What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

unofan said:
I thought I was on ignore? Or were you misremembering when you said that?

"Some" would? Would you be one of that "some" comparing a major world religion with pedophilia?

Pedophilia is a desire to do an illegal act. Pray tell how worshiping the god of abraham and reading the koran is remotely comparable.
Click to expand...

If you actually use your brain in a post, I'll respond. If it's a bunch of "knucks suck" drabble, I'm not going to bother.

Would you consider murder to be an illegal act? How about the jihads associated with it?
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
If you actually use your brain in a post, I'll respond. If it's a bunch of "knucks suck" drabble, I'm not going to bother.

Would you consider murder to be an illegal act? How about the jihads associated with it?
Click to expand...

So does that mean you think christianity is the same as pedophilia? After all, they've got their share of blood and crusades on their hands as well.

Or are you going to come back with the "I'm just being an *** and don't actually believe the crap I'm spewing out of my mouth" defense?
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FlagDUDE08 said:
OK left-wingers, time to boycott the cinemas. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/1...heater-chain-cuts-workweek-blaming-obamacare/
Click to expand...
And they'll have to boycott the State of Virginia.
From the Link said:
In addition to the movie theater chain and several restaurants, the state of Virginia also rolled back the hours of all part-time employees back to 29 per week in February, with officials from the state claiming that the new mandate would cost the state tens of millions of dollars a year.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT) Warns of Health-Law ‘Train Wreck’:

Top Senate Democrat Max Baucus is warning the Obama administration that he thinks implementation of the key pieces of the federal health-care law could turn into “a huge train-wreck” if federal officials don’t pick up their pace in getting ready for open enrollment this fall.

Mr. Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee chairman and a key figure in the crafting of the overhaul, grilled Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a Senate hearing Wednesday morning, telling her that he was getting increasingly worried because she couldn’t give him the answers he wanted to assess the administration’s progress.

“I am concerned that not every state, including Montana, will have an insurance marketplace established in time,” he said at the beginning of the hearing, referring to the federal government’s role in setting up exchanges on behalf of the 33 states, including Montana, that have opted not to do them themselves. “The administration’s public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade."

Mr. Baucus later cited polls suggesting that most Americans know very little about the law, and small businesses are particularly uncertain of what they can expect and went on to tell the secretary: “I’ve got to tell you, I just see a huge train-wreck coming down. You and I have discussed this many times and I don’t see the results yet."
Click to expand...


and you are surprised by this, Max? getting nervous about your 2014 prospects maybe, as one of the chief architects of this fiasco? trying to distance yourself from your own work now??



I see how the "transition fund" that is supposed to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions until those provisions of the law take effect in 2014 ran out of money in February :eek:

(posted earlier in the thread).

I guess we can file coverage of that story alongside coverage of the Gosnell trial (before this week)....
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Stephen Colbert's sister, running for the House of Representatives as a Democrat from South Carolina, disses Obama'care' big-time:

Mrs. Colbert Busch slammed her own party's health-care law: "Obamacare is extremely problematic, it is expensive, it is a $500 billion [higher] cost than we originally anticipated, it's cutting into Medicare benefits and it's having companies lay off their employees because they are worried about the cost of it. That is extremely problematic, it needs an enormous fix."

....

she becomes one of the first Democrats to attempt to win an election on the back of criticism of her president's signature achievement. Even Democrats who cast themselves as "moderates" running in conservative states in the 2012 Senate election—like Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, or Joe Donnelly in Indiana—were careful to maintain a generalized support for ObamaCare.

Mrs. Colbert Busch also joins a growing chorus of Democrats who are backing away from the law now that its enormous costs and implementation problems are becoming more obvious. Montana Democrat Max Baucus used a recent Senate hearing to worry that ObamaCare was looking to be a "train wreck." West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller pronounced that ObamaCare is "so complicated" that "if it isn't done right the first time, it will just simply get worse." The most recent Kaiser Health Tracking Poll confirmed that the law has been plummeting in the public's opinion. Just 35% of Americans today view ObamaCare "favorably" or "somewhat favorably," down eight points since Election Day and its lowest level of support since it was passed.
Click to expand...


So this is the Democrat strategy to win control of the House in 2014? to promise a repeal of PPACA??? hmm...
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
So this is the Democrat strategy to win control of the House in 2014? to promise a repeal of PPACA??? hmm...
Click to expand...

No, but if you and the other true believers wish to think so, I'm not going to disavow you off that belief.

The odds Obama care gets repealed by democrats are about as high as the GOP voting to repeal the second amendment.
 
unofan said:
No, but if you and the other true believers wish to think so, I'm not going to disavow you off that belief.

The odds Obama care gets repealed by democrats are about as high as the GOP voting to repeal the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Fishy still thinks Roberts voted to overturn the ACA, so I wouldn't bother wasting your time.

However, I thought the O framed the debate well for once during his press conference, where he said for 85% of the population Obamacare has already taken place.
 
Rover said:
Fishy still thinks Roberts voted to overturn the ACA, so I wouldn't bother wasting your time.

However, I thought the O framed the debate well for once during his press conference, where he said for 85% of the population Obamacare has already taken place.
Click to expand...

And the Congre$$ will/will not exempt themselves??

Some GOP Congre$$man wants to put the entire federal government into the exchanges. It would save the Agencies $$ but the overall cost to Uncle Sam might be higher.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Question for the experts...

If a business does not offer health insurance to its employees they pay a "tax" for not doing their civic duty.

But, what if the employer is a state or local government? Does the Federal government have the power to tax another government entity? What if the employer is Uncle Sam?
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

The following mesage is brought to you by the party that debated the meaning of the word "is":

unofun said:
The odds Obama care gets repealed by democrats are about as high as the GOP voting to repeal the second amendment.
Click to expand...

Technically correct if you value style points and don't care about substance: Obama'care' won't be "repealed" it merely will be "revised" to the point where every part of it winds up being "replaced" in the end.

Consider the track record so far:

> the CLASS benefit portion of the plan has already been rescinded as unworkable and unaffordable
> the medical devices tax is in process of being rescinded
> the "mandate" was ruled unconstitutional, and was redefined as a "choice", and the "penalty" was redefined as a "tax", to allow the law to stand
> Max Baucus (D, MT) sees a "train wreck" coming
> Jay Rockefeller (D, WV) sees "very bad" implementation so far
> A D candidate for House in SC says "extensive revisions" are needed
> at least 18 states and perhaps as many as 30 will not participate in Medicaid expansion
> 33 states have done nothing to set up state-run insurance exchanges

These are all factual observations, none of it is opinion.


Now, if this law had been sponsored by Republicans and you saw prominent Republicans criticizing it and so many states resisting it, would you be so willfully blind?
 
FreshFish said:
The following mesage is brought to you by the party that debated the meaning of the word "is":



Technically correct if you value style points and don't care about substance: Obama'care' won't be "repealed" it merely will be "revised" to the point where every part of it winds up being "replaced" in the end.

Consider the track record so far:

> the CLASS benefit portion of the plan has already been rescinded as unworkable and unaffordable
> the medical devices tax is in process of being rescinded
> the "mandate" was ruled unconstitutional, and was redefined as a "choice", and the "penalty" was redefined as a "tax", to allow the law to stand
> Max Baucus (D, MT) sees a "train wreck" coming
> Jay Rockefeller (D, WV) sees "very bad" implementation so far
> A D candidate for House in SC says "extensive revisions" are needed
> at least 18 states and perhaps as many as 30 will not participate in Medicaid expansion
> 33 states have done nothing to set up state-run insurance exchanges

These are all factual observations, none of it is opinion.


Now, if this law had been sponsored by Republicans and you saw prominent Republicans criticizing it and so many states resisting it, would you be so willfully blind?
Click to expand...

Looks like you've been taking stupid pills again Fishy. Your 4th, 5th, and 6th examples are indeed opinions. What else would you call them?

1 and 2 were minor parts of the plan so no big deal. #3 is your inability to come to terms with the fact that the law was upheld. Think about it. If it was truly changed by Roberts, why were the conservatives so upset??? Regardless, the law stands so not sure what that does for you.

#7 - So? Lets say right wing states don't want to participate. Then don't. People still need to have insurance. If their state's governors want to screw their own citizens, that's between them.

#8 - Who cares? The feds can do that for them.

The ACA is the Law of the Land Fishy. Seems to me you have two choices:

1) Suffer
2 Like it

Which one is it going to be?
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Black Knight from Monty Python said:
Your 4th, 5th, and 6th examples are indeed opinions. What else would you call them?
Click to expand...

Those are not my opinions. I merely reported factually on the point of view of several notable Democrats, two of which who had been among the law's most prominent supporters.

When one of the law's primary authors says he fears a "train wreck" and decides not to run for re-election in a campaign in which he'd have to defend that vote....


PPACA is only the "law of the land" until the next "revision" takes place. I had said the law would be revised to the extent that none of the original provisions would remain, and you seem to be agreeing? That's fine.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
Looks like you've been taking stupid pills again Fishy. Your 4th, 5th, and 6th examples are indeed opinions. What else would you call them?

1 and 2 were minor parts of the plan so no big deal.

#7 - So? Lets say right wing states don't want to participate. Then don't. People still need to have insurance. If their state's governors want to screw their own citizens, that's between them.

#8 - Who cares? The feds can do that for them.
Click to expand...

1 and 2 were ways for you to gloat, "We need to keep it because it pays for itself." Now that those are gone, how do you intend to pay for this? I'm not talking about legislating from the bench, either, because Congress and the Senate (with 2/3) could very well choose to repeal the law. I'm not saying whether or not it will happen, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility.

With 4-6, sure they may be opinions, however given it is coming from people who may ultimately have the power to adjust (by any percentage) the law, why shouldn't they be considered?

#7, once you run out of other people's money and find out you can't do anything but cut spending, what do you think is going to be cut first?

With #8, it's been described that the associated tax and insurance rebate can only be enforced in states where state-run exchanges are present, based upon some law wording. Whether or not this will actually stand up, it's something that we'll witness come 2015. I do not intend to make a call on it at this time. Not to mention, there are already federal exchanges. They're called Medicare and Medicaid. ;)
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FreshFish said:
Those are not my opinions. I merely reported factually on the point of view of several notable Democrats, two of which who had been among the law's most prominent supporters.

When one of the law's primary authors says he fears a "train wreck" and decides not to run for re-election in a campaign in which he'd have to defend that vote....


PPACA is only the "law of the land" until the next "revision" takes place. I had said the law would be revised to the extent that none of the original provisions would remain, and you seem to be agreeing? That's fine.
Click to expand...

They might not be your opinions, but they still are opinions of someone else. Currently, they are not in a place where they themselves can make a ruling, so they are not set in stone decisions.

No comment on Gloating Ginny's mouth-foams.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top