|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 11 2015 02:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 02:16 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2015 00:50 Acrofales wrote:On September 11 2015 00:25 Jormundr wrote:On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved. No, his state government fucked him and he's blaming Obamacare for it. Whichever way you want to spin it, that is also Obamacare. Obamacare is largely implemented through state plans. Forcing him off his previous insurance (however shitty that was), and into Obamacare that his state has not prepared for properly was an Obamacare policy. Obamacare changed his day-to-day life for the worse and that is all he was really pointing out, and that he wished it had never happened. His state being the big bad guy rather than the federal government doesn't change that Obamacare has created a problem for him. Obamacare depended on the cooperation of the individual states. Unsurprisingly, that didn't happen everywhere, meaning certain people in certain states got fucked by Obamacare. That IS a failure of Obamacare. The problem he is describing is user error. He qualifies for the exemption and even if he didn't bother getting the exemption he is, by default, exempt due to his lack of any Federal tax burden. If you're going to blame user error on the system rather than the user then you might as well attack flu shots because they taste bad, the glass of the needle is all crunchy when you eat them and then you poop blood. Just because you are a highly informed, highly educated guy who knows how to find all the information with relative ease does not mean everybody is. In fact, I would say the vast majority of people get told to sign up for Obamacare, go to the website and follow the instructions. If they run into problems, they phone the call center. They do not perform exhaustive google searches to figure out why the information that was readily available to them was wrong and how they should actually act. Can you call it user error? Yes. Sure. But working in CS, I also know that most user error is entirely avoidable through good design. Don't hide necessary functionality in a submenu of a tab that you can only reach by clicking on a badly designed icon (unless you are Adobe Photoshop), and expect users to just suck it up. With something as important as Obamacare, the way it is presented to the end user is equally essential as the system itself. In this case, either the information provided to bucky was not presented in a way he managed to access it. While I agree that you cannot possibly account for absolutely everybody, and no matter how well you design your system there will be someone who it doesn't work properly for. However, bucky's case is not unique and while you can argue that all of these cases are covered by some clause of Obamacare, figuring out which exact clause your case is in fact covered by, was NOT made easy enough. And apparently the call center didn't help. EDIT: actual user error would be if someone had told him to avoid signing up and that he is exempt from the fine, and then he went ahead and signed up anyway.
The gymnastics to make this not the individuals responsibility is amusing. Funny thing about laws, ignorance isn't an excuse, why people suddenly think it's a valid one now is fascinating.
I can only imagine why suddenly the personal responsibility angle isn't so important. Just bootstrap your way through the information and don't screw yourself.
Whining and complaining about how the system is too complicated reflects poorly on the individual, not the system.
|
Can we maybe stop discussing one posters personal difficulties with the ACA and exposing out opinion how what he should do? And our opinions on how others responded. Especially in light of his reasons for those difficulties. I get that he brought it up, but we don't need to keep drilling down on it for like 3 more pages.
|
On September 11 2015 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 02:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 11 2015 02:16 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2015 00:50 Acrofales wrote:On September 11 2015 00:25 Jormundr wrote:On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved. No, his state government fucked him and he's blaming Obamacare for it. Whichever way you want to spin it, that is also Obamacare. Obamacare is largely implemented through state plans. Forcing him off his previous insurance (however shitty that was), and into Obamacare that his state has not prepared for properly was an Obamacare policy. Obamacare changed his day-to-day life for the worse and that is all he was really pointing out, and that he wished it had never happened. His state being the big bad guy rather than the federal government doesn't change that Obamacare has created a problem for him. Obamacare depended on the cooperation of the individual states. Unsurprisingly, that didn't happen everywhere, meaning certain people in certain states got fucked by Obamacare. That IS a failure of Obamacare. The problem he is describing is user error. He qualifies for the exemption and even if he didn't bother getting the exemption he is, by default, exempt due to his lack of any Federal tax burden. If you're going to blame user error on the system rather than the user then you might as well attack flu shots because they taste bad, the glass of the needle is all crunchy when you eat them and then you poop blood. Just because you are a highly informed, highly educated guy who knows how to find all the information with relative ease does not mean everybody is. In fact, I would say the vast majority of people get told to sign up for Obamacare, go to the website and follow the instructions. If they run into problems, they phone the call center. They do not perform exhaustive google searches to figure out why the information that was readily available to them was wrong and how they should actually act. Can you call it user error? Yes. Sure. But working in CS, I also know that most user error is entirely avoidable through good design. Don't hide necessary functionality in a submenu of a tab that you can only reach by clicking on a badly designed icon (unless you are Adobe Photoshop), and expect users to just suck it up. With something as important as Obamacare, the way it is presented to the end user is equally essential as the system itself. In this case, either the information provided to bucky was not presented in a way he managed to access it. While I agree that you cannot possibly account for absolutely everybody, and no matter how well you design your system there will be someone who it doesn't work properly for. However, bucky's case is not unique and while you can argue that all of these cases are covered by some clause of Obamacare, figuring out which exact clause your case is in fact covered by, was NOT made easy enough. And apparently the call center didn't help. EDIT: actual user error would be if someone had told him to avoid signing up and that he is exempt from the fine, and then he went ahead and signed up anyway. The gymnastics to make this not the individuals responsibility is amusing. Funny thing about laws, ignorance isn't an excuse, why people suddenly think it's a valid one now is fascinating. I can only imagine why suddenly the personal responsibility angle isn't so important. Just bootstrap your way through the information and don't screw yourself. Whining and complaining about how the system is too complicated reflects poorly on the individual, not the system.
Its part of the entitlement complex. I work in CS too and you can idiot proof your designs all you want, people will still find ways to be ignorant so I dont buy that it isnt the users fault. But the way things operate people are led to believe that if they miss something, they have been fooled or duped (even though this administration has done more for transparency than any in recent memory)
That having been said the systems could use more transparency and intuitiveness so the criticism is valid.
|
On September 11 2015 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 02:28 Acrofales wrote:On September 11 2015 02:16 KwarK wrote:On September 11 2015 00:50 Acrofales wrote:On September 11 2015 00:25 Jormundr wrote:On September 11 2015 00:04 Acrofales wrote:On September 10 2015 15:05 KwarK wrote:
My understanding is that if you don't have the health insurance required by Obamacare the penalty is $325 which is claimed by taking it out of your tax refund. As your Federal tax liability on an income that low is zero you shouldn't even be withholding any tax for them to take it from. Everything about the situation you claim to have is bizarre. I still believe this is largely a problem of your own making and within your control. I don't really know why you are admonishing and patronizing him. Obamacare let people slip through the cracks of the system, and they got fucked. Unless you can help him (in PM) to avoid the burdens Obamacare has apparently placed on him, and even regardless of that, it is quite clear that in his particular situation, the implementation of Obamacare made things worse. That is a failure of Obamacare. I don't think anybody, including Obama, would venture so far as to say Obamacare is perfect. However, it also isn't proof that Obamacare is worse than what was in place before as a general policy. That doesn't mean that for all individuals in America it is better. It just means that, on average, there are less people getting shafted by this system than by the previous one, and for the majority of people things HAVE improved. No, his state government fucked him and he's blaming Obamacare for it. Whichever way you want to spin it, that is also Obamacare. Obamacare is largely implemented through state plans. Forcing him off his previous insurance (however shitty that was), and into Obamacare that his state has not prepared for properly was an Obamacare policy. Obamacare changed his day-to-day life for the worse and that is all he was really pointing out, and that he wished it had never happened. His state being the big bad guy rather than the federal government doesn't change that Obamacare has created a problem for him. Obamacare depended on the cooperation of the individual states. Unsurprisingly, that didn't happen everywhere, meaning certain people in certain states got fucked by Obamacare. That IS a failure of Obamacare. The problem he is describing is user error. He qualifies for the exemption and even if he didn't bother getting the exemption he is, by default, exempt due to his lack of any Federal tax burden. If you're going to blame user error on the system rather than the user then you might as well attack flu shots because they taste bad, the glass of the needle is all crunchy when you eat them and then you poop blood. Just because you are a highly informed, highly educated guy who knows how to find all the information with relative ease does not mean everybody is. In fact, I would say the vast majority of people get told to sign up for Obamacare, go to the website and follow the instructions. If they run into problems, they phone the call center. They do not perform exhaustive google searches to figure out why the information that was readily available to them was wrong and how they should actually act. Can you call it user error? Yes. Sure. But working in CS, I also know that most user error is entirely avoidable through good design. Don't hide necessary functionality in a submenu of a tab that you can only reach by clicking on a badly designed icon (unless you are Adobe Photoshop), and expect users to just suck it up. With something as important as Obamacare, the way it is presented to the end user is equally essential as the system itself. In this case, either the information provided to bucky was not presented in a way he managed to access it. While I agree that you cannot possibly account for absolutely everybody, and no matter how well you design your system there will be someone who it doesn't work properly for. However, bucky's case is not unique and while you can argue that all of these cases are covered by some clause of Obamacare, figuring out which exact clause your case is in fact covered by, was NOT made easy enough. And apparently the call center didn't help. EDIT: actual user error would be if someone had told him to avoid signing up and that he is exempt from the fine, and then he went ahead and signed up anyway. The gymnastics to make this not the individuals responsibility is amusing. Funny thing about laws, ignorance isn't an excuse, why people suddenly think it's a valid one now is fascinating. I can only imagine why suddenly the personal responsibility angle isn't so important. Just bootstrap your way through the information and don't screw yourself. Whining and complaining about how the system is too complicated reflects poorly on the individual, not the system.
To be quite honest, the ignorance is not an excuse thing could probably use some changing given the complexity of the US Code/CFR. I'm an attorney and cannot tell you even 10%. Its entirely possible that letting your dog poop (even if you pick it up) in certain areas carries a felony charge. We already know that disposing of crab meats was thought to be by some enterprising prosecutors.
|
I think jebs is in better shape then people think. He's going to win the Florida and Texas primary no doubt and I gotta think he will preform better in the more moderate ones down the line. He has the cash to outlast the field and when it comes down to the last 4 or so when those 2 big primary races come by he will pull ahead.
Clinton has to be getting scared of Bernie now and she's dropped the pretense of being a progressive candidate to keep him out.
There I'm generating us politics content.
|
Apparently the House Republicans is threatening to shut down the government over planned parenthood. I respect their ability to ignore reality and touch the stove again.
|
Half of them will be looking for new jobs after the 2016 election, I can guarantee it
Okay, not half but quite a few
|
If you threaten to shutdown the gov it makes you look like a terrorist who is still a child throwing a tantrum.
That should never be used as a threat by a group to get their way. Not the way the system is supposed to work.
|
On September 11 2015 03:57 Slaughter wrote:
If you threaten to shutdown the gov it makes you look like a terrorist who is still a child throwing a tantrum.
That should never be used as a threat by a group to get their way. Not the way the system is supposed to work.
Note that the system does not work how you believe it to. As, unless there is threat of a shutdown, Dems filibuster budgets.
|
On September 11 2015 03:59 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:57 Slaughter wrote:
If you threaten to shutdown the gov it makes you look like a terrorist who is still a child throwing a tantrum.
That should never be used as a threat by a group to get their way. Not the way the system is supposed to work. Note that the system does not work how you believe it to. As, unless there is threat of a shutdown, Dems filibuster budgets.
And the Republican’s draft budgets they know the Democrats won’t pass. They defund Planned Parenthood and know they are shutting down the government.
The process works when the Tea Party Babies learn to accept that they can’t have their way all the time. That they can’t purge the government of anyone who disagrees with them or shut it down when they don’t get their way.
|
On September 11 2015 03:59 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:57 Slaughter wrote:
If you threaten to shutdown the gov it makes you look like a terrorist who is still a child throwing a tantrum.
That should never be used as a threat by a group to get their way. Not the way the system is supposed to work. Note that the system does not work how you believe it to. As, unless there is threat of a shutdown, Dems filibuster budgets.
There is the way our current politicians make the system work and the actual way it was intended to work. Just because the former is happening doesn't make it the right way. Both sides have turned government into a game where they compete against each other and try to win all the time, regardless if its actually good for the country.
|
I honestly fail to see where the Democrats have offered to compromise at all. PP is a small line item, but perhaps they love it enough to trade it for cuts elsewhere? No? We need to grow the government? How interesting.
|
On September 11 2015 04:12 cLutZ wrote:
I honestly fail to see where the Democrats have offered to compromise at all. PP is a small line item, but perhaps they love it enough to trade it for cuts elsewhere? No? We need to grow the government? How interesting.
The Republicans had a hearing today titled "Examining the Horrific Abortion Practices at the Nation's Largest Abortion Provider" where they asked about each specific abortion practice and if the witness thought they were humane. They don't want a concession. They want to defund it, but know its impossible for them to succeed. But they are doing it anyways. All based on a video that is widely discredited and would never pass muster as evidence in any court.
|
On September 11 2015 04:12 cLutZ wrote:
I honestly fail to see where the Democrats have offered to compromise at all. PP is a small line item, but perhaps they love it enough to trade it for cuts elsewhere? No? We need to grow the government? How interesting.
There is no compromise to do over PP.
Republicans aren't trying to defund PP to save money, they're doing it for BS political points. The problem is, there is zero evidence that PP did anything wrong. Republicans are threatening to shut down the government over a complete fantasy.
|
More or less its just a way for them to try to reduce abortions by removing a facility that provides the service. Its a disgusting way to try to practically stop abortions while getting around the law.
|
On September 11 2015 03:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Half of them will be looking for new jobs after the 2016 election, I can guarantee it
Okay, not half but quite a few
Sadly your disregarding how congress is viewed. Their approval rate is at rock bottom. Their retention rate is however still very high.
'Congress is terrible, except my congressmen. He is great.'
|
Why is defunding an organization that a huge percentage of the country finds morally objectionable a fantasy? Its like saying, "eliminating foreign aid for Syrian rebels is a fantasy!" PP should be exhilarated to show they are actually all about delivering womens health services and not rent seeking.
|
On September 11 2015 04:21 Slaughter wrote:
More or less its just a way for them to try to reduce abortions by removing a facility that provides the service. Its a disgusting way to try to practically stop abortions while getting around the law.
And to ask questions like: “You would not assert that it’s inhumane to dismember an unborn baby?” Steve King Iowa Republican Rep. Tax dollars folks. This is our tax dollars at work. Asking totally disingenuous questions to doctors.
On September 11 2015 04:26 cLutZ wrote:
Why is defunding an organization that a huge percentage of the country finds morally objectionable a fantasy? Its like saying, "eliminating foreign aid for Syrian rebels is a fantasy!" PP should be exhilarated to show they are actually all about delivering womens health services and not rent seeking.
A lot of people morally object to the military. And Congress. I'm personally not fond of the IRS or DMV.
No where in the Constitution does is say you don't have to pay for shit you don't like. And its fantasy because it will never happen. Obama will veto it, so its just a political side show to waste time and tax dollars. All based off of a video that you know never hold up as evidence of anything.
|
On September 11 2015 04:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 03:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Half of them will be looking for new jobs after the 2016 election, I can guarantee it
Okay, not half but quite a few Sadly your disregarding how congress is viewed. Their approval rate is at rock bottom. Their retention rate is however still very high. 'Congress is terrible, except my congressmen. He is great.'
Based on historic election trends, I expect Democratic turnout for the 2016 presidential election to be high. I think the Democrats will likely regain control of both houses. I'd have to do more reading and research to give an estimate, but the Republicans are set up to lose pretty big in 2016.
|
On September 11 2015 04:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 04:21 Slaughter wrote:
More or less its just a way for them to try to reduce abortions by removing a facility that provides the service. Its a disgusting way to try to practically stop abortions while getting around the law. And to ask questions like: “You would not assert that it’s inhumane to dismember an unborn baby?” Steve King Iowa Republican Rep. Tax dollars folks. This is our tax dollars at work. Asking totally disingenuous questions to doctors. Show nested quote +On September 11 2015 04:26 cLutZ wrote:
Why is defunding an organization that a huge percentage of the country finds morally objectionable a fantasy? Its like saying, "eliminating foreign aid for Syrian rebels is a fantasy!" PP should be exhilarated to show they are actually all about delivering womens health services and not rent seeking. A lot of people morally object to the military. And Congress. I'm personally not fond of the IRS or DMV. No where in the Constitution does is say you don't have to pay for shit you don't like. And its fantasy because it will never happen. Obama will veto it, so its just a political side show to waste time and tax dollars. All based off of a video that you know never hold up as evidence of anything.
Who is shutting down the government again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
