EPTAnd I hardly think trying to ensure a smoother implementation constitutes panic. As opposed to people saying that it will destroy America and kill us all or whatever. More equivocation. The relentless centrism can be trying, jonny.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 399
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
And I hardly think trying to ensure a smoother implementation constitutes panic. As opposed to people saying that it will destroy America and kill us all or whatever. More equivocation. The relentless centrism can be trying, jonny. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 27 2013 15:30 HunterX11 wrote: If the public option made it into Obamacare it might have been a stepping stone to single payer, but as it stands I think the biggest contribution toward UHC that the ACA is going to make will be exacerbating the untenable contradictions in our current system so it collapses faster than it would have otherwise. Didn't somebody earlier slyly compare Obama to Lenin on this point? (though I think Trotsky would be the fairer comparison) Well, yesterday on PBS’ Nevada Week In Review, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) was asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system. His answer? “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.” sourceHarry Reid certainly has his sights on using the law to move to a single payer system. Rising premium rates from the regulations will, in time, give some ammo to socialized health care proponents. I don't think that it was the express intent of the law--to drive up the costs of health insurance and drop plans to make government-provided health insurance look like a better option. The thought amongst conservatives is certainly out there. ... and Obama's out there calling health insurance a right these days *shudder* | ||
|
TheOneWhoKnocks
160 Posts
On August 28 2013 00:34 xDaunt wrote: It's pretty easy to do anything when you have a complicit press. lol so true xD | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On August 28 2013 01:01 xDaunt wrote: If Obamacare is such a great thing, then why is its implementation continuously being delayed? Why are so many insurers opting out of the state-run exchanges? Maybe it will work out, but it hasn't looked good so far. For the record, and as I have said previously, I support the implementation of a limited public option. From what I can tell, the insurers opting out are ones that already have large stakes in employer-based health insurance. That (and delays in actually making the exchanges because so many states made the feds do it) is probably a good chunk of the delay in the employer mandate. Those insurers are the least necessary ones for the exchange, though, since their visibility is high and their rates are commonly known. I don't think getting them in was a big priority. Also, the fact that insurers are opting out of state-run exchanges on a state-by-state business makes it seem unlikely the broader legislation itself was the problem. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 28 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote: The employer mandate isnt an important part of the bill. The individual mandate is, however. And I hardly think trying to ensure a smoother implementation constitutes panic. As opposed to people saying that it will destroy America and kill us all or whatever. More equivocation. The relentless centrism can be trying, jonny. There have been more delays than just the employer mandate. And if the employer mandate is so unimportant, why not just get rid of it wholesale? | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 28 2013 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: There have been more delays than just the employer mandate. And if the employer mandate is so unimportant, why not just get rid of it wholesale? Because it's a good thing? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
It's not, but if you think that it's a good thing why not also consider it important? | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 28 2013 01:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote: It's not, but if you think that it's a good thing why not also consider it important? It is, and it's not an "important" part of the bill with regards to the other parts because it's the individual mandate which allows the other provisions to work and not the employer mandate. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Maybe if it hadn't been written by a bunch of dipshits who made it more fiscally sensible to cut people's hours than provide them with health insurance... but who am I kidding, Obamacare was written as a big sloppy blowjob to the health insurance companies, not to lower health insurance costs or get more people insured. And people think that it is actually going to succeed. Obamacare is the Hindenburg and New Jersey is just off the horizon now. Fraudsters are going to have a field day because as the government itself admits their security procedures are shit and they haven't hired enough people to do that job, the application process is a clusterfuck, no one actually believes the bullshit that costs to the consumer will be lowered or that it's going to make a real dent in the number of uninsured. But remember, health care is a right so blah blah blah that gives us carte blanche to fuck up 1/6 of the economy and screw over the little guy. Because Harry Reid sez, if we fuck up everything now, that will make a nationalized medical system possible! Super. I and tens of millions of others get to get bent over so that in the future the Democrat wet dream of an American NHS might be realized. But hey I guess a 50% cut in my pay is just the sacrifice this American already living under the poverty line is just going to have to take. For the common good. For those who need help. Whatever guys, keep on living the dream where the Democrats care about the little guy. It is, and it's not an "important" part of the bill with regards to the other parts because it's the individual mandate which allows the other provisions to work and not the employer mandate. Myself and millions of other Americans who now are not working a schedule that has enough hours to make a living probably consider our lives somewhat important. The individual mandate is a shit sandwich that's going to fail spectacularly as well but hey at least the individual mandate didn't leave me trying to make ends meet on 1/2 of what I was making ends meet with before. Keep on telling us the virtues kwizach, we need to hear more about the wonderful intended and unintended consequences of Obamacare. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On August 28 2013 01:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: There have been more delays than just the employer mandate. And if the employer mandate is so unimportant, why not just get rid of it wholesale? Anytime you say something to effect of "yea but democrats/Obama also do this other thing" when you know perfectly well that it's not even close to equivalent, I'm going to call you out for being frustratingly centrist. Again, this is simply not the same thing as the panic from republicans and it should be considered weird to suggest that it is. The "children can use their parents health insurance until 26" is also not a fundamental part of the bill. That doesn't mean we should automatically get rid of it. I'm not going to pretend to know the details on the employer mandate. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On August 28 2013 02:02 kwizach wrote: @DeepElemBlues: I'm sorry you got your hours cut in half. I'm not sorry the healthcare reform passed, because last time I checked, it concerns more people than you, including the tens of millions of people who will now have access to health insurance and see their lives improve considerably as a result. But yes, let's only take into account your personal life to evaluate the effects of the law, I'm sure that's a great way to do policy. Yeah that's pretty much the Democrat answer, it's for the greater good, so too bad for you prole. Too bad for me, already classified as living in poverty by the government, now I get to go even more into poverty hopefully temporarily, because it concerns more than me, all those other people's lives will be bettered (I'm one of those poor people who is supposed to be getting helped, I am getting hurt, kwizach's response is basically tough shit) so it's okay even though many of those other people are also going to lose hours or already have, because guess who gets hurt disproportionately? The working poor. But whatever, fantasies of tens of millions of people getting helped by a shitty law tailored to benefit insurance corporations means it's okay that actual harm to the working poor is occurring because of this. Also not sure where I said only take into account my personal life or any individual life as a way of evaluating policy, but unfortunately it is not just me, it is millions of people. It does concern more than me or the mythical millions Obamacare will help (that's a good joke), it concerns the tens of millions who have had their hours cut or will, who have lost their health insurance or will, who will not see their health insurance premiums go down, who will not get better care, who will not be paying less out-of-pocket, who will not have their lives improved as a result of this. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 28 2013 01:48 kwizach wrote: It is, and it's not an "important" part of the bill with regards to the other parts because it's the individual mandate which allows the other provisions to work and not the employer mandate. The individual mandate is only so important too. It's a very weak mandate. Tens of millions are still expected to opt for the penalty, rather than the insurance. On August 28 2013 02:01 DoubleReed wrote: Anytime you say something to effect of "yea but democrats/Obama also do this other thing" when you know perfectly well that it's not even close to equivalent, I'm going to call you out for being frustratingly centrist. Again, this is simply not the same thing as the panic from republicans and it should be considered weird to suggest that it is. The "children can use their parents health insurance until 26" is also not a fundamental part of the bill. That doesn't mean we should automatically get rid of it. I'm not going to pretend to know the details on the employer mandate. The ACA is obviously going to be reacted to by it's detractors differently than its supporters. Democrats are furiously "panicking" and trying to fix the ACA or mitigate its damage. Republicans are "panicking" at the prospect of the ACA being fully implemented and joining the third rail of politics. I really don't care if one "panicking" is equivalent to the other. They're both panicking to some extent and it's because the ACA is fundamentally flawed. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 28 2013 02:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote: The individual mandate is only so important too. It's a very weak mandate. Tens of millions are still expected to opt for the penalty, rather than the insurance. If you don't see how the individual mandate is a more fundamental part of the ACA than the employer mandate, then you don't understand the law. If you do, then you have the answer to your question. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Equivocation and people constantly saying that all sides are equal hurts me. It's intellectually lazy. Why do you have to keep hurting me? Friends don't do that to each other. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 28 2013 02:21 kwizach wrote: If you don't see how the individual mandate is a more fundamental part of the ACA than the employer mandate, then you don't understand the law. If you do, then you have the answer to your question. Less important =/= unimportant. Just because there are more important provisions to the ACA doesn't take away from the fact that other, also important, provisions have been delayed / watered down. On August 28 2013 02:28 DoubleReed wrote: Jonny, we're friends, right? I like to think we're friends. Equivocation and people constantly saying that all sides are equal hurts me. It's intellectually lazy. Why do you have to keep hurting me? Friends don't do that to each other. Don't we always hurt the ones we love the most  | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 28 2013 02:21 kwizach wrote: @DeepElemBlues: You're looking at this through the lens of your personal experience (so far) with the effects of the law. That's why the "people getting hurt" are in your scenario the overwhelming majority, while the "people getting helped" are apparently "mythical" and "a good joke". I know it must be hard for you to do otherwise at this point, and believe it or not I do sympathize with your situation, but if at one point you want to look at the general effects of the reform you'll see that yes, the healthcare reform is and will be a good thing overall (including, and especially for, the less fortunate). Of course, it's not the best system possible, since you'd have to look in the direction of Canada and Europe to find examples of better systems, but I suppose you don't want to do that, do you? If you don't see how the individual mandate is a more fundamental part of the ACA than the employer mandate, then you don't understand the law. If you do, then you have the answer to your question. So what exactly are you arguing? That Obamacare is a good thing? Or that it will eventually lead to a good thing? Those are two very distinct concepts. Also, it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On August 28 2013 02:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: But whatever, fantasies of tens of millions of people getting helped by a shitty law tailored to benefit insurance corporations means it's okay that actual harm to the working poor is occurring because of this. that's the one party system for you debbie republicans write the laws, then oppose them, so that the democrats can pass them under the pretense of fighting republicans. this is a wonderful sleight of hand for making half-baked reactionary compromises seem like progressive legislation. our entire political system is just good cop/bad cop to keep us entertained while Capital makes all the rules. you've got nothing to lose but your chains comrade On August 28 2013 02:29 xDaunt wrote: Also, it's no secret that a comparatively disproportionate portion of those who are employed are only working part time, and that a very significant reason for that is that employers are trying to duck the healthcare mandate. romneycare at worst somewhat exacerbates an already very serious trend towards precarious employment which has been underway for 30 years and will continue into the foreseeable future. to whatever extent the law punishes full time, it's because the running dogs who wrote the thing want it that way | ||
|
farvacola
United States18855 Posts
| ||
| ||
