What's new

Obama Government Shutdown?

This tactic for not funding our government is flat out wrong. Especially when the debate is over. The bill passed did it not?

If the dems ever do this I'll blast them for it.

We can't keep having this debate especially when it's covered in lies. Both parties are spending too much. Some of those well known tea party congressmen have asked for "pork" money for their own pet projects. They'll blast anything that not theirs, but be around the corner asking for their share. Both parties are bought out by corporations, and lobbyists in varying degrees.

We need to take the power back as a people. The more we are apart we are, the more power they have. There are good people on the right, and left.
Obama isn't out to get you. You may disagree with him, but he's not a bad man.

I think some Rage Against the Machine is in order. I have some frustration to get out.
 
This tactic for not funding our government is flat out wrong. Especially when the debate is over. The bill passed did it not?

If the dems ever do this I'll blast them for it.

We can't keep having this debate especially when it's covered in lies. Both parties are spending too much. Some of those well known tea party congressmen have asked for "pork" money for their own pet projects. They'll blast anything that not theirs, but be around the corner asking for their share. Both parties are bought out by corporations, and lobbyists in varying degrees.

We need to take the power back as a people. The more we are apart we are, the more power they have. There are good people on the right, and left.
Obama isn't out to get you. You may disagree with him, but he's not a bad man.

I think some Rage Against the Machine is in order. I have some frustration to get out.

That's what I am talking about. Kudos Rev!!!
 
This tactic for not funding our government is flat out wrong. Especially when the debate is over. The bill passed did it not?

If the dems ever do this I'll blast them for it.

We can't keep having this debate especially when it's covered in lies. Both parties are spending too much. Some of those well known tea party congressmen have asked for "pork" money for their own pet projects. They'll blast anything that not theirs, but be around the corner asking for their share. Both parties are bought out by corporations, and lobbyists in varying degrees.

We need to take the power back as a people. The more we are apart we are, the more power they have.
There are good people on the right, and left.
Obama isn't out to get you. You may disagree with him, but he's not a bad man.

I think some Rage Against the Machine is in order. I have some frustration to get out.

Isn't this a good reason to do what Tea partiers prescribe? Remove some of the funding and responsibility from Washington and turn it over to the states where the average citizen has a greater chance of making an impact in the debate. I'm not saying that they are 100% in the right but if you quite slandering them and considered at least some of their ideas, you might find some common ground.

The politicians respond as they believe their base would have them do. You sound like a member of the dems base and you would have them railroad the republicans to get what they want. So, why are you surprised when the republicans take drastic measures to be heard on an issue that they feel they were largely left out of? What they are doing isn't right but it's caused by the dems base as much as the gops.
 
This tactic for not funding our government is flat out wrong. Especially when the debate is over. The bill passed did it not?

If the dems ever do this I'll blast them for it.

We can't keep having this debate especially when it's covered in lies. Both parties are spending too much. Some of those well known tea party congressmen have asked for "pork" money for their own pet projects. They'll blast anything that not theirs, but be around the corner asking for their share. Both parties are bought out by corporations, and lobbyists in varying degrees.

We need to take the power back as a people. The more we are apart we are, the more power they have. There are good people on the right, and left.
Obama isn't out to get you. You may disagree with him, but he's not a bad man.

I think some Rage Against the Machine is in order. I have some frustration to get out.

I think you are more of a cool head than most people. I could probably sit down with you and negotiate a deal that would work.

Pelosi argued when passing the ACA that we needed to pass it so we could see what it was, because, apparently, she does not know how to read, and in fact almost nobody read the ACA.

We now know that it is turning a lot of full time jobs into part-time jobs, and massively turning people out of existing insurance coverage from their work. Do you think that is a tolerable if unintended result?

If you don't think that's OK, you need to get on board with the discussion of just stipping it's implementation and producing a bill that won't do that.
 
Isn't this a good reason to do what Tea partiers prescribe? Remove some of the funding and responsibility from Washington and turn it over to the states where the average citizen has a greater chance of making an impact in the debate. I'm not saying that they are 100% in the right but if you quite slandering them and considered at least some of their ideas, you might find some common ground.

The politicians respond as they believe their base would have them do. You sound like a member of the dems base and you would have them railroad the republicans to get what they want. So, why are you surprised when the republicans take drastic measures to be heard on an issue that they feel they were largely left out of? What they are doing isn't right but it's caused by the dems base as much as the gops.

Of course there is some good at the root of their message. That's the case for almost everyone. Less spending sounds great when you say it out loud. Now which programs we cut is where things get dicey.

I get what you are saying about the Republicans protecting their base. However at some point you have to respect the higher overall good of the country.
Fighting for what you believe in is fine, but not when you have clearly lost the issue. It's time to move on. It's passed. You can't go backwards. It's
time to move forward, and improve what we have. It's not just "what the dems want". It's what passed. I respect that a large number of people think differently. Do you respect that as of now the majority does not agree with you? Lets respect each others views, and feelings, but most importantly respect the results of bill that passed, the national election, and the fact the dems were voted majority in 2/3 of the Government in Washington.

Fair?
 
I think you are more of a cool head than most people. I could probably sit down with you and negotiate a deal that would work.

Pelosi argued when passing the ACA that we needed to pass it so we could see what it was, because, apparently, she does not know how to read, and in fact almost nobody read the ACA.

We now know that it is turning a lot of full time jobs into part-time jobs, and massively turning people out of existing insurance coverage from their work. Do you think that is a tolerable if unintended result?

If you don't think that's OK, you need to get on board with the discussion of just stipping it's implementation and producing a bill that won't do that.

I really dislike Pelosi for some reason. She comes off snooty, and arrogant. Don't hate her, but something about her rubs me the wrong way.

This ACA is flawed. It was a compromise to begin with, and will need to be improved.

"We now know that it is turning a lot of full time jobs into part-time jobs"
Let's give this some time shall we. How long has this thing been running?
I wouldn't begin to truly evaluate the real impact of this until this time next year.
 
Of course there is some good at the root of their message. That's the case for almost everyone. Less spending sounds great when you say it out loud. Now which programs we cut is where things get dicey.

I get what you are saying about the Republicans protecting their base. However at some point you have to respect the higher overall good of the country.
Fighting for what you believe in is fine, but not when you have clearly lost the issue. It's time to move on. It's passed. You can't go backwards. It's
time to move forward, and improve what we have. It's not just "what the dems want". It's what passed. I respect that a large number of people think differently.
Do you respect that as of now the majority does not agree with you? Lets respect each others views, and feelings, but most importantly respect the results of bill that passed, the national election, and the fact the dems were voted majority in 2/3 of the Government in Washington.

Fair?

I agree on the cuts part of your message. Unfortunately I do not trust either side at all to make appropriate cuts. They will both go after their oponnents golden eggs.

Cut a non partisan group to review federal sepnding, all spending, and have them submit a list of what needs to be cut and have DC make it happen.
 
Of course there is some good at the root of their message. That's the case for almost everyone. Less spending sounds great when you say it out loud. Now which programs we cut is where things get dicey.
Not if you block grant the money back to the states as many Tea party people have suggested. For instance the TPers would like to get rid of the federal department of education because they think they do a poor job. So they have suggested that instead we send that money directly to the states and let them decide what to do with it.
I get what you are saying about the Republicans protecting their base. However at some point you have to respect the higher overall good of the country. Dems too
Fighting for what you believe in is fine, but not when you have clearly lost the issue. It's time to move on. It's passed. You can't go backwards. It's
time to move forward, and improve what we have. Can't you see that neither side is really fighting about obamacare anymore? It is just a pissing contest because more than anything both bases just want to see their side win. Dem or Rep people have no idea what is in the bill nor do they care. It's not just "what the dems want". It's what passed. Without a single republican vote mind you. What did you think was going to happen? I respect that a large number of people think differently.
Do you respect that as of now the majority does not agree with you? About what? I was only making the point that you cannot expect your elected officials to compromise if you don't actually want them to. You can't call for bipartisanship and in the same breath say that the opposition are irrational buffoons. Lets respect each others views, and feelings, but most importantly respect the results of bill that passed, the national election, and the fact the dems were voted majority in 2/3 of the Government in Washington.

Fair?

.
 
Well just found out today my family is lumped in this as well. My wife is a contractor for the ODAR office (Social Security). They decided that as of Oct 1st they are not paying any outstanding contractor invoices. Since they have a habit of sitting on them as long as possible before paying, we will be missing at least 2 and probably 3 months of pay for her, or more depending on when and if this ends, even for a months worth of sessions she did before the shutdown. Apparently the contractor issue was debated for a few days, holding all payments in limbo, before finally deciding yesterday that they won't be paying. Gonna be a tight Christmas this year.
 
I agree on the cuts part of your message. Unfortunately I do not trust either side at all to make appropriate cuts. They will both go after their oponnents golden eggs.

Cut a non partisan group to review federal sepnding, all spending, and have them submit a list of what needs to be cut and have DC make it happen.

With rampant lobbying and guerrilla tactics against anyone who does not toe the party-line, from both sides, I don't think it is possible for these to exist.
 
I really dislike Pelosi for some reason. She comes off snooty, and arrogant. Don't hate her, but something about her rubs me the wrong way.

This ACA is flawed. It was a compromise to begin with, and will need to be improved.

"We now know that it is turning a lot of full time jobs into part-time jobs"
Let's give this some time shall we. How long has this thing been running?


I wouldn't begin to truly evaluate the real impact of this until this time next year.

Well, of course your set point is to give this a chance.

Markets, businessmen and others who are reading about the changes they must be making are well ahead of you, and they are already realizing what they will be required to do. . . . cut full-time employees, replace them with part-timers they will not need to take responsibility for, and cut the pay package for the rest because of their increased costs under Obamacare.

We were told, when this bill was being debated that it would reduce costs. Instead, across the board it is increasing costs, and people are facing reduced disposable income. Even the poor, who already do get health care if they cast a shadow on a hospital or clinic under Federal rules, are forking out larger out-of-pocket co-pays for care and prescriptions. Their care was rolled into operating costs by caregivers, raising the price for paying users of healthcare or insured users. . . . but the increased costs are forcing price increases across the board for everyone. The poor who do work and have any income or bank accounts will pay thousands of dollars of taxes if they are not covered.

That includes all the people being part-timed out of full-time jobs.

Anybody who actually cares about what is good for people can already see the handwriting on the wall and realize we just need to repeal Obamacare and learn from it's mistakes, now, and until you can devise a government program that will not increase costs the fact is we were better off before the ACA. For starters we could just stay with that.

My wife is a nurse, and we are always in contact with doctors. Besides that, we have been heavily involved in getting medical care for the past year and a half. I can understand people's frustrations with the way things were, and I do see that the ACA is not actually going to help.
 
Well, of course your set point is to give this a chance.

Markets, businessmen and others who are reading about the changes they must be making are well ahead of you, and they are already realizing what they will be required to do. . . . cut full-time employees, replace them with part-timers they will not need to take responsibility for, and cut the pay package for the rest because of their increased costs under Obamacare.

We were told, when this bill was being debated that it would reduce costs. Instead, across the board it is increasing costs, and people are facing reduced disposable income. Even the poor, who already do get health care if they cast a shadow on a hospital or clinic under Federal rules, are forking out larger out-of-pocket co-pays for care and prescriptions. Their care was rolled into operating costs by caregivers, raising the price for paying users of healthcare or insured users. . . . but the increased costs are forcing price increases across the board for everyone. The poor who do work and have any income or bank accounts will pay thousands of dollars of taxes if they are not covered.

That includes all the people being part-timed out of full-time jobs.

Anybody who actually cares about what is good for people can already see the handwriting on the wall and realize we just need to repeal Obamacare and learn from it's mistakes, now, and until you can devise a government program that will not increase costs the fact is we were better off before the ACA. For starters we could just stay with that.

My wife is a nurse, and we are always in contact with doctors. Besides that, we have been heavily involved in getting medical care for the past year and a half. I can understand people's frustrations with the way things were, and I do see that the ACA is not actually going to help.

All of our co-pays went up this next calendar year, in some cases and some plans double and even triple. And the change was pushed on us by the insurance companies, we fought it tooth and nail but the other option would be to decrease coverage or increase deductibles more than we already had to accept. Of course those other things have changed too, along with a 35% to 65% increase in premiums depending on the plan. At least 2 of the companies, which talks I was privy to, specifically mentioned costs to comply with the ACA as a reason to pass along the excess costs to us, as at least a portion of the reason for the increase. This follows almost 6 years of us successfully getting benefits to increase and costs for the employees to come down (the company ate some additional costs to do so along the way). All of that reversed in one fell swoop for 2014.
 
Instead, across the board it is increasing costs, and people are facing reduced disposable income.

Can this statement be considered hyperbole? It sounds absolutist in description.

That said, I was always under the impression that the ACA would not do anything to lower health insurance costs. Mainly because it doesnt touch the issues that lead to exorbitant health costs in this country.
 
Well, of course your set point is to give this a chance.

Markets, businessmen and others who are reading about the changes they must be making are well ahead of you, and they are already realizing what they will be required to do. . . . cut full-time employees, replace them with part-timers they will not need to take responsibility for, and cut the pay package for the rest because of their increased costs under Obamacare.

We were told, when this bill was being debated that it would reduce costs. Instead, across the board it is increasing costs, and people are facing reduced disposable income. Even the poor, who already do get health care if they cast a shadow on a hospital or clinic under Federal rules, are forking out larger out-of-pocket co-pays for care and prescriptions. Their care was rolled into operating costs by caregivers, raising the price for paying users of healthcare or insured users. . . . but the increased costs are forcing price increases across the board for everyone. The poor who do work and have any income or bank accounts will pay thousands of dollars of taxes if they are not covered.

That includes all the people being part-timed out of full-time jobs.

Anybody who actually cares about what is good for people can already see the handwriting on the wall and realize we just need to repeal Obamacare and learn from it's mistakes, now, and until you can devise a government program that will not increase costs the fact is we were better off before the ACA. For starters we could just stay with that.

My wife is a nurse, and we are always in contact with doctors. Besides that, we have been heavily involved in getting medical care for the past year and a half. I can understand people's frustrations with the way things were, and I do see that the ACA is not actually going to help.


Let me explain to you as succinctly as I can why exactly we deserve this stupid law. Conservatives for 30 years refused to have a conversation about the issues with our healthcare system, and pushed a "do nothing" attitude to the breaking point. Had they come to grips with reality and done something about the all the things they hate then they could have COMPROMISED in an actual debate, and probably gotten a pretty darn good system. Instead, they crossed their arms and ignored the problem as long as possible. That attitude deserves to get pissed on with a law "crammed down are throats".

Here's how a conversation with an ideologically conservative goes:

Moderate: I hate how we have to pay thousands of dollars to treat people in hospitals who could have kicked the strep throat for a $40 office visit and penicillin script.

Con: Oh, I know, I hate that. Congress has to go. We need to through them all out, both sides.

M: I don't see what that has to do with the healthcare discussion, but I guess so. I also don't like how I can pay 30 years for premiums, like a good conservative, and then get laid off for 6-months and denied new insurance for a pre-existing condition even though I had been doing the right thing.

Con: Yeah, that's total b.s. You know what we need is term limits and campaign finance reform. That's the problem with this country.

M: Huh? Okay, back to health care. You know how many people can't afford cancer treatment for their husband or wife because they're gainfully employed, so they go on unemployment and we pay the full amount of their treatment costs plus their unemployment benefits? That's madness.

Con: Yeah, the system is really screwed up. We should put congress in a line and shoot them all dead and start with a clean slate.


And for that, we deserve Obamacare.

BTW, read through this thread and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. The cons are so fixated with broken congress rhetoric that they've become the root cause of exactly what they bitch endlessly about.
 
Can this statement be considered hyperbole? It sounds absolutist in description.

That said, I was always under the impression that the ACA would not do anything to lower health insurance costs. Mainly because it doesnt touch the issues that lead to exorbitant health costs in this country.

I don't know all the causes, but at least it gets rid of the unneeded emergency room visits (in theory).

What are the underlying issues? I read a study a while back that showed a very tight correlation of a 2% increase in h.c. costs for every 1% increase in per capita GDP. That tells me our increased costs come from increased disposable income, and to that I say boo freaking hoo. Not that I'm saying that about the issue as a whole, I'm very interested in the "issues that lead to exorbitant health costs".
 
I really dislike Pelosi for some reason. She comes off snooty, and arrogant. Don't hate her, but something about her rubs me the wrong way.

Probably because you see the media caricature of her and campaigning. She's a pretty reasonable person when you get her into a calm setting with an open discussion. I personally like the vast majority of our leaders when they're on a program like Charlie Rose. Most are very insightful when given the chance to discuss an issue with someone capable of doing so on an intellectual level.
 
Let me explain to you as succinctly as I can why exactly we deserve this stupid law. Liberals for 30 years refused to have a conversation about the issues with our federal budget, and pushed a "do nothing" attitude to the breaking point. Had they come to grips with reality and done something about the all the things they hate then they could have COMPROMISED in an actual debate, and probably gotten a pretty darn system. Instead, they crossed their arms and ignored the problem as long as possible. That attitude deserves to get pissed on with a law "crammed down are throats".

^^^^^*** for tat methinks
 
I don't know all the causes, but at least it gets rid of the unneeded emergency room visits (in theory).

What are the underlying issues? I read a study a while back that showed a very tight correlation of a 2% increase in h.c. costs for every 1% increase in per capita GDP. That tells me our increased costs come from increased disposable income, and to that I say boo freaking hoo. Not that I'm saying that about the issue as a whole, I'm very interested in the "issues that lead to exorbitant health costs".
Link below. Read the article and draw your own conclusions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/09/three-key-questions-for-obamacares-rollout/
 
I thought this thread was discussing the shutdown. When did it turn into a full-on discussion about the ACA? Every time I saw the ACA brought up, someone would say something like "it isn't about the ACA, it's about the shutdown, and this country will not be held hostage by terrorists". But I guess every post in this was actually about the ACA? I guess I am confused, or is every opinion transmutable to any subject regardless of context?
 

Maybe we need a health care revolution in order to force term limits and line up both sides and shoot them and stuff.


Ok, to edit, maybe we need people to get up in arms about it. It seems to me that until it actually threatens some politicians position of ease and comfort then they will be driven harder by lobbyists than constituents to affect real change. Maybe that is the impetus we need. Not sure how that would look, and can public outrage really affect public policy?
 
Back
Top