PDA

View Full Version : Government Shutdown Whose Fault?


mimartin
10-04-2013, 05:18 PM
Going to be short and sweet since I don't want to be accused of bia.

Whose Fault is it?

Vote is Public!

Note: I will not be replying, I know who is to fault and you will not convince me otherwise.

Ping
10-04-2013, 05:26 PM
I'm honestly so angry right now. Both my parents are government workers, and thanks to the shutdown we are currently making squat while my parents are paying for my college tuition. The political extremists in Congress have made my life only harder, instead of making it easier. Why? Because they don't want Obamacare, and they think it's okay to screw over a bunch of people just because a law got passed that they don't like.

Isaac Clarke
10-04-2013, 10:51 PM
Ted Cruz and his band of Rowdy Republican Rebels™.

urluckyday
10-05-2013, 03:13 PM
It'd be easy to blame congressional Republicans for this mess; however, I have a hard time blaming them for what's going on. They have been said to be holding the country hostage by not wanting to implement Obamacare in the budget this year, but I look at it from the other angle. They are obviously standing up for something they believe in - and it's something that the country is very split on in the first place.

By saying "the Republicans should just vote for the bill as it is and get it over with" is the wrong thing to do. While part of me just wants to shake my head and knows that they're all morons in congress, I can't help but feel like if the tables were turned, the Democrats in congress would do the same exact thing.

Regardless of who we think is at fault, they're all at fault for no longer being able to find any sort of middle ground for compromise. It makes me sick to think that these are the kinds of people that we have running our government for us. Really just wish someone in Washington would have the balls to shake things up and make other people realize that it's not so bad compromising if everybody wins (which is possible here).

Q
10-10-2013, 02:26 AM
I think that somebody's throwing a tantrum because they're not getting their way.

On a side note: my parents are losing their coverage after paying into it for over 40 years because of ObamaCare. Who needs "death panels" when the old will lose their coverage simply because they're too old?

Samuel Dravis
10-11-2013, 02:51 AM
I think that somebody's throwing a tantrum because they're not getting their way.

On a side note: my parents are losing their coverage after paying into it for over 40 years because of ObamaCare. Who needs "death panels" when the old will lose their coverage simply because they're too old?To my mind, that seems like an argument in favor of government intervention into health care. The companies involved are either incapable or unwilling to provide it on terms which are acceptable to everyone. Death panels already exist, and they are called actuaries.

Tommycat
10-11-2013, 04:07 PM
It would be easy to point the finger at Republicans for the shutdown. It would also mean that you didn't pay attention.

It was definitely both parties at fault. While I'm opposed to PPACA(Obamacare), the reality is that it has to be removed the right way. However, the KEEPING of the government closed is the fault of the two parties failing to come together.

To their credit the GOP have made efforts. Just that their efforts have also been kind of poking the Democrats.

logan23
10-12-2013, 05:43 PM
I'm just going to say, as a person who has conditions which means I have to find a job that gives some kind of medical care which most companies don't want to provide medical insurance. Because of the healthcare law, I will be able to get medical insurance.

As for the blaming of the Shutdown- I blame a few things
1- Tea party Rep house members who would think this healthcare law is the worse law ever created and will destroy america,..which it won't.
2- The Republican Leaders/ moderates who say we don't like what their Tea party is doing but are to afraid of a challenger from the far right-(Honestly the Republican party and tea party should split- I heat to see the Republican party destroy itself internally, we need them to balance out the Democrats-- the system only works if both parties are working for the country.
3- Obama for not courting the Congress, even his own party which made things even more difficult when deals need to be made,
4-The re drawing of districts by politicians---This is the NUMBER ONE thing that is making Congress broken-- when there is no true struggle to get voters to vote for you---then we have members in the House who can burn down the government and not care since they are in safe districts. This needs to change!
5-The News Media who now act like a gossip channel as if the races for offices are for high school president and treasury. Reports need to bust the politicians b@lls. They need to seek the truth and not be the voice for the left or right cheerleader groups. Reports are playing politics where they simply carve up the viewers for their station--what happen to looking for the corruption and making it tough for the person who they are interviewing instead of soft balls if they are from their leaning viewer audience.
6- Our Country that promotes voting in other countries but tries to make it hard for people to vote in USA, Our goal should be getting 90 percent turn out,...what we have now it embarrassing...

And last leaders don't pander to their elected audience,..they educate.
There is way to much feeding the masses what they want to hear to keep them ignorant and promote ideas like the president isn't from america or death panels, or all undocumented workers are evil,..etc etc...

ok thats enough for the wall of text,

I'm looking forward to getting medical insurance where I can pursue some career paths/dreams which wouldn't be possible without this law,...and yes I expect it to be tweaked over the next 5-8 years and hope the republicans can stop saying burn the law and start looking for ways to make it better...

Sabretooth
10-13-2013, 08:18 AM
*drive by posting*

Shouldn't there be like, constitutional safeguards to prevent something like this? It sounds rather absurd for a government to just shut down because a law isn't getting passed. I am not american what is this

logan23
10-13-2013, 04:00 PM
*drive by posting*

Shouldn't there be like, constitutional safeguards to prevent something like this? It sounds rather absurd for a government to just shut down because a law isn't getting passed. I am not american what is this

Actually there is a possible safe guard called the Fourteenth Amendment -
Section 4-
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

The debt ceiling is about bills/ public debt which the country has already incurred. There is talk that the President could raise the debt ceiling on his own since these already incurred debt can't be questioned.

So far the President has said he wouldn't use this but...if we are going to go over the edge with the debt-- I think he should. The public would be thankful and even if they try to impeach him in Congress,..if they tried it would be saying yes they would rather have the country start defaulting - even though the government has enough money to move around till Nov1,..after that ---major damage will be done. If the US misses the thursday deadline for the debt,..it will also lead to issues,..after all China who own a good deal of american debt and do not get involve in such debates as voiced out loud their frustration.

So yes there is a possible safeguard if they choose to risk using it, it has never been used so the legal argument on if it can be used is questionable but as i see things....i say do it.

Darth Avlectus
10-14-2013, 05:32 PM
Yoda is wisest. I wanted to cast a controversial vote just because I wanted to see how much hate mail would end up in my PM box from butthurt fanboys. Instead I second urluckyday.

LDR
10-14-2013, 05:48 PM
...Republican party destroy itself internally, we need them to balance out the Democrats-- the system only works if both parties are working for the country...

Hence why we have a lousy system of government. I think a lot of these problems could have been avoided if we just never started political parties in the first place.

logan23
10-14-2013, 06:25 PM
Hence why we have a lousy system of government. I think a lot of these problems could have been avoided if we just never started political parties in the first place.

Things would be worse if there were no form of political parties.

If we didn't there would be a greater chances of internal wars in the US- since you would end up with powerful people rising up and representing their own interest of their region. Since these people are not part of a larger group then they would see no interest in listening to another powerful person of another region. This would lead to almost tribal wars if this was done say back in the 1800s. The result would be- the US would be broken apart into a collection of smaller countries and the federal government and the USA would be only known in history books.

This was one of the issues with the Civil War- Federal vs State rights/power.
Lincoln knew that if the south/confederates were allowed to leave the union then what stops for any other section of America to group up a few states and break away too.

Political parties do serve a purpose since they can work as a group in their numbers to get things done but in turn when a part of them get out of line then they can help bring them back,...which isn't happening now since the Republican party has lost control of the tea party- which is now running the show. Some of this comes from the internal ideas and beliefs which are false but are reinforced since it helps increase their turn out by throwing out the read meat the the base. The problem is that the base Republican party might say some of this red meat but they really don't believe it to the level of the word = truth. But some more radical republicans are manipulating the base and becoming the red meat themselves. And anyone in the party questions them = to be called a rhino and not a true Republican. These people don't understand the dangerous power they are welding - they think it will lead to book deals and money/power but they are making these people into true believes which means when the truth is given and a deal per say in the debt/shutdown is made, they will not accept it while the Republican main party does.

But back to the original point- not having political parties wouldn't help..

Totenkopf
10-15-2013, 07:16 AM
Frankly, what is really kind of funny is that it isn't even a proper govt shutdown. >80% of govt is up and running. But, hey, no truth in advertising, right? This is somewhat of a manufactured crisis. Govt has to learn to get by on less and that means the public as well. Too much money flows into DC and accountability is almost nonexistant. But it is kinda hilarious that no one is pointing fingers only at the democrats, just the republicans (or both in the case of most of us). And once again, the country didn't fall apart and the world didn't end. So much theatrics attached to these "events". No wonder people hate politics.....so much bull****.

Q
10-16-2013, 03:13 AM
To my mind, that seems like an argument in favor of government intervention into health care.
They're losing their coverage because of government intervention into health care.
the system only works if both parties are working for the country.
LOL, when has either party done that? Not in my lifetime, which is why the country's in the toilet.

logan23
10-16-2013, 04:08 AM
They're losing their coverage because of government intervention into health care.

You must understand that companies - the large one especially- are looking for ways to stop covering their employes. The Corporate america cares about profit, they don't care about the worker.

The healthcare plan will have it's problems and will be tweaked over the next few years.

What could happen - that companies will not have the burden of providing healthcare insurance since everyone will have it through their own plans - and since everyone is going out there for insurance- the plans and competition will help drive the prices down.

If we don't do anything within a law then the cost from people uninsured going to the hospital will do more damage then this healthcare law.

LOL, when has either party done that? Not in my lifetime, which is why the country's in the toilet.

I agree, the parties in the most part have always worked in their self interest but what we are seeing right now that there are people who are not playing by the rules- they are willing to destroy this country by defaulting and shutting it down for a law that has been up held by the supreme court. I shake my head - there are no adults in politics and the media/reports are failing us - they stop seeking out the truth but instead they became timid with politics and don't grill the people who run our country plus they don't speak out ...etc..etc..

Totenkopf
10-16-2013, 05:50 AM
It is ironic that govt wants to tax cadiallac policies, but wants insurance carriers to essentially provide such policies at unrealistic costs. Barney Frank himself made it clear in the recent past that the whole purpose of Obamacare is to be a bridge, essentially, to single payer govt system. Obamacare is not actually a health plan, it is an attempt to turn the insurance industry into yet another govt monopoly. What do you want to bet that that will end well, eh?

And, govt really only cares about self-perpetuation, not the people it purports to serve. It is no less intrinsically evil or self-serving than private enterprise. And remember, in the case of conflict....it takes both parties to bring it to a standstill. Obama and the democrats are equally playing political games to serve their own interests and are risking the same economic catastrophe they wish to pin on their opponents. If the "main-stream" press had any integrity, they would cover the story more objectively than they do. As it is, they are little more than a propoganda arm for the Obama administration, much as Fox is viewed as working for the GOP.

Tommycat
10-17-2013, 02:07 AM
...But it is kinda hilarious that no one is pointing fingers only at the democrats, just the republicans (or both in the case of most of us).
From my standpoint the Democrats and the president alone could not be the cause of the shutdown. I think to a degree some people were giving CREDIT to the Republicans for standing strong(maybe not here, but elsewhere). To be frank I'd say that the ones ultimately responsible for the government shutdown are US. WE are at each other's throats over petty BS when we agree on so much. Most of us would agree that healthcare needed to be fixed. We just disagreed on how best to fix it. Then PPACA kinda got slapped on us and many felt personally slighted.

It doesn't help when people call one side "Anti-American Socialists" and they in turn call the other side, "Economic Terrorists." It makes people shut their ears, and not want to talk with each other. If I could I would get rid of the whole lot of them.

And this "Compromise" is not going to fix anything. It just postpones the whole deal for a few months.

Totenkopf
10-17-2013, 05:42 AM
I basically agree w/you. Wasn't saying anyone should blame only Obama or democrats (or rep/TP either for that matter). Just saying it was funny that no one in this thread even tried to place blame on either of first two choices, but rather just the reps or all of the above. The govt will continue to disregard the people untill they stop sending the same people back over and over again, as they know there are no real consequences for their behavior, often individually, but certainly collectively.

Q
10-19-2013, 11:50 AM
You must understand that companies - the large one especially- are looking for ways to stop covering their employes. The Corporate america cares about profit, they don't care about the worker.
They're self-employed. Their health insurance, which they bought and paid for themselves, was with New York Life, which is no longer providing health insurance because ObamaCare has made it unprofitable to do so.

This isn't some ****ty employer-provided HMO. It's first-rate care that they've invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in over the past four decades, and they're losing it.

HED
10-19-2013, 01:37 PM
Barney Frank himself made it clear in the recent past that the whole purpose of Obamacare is to be a bridge, essentially, to single payer govt system. Obamacare is not actually a health plan, it is an attempt to turn the insurance industry into yet another govt monopoly. What do you want to bet that that will end well, eh?

I'm fairly certain that there's a lot of liberals out there who would be more than okay with a single-payer system.

Tommycat
10-19-2013, 02:04 PM
PPACA was just the worst method of implementing it. First off, there was no compromise in creating it. All the backroom deals. Pretty ugly and if course passed the house with not one single Republican vote. They should have taken a bit more time in creating something much simpler, and that the public could see before it was passed. It's now into the 10000+ pages after being modified and twisted, and Unions that supported it are now angry because, well.. they looked into it. The president gave a pass to businesses, but not to the public that can't even sign up for it even if they DID want it. It raised costs to insurance companies, which then increased charges to individuals before the law took effect to get a jump before the rate increase caps took effect(yes it limits the amount the rates can jump per year, but insurance companies had a period of time where they could increase the rates before the law took effect). And all this, but it STILL doesn't actually provide free health care.

How would I have done it? Open the base hospitals to civilians below 200% of poverty, without employer provided health care. Increase funding to VA hospitals that operate outside 20 miles of a base hospital. Expand medicare coverage to those who reside greater than 20 miles from a base or military hospital.

Why this way? Military doctors and nurses are FIXED costs, and are already rolled into the defense funding appropriations. I'd personally rather pay military doctors and nurses(medics/corpsmen) pay than civilian. It's cheaper, and it gives them training and experience for after their required term of service. These doctors would have their college reimbursed, so they are better off. VA can use military doctors, and nurses as well to fill in the gaps. The majority of people live near a military base. We could actually increase military run bases outside of bases as well to help with coverage. This would actually have a net decrease in the cost of Medicare/Medicaid.

mimartin
10-19-2013, 03:40 PM
Sorry this thread is about the government shut down... please stay on topic.

Notice the above isn't in color... :D

Totenkopf
10-19-2013, 04:22 PM
I'm fairly certain that there's a lot of liberals out there who would be more than okay with a single-payer system.

Mass migration to Canada anyone....please. :p Just b/c a certain number of people favor an idea doesn't make it a good one, btw. As to the thread, "Obamacare" was basically the reason for the falsely titled shutdown (which was more slowdown than anything w/>80% of govt up and running). ;)

Tommycat
10-19-2013, 07:16 PM
Sorry this thread is about the government shut down... please stay on topic.

Notice the above isn't in color... :D

Whoops, thanks. Though I thought since that was the driving force behind the shutdown, it might be relevant.

To the topic: I already answered that I believe it's both. Slight edge to the Reps for the start, but the lack of movement from the Dems on any aspect prolonged it needlessly.

mimartin
10-19-2013, 07:25 PM
Whoops, thanks. Though I thought since that was the driving force behind the shutdown, it might be relevant.
And the smilie and the spoiler should show I was poking fun at my senator from the great, but stupid, state of Texas.

Actually from the responses afterward, I put less blame on the majority of the Rep and more blame on Ted Cruz bunch, I know he is extremely intelligent, so I don't see it as principle, and see it for what it is an attempt a political gain at the cost of the American economy and the rest of the republican party. Stunts like that may get him the republican nomination, but it does nothing to get rid of Obamacare as it hurts the Republican chances of taking control of the Senate. There was no chance of getting rid of Obamacare, to do that the republican will at least a majority both in the house and the senate and it would take Dems or veto proof majority. Ted Cruz is more than intelligent enough to know that, so the stunt had to be nothing but politically motivated.

Tommycat
10-24-2013, 06:28 PM
And the smilie and the spoiler should show I was poking fun at my senator from the great, but stupid, state of Texas.

Actually from the responses afterward, I put less blame on the majority of the Rep and more blame on Ted Cruz bunch, I know he is extremely intelligent, so I don't see it as principle, and see it for what it is an attempt a political gain at the cost of the American economy and the rest of the republican party. Stunts like that may get him the republican nomination, but it does nothing to get rid of Obamacare as it hurts the Republican chances of taking control of the Senate. There was no chance of getting rid of Obamacare, to do that the republican will at least a majority both in the house and the senate and it would take Dems or veto proof majority. Ted Cruz is more than intelligent enough to know that, so the stunt had to be nothing but politically motivated.

The largest irony is that had the government NOT shut down, the largest story would have been the fact that the healthcare.gov website was such a failure. The Dems may want to thank Cruz as the shutdown actually distracted from the horrible failure of the launch of PPACA

mimartin
10-24-2013, 10:49 PM
The largest irony is that had the government NOT shut down, the largest story would have been the fact that the healthcare.gov website was such a failure. The Dems may want to thank Cruz as the shutdown actually distracted from the horrible failure of the launch of PPACA Very true...

And if the Republican had a brain cell between them all. They would be doing everything now to amend the health care law and fix the problems, but instead their only solution is the typical throw it out and go back to the status quo.

Tommycat
10-30-2013, 07:26 PM
Very true...

And if the Republican had a brain cell between them all. They would be doing everything now to amend the health care law and fix the problems, but instead their only solution is the typical throw it out and go back to the status quo.

I dunno about that. There's only so much fixing you can do to a lemon. But the fact is they are talking more about removing the one in place and not talking about a viable replacement. It's like saying they want to get rid of the patch, but not a replacement permanent fix. "we'll just cut this here patch off. Replacement? what replacement?"

machievelli
10-31-2013, 09:05 AM
Things would be worse if there were no form of political parties.

If we didn't there would be a greater chances of internal wars in the US- since you would end up with powerful people rising up and representing their own interest of their region. Since these people are not part of a larger group then they would see no interest in listening to another powerful person of another region. This would lead to almost tribal wars if this was done say back in the 1800s. The result would be- the US would be broken apart into a collection of smaller countries and the federal government and the USA would be only known in history books.

This was one of the issues with the Civil War- Federal vs State rights/power.
Lincoln knew that if the south/confederates were allowed to leave the union then what stops for any other section of America to group up a few states and break away too.

Political parties do serve a purpose since they can work as a group in their numbers to get things done but in turn when a part of them get out of line then they can help bring them back,...which isn't happening now since the Republican party has lost control of the tea party- which is now running the show. Some of this comes from the internal ideas and beliefs which are false but are reinforced since it helps increase their turn out by throwing out the read meat the the base. The problem is that the base Republican party might say some of this red meat but they really don't believe it to the level of the word = truth. But some more radical republicans are manipulating the base and becoming the red meat themselves. And anyone in the party questions them = to be called a rhino and not a true Republican. These people don't understand the dangerous power they are welding - they think it will lead to book deals and money/power but they are making these people into true believes which means when the truth is given and a deal per say in the debt/shutdown is made, they will not accept it while the Republican main party does.

But back to the original point- not having political parties wouldn't help..

First, the Union could have found another way to deal with the South than forcing them into a war. As you yourself mentioned, State rights Vs Federal rights had been argued all the way back to Patrick Henry, because the South knew then (When the Article of Confederation were still in force) that the Northeast, with the bulk of the citizens, would always be able to control the Congress without major safeguards against it.

These days, with over 100 electoral votes in two states (California with 51, New York with 52) both heavily Democrat, the candidate gets halfway to the presidency by carrying those two liberal states alone.

We don't have a balance, we have a dog fight and neither cares a lick about the people they are supposed to represent. They care about who wins.

They're losing their coverage because of government intervention into health care.

LOL, when has either party done that? Not in my lifetime, which is why the country's in the toilet.

I can say that too; and I'm a hell of a lot older.

You must understand that companies - the large one especially- are looking for ways to stop covering their employes. The Corporate america cares about profit, they don't care about the worker.

The healthcare plan will have it's problems and will be tweaked over the next few years.

What could happen - that companies will not have the burden of providing healthcare insurance since everyone will have it through their own plans - and since everyone is going out there for insurance- the plans and competition will help drive the prices down.

If we don't do anything within a law then the cost from people uninsured going to the hospital will do more damage then this healthcare law.



I agree, the parties in the most part have always worked in their self interest but what we are seeing right now that there are people who are not playing by the rules- they are willing to destroy this country by defaulting and shutting it down for a law that has been up held by the supreme court. I shake my head - there are no adults in politics and the media/reports are failing us - they stop seeking out the truth but instead they became timid with politics and don't grill the people who run our country plus they don't speak out ...etc..etc..

Then remember what Warren Buffet said when asked about this. Fire the lot of them, from Obama on down. But what he didn't say, and should have, is we need a third party to keep the others in line. The Reform party, that was started by Ross Perot, and killed by Pat Robertson, could have done it. As Perot himself said, 'I'm a businessman, and you don't stay in business if you don't make your budget balance'

Very true...

And if the Republican had a brain cell between them all. They would be doing everything now to amend the health care law and fix the problems, but instead their only solution is the typical throw it out and go back to the status quo.

The problem with 'amending' it is that it is harder to remove a law than it is to stop it from being passed. As others said, it passed with no Republican votes at all, and that wasn't because it was a Democratic president who fathered it, it was because it was badly written, and every attempt to clean it up before the voting was stopped in committee.

If the government is trying to take control of healthcare as some here have suggested, it means taxes leap. When England went to Socialized health care, the taxes went from about 25% to almost 55%.

Remember that the Volstead Act (Prohibition) caused not only the rise of organized crime, it also took 15 years to repeal. For those of you still at home; could your parents afford to double their tax burden for that long?

Oh, and BTW, I have no health insurance, as I work part time. I also don't make enough money to pay for insurance. Then again, I am in that limbo where I make too much, and live alone, so I don't get Medicaid. What about me? Obamacare didn't address that, now did it?

mimartin
10-31-2013, 10:47 AM
The problem with 'amending' it is that it is harder to remove a law than it is to stop it from being passed. As others said, it passed with no Republican votes at all, and that wasn't because it was a Democratic president who fathered it, it was because it was badly written, and every attempt to clean it up before the voting was stopped in committee. There have been no attempts to fix the bill...they have all been to get rid of the law. 40 or so tries, to 0 to fix.

While you not having health insurance are not paying for the uninsured under the old system. Those of us that have health insurance are already paying a higher burden of our income out in the form of health insurance premiums and medical cost to cover the uninsured. Change it from premium to taxes, really does not change the out of pocket expense to me. Spreading the cost to a higher number could reduce my part. Which is what the health care reform attempts to do and was/is needed. People that can't afford insurance are not the problem, those that can afford insurance, but would rather buy boats and other toys is the problem. The still get ill, they still get injured and they still have babies.

urluckyday
10-31-2013, 04:28 PM
There have been no attempts to fix the bill...they have all been to get rid of the law. 40 or so tries, to 0 to fix.

While you not having health insurance are not paying for the uninsured under the old system. Those of us that have health insurance are already paying a higher burden of our income out in the form of health insurance premiums and medical cost to cover the uninsured. Change it from premium to taxes, really does not change the out of pocket expense to me. Spreading the cost to a higher number could reduce my part. Which is what the health care reform attempts to do and was/is needed. People that can't afford insurance are not the problem, those that can afford insurance, but would rather buy boats and other toys is the problem. The still get ill, they still get injured and they still have babies.

None of that is the problem in my mind. The problem is in principle. Not one part of the federal government mandating health insurance (yes, it is a mandate because you get fined if you don't have it) is constitutional in my mind. What a dangerous precedent that sets in my mind. The further down the road we get with socializing every part of our life, the farther away we get from the very basis of our country - limited government.

Sure, the shutdown was caused by both parties being babies about whatever, but I truly believe that the vast majority opponents of the healthcare law spent time trying to sabotage it for the same reason I just described. If protecting the founding principles of this country results in a government shutdown, so be it.

mimartin
10-31-2013, 06:16 PM
None of that is the problem in my mind. The problem is in principle. Not one part of the federal government mandating health insurance (yes, it is a mandate because you get fined if you don't have it) is constitutional in my mind. What a dangerous precedent that sets in my mind. The further down the road we get with socializing every part of our life, the farther away we get from the very basis of our country - limited government. It seems a conservative controlled Supreme Court disagrees with your legal opinion.

Personally I would be for getting rid of the mandate, if they also got rid of the mandate the hospital/doctors had to treat the uninsured. No insurance go bleed by the dumpster and get out of the way of people that are responsible enough to have insurance (only applies to those that can afford insurance, but donít have insurance).

machievelli
11-01-2013, 12:20 AM
There have been no attempts to fix the bill...they have all been to get rid of the law. 40 or so tries, to 0 to fix.

While you not having health insurance are not paying for the uninsured under the old system. Those of us that have health insurance are already paying a higher burden of our income out in the form of health insurance premiums and medical cost to cover the uninsured. Change it from premium to taxes, really does not change the out of pocket expense to me. Spreading the cost to a higher number could reduce my part. Which is what the health care reform attempts to do and was/is needed. People that can't afford insurance are not the problem, those that can afford insurance, but would rather buy boats and other toys is the problem. The still get ill, they still get injured and they still have babies.

No, it means I have to pay out of my own pocket. Even if I can't afford it

As for 'fixing' it, in California when they passed the law requiring all drivers to have insurance, the rates for those who already had it jumped by between 100 and 200%. The later law to set a rate cap is as far as I know, still tied up in court. After all Insurance companies have the money to spend on political campaigns...

mimartin
11-01-2013, 01:07 AM
No, it means I have to pay out of my own pocket. Even if I can't afford it.


Q:
What if I canít afford to buy health care coverage?

A:

There are two types of federal financial help from the government that may be available to you. One kind helps pay your monthly health insurance premium. The other helps with your out-of-pocket expenses for care. You may qualify for one or both, and the federal government can pay your health plan directly. Or, the ACA may not require that you buy coverage.

You will be able to find out if you qualify for reduced premiums and reduced cost-sharing when the Health Insurance Marketplaces launch in October. But here are some general income guidelines that might be used by the government to see if you qualify and how much help you would receive.

If youíre single, you could qualify if you make less than $45,960 (or if you live in Hawaii, less than $52,920).
For couples, you could qualify if you make less than $62,040 (or if you live in Hawaii, less than $71,400).
For a family of four, you could qualify if you make less than $94,200 (or if you live in Hawaii, less than $108,360).

Try again?

machievelli
11-01-2013, 09:06 AM
Try again?

I've always paid my own way, Why should I change that now?

mimartin
11-01-2013, 09:14 AM
I've always paid my own way, Why should I change that now?

So really you can't afford insurance, you don't want help. I respect that....

However, if you cant afford insurance how the hell could you afford the medical cost if you were to get in a accident or a sudden illness?

machievelli
11-01-2013, 11:29 AM
So really you can't afford insurance, you don't want help. I respect that....

However, if you cant afford insurance how the hell could you afford the medical cost if you were to get in a accident or a sudden illness?

By telling the creditor I will pay as I can. I think of it as cardio for the soul, since they have to deal with the high blood pressure. Trying to garnish my wages would merely mean I have to go to court to prove exactly how little I make, and how much I have in free cash, which is a pittance. If the judge agreed with them, I would end up on the streets, since my income leaves perhaps fifteen dollars remaining at the end of a month, and it would drop by over 250 dollars when I do, so they are in even worse straits.

mimartin
11-01-2013, 12:04 PM
Looking at $100,000. bill right now for one scan on my mother. Don't really thing she could pay in her life time even sending in all of her extra money without insurance.

urluckyday
11-01-2013, 05:25 PM
This bill/law/program wasn't ready, and the GOP knew it.

Only 248 (!!!) people were signed up for Obamacare through the first few days of the website going live. What a freaking mess.

http://news.msn.com/us/documents-obamacare-enrollment-very-small-in-first-days

mimartin
11-01-2013, 05:31 PM
GOP knew nothing, had they known that the wouldn't have been playing chicken with the economy trying to end Obama care. It would have gotten rid of itself without their artificial smoke screen.

Totenkopf
11-02-2013, 12:50 AM
The democrats, from prez on down, were equally willing to let the charade of "govt. shutdown" play out for their own political advantage (as they saw it). There are no innocent or good parties in this piece of theatre. Frankly, maybe more of the truly nonessential parts of the govt should shutdown so people could get a tax holiday. Seems unlikely we'd suffer much in the their absence. Or at least the money saved could go to the debt (instead of trying to raise the debt limit every six months or so in yet another hair shirt performance of political theatre). This whole healthcare debacle is just a stepping stone toward govt run "universal healthcare" (an admission made by people like Harry Reid and Barney Frank even). If you like how govt runs things now, Im sure you'll be happy when they seize healthcare from the private sector.....right before they move onto making the grab for the 401ks (b/c, you know afterall, old people can't handle more than one check b/c they are so easily confused. :rolleyes: ). The govt has an insatiable hunger for money and power and we are merely pawns to be patronized to in its collective view.

urluckyday
11-02-2013, 01:35 AM
The democrats, from prez on down, were equally willing to let the charade of "govt. shutdown" play out for their own political advantage (as they saw it). There are no innocent or good parties in this piece of theatre. Frankly, maybe more of the truly nonessential parts of the govt should shutdown so people could get a tax holiday. Seems unlikely we'd suffer much in the their absence. Or at least the money saved could go to the debt (instead of trying to raise the debt limit every six months or so in yet another hair shirt performance of political theatre). This whole healthcare debacle is just a stepping stone toward govt run "universal healthcare" (an admission made by people like Harry Reid and Barney Frank even). If you like how govt runs things now, Im sure you'll be happy when they seize healthcare from the private sector.....right before they move onto making the grab for the 401ks (b/c, you know afterall, old people can't handle more than one check b/c they are so easily confused. :rolleyes: ). The govt has an insatiable hunger for money and power and we are merely pawns to be patronized to in its collective view.

Yup, and the people continue electing the party determined to take more and more away from the private sector. Truly sickening.