isn't that what they were supposedly doing last year with the sequester process? but the bipartisan "super committee" couldn't agree on anything and so across the board reductions went into effect.
Obama Government Shutdown?
- Thread starter ema
- Start date
isn't that what they were supposedly doing last year with the sequester process? but the bipartisan "super committee" couldn't agree on anything and so across the board reductions went into effect.
They cut a bunch of crap and still spend way over their revenue. There are tons of crap they could cut. Idiotic military projects, foreign aid, subsidies for certain things...
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
The discussion about healthcare isn't going any better on this board than in congress. I think the problems with washington are definitely a reflection of us. Everyone has predetermined overly entrenched positions that they are not willing to budge on.
Srs count how many times posters have said I don't really know what obamacare does or why costs are so high but I am for/against obamacare. The congress is uncooperative and polarized because we are uncooperative and polarized.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I agree that congress is not further along than we are on obamacare, but I disagree that they are a direct reflection of the populace. I think we have reached a point where it is largely the opposite. People latch onto the talking points of their party and reflect what the leaders want them to think. That is why people, like most of us on this board, don't know what Obamacare is about. We haven't taken the time to look into it and understand it. Instead we try to get our info from the politicians and their message is mixed beyond all recognition. So to franklin's point, instead of people trying to find out what it is they are for or against they just rail against or for it as their party tells them to. The exact same conversation franklin posted could be had from the opposite side with generally the same results, only instead of trying to throw everyone under the bus liberals would generally just throw conservatives under the bus, blaming it all on the repubs, and then touting obamacare as the answer when they have zero clue what it really entails. I don't pretend I know much more about the ACA than others, but I have been involved in the decision-making process of a large corporation regarding issues that the ACA has a direct impact on. And the impact I have seen so far does not fill me with hope. And the talk from the insurance companies actually scares me.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
So let's break the cycle. Lets have an open balanced fair discussion about the issues. Lets talk about healthcare and health insurance and not spout off sound bites. lets not talk about bills or acts but specific measures. I'm down. If for no other reason than to regain hope that we, as Americans, can be reasonable.
That spiel doesn't answer anything I asked Vinny. Don't get why you thought it did.
And my contribution has been adopted, big thanks heyhey. Bowing back out.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Vinyl
You
Article
I could have simply said No Vinyl it won't reduce healthcare costs and if Franklin thinks it will he is high in the night. Instead I provided a link. Now that I have spelled it out for you, you can provide me with some evidence to back up any claim that you may have that it won't increase premiums or you could always "Bow Back Out."
You're equating individual rates with overall healthcare costs? Great demagoguery, but I'm not interested. Everyone already knows it will raise rates for some and lower them for others. I'm surprised you're acting so shocked about that, but not surprised you're only including the side that will see rate increases trying to trick people into thinking that means overall costs will go up. SMD
Here's my solution: 10% national sales tax and get rid of the individual mandate and all these requirements that are allegedly hurting business or forcing them to push workers from full time to part time. Give everyone with health insurance a tax credit of say 50% of gross income up to $173k (just underneath congress' pay) or whatever the average spending is in each bracket to offset the new tax. Everyone worried that they'll get unemployed and get hit with the full tax can go onto Obamacare for a couple of months for the $50 minimum/month family coverage. It would be a smart thing to do anyway.
We all know how paranoid conservatives would respond to that.
We all know how paranoid conservatives would respond to that.
I think that remains to be seen. If some are goign up and some are going down I am sure that one side would outwiehg the other. I would be interested to see a report on that.
So, I don't actually see the study. I see a guy writing an article, about what another guy said something after he made a study. As we've seen with the media, that scenario can oft go bad.. quickly.
If anyone is under the illusion that everyone's rates will go down day 1 (March 15th?), they're hilariously misinformed. Many people's rates will go down through the marketplace, others will go up. Double is a strong word.
After a few years, 2017 I believe was the target, premium prices will begin to go back down. I may be wrong, but one of the underlying themes here is an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. Those that have never had health insurance will, due to preventative medicine being very cheap, get it, reducing compounding problems that often result in a visit to the ED(which, in it's current state, is all to familiar seeing someone with a legit emergency that could have got it fixed if they would have had preventative medicine).
I really would like to see the study in it's entirety though. I'm interested to understand how they balance what people will save in out of pocket expenses vs the initial cost, as well as how many ED visits could be avoided given access to preventative medicine, as well as how they gauge the success/failure of the 80/20 rule, and then again how they estimate what happens in 2017.
But then again, why is this thread being brought back up to the first page? Hadn't we decided as a group that the shutdown is nothing more than a pissing contest?
Since that's my opinion, I'll agree with those that feel as if our representatives don't represent us as individuals or districts, but only represent a left or right.
Since that's my opinion, I'll agree with those that feel as if our representatives don't represent us as individuals or districts, but only represent a left or right.
Increasing the tax to 10% or a new 10% tax? The 50% reduction in income tax for those with insurance would be a popular notion with a lot of conservatives and libertarians.
Companies are down sizing, going from full time to part time and/or removing benefits for dependents. I wonder what exactly is driving them to do so. Once the exact issue is known one can come up with alternatives.
Pretty much.
I've been thinking about this too. Our politicians are not stupid. . . . none of them. They can all say stuff out of one side of their mouth, while rubbing their stomachs and pointing fingers in public, and then go into little closets and take bribes from lobbyists and promise things out of the other side of their mouths.
Most of them also have a little pinky up in the air testing the way the wind is blowing, as well as an awareness of the wonders of a beautiful new world managed properly according to the orders of an intellectual, social and financial elite. For a quick gist of what that amounts to, click on the UN website, or the CFR website. It's no "secret".
what it really comes down to is that we are being managed, not listened to. For our own good, as some might say.
While there is some discussion going in within the elite circles, as well as efforts to promote different ideas publicly, our power is limited to a feather or two on the scales being stacked with gold by the heavyweights.
Looking at what is being said in those levels of elitism, I consider it possible that some are hoping, and deliberately working to make, the ACA fail. The more influential folks may want to use the failed ACA to argue for a simple single-payer system, some of the lesser influential elites want to promote their insurance businesses and make their medical facilities actually serve the patients. . . .
Clearly, we only hurt ourselves by going to the hard line ideological positions without using the good sense God gave us to discuss the problems with understanding and persuasion capable of reaching and influencing our leaders.
People like Franklin and Rev are worth the time it takes to understand what they say, and if I want to be able to influence our leaders, I should do that work and then come up with something that isn't just rhetorical slash and burn idiocy.
babe, I believe in representative democracy not pure democracy like you are pushing. There's good reason to listen to the best intellects on a subject by subject basis. If you want to be listened to then be the best intellect of your time.
As far as "managed" goes, I have more hope for humanity because of folks like you. That **** ain't the American way.
FWIW, I also have hope for humanity because of the casual idiots that our media caters too. We're too stupid and hardheaded to be managed, and that stupidity has a nice neutralizing effect on voting at large.
As far as "managed" goes, I have more hope for humanity because of folks like you. That **** ain't the American way.
FWIW, I also have hope for humanity because of the casual idiots that our media caters too. We're too stupid and hardheaded to be managed, and that stupidity has a nice neutralizing effect on voting at large.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Read it again! Fewer people will save than will see their rates increase. Furthermore the increases are expected to be larger than the savings. Overall rates increase. Unless you want to cite a link that shows that on average people will save, stfu.
I can see why my remarks above could be characterized as "pushing for a pure democracy", but that's not my whole idea. Let me just ramble a bit to get a whole idea laid out. . .
my wife sounds like she considers our government evil, and she's definitely a Chicago-school economist and can't be moved. In her analysis, government is evil when it gets in her way, in any way, and interferes with what she considers "pure liberty". I have to come here to find people who will discuss it with me, because she already knows what she "stands for".
So I try to tell her she is "against Jesus", and try to tell her that when Jesus comes, it's going to be "His Government". I also try to tell her she's not really a "Christian". . . . an "American", maybe, but not a Christian.
Christians laid out a precept during Roman times of not being rebels against a wicked government, but being subject to that government, even when that government was digging them out of their catacombs and feeding them to the lions. . . . because they believed Jesus would come soon enough. They believed this world was evil and looked for justice in another.
Americans have never been that kind of "Christian" nation. We have stood up to declare that "We, the People" own the government, and that the government is vested only with certain specifically defined, limited powers, granted by the U.S. Constitution which is the agreement whereby the various State governments have consented to having a unified Federal government. Americans vote to compose their various State governments, which have their own Constitutions which define limited State powers, under which county and municipal governments function with defined powers.
uhhhhmmmm. . . . sorry I can't write the whole book just now, but I think you can all see my drift here.
In my view, "We the People" own a puppy. We have to decide if we want that puppy to obey us, or if we just don't care if it eats us alive. We have to be the authority, the "alpha dog", and make sure it stays in the yard or on the leash as we deem best.
While I agree with you on the need for intelligent management of our affairs, I analyze it a bit and arrive at a perception that some people have in effect turned our puppy into something that serves their own interests, not mine, or ours. That is what we need to fix.
In a "Representative Republic", which is what I believe is the correct effect of our original Constitution, we do indeed have the responsibility to elect the best among us to make sure our Government does the best things for us. Intelligence. . . . better than the average. . . . is essential to that kind of "Representative".
The problem I see as being the central one, is that neither We, The People, nor our representatives have the best concept of what our government should be doing. I don't think we need a rebellion or guns to fix that. . . . primarily we need to fix our educational system and turn it away from the feudal English or European ideals of "socialism". Americans need to return to the ideals behind their own original fight for human rights. Not to go back to an imperfect past, but to go forward once again in a way that does sustain the essential elements of human liberty.
I might not believe our Constitution is "Divinely Inspired", I just think people can do a better job of training government to serve their real needs if they insist on owning their government, and refuse to let anyone, no matter how smart they are, take that power away from us.
I've got dogs that are smarter than I am, but I train them. No "smart dog" is going to train me.
Well, Jesus maybe, but nobody who's dancing to David Rockefeller's music.
Once again, I don't give a rats *** about demagoging Obamacare. If you want to explain the details of exactly why it will raise or lower costs then I suppose I'll be your audience. But I really don't care.
@babe - I know you're not for pure democracy, of course. I just wanted to put what you wrote in a different context.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
https://news.yahoo.com/government-shutdown-backfires-gop-says-democrats-now-guilty-133154607.html
Yeah, it's always just the republicans. The democrats are guiltless in every way shape and form. I am sure glad we settled that we were not allowed to talk about both sides playing the same game, since obviously it was only the teabaggers doing it. It is the same song and dance as it has been, and yes, our legislature needs major reform.
Yeah, it's always just the republicans. The democrats are guiltless in every way shape and form. I am sure glad we settled that we were not allowed to talk about both sides playing the same game, since obviously it was only the teabaggers doing it. It is the same song and dance as it has been, and yes, our legislature needs major reform.