FLASH: Confidence Shattered

[jg54170]

The funding for ACA is another huge issue I believe. We as a nation have to get the deficit under control or it will cripple us. All the mandatory spending is approximately 60-70% (can't recall the amount but it is the larger potion) of expenditures while what being held up currently makes up the smaller portion of government expenditures. We need to decrease spending, not come up with more schemes on how to take from the producers in society and give to those who have dropped out of the work force.

BigRed, you are correct that ACA is going to be tied to mandatory spending. The GOP is just using the CR as leverage to try and modify/delay/disrupt/dismantle or accomplish whatever the hell the GOP is trying to do.

I believe that the government shut down should not have occurred but we have at least seen the CiC say he is willing to negotiate and work on the ACA yesterday as a result. I don't believe that he would have been willing to negotiate at all prior to the train wreck our government has caused. Whether anything comes of the negotiations...we will see.

 

[villanelle]

I think the Republicans are making things worse for themselves in the long run. The hardcore base may be standing by them through this, but polling shows that independents are fleeing like women and children on the Titanic. At this rate, I think the Rs stand a decent chance of losing the House in 14. The picked this hill to die on, and the public just might hold them to that.

They should put the clean bill up for a vote. Either it passes, or it doesn't, but then they look far less obstructionist. I know that procedural bullshit is used all the time to prevent votes on bills that would pass, but I don't think John Q. Public is all that aware of that, and he also doesn't care about that or feel invested in that like he does the budget. He cares less now that most (or just many?) are back to work, but he still cares.

 

[robav8r]

They picked this hill to die on, and the public just might hold them to that.

Indeed. And they may even be wildly victorious - only time will tell I guess.

 

[HercDriver]

Several candidates ran on (and won) House seats in part because they wanted to repeal Obamacare. I'm not going to go through and dig up all their old campaign sites because you don't want to believe it.

You posted an exit poll stating that voters rated the economy as the number one issue as evidence that they wanted to keep Obamacare. What I'm saying is that says nothing either way toward their views for Obamacare.

Exit polls showed voters rated the economy above healthcare. That is why they voted a certain way in the mid-terms. This article might help you understand it as well:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/six_nuggets_from_the_2010_exit.php?nomobile=1

You're not understanding what the GOP is asking for. They want to delay the individual mandate to coincide with the employer mandate. Ie, they want the bill to be implemented the way that it was signed into law, just a year later.

I think you might be confused. The GOP is not stopping implementation of the ACA, just delaying the individual mandate. So we will still have millions signing up, but the pool will be smaller since no mandate would be in place. Hence, as I stated previously, it will be way more expensive.
Think about it this way: No mandate = More expensive.

None of the House resolutions that passed are looking to repeal the individual mandate altogether.

Nope, just to kneecap Obamacare.

It's been around for a while, but that doesn't make it right and it's certainly not a system that we should have cemented into law. The checkups aren't the problem; the problem is going to be in 10 years when my generation is paying out the nose to keep boomers on life support and a coctail of expensive prescriptions. That's not health insurance, that's subsidized chronic care.

Yes, if they had their own employer-based insurance that covered me at little charge then sure. But if the purchase their insurance through an exchange, it's just making them pay the bill for me as my health insurance premium just gets added to theirs, and they might not be able to afford the extra bill by that time.

You could pay the bill, and being on theirs would be cheaper than going alone, obviously.

I was quoting what other people shopping for Obamacare have come to find out about premium costs.

From healthcare.gov, the national average annual cost of a 'silver' plan that covers 70% of costs for a single individual is $4800. But since you asked, a person my age living in California would have a premium of $400/month (and $1100 for my family size). Not too far off, and the $400/mo premium is a big ripoff considering I've probably not used $4800 worth of medical care in the last decade. Goes back to the fact that I could've put that money into my own account and had a nice emergency medical nest egg for myself. Had I done that from the time I graduated college, I could've paid cash for the birth of my two children (my most expensive bills to date) and still had plenty of money left over.

Insurance is a gamble. If you had been in a car wreck at 20, without insurance it could have costs a lot more than college.

By contrast, a 64 year old on early retirement making $25,000/year has a premium of almost $11,000/year, of which $9,000/year is subsidized by everyone else.

Dont be hatin' on the old folks.

 

[Navy Ship]

In government at all levels, the work gravitates to those who do it.

If you don't mind, can you please elaborate on this. Thanks

 

[helolumpy]

If you don't mind, can you please elaborate on this. Thanks

Some people are better than others at getting stuff done.

When a supervisor has an assignment that needs to be done, he/she needs to find these pockets of competency and exploit the hell out of them.

 

[Spekkio]

I think the Republicans are making things worse for themselves in the long run. The hardcore base may be standing by them through this, but polling shows that independents are fleeing like women and children on the Titanic. At this rate, I think the Rs stand a decent chance of losing the House in 14. The picked this hill to die on, and the public just might hold them to that.

They should put the clean bill up for a vote. Either it passes, or it doesn't, but then they look far less obstructionist. I know that procedural bullshit is used all the time to prevent votes on bills that would pass, but I don't think John Q. Public is all that aware of that, and he also doesn't care about that or feel invested in that like he does the budget. He cares less now that most (or just many?) are back to work, but he still cares.

The Republican party has been on the ropes for a while. They cling to unpopular conservative social policies because it's how they get the Bible Belt to vote against their own economic interests, while the rest of the population views them as a bunch of bigotted old white men looking to pad the pockets of big business owners and start wars in the Middle East.

Not that it really matters in terms of political strategy -- only 30% or so of eligible voters cast a vote in national elections anyway. Most of those people who view the GOP negatively also don't think the Democrats are out for their interests either, so they just stay home on election day.

 

[Flash]

In government at all levels, the work gravitates to those who do it.

Some people are better than others at getting stuff done.

When a supervisor has an assignment that needs to be done, he/she needs to find these pockets of competency and exploit the hell out of them.

Pretty much true anywhere to include the military or business.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The Republican party has been on the ropes for a while. They cling to unpopular conservative social policies because it's how they get the Bible Belt to vote against their own economic interests, while the rest of the population views them as a bunch of bigotted old white men looking to pad the pockets of big business owners and start wars in the Middle East.

Not that it really matters in terms of political strategy -- only 30% or so of eligible voters cast a vote in national elections anyway. Most of those people who view the GOP negatively also don't think the Democrats are out for their interests either, so they just stay home on election day.

Fortunately they have the Democratic party looking to pad the pockets of big business owners, redistribute wealth from the "rich" to those who did nothing to earn it, and start wars in the Middle East. Two clear and distinct options for us to choose from.

 

[HercDriver]

Fortunately they have the Democratic party looking to pad the pockets of big business owners,

Like through (Bush) tax cuts for the wealthy?

redistribute wealth from the "rich" to those who did nothing to earn it,

Wait, the rich have some of the lowest taxes in generations

and start wars in the Middle East. Two clear and distinct options for us to choose from.

You mean end wars, right?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Like through tax cuts for the wealthy?

Wait, the rich have some of the lowest taxes in generations
You mean end wars, right?

The "rich" cover more of the total tax burden than ever before. The "wealthy" aren't worried about tax cuts. The truly wealthy people don't earn a salary. Jacking up taxes on people who make around 100k a year isn't targeting the big bad generational fat cats, it's targeting people who worked hard to earn something so it can get flushed down the toilet by the government. As for the ending wars part, I hope you are joking. Our Nobel Peace Prize recipient President already attacked one (North African) country that had done nothing to threaten us, and was on the verge of starting another war with a Middle Eastern country (that also posed no threat to us) if not for serious opposition from the war mongering republicans.

 

[brownshoe]

Pretty much true anywhere to include the military or business.

Except in private industry if you can’t “cut the mustard” you can get fired. (I’m going to put away my soapbox now… I don’t want to get into trouble tonight.)

 

[HercDriver]

You have a point, but I don't see it as exactly analogous. I understand that other compromise positions are being promoted now that are not entirely budget related. But the constitution says Congress controls the purse. It is part of the checks and balances devised by the founders. There is nothing at all wrong with congress defunding any program. If congress can refuse to fund a war, clearly within the president's authority as commander in chief and the maker of foreign policy then congress can defund a law that is not even fully implemented and considered flawed by both parties. That there isn't a current budget and it has come to a CR dispute is the fault of the Senate, controlled by the President's party.

Defunding a war vice defunding a law that passed that a minority wants changed (not stopped), are two very different things. And the GOP shutting down the government (costing this country millions per day), since they don't have the votes to use the legislative process is idiotic, at best. The constant fights over the debt ceiling have emboldened those on the far right to continually hold the economy for ransom, hurting our credit rating and hurting the economy.

 

[helolumpy]

...redistribute wealth from the "rich" to those who did nothing to earn it...

As George Bernard Shaw so aptly put; "if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul."

 

[Renegade One]

JackyB said: ↑
In government at all levels, the work gravitates to those who do it.
If you don't mind, can you please elaborate on this. Thanks

You'd have to be one before you'd understand.

Totally agree with JackyB and HeloLumpy below:

Some people are better than others at getting stuff done.

When a supervisor has an assignment that needs to be done, he/she needs to find these pockets of competency and exploit the hell out of them.