Which never would have passed.
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 II - Love it or Lose it!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Which never would have passed.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Senator Chuck Schumer says that the timing of PPACA was a big, big mistake:
Schumer is one of the top three Democrat leaders in the Senate (along with Reid and Durbin).
Senator Chuck Schumer says that the timing of PPACA was a big, big mistake:
Schumer is one of the top three Democrat leaders in the Senate (along with Reid and Durbin).
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Senator Citibank loves two things: himself and headlines. He drops these contrarian nuggets from time time to stay in the news and build brand recognition for his inevitable failed nomination run. For obvious reasons he is also all about undermining Reid (and for that, since he's doing the Lord's work, we tolerate him).
Senator Citibank loves two things: himself and headlines. He drops these contrarian nuggets from time time to stay in the news and build brand recognition for his inevitable failed nomination run. For obvious reasons he is also all about undermining Reid (and for that, since he's doing the Lord's work, we tolerate him).
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
This can't possibly be true! You mean if I hire an illegal, i won't have to pay the $3,000 penalty per employee if I don't provide health insurance?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/?page=1
This can't possibly be true! You mean if I hire an illegal, i won't have to pay the $3,000 penalty per employee if I don't provide health insurance?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/?page=1
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
This response to Schumer's statement from a liberal is well-struck. It also captures one of the reasons why it's relatively more difficult to encapsulate the Democratic message. The GOP slogan fits easily on a bumper sticker (in part because it was designed to). The Democratic message, like most practical responses to reality, always comes with a dozen conditionals.
This response to Schumer's statement from a liberal is well-struck. It also captures one of the reasons why it's relatively more difficult to encapsulate the Democratic message. The GOP slogan fits easily on a bumper sticker (in part because it was designed to). The Democratic message, like most practical responses to reality, always comes with a dozen conditionals.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
As Kep said, if Schumer's purpose is to undermine Reid, more power to him! The problem wasn't that the Dems took on the ACA. The problem is it too way too freakin long to get done as Reid got rolled by his so-called Republican friends in the Senate who pretended to be in negotiations but instead were trying to run out the clock. For someone with 30 years experience in the Senate you might think he would have noticed a con job ahead of time.
As Kep said, if Schumer's purpose is to undermine Reid, more power to him! The problem wasn't that the Dems took on the ACA. The problem is it too way too freakin long to get done as Reid got rolled by his so-called Republican friends in the Senate who pretended to be in negotiations but instead were trying to run out the clock. For someone with 30 years experience in the Senate you might think he would have noticed a con job ahead of time.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Reid was still working by the old Senate rules where the majority was permitted to govern. The bomb throwers took both him and McConnell completely by surprise. I hold Reid responsible for many ills, but he couldn't have known just how much things changed when the GOP turned their party over to the lunatics. He had been through it before with Newt, and he assumed the GOP would do what it always does -- rev the theocons up to take their money and votes, then quietly freeze them out so the corporate cons could continue happily lapping up all the corporate welfare the Dems threw their way. It was not in his calculations that the right would move their annual pity party from behind Rush's mic to the Hill.
The new reality means the Republicans no longer sweep out their own garbage, so the Dem leadership (and the country) have to hold their nose and face them. I'm sure right now there are young, aggressive liberals saying to every middle party boss "I told you so" and positioning themselves to run for state and local, so this whole problem takes care of itself on a long time scale, and very much to the country's benefit since the real left is finally waking up after a 30 year coma (roughly the time it took for all the hippies thankfully to die off). In the short run, we have guys like Reid trying to deal with guys like Cruz because guys like McConnell aren't up to it.
Reid was still working by the old Senate rules where the majority was permitted to govern. The bomb throwers took both him and McConnell completely by surprise. I hold Reid responsible for many ills, but he couldn't have known just how much things changed when the GOP turned their party over to the lunatics. He had been through it before with Newt, and he assumed the GOP would do what it always does -- rev the theocons up to take their money and votes, then quietly freeze them out so the corporate cons could continue happily lapping up all the corporate welfare the Dems threw their way. It was not in his calculations that the right would move their annual pity party from behind Rush's mic to the Hill.
The new reality means the Republicans no longer sweep out their own garbage, so the Dem leadership (and the country) have to hold their nose and face them. I'm sure right now there are young, aggressive liberals saying to every middle party boss "I told you so" and positioning themselves to run for state and local, so this whole problem takes care of itself on a long time scale, and very much to the country's benefit since the real left is finally waking up after a 30 year coma (roughly the time it took for all the hippies thankfully to die off). In the short run, we have guys like Reid trying to deal with guys like Cruz because guys like McConnell aren't up to it.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Quoted for truth
That's where it eventually winds up, anyway, but it will take another 20 years or so. I disagree that we should have either shot the moon or done nothing -- that's silly. And I disagree that we're not better off than before -- any system that involves 1/7th of the US economy is going to be insanely complex -- the private sector side of medical insurance is by far more screwed up and complicated than the small non-commercial Obamacare portion.
Progress is rarely clean. Every significant advance from suffrage to civil rights to social security was met by insane squawking and doomsaying from entrenched interests trying to protect their privileges. With time they are exposed as fraudulent and the wheel inches forward a bit more.
Quoted for truth
That's where it eventually winds up, anyway, but it will take another 20 years or so. I disagree that we should have either shot the moon or done nothing -- that's silly. And I disagree that we're not better off than before -- any system that involves 1/7th of the US economy is going to be insanely complex -- the private sector side of medical insurance is by far more screwed up and complicated than the small non-commercial Obamacare portion.
Progress is rarely clean. Every significant advance from suffrage to civil rights to social security was met by insane squawking and doomsaying from entrenched interests trying to protect their privileges. With time they are exposed as fraudulent and the wheel inches forward a bit more.
Here is where you and I differ - Should the *federal* government be involved in the management of 1/7th of the economy? I think no - as the federal government has too many inefficiencies to effectively manage a program of that size. One size fits all does not work.
Others disagree.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
I think that ship sailed long ago and economy of scale makes up for any efficiency difference, assuming state government is any more efficient to begin with, which I doubt. If I move between states my information and my plans should all follow me. Larger pools spread risk better so artificially subdividing us 50 ways is counterproductive.
"Federal" also does not imply one size fits all any more than General Motors implies only one car model, as you can have a variety of plans.
I think that ship sailed long ago and economy of scale makes up for any efficiency difference, assuming state government is any more efficient to begin with, which I doubt. If I move between states my information and my plans should all follow me. Larger pools spread risk better so artificially subdividing us 50 ways is counterproductive.
"Federal" also does not imply one size fits all any more than General Motors implies only one car model, as you can have a variety of plans.
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Seems to me that is the wrong question entirely: whether it be Health Savings Accounts or Flexible Spending Accounts or Medicare or Medicaid, the federal government was already inextricably involved way before PPACA was enacted.
The better questions to me are (a) what is the nature of the involvement? and (b) what is the extent of the involvement?
the drafters of PPACA made a big mistake by getting into the details of how the policies "should be" structured. no problem with them offering incentives and then letting private-sector innovation take over, but they got way way way too involved in what the plans "must" include. and the whole idea of disguising the additional taxes involved by trying to hide them behind different names is repugnant to many. Chief Justice Roberts sure called them out on that deception: while the mandate was ruled unconstitutional, the law was allowed to stand anyway under the taxing power. So the very thing they were trying to hide was the one single thing that kept the law from being overturned.
Medicare part D for example is the only entitlement ever enacted that came in with actual costs lower than CBO estimates at the outset. The federal government set up the framework and then encouraged private sector innovation within that framework. If they had used a comparable system this time, there'd be far less complaining.
Seems to me that is the wrong question entirely: whether it be Health Savings Accounts or Flexible Spending Accounts or Medicare or Medicaid, the federal government was already inextricably involved way before PPACA was enacted.
The better questions to me are (a) what is the nature of the involvement? and (b) what is the extent of the involvement?
the drafters of PPACA made a big mistake by getting into the details of how the policies "should be" structured. no problem with them offering incentives and then letting private-sector innovation take over, but they got way way way too involved in what the plans "must" include. and the whole idea of disguising the additional taxes involved by trying to hide them behind different names is repugnant to many. Chief Justice Roberts sure called them out on that deception: while the mandate was ruled unconstitutional, the law was allowed to stand anyway under the taxing power. So the very thing they were trying to hide was the one single thing that kept the law from being overturned.
Medicare part D for example is the only entitlement ever enacted that came in with actual costs lower than CBO estimates at the outset. The federal government set up the framework and then encouraged private sector innovation within that framework. If they had used a comparable system this time, there'd be far less complaining.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
I guess either you can make healthcare more affordable, or you can slow down the rate of increase in healthcare costs, but not necessarily do both....
$5,000 of "out-of-pocket" is "affordable" eh?
I guess either you can make healthcare more affordable, or you can slow down the rate of increase in healthcare costs, but not necessarily do both....
$5,000 of "out-of-pocket" is "affordable" eh?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
This is why health care will always be a gold mine for the GOP. It's insanely expensive because (1) it actually is -- have you seen the tech? (2) people will pay a lot for their lives, and (3) health care companies make enormous profits, but now they can blame the government for the expense.
You guys should say a little thank you every night before bed that we gave you a tub to thump for the next sixty years. Talk about a gimme.
This is why health care will always be a gold mine for the GOP. It's insanely expensive because (1) it actually is -- have you seen the tech? (2) people will pay a lot for their lives, and (3) health care companies make enormous profits, but now they can blame the government for the expense.
You guys should say a little thank you every night before bed that we gave you a tub to thump for the next sixty years. Talk about a gimme.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
It is for me Fishy! Sounds like you're a little bitter for not having a better career.
It is for me Fishy! Sounds like you're a little bitter for not having a better career.
unofan
Well-known member
It is for me Fishy! Sounds like you're a little bitter for not having a better career.
Isn't fishy the one always pushing HSA's plus high deductible insurance?
Kind of rich to be bashing them now as unaffordable.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
VT governor calls off quest for single payer plan.
http://vtdigger.org/2014/12/17/shumlin-says-single-payer-not-affordable-now/
VT governor calls off quest for single payer plan.
http://vtdigger.org/2014/12/17/shumlin-says-single-payer-not-affordable-now/
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
I'm hardly the biggest proponent of Obamacare, but this is why journalism is a dying art. At no point in that article does he stop pleasuring himself under the desk and use both hands to type. I can't find anything about what the actual changes are other than a few bits and pieces. No mention of premiums, no mention of choices offered (because I'm guessing Harvard offers at least two or three options), no mention of OOP maximums, nothing. Just a bunch of rubbing little ronnie.
I'm hardly the biggest proponent of Obamacare, but this is why journalism is a dying art. At no point in that article does he stop pleasuring himself under the desk and use both hands to type. I can't find anything about what the actual changes are other than a few bits and pieces. No mention of premiums, no mention of choices offered (because I'm guessing Harvard offers at least two or three options), no mention of OOP maximums, nothing. Just a bunch of rubbing little ronnie.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!
Dying? Outside of a handful of old-timers in your local news market, good journalism is dead. It's all about hiring partisan hacks and bubble-headed blondes now.
Dying? Outside of a handful of old-timers in your local news market, good journalism is dead. It's all about hiring partisan hacks and bubble-headed blondes now.
- Status