Government Shutdown?
- Thread starter Strife
- Start date
Hey man, your distinction between a law and a tax is foolhardy. It was voted into law and the Supreme Court ruled that one aspect - the individual mandate - stands as a tax. But the tax aspect is enforced by the law that says you have to have insurance. The terms aren't mutually exclusive, and the ACA is broad.
Beyond that, you're clearly hanging around in the Conservative bloggosphere with your Rush live feed window in the background. There is no negotiation to have. The ACA is law (see above). It's not up for negotiating. Obama ran on the ACA last year, and Romney ran against it, and Obama won. At that point, Boehner said the issue was settled. The House used each of the issues you mentioned - medical device tax, ACA exemptions - as a way to make guys like you think they were serious. The fact is, their job inthis situation is to keep the government running, and in two weeks their job will be to agree to raise the debt limit so that the credit of the United States remains strong and we remain a country that pays its debts. The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. Do you think that if Obama is willing to negotiate with the President of Iran, then maybe he's not the guy unwilling to negotiate? These aren't real negotiations, though. They're ploys on the part of certain members of the House to please their far-right constituents. It's like if you bought some property and I, as your new neighbor, made a claim to it, and so we took it to the courts and they sided with you, but then the next year I came back and said I would be fine with things if you would just give up half of your property, and if you didn't, I would get you fired - even if it meant I lost my job, too. Would you be wrong to not negotiate, then?
Beyond that, you're clearly hanging around in the Conservative bloggosphere with your Rush live feed window in the background. There is no negotiation to have. The ACA is law (see above). It's not up for negotiating. Obama ran on the ACA last year, and Romney ran against it, and Obama won. At that point, Boehner said the issue was settled. The House used each of the issues you mentioned - medical device tax, ACA exemptions - as a way to make guys like you think they were serious. The fact is, their job inthis situation is to keep the government running, and in two weeks their job will be to agree to raise the debt limit so that the credit of the United States remains strong and we remain a country that pays its debts. The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. Do you think that if Obama is willing to negotiate with the President of Iran, then maybe he's not the guy unwilling to negotiate? These aren't real negotiations, though. They're ploys on the part of certain members of the House to please their far-right constituents. It's like if you bought some property and I, as your new neighbor, made a claim to it, and so we took it to the courts and they sided with you, but then the next year I came back and said I would be fine with things if you would just give up half of your property, and if you didn't, I would get you fired - even if it meant I lost my job, too. Would you be wrong to not negotiate, then?
Easy E
Registered
I totally agree. Thanks for responding saved me the trouble. The whole issue is that the republicans just don't like the law and they want it repealed. If it were the other way around and the republicans repealed social security and Democrats didn't like it and they shut down government who do you think would be the first to say."that's what people voted on". What's wrong with giving it a chance and see what happens, What's wrong with giving those who don't have insurance or can't get it because of preexisting conditions a chance? It's just that some people don't give a HOOT about anybody else but themselves. Like the POTUS said" if it's successful they(repucs) will stop calling it Obamacare" .
Because its 20,000 pages of who knows what... even the democrats don't know what this entails. I will give you an example.
A person can opt out of the care for 95.00 a year or 1% of their salary or if they are below the poverty level they don't pay anything.. BUT if that same person that chose not to have insurance has a heart attack because they are 75lbs overweight and never exercise they can walk in and decide they want insurance now and they can't be denied. Only smoking is limited... That is the equivalent of not buying car insurance and AFTER the wreck calling state farm to file a claim...
that is the pure garbage that is in the healthcare.. it is not financially sustainable..
cap
Let's remember two things:
1. Obamacare passed due to a procedural ploy, by ONE VOTE. It did not have the support of the people to start with - and has even less now that we've started 'reading what's in it after we passed it'.
2. This administration has YET to propose a BUDGET. The Republicans would then have something to debate with and make plans with. As far as I can tell, it's about TIME that we stood up for SOMETHING. Should have already happened the last 3 times we voted increase in the debt ceiling but they chickened out.
Actually Lillblack, you, in a way, COULD blame this administration who has decided to shrink the military in favor of entitlements - Ht/WT APFT has again become a disciminator for staying in. I saw it 3x in my 26 years...and your right, you can't take disability and still be in the USAR/ARNG...
1. Obamacare passed due to a procedural ploy, by ONE VOTE. It did not have the support of the people to start with - and has even less now that we've started 'reading what's in it after we passed it'.
2. This administration has YET to propose a BUDGET. The Republicans would then have something to debate with and make plans with. As far as I can tell, it's about TIME that we stood up for SOMETHING. Should have already happened the last 3 times we voted increase in the debt ceiling but they chickened out.
Actually Lillblack, you, in a way, COULD blame this administration who has decided to shrink the military in favor of entitlements - Ht/WT APFT has again become a disciminator for staying in. I saw it 3x in my 26 years...and your right, you can't take disability and still be in the USAR/ARNG...
Now that the rates have been released, here in TN they are already MORE than current rates; access will be limited and deductables will be higher. People will take it AFTER they get sick, and get off it as soon as their problem is fixed, only to get back on it when they need something else. The indigent will STILL go to the ER, because they don't FILE taxes, and why do any paperwork when they don't have to and get as good/better care? Keep sucking the blood out of the golden goose, and everybody starves...I'm sick and tired of watching people whine, sitting around their government-paid house, watching a flat screen TV, chatting on their government phone, eating their government steak/lobster, getting their government healthcare, while I bust my azz to take care of them.
Easy E
Registered
It will be sustainable if every participates and there are enough premiums to cover this type of situation. The example you gave i agree with because it is self imposed. But as it stands now that individual will go to the emergency room without any insurance and they would have to treat them anyway at a very high cost. What about the diseases that creep up on you that you have no control over. ie: cancer, autoimmune diseases etc. or if this happen to a child of an uncovered parent. What your saying is to bad so sad we can't afford to cover you so go home and die. No pre-existing conditions allowed.
.
I would rather continue as we are and create a real solution that we all are aware of the contents than to blindly just allow anyone, anytime for anything. We will be throwing money hand over fist at this without real help ever getting to the real needs. I have no problem helping those that need help, but those that don't want to participate then yep I say too bad so sad, if you choose to not have insurance and not pay into the system then what a sad story that is, a poor decision that will come back on them, that is why it's called INSURANCE...
[noncount] 1 : an agreement in which a person makes regular payments to a company and the company promises to pay money if the person is injured or dies, or to pay money equal to the value of something (such as a house or car) if it is damaged, lost, or stolen
▪ life insurance ▪ insurance against theft or damage ▪ health/medical insurance ▪ auto insurance ▪ He was very glad that he had taken out insurance on the boat. [=that he had insured the boat] — see also national insurance
2 a : the amount of money a person regularly pays an insurance company as part of an insurance agreement
▪ What's the monthly insurance on your car? [=how much money do you pay each month for insurance for your car?]
b : the amount of money that a person receives from an insurance company
▪ After the fire, we used the insurance (money) to buy a new house.
3 : the business of providing insurance
▪ She has a job in insurance. ▪ I work for an insurance company.
4 : protection from bad things that may happen in the future — usually + against ▪ Education provides insurance against instability in the job market. ▪ The contract provides insurance againstfuture price changes.
▪ life insurance ▪ insurance against theft or damage ▪ health/medical insurance ▪ auto insurance ▪ He was very glad that he had taken out insurance on the boat. [=that he had insured the boat] — see also national insurance
2 a : the amount of money a person regularly pays an insurance company as part of an insurance agreement
▪ What's the monthly insurance on your car? [=how much money do you pay each month for insurance for your car?]
b : the amount of money that a person receives from an insurance company
▪ After the fire, we used the insurance (money) to buy a new house.
3 : the business of providing insurance
▪ She has a job in insurance. ▪ I work for an insurance company.
4 : protection from bad things that may happen in the future — usually + against ▪ Education provides insurance against instability in the job market. ▪ The contract provides insurance againstfuture price changes.
Last edited:
Easy E
Registered
Of course if you don't want to participate and not get insurance to bad so sad. But before the affordable act they had no choice. Now they can. But if they have a non self imposed condition and they want to get coverage you are still saying to bad so sad...Now that is SAD. and by the way I know what "insurance" means. Thanks for the egamacation!!
But you don't have to drive... So insurance on the road is an option, if you choose to drive then you have to have insurance..
Easy E
Registered
True you don't have to drive but most of us do. Especially if you don't live in a big city with public transportation. But even if you don't drive you are bound to be a passenger in someone's car. Wouldn't you want that individual to have insurance? I see you live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure you HAVE to drive.
. You don't have to buy the insurance either its just a small penalty if you don't. But why in the word would you not want to buy insurance? That's crazy.
Some feel they are somehow "owed insurance", in spite of what they may or may not contribute to society. I think it's safe to say most hard working Americans want others that need something to have it, but they also feel those that need and want things should work for them, just like they do...you have to admit, no matter what side you're on, there's a segment of society that will skim and take advantage at every turn, and I think it's *that* segment of our population that many don't care to drag along anymore. I know I don't. It's a fundamental difference in thinking about your fellow human, IMHO. Some work hard and have very little, some don't work at all and expect the world. There should be limits to what some are allowed access to, just like welfare - why in the hell won't those getting welfare agree to be drug tested? Oh, I know why - because some *are* that segment I'm talking about, that won't do anything to help themselves, who use every bit of welfare they can get for their fix, avoid getting jobs, whine about how they don't get enough of a free ride, etc...meanwhile, the rest of those working hard to make ends meet are drug tested and earning the right to keep their jobs and/or any welfare they get.
Obamacare is more of the same; it'll be the biggest welfare system we have, and just like every other welfare plan in place, it'll be a complete fiasco and drain on hard-working Americans. Sure, I think we all agree, no one wants a child to be without insurance, and no one wants the elderly to not be able to afford medications and office visits. I don't think we just wake up and say "Screw you!" to those that don't have, and go about our lives not caring. But, there has to be a happy medium, some system in place that will prevent the blatant abuse of any "welfare system" that's enacted. The abuse is what ruins it for everyone, and the abuse is what costs Americans, US, so damn much...we as a society cannot continue to pay and pay and pay and smile, saying "It's all OK, everyone deserves this" when the reality is, quite simply, some do not and we can't possibly share this cost. Nothing is truly free, that's the part that some don't seem to want to acknowledge...
Obamacare is more of the same; it'll be the biggest welfare system we have, and just like every other welfare plan in place, it'll be a complete fiasco and drain on hard-working Americans. Sure, I think we all agree, no one wants a child to be without insurance, and no one wants the elderly to not be able to afford medications and office visits. I don't think we just wake up and say "Screw you!" to those that don't have, and go about our lives not caring. But, there has to be a happy medium, some system in place that will prevent the blatant abuse of any "welfare system" that's enacted. The abuse is what ruins it for everyone, and the abuse is what costs Americans, US, so damn much...we as a society cannot continue to pay and pay and pay and smile, saying "It's all OK, everyone deserves this" when the reality is, quite simply, some do not and we can't possibly share this cost. Nothing is truly free, that's the part that some don't seem to want to acknowledge...
I have no problem if we have a system in place where someone that has done their best to participate needs help, I have a niece that is special needs so I have a heart for those that really can't provide for themselves. If your preexisting condition has nothing to do with the decisions of your past, as an example if a person was a drunk their entire adult life and they have not paid into the system I would not support them just walking in and claiming a pre existing condition.. If you have a person that is diagnosed with MS as an adult and they were not eligible for other insurance then sure we want to help them... To me this is not much different than illegals in our country... They never pay into the system but want to reap the benefits of our great country... I'm all about bringing in great people to our country but nothing is free, if you want to get benefits then pay in!
True you don't have to drive but most of us do. Especially if you don't live in a big city with public transportation. But even if you don't drive you are bound to be a passenger in someone's car. Wouldn't you want that individual to have insurance? I see you live in Oklahoma. I'm pretty sure you HAVE to drive.
There are millions of people across the country that don't have insurance, the penalty for being caught is what, a $200.00 ticket? your license gets suspended, assuming you have one...
Easy E
Registered
You know I totally agree..If you don't pay and buy insurance when the opportunity to do so is there then tough cookies on you. But the way the system is now, as in your example with the MS patient, and they want to get insurance they can't under the old system. Now they have a chance to get coverage. That's all i'm saying.
Similar threads
