Switch Theme:

Obamacare: 7million exchange enrollments, ~8-9m plans sold directly, ~8m covered by other provisions  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

So... lemme get this straight.

Democratic Congress-critters are now proposing a delay on the Individual Mandate that two weeks ago was "Extortionist Terrorist Demand TM" when made by Republicans....

O.o

Democratic Sen. Shaheen asks for health care extension
Calls to Delay Obamacare Mandate Divide Democrats
'Delay’ suddenly not a dirty word at White House
Manchin Working on Draft to Delay Individual Mandate

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in ca
Lieutenant Colonel






the fact that it penalizes those who choose to opt out,

and the fact that so many law maker types are fighting to exclude themselves/their "buddies" in exemption laws is enough to scrap it or delay it....

too much "do as I say, not as I do" from those pushing this obamacare

 
   
Made in us
Sniping Reverend Moira





Cincinnati, Ohio

They have to push for it now. Not enough young people are registering.

 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
Which got derailed by the budget/debt ceiling ordeal.


Nah, the ACA freak out has been going on since 2008. Other new, shiny political scandals took people's interest away for a week or two, but then it was right back to ACA freakout.

fething stop perpetuating the idea that the ACA is a "Republican Idea TM"... it's not even fething close. This is an attempt to create the illusion of bipartisanship and promote the idea that the GOP only wants to argue about its name.


No, it's to establish that Republican opposition to ACA has nothing to do with the content of the bill. That such a bill came from a conservative think tank isn't a crude effort to say 'you thought of it therefore you can't protest against it', but to establish that the structure of the ACA is straight up centre right politics. The ACA is exactly the structure that Republicans claim they believe in - it's a market based solution and Republicans are supposed to be all about market based solutions. But none of that mattered when Democrats put this thing up in 2008, when Republicans had just copped an electoral hammering and made the political decision to rebuild their brand and political position by hammering the Democrats over healthcare reform.

The individual mandate has roots within that proposal, however, it's a HUGE stretch to say that the ACA is a Republican idea because a specific concept out of 2,000 pages derives from a GOP platform back in the fething eighties.


And I keep telling you, in the hope that one day you'll just get it, that you can't talk about the individual mandate or any other part of ACA in isolation. The mandate, the inability to deny for pre-existing conditions, the exchanges and subsidies... they all work as one thing. And that thing was conceived of by a Republican think tank... and yes, conceived of decades ago, but that just shows how ridiculous its been for conservatives to start pretending the ACA reforms were ever some kind of contraversial thing.

I mean, have you read that link your provided? It isn't just the mandate that the Heritage plan and ACA share. They also share the idea of direct market competition between insurers chasing after the insuree directly (and not his employer). They share the focus on cost control and the belief that it could be achieved through setting up the right market incentives. They share the idea that subsidies should be given to those who cannot afford to purchase insurance in their own right.

The only real difference is that the Heritage plan proposes removing the tax subsidy on employer provided healthcare... which hilariously would have been a much more left wing reform than ACA attempted.

Don't tell an American it's impossible to do anything... we'll fething try just to spite you.


Hey, I'd like it if you genuinely did try. Having a base level insurance system (with a higher level private insurance system operating above that) is a really solid system.

The problem is that there is no genuine effort for such a system, outside of the far left wing of the Democrats and some starry eyed activists. The only noise for such a system among Republicans comes from people just talking about it as an effort to attack ACA.

Poppycock... incremental change used to be the norm...


Not in healthcare. Your system has been stagnant, apart from some blank cheques written by government to prop up various parts since Nixon failed to get major reform.

And it also doesn't matter what used to be the norm. You don't head off to war with a phalanx of heavy infantry because they used to work just fine. You accept the environment as it is now, and work with that as best you can.

Very vehemently disagree with you on ALL of this.


And you're just wrong. Simply and utterly wrong. You can just incrementally fix something when the very foundations of the system are broken.

The PPACA is 2,000 plus pages of law with so many moving parts. Some of these parts have been talked about in the past by Republicans. That doesn't mean that the Republican Party was the genesis of the PPACA.


And... once again... you can't as one incremental step just stop insurance companies denying coverage for a pre-existing condition, because then people will just stop getting insurance until they're sick. If you want a catchy name for that you can call it the "New York State feth up".

So you need some kind of system component to make healthy people take up insurance... such as a mandate that everyone gets coverage.

And from there you can't just require that of people, when many are very poor and unable to cover it. So you provide subsidies.

Guess who figured all of that out? The Heritage foundation, back in the 80s when they were genuine contributors to policy discussion. It's all there in the very link you provided.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/24 02:44:57


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

A little late in the conversation seb? o.O

*sigh*

I'm not going to argue with your assertation that the PPACA was derived from Heritage... thus it's a Republican plan and we all should just shut the feth up.

That's like saying that the Birtherism movement is a Democratic movement, by the law of "the ACA was thought up by the Heritage Foundation, so it's a Republican plan" logic. <---Stolen from Seaward (we both know that it's not true).

But, you are ABSOLUTELY, entirely wrong about how the heathcare industry works. It changes ALL THE fething TIME. I should know as I work in this industry.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 sebster wrote:
The only real difference is that the Heritage plan proposes removing the tax subsidy on employer provided healthcare... which hilariously would have been a much more left wing reform than ACA attempted


I can only imagine the outrage from the Heritage Foundation if the Democratic Party attempted to implement this job-killing idea that the Heritage Foundation had.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
A little late in the conversation seb? o.O

*sigh*


No, I read the other stuff, but you'd replied direct to me and I hadn't really liked where the other line of conversation had drifted, so...

Anyhow, the point isn't "thus it's a Republican plan and we all should just shut the feth up". I made this really clear in my last post;

"No, it's to establish that Republican opposition to ACA has nothing to do with the content of the bill. That such a bill came from a conservative think tank isn't a crude effort to say 'you thought of it therefore you can't protest against it', but to establish that the structure of the ACA is straight up centre right politics. The ACA is exactly the structure that Republicans claim they believe in - it's a market based solution and Republicans are supposed to be all about market based solutions. But none of that mattered when Democrats put this thing up in 2008, when Republicans had just copped an electoral hammering and made the political decision to rebuild their brand and political position by hammering the Democrats over healthcare reform."

But, you are ABSOLUTELY, entirely wrong about how the heathcare industry works. It changes ALL THE fething TIME. I should know as I work in this industry.


Of course it changes. Change isn't the same thing as incremental reform.

I mean, would you claim there's been a clear, coherent direction to the changes in healthcare in the last 30 years? Has their been a vision of a place that the changes are supposed to have led the industry to?

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 whembly wrote:
So... lemme get this straight.

Democratic Congress-critters are now proposing a delay on the Individual Mandate that two weeks ago was "Extortionist Terrorist Demand TM" when made by Republicans....

O.o

Democratic Sen. Shaheen asks for health care extension
Calls to Delay Obamacare Mandate Divide Democrats
'Delay’ suddenly not a dirty word at White House
Manchin Working on Draft to Delay Individual Mandate


Don't forget that when the Republicans asked for this delay the Democrats told them it was illegal and unconstitutional also

 
   
Made in us
Most Glorious Grey Seer





Everett, WA

It is the law of the land, after all.

Seriously, thought. I say this law get enforced hard and heavy. Let the Democrats run on it if they think it's so damned great. Oh, wait...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/24 09:45:49


 
   
Made in us
Old Sourpuss






Lakewood, Ohio

Saw an interesting story in the NYT today.

Health Care Law Fails to Lower Prices for Rural Areas
Spoiler:
As technical failures bedevil the rollout of President Obama’s health care law, evidence is emerging that one of the program’s loftiest goals — to encourage competition among insurers in an effort to keep costs low — is falling short for many rural Americans.

While competition is intense in many populous regions, rural areas and small towns have far fewer carriers offering plans in the law’s online exchanges. Those places, many of them poor, are being asked to choose from some of the highest-priced plans in the 34 states where the federal government is running the health insurance marketplaces, a review by The New York Times has found.

Of the roughly 2,500 counties served by the federal exchanges, more than half, or 58 percent, have plans offered by just one or two insurance carriers, according to an analysis by The Times of county-level data provided by the Department of Health and Human Services. In about 530 counties, only a single insurer is participating.

The analysis suggests that the ambitions of the Affordable Care Act to increase competition have unfolded unevenly, at least in the early going, and have not addressed many of the factors that contribute to high prices. Insurance companies are reluctant to enter challenging new markets, experts say, because medical costs are high, dominant insurers are difficult to unseat, and powerful hospital systems resist efforts to lower rates.

“There’s nothing in the structure of the Affordable Care Act which really deals with that problem,” said John Holahan, a fellow at the Urban Institute, who noted that many factors determine costs in a given market. “I think that all else being equal, premiums will clearly be higher when there’s not that competition.”

The Obama administration has said 95 percent of Americans live in areas where there are at least two insurers in the exchanges. But many experts say two might not be enough to create competition that would help lower prices.

For example, in Wyoming, two insurers are offering plans at prices that are higher than in neighboring Montana, where a third carrier is seen as a factor in keeping prices lower.

It is unclear how the online marketplaces might evolve over time. Many large insurers are closely watching what happens in the first year to decide whether to more aggressively pursue new markets. In the meantime, problems with the healthcare.gov Web site are making it harder for them to know whether the exchanges’ slow start is the result of technical difficulties or more serious underlying problems, such as a lack of consumer demand, that would discourage them from entering.

In some cases, competition varies markedly across county lines. In Monroe County, Fla., which includes the Florida Keys, two insurers, Cigna and Florida Blue, offer plans on the federal exchanges. In neighboring Miami-Dade County, there are seven companies, including Aetna and Humana, two of the nation’s largest players.

In rural Baker County, Ga., where there is only one insurer, a 50-year-old shopping for a silver plan would pay at least $644.05 before federal subsidies. (Plans range in price and levels of coverage from bronze to platinum, with silver a middle option.) A 50-year-old in Atlanta, where there are four carriers, could pay $320.06 for a comparable plan. Federal subsidies could significantly reduce monthly premiums for people with low incomes.

Counties with one carrier are mostly concentrated in the South. Nearly all of the counties in Mississippi and Alabama, for example, are served by just one insurer, according to The Times’s analysis. Other states with scarce competition include Maine, West Virginia, North Carolina and Alaska.

“The consumer wants some level of choice,” said Alexander K. Feldvebel, the deputy insurance commissioner for New Hampshire, where one carrier, Anthem Blue Cross, owned by WellPoint, now offers plans. “You don’t have that when you have a single carrier offering all the products.”

The Times examined carriers and prices on the federal exchanges for the second-cheapest silver plan, the level on which subsidies are based, available to a 50-year-old. Comparable data for state-run plans was unavailable.

The Obama administration, while not disputing the findings, responded to the analysis in a statement that the marketplaces “allow insurers to compete for customers based on price and quality.” It added that the tax-credit subsidies that will lower monthly payments for many consumers had also “brought more companies to the market, resulting in increased options for consumers and lower-than-expected premiums.”

Insurance executives say they set their rates without knowing what other insurers were doing.

“No one knew who was going to file,” said Barbara Morales Burke, an executive with BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina, the only insurer offering coverage in 61 of the state’s 100 counties. “We developed the rates we always do based on actuarial information and reasonable estimates.”

Market Concentration

The Affordable Care Act, which was passed in 2010, was designed to make health insurance available to people who had not been able to afford it or had been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It has transformed the market for individual insurance by creating marketplaces aimed at making it easier for consumers to compare their options. The law also sought to level the playing field for new insurers.

Before its passage, the existing insurance marketplace was often dominated by a single insurer.

“The picture that comes away even before the A.C.A. went into effect was that insurance markets are highly concentrated in many states,” said Larry Levitt, a policy expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

One of the main ways of fostering competition was through the creation of consumer-operated plans, called co-ops, to compete with existing insurers. They received some $2 billion in federal loans and are operating on 22 exchanges. At least 18 others were proposed when the program was discontinued as part of last year’s negotiations over the fiscal cliff.

Concerns have risen recently about the co-ops’ financial viability because of heavy regulation and a lack of visibility so far among consumers, although it is too early to know whether or not they will succeed.

“If co-ops are the game-changing, paradigm-changing force that we hope and expect them to be, they will permanently drive down rates,” said John Morrison, the president of the board of the National Alliance of State Health CO-OPs, which recently released a study concluding that premiums were lower in states with co-ops.

Some say the arrival of a co-op changed the landscape in Montana, where the insurers Blue Cross and PacificSource were joined by Montana Health CO-OP.

In neighboring Wyoming, two insurers are offering plans under the exchange: Blue Cross and WINHealth, a small health maintenance organization, or H.M.O. The cheapest silver plan available to a 50-year-old in Wyoming cost nearly as much as the most expensive Montana plan.

“Adding that third competitor really changes the landscape vastly,” said Jerry Dworak, chief executive of the Montana co-op. He said the other insurers had predicted that their rates would be 25 percent higher in the marketplace, but those increases did not materialize. “It was amazing how close the rates were,” he said.

The story is the same in other states, like South Carolina, where a new co-op competes in many rural areas.

“If the co-op didn’t exist, we would look like North Carolina,” said Jerry Burgess, the chief executive of Consumers’ Choice Health Plan.

Some insurers, especially those that specialize in serving Medicaid populations, have seen opportunity in the millions of new customers expected to enroll in the marketplaces. Some hospital systems have also created their own plans. About a quarter of the insurers are new to the individual market.

Another effort to increase competition has been less successful. The law created what are called multistate plans, in which a private carrier offers insurance in the marketplaces of multiple states under contract with the federal government. But federal officials selected Blue Cross to offer those plans, which is already the dominant insurer in many states.

“If you’ve got Blue Cross competing with Blue Cross, it doesn’t give you much competition,” said Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University.

In Orange County, Ind., the silver plan offered through Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield’s multistate plan is the same price — $487.11 for a 50-year-old — as another Anthem silver plan offered in the marketplace.

The Rural Problem

In rural regions, several factors combine to create a landscape that is inhospitable to newcomers. Developing relationships with doctors and hospitals can be costly where cities and towns are widely scattered and the pool of potential customers is small.

“I think the problem was that the Affordable Care Act was designed for where the majority of the people live, in the big cities where there’s a lot of competition among health care providers,” said Tom Hirsig, Wyoming’s insurance commissioner.

He said insurers simply did not find his state, with its population of fewer than 600,000, attractive.

“You’ve got to have some bargaining chips and we don’t have that much,” he said.

Often a single hospital dominates an area, giving insurers little leverage when negotiating reimbursement rates. Only one Wyoming county is served by more than one hospital, said Stephen K. Goldstone, the chief executive of WINHealth.

“What it costs to be treated here is more expensive than other places because there’s no competition among providers,” Mr. Goldstone said.

In southwest Georgia, another rural region, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia is the dominant carrier, and it is the only insurer operating in 54 of the state’s 159 counties.

“This has been what Georgia’s issues have been, that rural areas don’t have the best access to care,” said Amanda Ptashkin of Georgians for a Healthy Future, a consumer advocacy group.

Bert Kelly, a spokesman for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia, which is owned by WellPoint, said the higher premiums reflected the area’s higher medical costs and not a lack of competition.

In some areas, having one or two major carriers may be an advantage in being able to negotiate with powerful hospital systems.

Mr. Feldvebel, the New Hampshire regulator, said, “The bigger your carrier is, the bigger the discount the carrier can deliver because they have more lives to bargain with.”

It is also difficult to attract new insurers to areas where the population has health problems. Only one carrier, Highmark Blue Cross, is offering coverage in West Virginia, which has high rates of obesity and chronic diseases like diabetes.

Spreading Blame

A lack of competition does not always translate to higher premiums. In Tennessee, much of the state is served by just one or two carriers, but premiums are lower there than in neighboring states, even though Tennessee also struggles with high rates of obesity and chronic diseases.

“We smoke and we eat and we use prescription drugs far above what national averages are,” said Brian Haile, who was in charge of planning Tennessee’s state-run insurance marketplace before the governor decided to switch to federal oversight late last year.

Mr. Haile said he found the lack of competition in the online marketplace in his state “shameful” and blamed the federal government. Still, he said he believed his earlier efforts to encourage carriers to reduce rates worked.

Some regulators blame state lawmakers for not taking a more active role. In North Carolina, lawmakers decided not to expand Medicaid eligibility and not to run their own marketplace. Insurers “are accustomed to working with state insurance regulators,” rather than federal officials, said Wayne Goodwin, the state’s insurance commissioner.

“Had North Carolina maintained a state-based exchange and if it had expanded Medicaid, we would have had more health insurance carriers offering choices for consumers,” said Mr. Goodwin, an elected Democrat.

Observers cautioned against drawing too many conclusions from the current landscape, noting that several major insurers were waiting to see what happens next.

One such company is Centene, a national insurer that has focused on plans for Medicaid recipients and low-income consumers.

K. Rone Baldwin, a Centene executive, said the company had offered plans under the brand name Ambetter Health in nine states, but it views this year as merely a start.

“We don’t view 2014 as the make-or-break year,” he said.


Oh well :-\

DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+

Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics 
   
Made in us
Hallowed Canoness





The Void

http://thoughtsonliberty.com/you-had-one-job-obamacare

What a month Obamacare has been having, huh? The insurance exchange website, HealthCare.gov, has been swimming in serious technical shortcomings and wasn’t even properly tested before launch. Who would have guessed, just four weeks ago, how much chaos one little malfunctioning government website could create in the insurance market? Megan McArdle has deemed the current state of affairs, in which an estimated 1% of site visitors are able to set up a HealthCare.gov account, the “worst-case scenario for the insurance markets”: That the difficulty in applying is making it so that only the very persistent will be able to purchase insurance. And who is going to be persistent? The very sick, older people, and poor people.

“Insurance that is only sold to these groups,” McArdle says, “is going to be very, very expensive.” And she’s very, very right.

Having to pay $150 to deal with strep throat once in a while isn’t going to bankrupt many able-bodied millennials, even poor ones (having been one, I would know). Coughing up $200 or more every month is a big ask for a person spending over half of her income on rent alone. If young/healthy people find the exchange website too glitchy or the insurance premiums of exchange plans too high to opt-in to the exchanges, premium prices will rise to cover the elderly and sick, who have the aforementioned incentive to persevere through the exchange’s technical difficulties. Sick people = costly people; hence, premiums go up. Higher prices would cause more people to drop out, causing prices to rise further, and so on.

“Death Spiral” isn’t just a kick-ass name for a metal band, it’s a real hazard insurance markets face.

Meanwhile, insurers are canceling hundreds of thousands of individual insurance plans* and Sen. Rubio wants to delay the individual mandate, since a non-functioning exchange means people can’t purchase the product we’re legally required to buy. A delay would almost ensure that no young-and-healthies get onto the exchanges in the first year, only old-and-sickies.

So much for cost control. (Again I say: “You had ONE JOB, Obamacare”.) In the case of runaway adverse selection, it would be fair to assume that the government will throw more money at the subsidy mechanism – deficit be damned – before it lets the entire ship go down. By that time, it will be clear that creating a federal pool/program for really sick, uninsurable people in the first place would have been easier than, and preferable to, four years’ of partisan squabbling, the “war on women,” and every instance of Sarah Palin uttering the phrase “death panels.”

A month ago, I was perfectly happy to write off the GOP healthcare hawks as being unreasonably cantankerous and excessively theatrical cranks. “America may not want Obamacare, but it wants something,” I wrote. However, after three-plus weeks of fumbling, obfuscating, and blaming; after revelations that a federal agency would manage the entire project (including all 55 contractors) despite having no expertise in IT project management; after the president’s condescending Rose Garden speech this week defending the POS product, it’s become pretty clear that the administration doesn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground. Now they’re pushing people to apply by phone? Madness.

I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long


SoB, IG, SM, SW, Nec, Cus, Tau, FoW Germans, Team Yankee Marines, Battletech Clan Wolf, Mercs
DR:90-SG+M+B+I+Pw40k12+ID+++A+++/are/WD-R+++T(S)DM+ 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

Do you guys really not understand the difference between delaying legislation because you want it not to go into effect and extending a deadline created by legislation that is in effect?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/24 16:57:26


   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Manchu wrote:
Do you guys really not understand the difference between delaying legislation because you want it not to go into effect and extending a deadline created by legislation that is in effect?

Uh... during the shutdown... the Republicans offered to delay it in return to fund the government fully.

They were accused of being extortionist and comitting sedition.

Now government is back open... many D's are pushing for the exact same thing.

Are you not seeing that?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

 whembly wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
Do you guys really not understand the difference between delaying legislation because you want it not to go into effect and extending a deadline created by legislation that is in effect?

Uh... during the shutdown... the Republicans offered to delay it in return to fund the government fully.

They were accused of being extortionist and comitting sedition.

Now government is back open... many D's are pushing for the exact same thing.

Are you not seeing that?


Yes, because if the D's didn't then the R's were going to keep the government down. This one has to be voted on. Do you honestly not see the difference?

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Manchu wrote:
Do you guys really not understand the difference between delaying legislation because you want it not to go into effect and extending a deadline created by legislation that is in effect?
 whembly wrote:
Now government is back open... many D's are pushing for the exact same thing.
Well that answers my question at least.

   
Made in us
Old Sourpuss






Lakewood, Ohio

Edit: Manchu ninja'd me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/24 17:21:17


DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+

Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Easy E wrote:


Yes, because if the D's didn't then the R's were going to keep the government down. This one has to be voted on. Do you honestly not see the difference?

Huh?

The House gave the Senate a CR to fully fund the government, and a 1 yr Individual Mandate delay (leaving the rest of the law in place). It was voted on... o.O

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/24 17:22:51


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

Let's say all DCMs decided that whembly should be banned for a year or we will no longer pay our membership fee.

Now let's say that mods notice specific things that whembly actually does wrong and they talk about banning him for a year for those specific things.

Totally the same thing right?
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
Let's say all DCMs decided that whembly should be banned for a year or we will no longer pay our membership fee.

Now let's say that mods notice specific things that whembly actually does wrong and they talk about banning him for a year for those specific things.

Totally the same thing right?

Poor analogy.

You trying to get be baned?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Let's say all DCMs decided that whembly should be banned for a year or we will no longer pay our membership fee.

Now let's say that mods notice specific things that whembly actually does wrong and they talk about banning him for a year for those specific things.

Totally the same thing right?

Poor analogy.


How so?

One is a group of people threatening to withhold financing required to run something unless an action is taken against something purely based on them not liking that thing.
The other is a group of people considering taking an action against something based on specific problems and without a thread to punish everybody else on the board if they don't get their way.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Let's say all DCMs decided that whembly should be banned for a year or we will no longer pay our membership fee.

Now let's say that mods notice specific things that whembly actually does wrong and they talk about banning him for a year for those specific things.

Totally the same thing right?

Poor analogy.


How so?

One is a group of people threatening to withhold financing required to run something unless an action is taken against something purely based on them not liking that thing.
The other is a group of people considering taking an action against something based on specific problems and without a thread to punish everybody else on the board if they don't get their way.

Again... I was talking about this offer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/house-gop-shutdown-2013_n_4018547.html

Fund Government + 1 year delay.

So, during the shutdown, the Democrats fought tooth and nail against ANY changes to the ACA. Because... Republicans are meanies.

Fine... live with it.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in ca
Lieutenant Colonel






the dems are delaying it, because it has issues,

it IS the same as the repubs trying to delay it, because they think it has issues....

GOP asked nicely to delay it, and when they were told no, used the only power they had to stop it.

both were voted on, its just the dems dont like the idea of the repub's delaying it

the GOP literally had no other way to delay/stop obamacare aside from the shut down... the dems could have easily delayed it then, and now that the dems ALSO want to delay it,

almost like, jeese, maybe the GOP had some valid points about it not being ready if now BOTH parties think it should be delayed....

maybe the dem's just need more time to write laws so that obamacare doesnt apply to them?

all this fuss to push it down the GOP houses throat in a rush, and now it needs the delay?

makes the dems decision to not delay it, and force the gop into a "shutdown" corner, you know, to not delay it.... only to want to delay it right after, seem a bit waffle-y and short sighted.

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Let's say all DCMs decided that whembly should be banned for a year or we will no longer pay our membership fee.

Now let's say that mods notice specific things that whembly actually does wrong and they talk about banning him for a year for those specific things.

Totally the same thing right?

Poor analogy.


How so?

One is a group of people threatening to withhold financing required to run something unless an action is taken against something purely based on them not liking that thing.
The other is a group of people considering taking an action against something based on specific problems and without a thread to punish everybody else on the board if they don't get their way.

Again... I was talking about this offer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/house-gop-shutdown-2013_n_4018547.html

Fund Government + 1 year delay.

So, during the shutdown, the Democrats fought tooth and nail against ANY changes to the ACA. Because... Republicans are meanies.

Fine... live with it.


I know what offer you are talking about.

It's the "we are going to feth everybody and not pay a single dollar until this is delayed for a year because we don't like it and we pinkie promise that we will never do this again" offer.

If you can honestly tell me that you don't see the difference between that and people wanting to delay something to delay specific issues that have surfaced then please do so. That way I know that I can put you on the same list as Seaward when it comes to partisan blindness and I can keep my keyboard from wearing out.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:


I know what offer you are talking about.

It's the "we are going to feth everybody and not pay a single dollar until this is delayed for a year because we don't like it and we pinkie promise that we will never do this again" offer.

If you can honestly tell me that you don't see the difference between that and people wanting to delay something to delay specific issues that have surfaced then please do so. That way I know that I can put you on the same list as Seaward when it comes to partisan blindness and I can keep my keyboard from wearing out.

"Partisan blindness" o.O

Mr. Pot... meet Mr. Kettle.

No, it means that the Democrats has NO desire to work with the Republicans unless it's on their terms.

I regularly criticise the Republican parties in general... I can't remember the last time when you ding'ed any Democrats.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

So that's a no on seeing any difference then?

Good to know.
   
Made in ca
Lieutenant Colonel






dems were just a little late to see the issues...

does the possibity of the GOP forseeing these issues that the dems now want to delay obamacare over, not cross YOUR mind?

 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

If you see issues in a program you don't link it to something that'll keep the economy from tanking, you bring it up on its own merits. Just like what's happening now.

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in ca
Lieutenant Colonel






if the other party doesnt care, and doesnt listen, and says "screw you, what you gonna do about it"

then dont be suprised when they do the only thing they can do about it....


its much more reckless of the obama adminsitration to go YEARS without passing a real budget, they are paying the price for their own inability to get a real budget passed, had they done the responsable thing and gotten off of the month to month "temporary" stop gap, then the GOP cant shut anything down.

dont want the house opposition to shut you down? then pass a budget for petes sake...

 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

I have to agree with you Walrus. Whats happeneing to me? I feel the sudden need to grow a beard (wait, done!) and hug a tree.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Frazzled wrote:
I have to agree with you Walrus. Whats happeneing to me? I feel the sudden need to grow a beard (wait, done!) and hug a tree.

Frazzled... what are you doing? Don't hug this tree:


Seven suicide-vest wearing economic terrorist Senators are looking to delay settled law. (that's sarcasm folks)
Seven Senate Democrats want the White House to postpone parts of the law while contractors and the government work out kinks that have kept many consumers from signing up.
West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin is co-sponsoring a bill to delay the $95 penalty for not enrolling.

Six other Democrats up for re-election next year are asking to postpone the March 31 enrollment deadline. They are Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mark Udall of Colorado, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.


So... is MoveOn.org going to update their petition to Arrest and Try House GOP Leadership for Sedition?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/24 20:58:16


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: