Looks like the GOP may be beginning to face reality about Obamacare

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-talks-talks-obamacare-now-220300699.html

They may be slowly accepting that it is here to stay.
Seems to me it's about time.

EVERYBODY I've talked to about it say the ONLY thing they have against it is the politicians and others being exempt from it..... PERIOD!!!!

The Progressive Utopia approaches - but what happens when they finally discover SOMEONE has to pay for all these little liberal vote generators?

"CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said, "By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work."

Jake92 wrote:

EVERYBODY I've talked to about it say the ONLY thing they have against it is the politicians and others being exempt from it.....  PERIOD!!!!

 
     And that's the point that some refuse to explain...it's not the law of the land with the exemptions that have been granted.  Why don't those exempted want this?  When Congressional members and their staffs are exempted because it's too expensive for their staffs...will make it difficult to recruit and/or retain current staff then why is that different from businesses facing the same problem? Or families? Yes this is political but there have been horrible laws on the books throughout our history and people seemed to accept them too until they were found to be what they were.  So if it's a victory party that's wanted it ain't there because it's not as advertised.

nochain wrote:

The Progressive Utopia approaches - but what happens when they finally discover SOMEONE has to pay for all these little liberal vote generators?

"CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said, "By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work."

Good point.

I'll bet that the vast majority of those that signed up here recently were ones that get a subsidy, too. It is a good thing for them because preexisting conditions may have prevented a reasonable premium... or, they just couldn't afford the cost of healthcare at all, leaving hospitals to try and recoup the costs from the patients that can afford insurance.

I know it is a pipe dream, but if the gubment could keep payments down, there might be a silver lining to this storm cloud.

Wikipedia: "Time magazine stated "The prices Americans pay for prescription drugs, which are far higher than those paid by citizens of any other developed country, help explain why the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S." In the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry topped the list of the most profitable industries, with a return of 17% on revenue."

Why in hell do we allow the pharmaceutical companies and the hospitals to rob us blind? One word... Lobbyists.

And frigging politicians that sell their influence and votes for political campaign funds.

Eric wrote:

nochain wrote:

The Progressive Utopia approaches - but what happens when they finally discover SOMEONE has to pay for all these little liberal vote generators?

"CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said, "By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work."

Good point.  

I'll bet that the vast majority of those that signed up here recently were ones that get a subsidy, too.  It is a good thing for them because preexisting conditions may have prevented a reasonable premium... or, they just couldn't afford the cost of healthcare at all, leaving hospitals to try and recoup the costs from the patients that can afford insurance.

I know it is a pipe dream, but if the gubment could keep payments down, there might be a silver lining to this storm cloud.

Wikipedia: "Time magazine stated "The prices Americans pay for prescription drugs, which are far higher than those paid by citizens of any other developed country, help explain why the pharmaceutical industry is — and has been for years — the most profitable of all businesses in the U.S." In the annual Fortune 500 survey, the pharmaceutical industry topped the list of the most profitable industries, with a return of 17% on revenue."

Why in hell do we allow the pharmaceutical companies and the hospitals to rob us blind?  One word... Lobbyists.

And frigging politicians that sell their influence and votes for political campaign funds.

Exactly, when it takes a BILLION $$'s to attain the Presidency something is seriously wrong. Lobbyists exist because "lawmakers" need them to explain what is in various bills, impacts, etc. They exert influence in their desired direction during the explanation. Why do lawmakers depend on them? They are too busy constantly campaigning for reelection money.

It would be nice if BHO would get serious about the realities of the ACA and quit trying to spin numbers to make the thing look more successful than it is. His status speech included what amounts to an outright lie but the general public is so used to his lies it didn't really register. Even the Washington Post gives his spinner speech two Pinocchios,

"Spinning Obamacare success: The president highlights a less relevant number"

“Thirty-five percent of people who enrolled through the federal marketplace are under the age of 35.”

But some readers cried foul, saying the president highlighted a misleading number in his news conference. The young invincibles are between the ages of 18 and 34—and as White House “fact sheet” acknowledged, that figure is 28 percent. The 35 percent figures includes children under the age of 18.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/22/spinning-obamacare-success-the-president-highlights-a-less-relevant-number/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z4

nochain wrote:

It would be nice if BHO would get serious about the realities of the ACA and quit trying to spin numbers to make the thing look more successful than it is. His status speech included what amounts to an outright lie but the general public is so used to his lies it didn't really register. Even the Washington Post gives his spinner speech two Pinocchios,

"Spinning Obamacare success: The president highlights a less relevant number"

“Thirty-five percent of people who enrolled through the federal marketplace are under the age of 35.”

But some readers cried foul, saying the president highlighted a misleading number in his news conference. The young invincibles are between the ages of 18 and 34—and as White House “fact sheet” acknowledged, that figure is 28 percent. The 35 percent figures includes children under the age of 18.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/22/spinning-obamacare-success-the-president-highlights-a-less-relevant-number/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z4

I see how you are now....post something disguised as informative but really just another democrat/cowh bash post!
Statistics have always been manipulated/presented in order to achieve the desired outcome.

US Rep Stephen Lynch (D-MA) on [name] cowh healthcare: "The worst is yet to come, it's going to hit the fan". Just pointing out this democrat in order to show support in what he's saying and that I'm not just bashing democrats.

nochain wrote:

Hope and Change have really worked well.....

nochain wrote:

The Progressive Utopia approaches - but what happens when they finally discover SOMEONE has to pay for all these little liberal vote generators?

"CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said, "By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work."

You could also argue that any monetary help, including our progressive IRS system, might cause a disincentive for people to work.
You could argue that helping poor families feed their children with food stamps might cause a disincentive for people to work.
You could argue that WIC and AFDC to single parents of children might cause a disincentive for people to work.
Or school lunches.
Or HUD assistance with housing.
Or unemployment insurance.
Or help with college tuition.
Or free clinics.

You could argue that every single safety  net out there is a disincentive for people to work.


But no one argues those things because they know we have to have SOME safety nets for the poorest in America.

OOPS, I'm sorry. There are people who make that argument every day. They're called tea party people and Republicans.

Personally, I don't mind using my taxes to help others. I'd rather do that then pay Joe Biden's plane ticket to fly over to the Ukraine and try to start up more trouble with the Russkies.
Or to pay wealthy farmers not to plant certain crops. Or to help wealthy homeowners who insist on living on the beach to repair their property after a storm with federal flood insurance.

Our government spends lots of money one things Americans don't truly need. I can't for the life of me understand all the hoopla when they spend a little money on something Americans actually do so desperately need.

Otter wrote:

nochain wrote:

The Progressive Utopia approaches - but what happens when they finally discover SOMEONE has to pay for all these little liberal vote generators?

"CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said, "By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work."

You could also argue that any monetary help, including our progressive IRS system, might cause a disincentive for people to work.
You could argue that helping poor families feed their children with food stamps might cause a disincentive for people to work.
You could argue that WIC and AFDC to single parents of children might cause a disincentive for people to work.
Or school lunches.
Or HUD assistance with housing.
Or unemployment insurance.
Or help with college tuition.
Or free clinics.

You could argue that every single safety  net out there is a disincentive for people to work.


But no one argues those things because they know we have to have SOME safety nets for the poorest in America.

OOPS, I'm sorry. There are people who make that argument every day. They're called tea party people and Republicans.

Personally, I don't mind using my taxes to help others. I'd rather do that then pay Joe Biden's plane ticket to fly over to the Ukraine and try to start up more trouble with the Russkies.
Or to pay wealthy farmers not to plant certain crops. Or to help wealthy homeowners who insist on living on the beach to repair their property after a storm with federal flood insurance.

Our government spends lots of money one things Americans don't truly need. I can't for the life of me understand all the hoopla when they spend a little money on something Americans actually do so desperately need.

I'll email the CBO Director and set him straight, or maybe you want to? Comparing Tea Baggers to average R's is akin to comparing communists to average D's.

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

nochain wrote:

The Progressive Utopia approaches - but what happens when they finally discover SOMEONE has to pay for all these little liberal vote generators?

"CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said, "By providing heavily subsidized health insurance to people with very low income and then withdrawing those subsidies as income rises, the act creates a disincentive for people to work."

You could also argue that any monetary help, including our progressive IRS system, might cause a disincentive for people to work.
You could argue that helping poor families feed their children with food stamps might cause a disincentive for people to work.
You could argue that WIC and AFDC to single parents of children might cause a disincentive for people to work.
Or school lunches.
Or HUD assistance with housing.
Or unemployment insurance.
Or help with college tuition.
Or free clinics.

You could argue that every single safety  net out there is a disincentive for people to work.


But no one argues those things because they know we have to have SOME safety nets for the poorest in America.

OOPS, I'm sorry. There are people who make that argument every day. They're called tea party people and Republicans.

Personally, I don't mind using my taxes to help others. I'd rather do that then pay Joe Biden's plane ticket to fly over to the Ukraine and try to start up more trouble with the Russkies.
Or to pay wealthy farmers not to plant certain crops. Or to help wealthy homeowners who insist on living on the beach to repair their property after a storm with federal flood insurance.

Our government spends lots of money one things Americans don't truly need. I can't for the life of me understand all the hoopla when they spend a little money on something Americans actually do so desperately need.

I'll email the CBO Director and set him straight, or maybe you want to? Comparing Tea Baggers to average R's is akin to comparing communists to average D's.

Wasn't it the same Otter that about a week ago took exception to those that lump all democrats as thinking the same way?...Went into a lengthy post to explain how incorrect that thinking was...but somehow this 'Tea party and Republicans' is logical?....

Well, I, for one, feel that the poor unfortunate souls should get a "hand up" from the government.

I just don't want to pay for it, lol.

---

Seriously, unless a person is a quadriplegic or deaf & blind, government assistance should be available to someone... on the short term. Welfare for generations is...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I have no problem helping someone out when they need it, but will NOT agree with helping them over and over when they are sitting home watching TV while I'm working..  ANY aid is not reasonable after 2-3 months...  That is enough time to find a job....

Jake92 wrote:

I have no problem helping someomne out when they need it, but will NOT agree with helping them over and over when they are sitting home watching TV while I'm working..  ANY aid is not reasonable after 2-3 months...  That is enough time to find a job....

Some work harder at not working rather than actually working...and sadly they are and have been rewarded for that behavior...

It seems like even John Boehner now realizes that repeal is not a possibility for Obamacare.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-25/boehner-s-truthful-gaffe-on-obamacare?cmpid=yhoo

Too many people are now covered under it to dump the law. All Republicans can hope for is that some changes might be made.

Otter wrote:

It seems like even John Boehner now realizes that repeal is not a possibility for Obamacare.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-04-25/boehner-s-truthful-gaffe-on-obamacare?cmpid=yhoo  

Too many people are now covered under it to dump the law. All Republicans can hope for is that some changes might be made.

So now the defense is....It's too big to fail or be changed?...WOW have we heard that rhetoric before?...Remember its the folks that created this that have changed...delayed..exempted people from their own legislation...

The ONLY way to fix the problems is to cover EVERY legal citizen including the damn politicians from BOTH parties from the president down to the local dog catcher under the same exact law..

Hmmmm I thought it was already in the constitution that the politicians are under the same laws and regulations as the common citizens.....

Jake92 wrote:

The ONLY way to fix the problems is to cover EVERY legal citizen including the damn politicians from BOTH parties from the president down to the local dog catcher under the same exact law..  

Hmmmm  I thought it was already in the constitution that the politicians are under the same laws and regulations as the common citizens.....

Well Jake, I couldn't agree with you more but that would mean everybody would be on Medicare and if everybody was on Medicare, I think we could agree that that would be just like all the other countries in the world who had socialized medicine.

I think it's a fine idea myself.

I think that in less than 20 years it just might happen.

I did NOT mean Medicare, I meant the ACA.. WHY exactly did the politicians exempt themselves if it's go good?? The law says the politicians MUST follow the same exact laws you or I do..

Jake92 wrote:

I did NOT mean Medicare, I meant the ACA..  WHY exactly did the politicians exempt themselves if it's go good??  The law says the politicians MUST follow the same exact laws you or I do..

That's the question to which there is no answer..... and you certainly can't get even close to an answer from those that support [name] cowh healthcare...They don't follow the law on healthcare....The AG/administration doesn't enforce the laws on immigration and orders those that do to not make arrests....they've allowed sanctuary cities for illegals...and they've allowed agencies (NSA/IRS) to be out of control with little or no accountability or following the law....

It's a little confusing that those that don't follow the law when/if they are ever questioned the first thing they do is hide behind their Constitutional Rights for self-incrimination...The same Constitutional Rights that they've violated and ignored....Arrogance on display and sadly they continue to get away with it...

The worst part is the few honest ones aren't publicly coming out with proof against the crooked ones and the voters keep voting them back into office over and over.. Politics should be a temporary SERVICE, not a life long job where the employee makes the laws, sets the salary, and determines what laws to enforce.. If someone sees a serious crime and does nothing to report it, he's just as guilty as the criminal and deserves what he gets.. The voters also deserve what they get for NOT holding the politicians responsible for doing their jobs and letting the crooks get away with breaking the laws..

Jake92 wrote:

The worst part is the few honest ones aren't publicly coming out with proof against the crooked ones and the voters keep voting them back into office over and over..  Politics should be a temporary SERVICE, not a life long job where the employee makes the laws, sets the salary, and determines what laws to enforce..  If someone sees a serious crime and does nothing to report it, he's just as guilty as the criminal and deserves what he gets..  The voters also deserve what they get for NOT holding the politicians responsible for doing their jobs and letting the crooks get away with breaking the laws..  

    

Senators and Congressmen make me sick. No backbone. We need people that are willing to SERVE our country... not get high salaries, perks, high retirement for the rest of their lives, and special treatment and exemptions from laws they force on everybody else.

Like I said, they make me sick.

A few probably go up there with high ideals, but it appears that they all quickly succumb to the overwhelming temptations.