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.
Former Reid staffer Jim Manley defended his old boss, arguing that "the only people hypocritical here are Republicans, who made this an issue in the first place."
Scooby Doo defense - Reid would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky Republicans
Issa told Bill Hemmer on America’s Newsroom today that an internet giant offered to build the Federal ACA Exchange website for free.
This was confirmed during testimony today before a Congressional committee. Issa stated that the Obama White House turned down the offer.
Bill Hemmer: Was it proven today that an internet company offered to build the website for free but the government passed on it? Was that true? Did that happen?
Rep. Darrell Issa: It was stated under oath that it was true. No one argued that it wasn’t.
So the Obama administration blew over a billion dollars so far to build these failed website?
Former Reid staffer Jim Manley defended his old boss, arguing that "the only people hypocritical here are Republicans, who made this an issue in the first place."
Scooby Doo defense - Reid would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky Republicans
This made me laugh out loud at work.
Also wasn't it one of Michelle Obama's college friends who's firm got the Healthcare website's no bid contract?
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
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Scooby Doo defense - Reid would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky Republicans
This made me laugh out loud at work.
Also wasn't it one of Michelle Obama's college friends who's firm got the Healthcare website's no bid contract?
Thank you Yup, she is employed by the firm that created the website. The company does not have a great track record with government IT projects, either here or in Canada.
whembly wrote: wut? That's not even remotely true Seb... rethink that. Please.
So now rising healthcare costs were never a problem, and we've always been at war with Eurasia?
Bull. fething. gak.
It is NOT a "first and foremost" cost control bill.
That's what it always was. One of these days you need to stop reading just the partisan nonsense from both sides, and read about the actual policies themselves. The real substance of a thing is rarely in what's sold to the public, nor is it in whatever the other side tries to claim. A massive part of ACA is in the medicare reforms, and the pay for performance etc.
And to be perfectly honest it's kind of disappointing I'm having to type all of this out again. We've been over this so many fething times now, and you still act like its stuff you've never heard before.
You really need to remove your partisan glasses a bit and look at not ONLY the bill, but it's true impact to the market/consumer.
Or you can recognise the bs you're swallowing, and realise how the Republican position has shifted from 'this cannot be afforded by the nation/government' to 'you will possibly pay more as an individual'.
I mean dude, seriously, you're not dumb, but you keep getting played by the same people over and over again.
That's actually been debunked... everytime the CBO attempts to re-calculate this, the costs keeps going UP.
Total fething bs. I'll say it again, lowest growth in healthcare costs in more than 50 years, and the lowest estimate for the 50 year increase ever. Those numbers aren't disputed.
Also, you're being a little hypocritical, because I remember when people pointed out that insurance costs were coming in lower than estimated, you said 'that's just lower than estimates, what matters is what they were before'. And yet above you're claiming that a revision of an estimate means something.
What actually matters, as you rightly pointed out before, is the change compared to what the situation was previously. And in this case the change is rate of increase has been greatly reduced.
Frankly, I think you need to stop worshipping this as you constantly bring it up. The CBO, is at best, an estimate.
Of course it's an estimate. But its also the best estimate available, and quite reliable, and telling us the reforms of ACA are lowering the cost of healthcare in the US. You don't want to believe that, so you make some stuff up.
Um... no. What's affordable about this?
There are numerous evidence Seb that the plans are MUCH worse. Why are you ignoring this?
I'm ignoring it because hyper-focusing in on a guy in Odessa TX who's plan got more expensive is just change panic. What matters is the overall impact on the system. And that news is quite good for ACA, so I won't even ask why you're ignoring it.
Facts and forward estimate? Forget that, I've got polling numbers!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/12/05 05:01:22
“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.
Anyone who doesn't believe that the ACA is first and foremost a wealth redistribution bill is too fething ill-informed and naive to be in this conversation. Cost control? Please.
News tonight said that, based on the individual states polls, 4/10 of the people that have signed up are over 55 and only 2/10 are in the much needed under 35 demo.
Not exactly the numbers they want. They need the inverse, if I recall correctly.
Seaward wrote: Anyone who doesn't believe that the ACA is first and foremost a wealth redistribution bill is too fething ill-informed and naive to be in this conversation. Cost control? Please.
Anyone who talks in vague rhetoric is contributing nothing useful and is wasting everyone's time.
“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.
sebster wrote: Anyone who talks in vague rhetoric is contributing nothing useful and is wasting everyone's time.
Self-awareness at last, I see.
The CBO keeps revising their estimates on the cost of the ACA up and up and up. Medicare's rolls are inflating like crazy, and more and more providers are deciding they want no part of that system anymore, which if course isn't going to lead to any possible scenarios where costs skyrocket. Across-the-board premium increases are going to be seen next year, and the year after. A whole lot of people are being obliged to switch to worse plans in order to ensure the poor make out like bandits. Sure, "costs" are being controlled, except for the ones outside the narrow definition that aren't.
Seaward wrote: The CBO keeps revising their estimates on the cost of the ACA up and up and up. Medicare's rolls are inflating like crazy, and more and more providers are deciding they want no part of that system anymore, which if course isn't going to lead to any possible scenarios where costs skyrocket. Across-the-board premium increases are going to be seen next year, and the year after. A whole lot of people are being obliged to switch to worse plans in order to ensure the poor make out like bandits. Sure, "costs" are being controlled, except for the ones outside the narrow definition that aren't.
The "costs" that I mentioned are the entire cost of healthcare to the entire country. You have no fething clue what you're talking about.
“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.
sebster wrote: The "costs" that I mentioned are the entire cost of healthcare to the entire country. You have no fething clue what you're talking about.
And neither do you, clearly, if you actually believe the estimations for one, and tie them to the ACA for another.
Seaward wrote: Anyone who doesn't believe that the ACA is first and foremost a wealth redistribution bill is too fething ill-informed and naive to be in this conversation. Cost control? Please.
Anyone who talks in vague rhetoric is contributing nothing useful and is wasting everyone's time.
Then why are you wasting time replying to him?
-"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!
cincydooley wrote: News tonight said that, based on the individual states polls, 4/10 of the people that have signed up are over 55 and only 2/10 are in the much needed under 35 demo.
Not exactly the numbers they want. They need the inverse, if I recall correctly.
Guess those advertisements featuring drunks and whores aren't working.
Seaward wrote: Anyone who doesn't believe that the ACA is first and foremost a wealth redistribution bill is too fething ill-informed and naive to be in this conversation. Cost control? Please.
Anyone who talks in vague rhetoric is contributing nothing useful and is wasting everyone's time.
Sebs, this whole thread is just a conservative echo-chamber. I'm honsetly surprised this thread is even still open considering it hasn't been anything meaningful for the last 15+ pages. It's just been a lot of...Grrrr... and Arrrrgghhhh.... and gnashing of teeth.
Now that the site is mostly working, I can't wait to see the new Conservative pivot on this issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 14:27:10
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
whembly wrote: wut? That's not even remotely true Seb... rethink that. Please.
So now rising healthcare costs were never a problem, and we've always been at war with Eurasia?
Huh? I was responding to this:
sebster wrote: The deficit was a disaster and most of it was due to the incredible increase in healthcare expenditure
Never said that it wasn't the problem... but, don't lay problems on the deficit solely on Medicare/Medicaide's expenditures.
Bull. fething. gak.
It is NOT a "first and foremost" cost control bill.
That's what it always was. One of these days you need to stop reading just the partisan nonsense from both sides, and read about the actual policies themselves. The real substance of a thing is rarely in what's sold to the public, nor is it in whatever the other side tries to claim. A massive part of ACA is in the medicare reforms, and the pay for performance etc.
If you want to argue that it's an attempt to do those things... be my guest. But it's mostly political horse gak.
And to be perfectly honest it's kind of disappointing I'm having to type all of this out again. We've been over this so many fething times now, and you still act like its stuff you've never heard before.
To be perfectly honest... I'm only engaging you on this because I think your wrong. You keep arguing that all of this is a benign attempt to fix real problems. I'm telling you that it was mostly political gak sammich.
You really need to remove your partisan glasses a bit and look at not ONLY the bill, but it's true impact to the market/consumer.
Or you can recognise the bs you're swallowing, and realise how the Republican position has shifted from 'this cannot be afforded by the nation/government' to 'you will possibly pay more as an individual'.
I mean dude, seriously, you're not dumb, but you keep getting played by the same people over and over again.
What BS? I've been against the PPACA since Day Numero Uno dude... Consistently I would think.
I think I earned that badge of honor here in Dakka.
O.o The Republicans aren't changing their tune (regarding your blurb "you will possibly pay more as an individual")... they still want to repeal this.
That's actually been debunked... everytime the CBO attempts to re-calculate this, the costs keeps going UP.
Total fething bs. I'll say it again, lowest growth in healthcare costs in more than 50 years, and the lowest estimate for the 50 year increase ever. Those numbers aren't disputed.
Tell that to those millions of people so far having lost their previous plans, and NOW paying higher premiums, with HIGHER deductables and more out-of-pocket expenses.
Stop. Ignoring. These. Facts.
Also, you're being a little hypocritical, because I remember when people pointed out that insurance costs were coming in lower than estimated, you said 'that's just lower than estimates, what matters is what they were before'. And yet above you're claiming that a revision of an estimate means something.
Huh? I'm not sure that's applicable.
So you're saying that we should discount the new estimates?
What actually matters, as you rightly pointed out before, is the change compared to what the situation was previously. And in this case the change is rate of increase has been greatly reduced.
I frankly don't see how that's even remotely right. Only that, people now will be paying more, than ever before, on a crappier plan.
Frankly, I think you need to stop worshipping this as you constantly bring it up. The CBO, is at best, an estimate.
Of course it's an estimate. But its also the best estimate available, and quite reliable, and telling us the reforms of ACA are lowering the cost of healthcare in the US. You don't want to believe that, so you make some stuff up.
I make stuff up huh... o.O
Seb... I give up. You are trying desparetly to defend the ACA/Obama/Democrats...
There's another word for that. That's "spin" there brother.
Um... no. What's affordable about this?
There are numerous evidence Seb that the plans are MUCH worse. Why are you ignoring this?
I'm ignoring it because hyper-focusing in on a guy in Odessa TX who's plan got more expensive is just change panic. What matters is the overall impact on the system. And that news is quite good for ACA, so I won't even ask why you're ignoring it.
"Hyper-focusing"
Seb... you're from the Down Under... You can't POSSIBLE see/feel the pulse here any more I could understand how scary Drop Koalas can be.
djones520 wrote: Still waiting on you to back up your claim that we're better off now then before the ACA became active.
Okay, my wife now has the option to get insurance now since her pancreas stopped working when she was 4. Before she couldn't no matter how much she was willing to pay.
Is it better for the nation? I have no idea.
Is it better for my wife and about 31 million other Americans? Yeah, it is.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Once the employer mandate hits the dems are in for political Armageddon.
Captain Killhammer McFighterson stared down at the surface of Earth from his high vantage point on the bridge of Starship Facemelter. Something ominous was looming on the surface. He could see a great shadow looming just underneath the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, slowly spreading northward. "That can't be good..." he muttered to himself while rubbing the super manly stubble on his chin with one hand. "But... on the other hand..." he looked at his shiny new bionic murder-arm. "This could be the perfect chance for that promotion." A perfect roundhouse kick slammed the ship's throttle into full gear. Soon orange jets of superheated plasma were visible from the space-windshield as Facemelter reentered the atmosphere at breakneck speed.
If the law known as Obamacare gets struck down in the latest court challenge, the victors will thank a Hudson resident and Case Western Reserve University law professor who discovered what the law's critics say is a major flaw. Jonathan Adler, 44, says he didn't even appreciate initially how significant his discovery might be. He thought it was an interesting bit of legal arcana, worthy of scholarship. But his analysis of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, has led to four pending cases in federal courts, two likely to be decided within months, that offer ACA opponents their best chance of gutting the law.
Oral arguments were heard in one of the cases, in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.
Adler, a Case law professor since 2001, pored over the ACA after it passed in 2010 and found this: Congress created a system for providing tax subsidies and penalties in order to give incentives for people to buy health insurance or for employers to provide it. States were supposed to create new agencies that would offer online insurance-shopping options, and states would tie into a federal tax system to dole out the subsidies and assess the penalties.
But the ACA made clear, Adler says, that the subsidies were to be used in these new state marketplaces, or "exchanges." There is no record, he says, that shows Congress directed the subsidies to what has since evolved: a large, federally run, health-policy shopping exchange. When the subsidies are mentioned in the law, Adler says, it is always and only in the context of state exchanges.
These are the darkhorse cases they may render the PPACA unconstitutional.
These definitely won't hit the SC this year... maybe in '15/'16.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 22:01:34
If the law known as Obamacare gets struck down in the latest court challenge, the victors will thank a Hudson resident and Case Western Reserve University law professor who discovered what the law's critics say is a major flaw.
Jonathan Adler, 44, says he didn't even appreciate initially how significant his discovery might be. He thought it was an interesting bit of legal arcana, worthy of scholarship. But his analysis of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, has led to four pending cases in federal courts, two likely to be decided within months, that offer ACA opponents their best chance of gutting the law.
Oral arguments were heard in one of the cases, in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.
Adler, a Case law professor since 2001, pored over the ACA after it passed in 2010 and found this: Congress created a system for providing tax subsidies and penalties in order to give incentives for people to buy health insurance or for employers to provide it. States were supposed to create new agencies that would offer online insurance-shopping options, and states would tie into a federal tax system to dole out the subsidies and assess the penalties.
But the ACA made clear, Adler says, that the subsidies were to be used in these new state marketplaces, or "exchanges." There is no record, he says, that shows Congress directed the subsidies to what has since evolved: a large, federally run, health-policy shopping exchange. When the subsidies are mentioned in the law, Adler says, it is always and only in the context of state exchanges.
These are the darkhorse cases they may render the PPACA unconstitutional.
These definitely won't hit the SC this year... maybe in '15/'16.
I'm not sure how this would make it unconstitutional. You probably know more about it than me, so will you enlighten me on to your reasoning?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
If the law known as Obamacare gets struck down in the latest court challenge, the victors will thank a Hudson resident and Case Western Reserve University law professor who discovered what the law's critics say is a major flaw. Jonathan Adler, 44, says he didn't even appreciate initially how significant his discovery might be. He thought it was an interesting bit of legal arcana, worthy of scholarship. But his analysis of the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, has led to four pending cases in federal courts, two likely to be decided within months, that offer ACA opponents their best chance of gutting the law.
Oral arguments were heard in one of the cases, in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.
Adler, a Case law professor since 2001, pored over the ACA after it passed in 2010 and found this: Congress created a system for providing tax subsidies and penalties in order to give incentives for people to buy health insurance or for employers to provide it. States were supposed to create new agencies that would offer online insurance-shopping options, and states would tie into a federal tax system to dole out the subsidies and assess the penalties.
But the ACA made clear, Adler says, that the subsidies were to be used in these new state marketplaces, or "exchanges." There is no record, he says, that shows Congress directed the subsidies to what has since evolved: a large, federally run, health-policy shopping exchange. When the subsidies are mentioned in the law, Adler says, it is always and only in the context of state exchanges.
These are the darkhorse cases they may render the PPACA unconstitutional.
These definitely won't hit the SC this year... maybe in '15/'16.
I'm not sure how this would make it unconstitutional. You probably know more about it than me, so will you enlighten me on to your reasoning?
The mechanism to provide subsides by law is only for STATE sponsored exchanges.
There is NO authorization to provide federal subsides to those who purchased insurance on the FEDERAL website (www.healthcare.gov)
However, the IRS fabricated a regulation that stated, basically, that no matter what the law itself says, they're providing subsidies through the federal exchanges anyway.
That's what those court cases are about.. if those IRS regulation is overturned by the courts, then insurnace premiums becomes radically more expensive. Thus, it's likely that folks will drop out and just pay the fine... which creates further pressure on the exchange.
You probably know more about it than me, so will you enlighten me on to your reasoning?
