|
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 30 2013 22:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 22:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 30 2013 15:54 Falling wrote:
What was he supposed to compromise on? Beyond 'don't do ACA at all.' Maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't recall many strong arguments being made for tinkering with ACA or even making larger changes to it. I mostly remember the battleground being fought over the very existence of the bill. It's hard to compromise on a bill if the compromise is supposed to be 'throw the entire thing out.' More like capitulation. But again my memory might be faulty. Just speculating but eliminating the employer mandate would alleviate a lot of the fears that Obamacare will kill jobs. The individual mandate could also be reworked so that it's no longer 'a tax for not doing something'. I don't know if those changes would make the GOP fine with Obamacare, but those two mandates seem to be the things complained about the most. How can you have a universal healthcare without an individual mandate? The fact that everyone has to pay into health care to spread costs is the very foundation of universal healthcare.
It's a difference in name only. You'd increase taxes (likely across the board), then provide tax credits based on income and insurance enrollment. It would effectively be the same.
The employer mandate is there to save the system that we have now. Dumping ~30 million people onto a market is hard but doable. Dumping ~300 million people onto a new market would likely crash everything and cost a LOT more upfront. Without the penalty/incentive for businesses to keep their coverage for employees, many more people would be thrown onto an unproven market.
|
Heads up Obama to speak in 15 minutes.
|
On October 01 2013 05:14 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 22:25 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2013 22:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 30 2013 15:54 Falling wrote:
What was he supposed to compromise on? Beyond 'don't do ACA at all.' Maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't recall many strong arguments being made for tinkering with ACA or even making larger changes to it. I mostly remember the battleground being fought over the very existence of the bill. It's hard to compromise on a bill if the compromise is supposed to be 'throw the entire thing out.' More like capitulation. But again my memory might be faulty. Just speculating but eliminating the employer mandate would alleviate a lot of the fears that Obamacare will kill jobs. The individual mandate could also be reworked so that it's no longer 'a tax for not doing something'. I don't know if those changes would make the GOP fine with Obamacare, but those two mandates seem to be the things complained about the most. How can you have a universal healthcare without an individual mandate? The fact that everyone has to pay into health care to spread costs is the very foundation of universal healthcare. It's a difference in name only. You'd increase taxes (likely across the board), then provide tax credits based on income and insurance enrollment. It would effectively be the same. The employer mandate is there to save the system that we have now. Dumping ~30 million people onto a market is hard but doable. Dumping ~300 million people onto a new market would likely crash everything and cost a LOT more upfront. Without the penalty/incentive for businesses to keep their coverage for employees, many more people would be thrown onto an unproven market.
Why would employers stop offering insurance without the mandate when they already don't have the mandate?
|
|
|
NASA with the exception of Mission Control will be closed entirely if shutdown occurs 
|
If President Gingrich was in charge it wouldn't have been put at risk! We'd already be on the moon again!
|
National Parks, Museums will all be closed.
|
Obama: "You don't get to extract a ransom just for doing your job."
|
Boehner needs to let the clean bill have a floor vote. There are 232 Republicans and 200 Democrats in the house. In a floor vote, 200 Democrats will vote for the clean CR to avoid shutdown. If there are 32+ Republican defectors, then shutdown is avoided. There is good reason to believe that there would be 32+ Republican defectors. We can talk about "will of the people" all we want, but there is a majority in the congress for the clean CR that comes from all the Dems + some defector Republicans.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/boehner-s-dilemma-surrender-on-obamacare-or-shut-down-the-government
|
So now the ball is back in Boehner's court, if it ever left, after that speech by Obama. Now word is leaking out that the Speaker might not even have the votes for his Plan C after B was rejected by the Senate.
|
"The U.S. Labor Department won’t release its monthly employment report if the federal government is closed on Oct. 4, the day of the scheduled release, according to an Obama administration official. "
rofl
|
On October 01 2013 06:24 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:
"The U.S. Labor Department won’t release its monthly employment report if the federal government is closed on Oct. 4, the day of the scheduled release, according to an Obama administration official. "
rofl
What? sounds perfectly logical. The Labor Department would be closed. No department that is effected will be doing anything.
And the ball is most definitely in the Republican court. The threatened a shutdown over Obamacare and the Democrats are calling there bluff.
|
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Boehner is in a lose-lose situation. If I were him I'd retire.
|
On October 01 2013 05:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 22:25 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2013 22:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 30 2013 15:54 Falling wrote:
What was he supposed to compromise on? Beyond 'don't do ACA at all.' Maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't recall many strong arguments being made for tinkering with ACA or even making larger changes to it. I mostly remember the battleground being fought over the very existence of the bill. It's hard to compromise on a bill if the compromise is supposed to be 'throw the entire thing out.' More like capitulation. But again my memory might be faulty. Just speculating but eliminating the employer mandate would alleviate a lot of the fears that Obamacare will kill jobs. The individual mandate could also be reworked so that it's no longer 'a tax for not doing something'. I don't know if those changes would make the GOP fine with Obamacare, but those two mandates seem to be the things complained about the most. How can you have a universal healthcare without an individual mandate? The fact that everyone has to pay into health care to spread costs is the very foundation of universal healthcare. It's a difference in name only. You'd increase taxes (likely across the board), then provide tax credits based on income and insurance enrollment. It would effectively be the same. The employer mandate is there to save the system that we have now. Dumping ~30 million people onto a market is hard but doable. Dumping ~300 million people onto a new market would likely crash everything and cost a LOT more upfront. Without the penalty/incentive for businesses to keep their coverage for employees, many more people would be thrown onto an unproven market. Why would employers stop offering insurance without the mandate when they already don't have the mandate?
Same reason many went from funded pension plans to 401k matching plans.
|
On October 01 2013 06:53 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 05:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 01 2013 05:14 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 22:25 Gorsameth wrote:On September 30 2013 22:17 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 30 2013 15:54 Falling wrote:
What was he supposed to compromise on? Beyond 'don't do ACA at all.' Maybe my memory is foggy, but I don't recall many strong arguments being made for tinkering with ACA or even making larger changes to it. I mostly remember the battleground being fought over the very existence of the bill. It's hard to compromise on a bill if the compromise is supposed to be 'throw the entire thing out.' More like capitulation. But again my memory might be faulty. Just speculating but eliminating the employer mandate would alleviate a lot of the fears that Obamacare will kill jobs. The individual mandate could also be reworked so that it's no longer 'a tax for not doing something'. I don't know if those changes would make the GOP fine with Obamacare, but those two mandates seem to be the things complained about the most. How can you have a universal healthcare without an individual mandate? The fact that everyone has to pay into health care to spread costs is the very foundation of universal healthcare. It's a difference in name only. You'd increase taxes (likely across the board), then provide tax credits based on income and insurance enrollment. It would effectively be the same. The employer mandate is there to save the system that we have now. Dumping ~30 million people onto a market is hard but doable. Dumping ~300 million people onto a new market would likely crash everything and cost a LOT more upfront. Without the penalty/incentive for businesses to keep their coverage for employees, many more people would be thrown onto an unproven market. Why would employers stop offering insurance without the mandate when they already don't have the mandate? Same reason many went from funded pension plans to 401k matching plans.
Assuming you're correct that would be something that plays out over a period of decades, not a quick dump of ~300 million insured.
|
On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose.
Yeah, I don't have high hopes for him sticking it out for very long.
This could end up being a political boondoggle for the republicans, but I'd rather that republicans take that chance now. Regardless of the outcome, the party will be forced to unify after this. If it succeeds, the tea party republicans will be put on the fast track to ascension. If it fails, they'll be stamped out. Might as well get it over with.
|
On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose.
Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate.
They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away"
|
On October 01 2013 06:51 Souma wrote:
Boehner is in a lose-lose situation. If I were him I'd retire.
This is true. He's going to lose regardless of whether the republican party "wins."
|
On October 01 2013 07:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 06:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Meh, I disagree. Ball is still in Obama's court. Republicans have shown their willingness to negotiate, Obama hasn't.
Boehner has two choices: stand up with the Tea Partiers and stay in power as a figurehead, or cave in and lose everything. I'll put it at 50/50 that his spite at being overtaken is enough to make him cut off his own nose. Have you seen there list of demand? Wanting every single political point you ever thought of isnt willingness to negotiate. They dont even wanne negotiate on Obamacare. they want it gone and nothing else is an option. Have they proposed adjustments to Obamacare that would make it a better healthcare law? And i mean realistic proposals not "throw it all away"
I take it that you have never conducted a serious negotiation before. Your opening demand is never your bottom line or even where you expect the negotiation to end up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
