, where do I go to escape the "tyranny" of a Federal system? You can't. And that is the definition of "tyranny".

Outstanding Post, too bad, Obama supporters like iguanaman will ignore the content. Far too many don't understand the role of the Federal and State governments as they want to equate what Romney did to a Federal Program ignoring the magnitude and scope of a federal program vs. that of a state program plus the demands of the Federal govt. for more power especially create more dependence to control people's votes and maintain power
 
True enough ... but as long as the **** they've intentionally thrown against the wall will be damn near impossible to scrape off, they're willing to live with a little face-egg.
I dunno, Bubba. This ACA Frankenstein probably isn't going to make it no matter what they do unless they delay it, and if they delay it they have a whole new set of problems to **** up. Maybe a solar powered set of defib paddles will help. We're rapidly approaching that time Obama described as the point at which perhaps just a pill will help and make ever so much more sense than to throw good money into a dying effort.
 
Canada has 35 million people and this country has 310 million. It also has 50 sovereign states. It is amazing how people like you ignore the waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and SS and then promote ACA which is another entitlement program that is based upon lies.

I don't know what it is about people like you who ignore the incompetence of this Administration simply because you buy the ideology. Failure is failure regardless of the ideology. How anyone can say that an Administration that has added 6.4 trillion to the debt is bringing its fiscal house in order is simply liberalism at its worst

First of all, I don't understand your argument that seems to be saying that the US has a disadvantage due to ten times the population of Canada. I would suggest that a larger population could be considered an advantage as it appears to be with trade between countries. And we also know that larger countries than the US population wise have very good universal health care systems for all their people. So I think your idea of a larger population is simply invalid.

Likewise with your comments on having 50 sovereign states. I see no reason why that's not invalid too.

I certainly don't ignore waste and fraud, I comment on it frequently on this forum as regards to your health care system. Canada is doing it better in health care for roughly half as much money as your country is currently doing it, per capita. Again, your objections to my post appear to be invalid.

If your Medicare and SS are being abused then it's likely due to problems in your system of administering those programs. What isn't in doubt is that they are both very necessary in a first world society. We don't consider our SS or equivalent of your Medicare to be abused in such an egregious manner as you appear to be saying yours is. That could be due to either your exaggerating or once again due to poor management of your social programs.

I consider the obvious dysfunction in your government largely due to your GOP party's obstructionist policy since Obama took office. That is especially noticeable with the outrageous waste which was brought on by Cruz and the teabaggers just recently. And I never do see any constructive criticism of Obama which could lead to him compromising in his approach to governing. I just see negativism and racist generated hate toward him.

In truth, I would see the US adopting a form of socially responsible capitalism that would be similar to all other successful first world countries. That alone could elevate your country out of the current crisis it is suffering. And that kind of change is undoubtedly the kind of change Obama is attempting to bring about. You only need to come to an understanding that socially responsible government is not socialism. Canada is living proof of that with our brand of capitalism that works.

There are no other answers for your problems and there are no easy answers. I would suggest that you 'will' change in due course and it will either be willingly under a conservative government and president or a more liberal one. And if it's not willingly then it will be kicking and screaming. There's just no other recipe for survival in this 21st. century. There no longer is enough to go around while supporting the old American way anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom