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.

 Polonius wrote:
Sure, the ACA will put flouride in the water, bend our spines, and impose sharia law.

Thanks Obama!



Sometimes I wonder if all that birther stuff wasn't a plot by the GOP of right now to go back in time and prevent the ACA in the first place.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Sure, the ACA will put flouride in the water, bend our spines, and impose sharia law.

Thanks Obama!



Sometimes I wonder if all that birther stuff wasn't a plot by the GOP of right now to go back in time and prevent the ACA in the first place.

You do know that the "birther movement" was started by sympathetic Hillary supporters during the Democrat's Primary, eh?

And then Democrats kept the torch going for years, even to this day?

In other words, I see your "Democratic primaries started it" and raise you a "so what?"

 Manchu wrote:
And then Democrats kept the torch going for years, even to this day?

In other words, I see your "Democratic primaries started it" and raise you a "so what?"

So it's a Democratic movement, by the law of "the ACA was thought up by the Heritage Foundation, so it's a Republican plan" logic.

 Seaward wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
And then Democrats kept the torch going for years, even to this day?

In other words, I see your "Democratic primaries started it" and raise you a "so what?"

So it's a Democratic movement, by the law of "the ACA was thought up by the Heritage Foundation, so it's a Republican plan" logic.

I know... right?

I just waiting for someone to make that connection.

Tell me where I'm wrong in the following;

Pre-ACA
Some private sector employees would provide healthcare for employees, and no-one batted an eyelid or commented on this at all.
Congress would provide healthcare for employees, and no-one batted an eyelid or commented on this at all.

Post-ACA
Some private sector employees provide healthcare for employees, and no-one bats an eyelid or comments on this at all.
Congress no longer provide healthcare for employees, but instead give a contribution to plans bought by employees on exchanges that is more or less what employees used to receive... and the Republicans are freaking out about this.

Almost...

 sebster wrote:
Tell me where I'm wrong in the following;

Pre-ACA
Some private sector employers would provide healthcare for employees, and no-one batted an eyelid or commented on this at all.
Congress would provide healthcare for employees, and no-one batted an eyelid or commented on this at all.

Post-ACA
Some private sector employers provide healthcare for employees, and no-one bats an eyelid or comments on this at all.
...Many folks are being dropped from their employer provided plans into the Exchange...
Congress no longer provide healthcare for elected officials, but instead give a special subsidy that no one else gets to plans bought by employees on exchanges that is more or less what employees used to receive... and the Republicans are freaking out about this.

There... better.

Don't correct Sebster. He is the be all end all final source of information for all of American politics. I just listen and learn from him now.

 cincydooley wrote:
Don't correct Sebster. He is the be all end all final source of information for all of American politics. I just listen and learn from him now.

You should read about the recent AU elections... whoa momma, thats some entertainment there.

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Don't correct Sebster. He is the be all end all final source of information for all of American politics. I just listen and learn from him now.

You should read about the recent AU elections... whoa momma, thats some entertainment there.

Imagine if one of the crazy right-wingers that even you guys mock ended up as the candidate, and then somehow won instead of getting slapped down. That's basically what happened.

Next thing we all know is the next attempt would be is to et the US Military active and retired into this program.......

 cincydooley wrote:
Don't correct Sebster. He is the be all end all final source of information for all of American politics.

"He's not from the US, therefore he's wrong" - a fascinating way to argue the merits.

 Jihadin wrote:
Next thing we all know is the next attempt would be is to et the US Military active and retired into this program.......

Ew... nah...

I'd beef up Tri-care.

Why would they... they're already on... they're supposed to already get...

*scanners.jpg*

 whembly wrote:
There... better.

What have you changed that explains how this is in any way contraversial?

You include a point that many people have lost employer coverage. I don't buy that (any loss of coverage is easily explained by statistical noise and the gakky economy, and not by ACA because there's no coherent way to explain how ACA gives an incentive to remove coverage that wasn't already in existance). But even if we accept it for the sake of argument, are you claiming that denying congressional staff employee coverage makes things better for other workers who've lost insurance? Because if not, and what you really want to do is talk about other workers who've lost coverage... then talk about that. Get your numbers and evidence, and put it out there. If you can prove it, you'll actually land a hit against ACA.

Your second edit states it is a special case that gives these staffers an employer subsidy. But it was only by a special law that affected no-one else that caused them to lose employer coverage in the first place. I mean, basically we're talking about 'people have insurance covered by their employer, then a special law made them get insurance through exchanges, and another special law meant the coverage they got was still covered by their employer'... scandalous!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Don't correct Sebster. He is the be all end all final source of information for all of American politics. I just listen and learn from him now.

You don't have to accept my arguments and information. You should start getting some facts from somewhere though, because right now, well....

I'd support this for sure, and i'm just about left as you come. I think it's a good idea, and fair, and would force congress to live with the same decisions they make on behalf of their constituency.

It has the same chance of passing as I have of successfully backstroking to Neptune, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.

 Haight wrote:
I'd support this for sure, and i'm just about left as you come. I think it's a good idea, and fair, and would force congress to live with the same decisions they make on behalf of their constituency.

It has the same chance of passing as I have of successfully backstroking to Neptune, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.

But... it would be... wait for it... mean to do so.

Good luck with that.

I think right now, if the Republicans really want to stop the ACA they should build a ginat laser and carve "Obamacare is bad!" into the moon.

Their current plans and methods are about as crazy as Gru's.

 Easy E wrote:
I think right now, if the Republicans really want to stop the ACA they should build a ginat laser and carve "Obamacare is bad!" into the moon.

Their current plans and methods are about as crazy as Gru's.

Yep... just get out of the way and let it happen. If it's as bad as they say it will be... then they'd have fodder for the election campaign to neuter it.

 Easy E wrote:
I think right now, if the Republicans really want to stop the ACA they should build a ginat laser and carve "Obamacare is bad!" into the moon.

Their current plans and methods are about as crazy as Gru's.

But they hate NASA. It'd have to be done via private industry. I'm sure there's a super villain somewhere they could contract with. Haliburton, Black Water, Cobra, S.P.E.C.T.R.E., etc.

How is passing an amendment that says Congress should be held to the same laws as we are a bad thing?

I didn't even vote for Rand Paul (I was an idiot back then and voted without knowing what each politician stood for) but I think this would be a good amendment to have.

Please, explain why this is a bad amendment to me. Because this sort of law seems like something that should have been in place from the beginning. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm seriously confused.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
How is passing an amendment that says Congress should be held to the same laws as we are a bad thing?

I didn't even vote for Rand Paul (I was an idiot back then and voted without knowing what each politician stood for) but I think this would be a good amendment to have.

Please, explain why this is a bad amendment to me. Because this sort of law seems like something that should have been in place from the beginning. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm seriously confused.

If the wording doesn't change won't it invalidate laws which stop..wait dammit let me go back up someone said it

edit: It was d-usa, and he was talking about insider trading laws.

 Easy E wrote:
I think right now, if the Republicans really want to stop the ACA they should build a ginat laser and carve "Obamacare is bad!" into the moon.

Their current plans and methods are about as crazy as Gru's.

I'm not seeing how that relates to the post. I totally agree that COngress should not be exempt from anything.

 Jihadin wrote:
Next thing we all know is the next attempt would be is to et the US Military active and retired into this program.......

You mean like retired military losing Tricare Prime if they're not within certain distance of a Military Hospital like already happened earlier this year?

I was shocked that this wasnt already part of the written law...


some animals are more equal then otehrs i guess

 whembly wrote:

 Haight wrote:
I'd support this for sure, and i'm just about left as you come. I think it's a good idea, and fair, and would force congress to live with the same decisions they make on behalf of their constituency.

It has the same chance of passing as I have of successfully backstroking to Neptune, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.

But... it would be... wait for it... mean to do so.

Left wing does not always mean bleeding heart. I know you know your political history enough to know that, i've seen your threads and comments in OT

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
How is passing an amendment that says Congress should be held to the same laws as we are a bad thing?

There isn't in my mind...It does seem a bit ridiculous that we are to the point where we "need" to write this sort of thing into a law.

But, I'd rate this up there right along with the "balanced budget amendment" that has been talked about/floating around for years now.

What about the future implications of these instead of just for the ACA exemptions?

What could this amendment do for the people in the future? What kind of laws could get passed that this would be useful to have?

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
What about the future implications of these instead of just for the ACA exemptions?

What could this amendment do for the people in the future? What kind of laws could get passed that this would be useful to have?

What do you mean?

Like... different retirement plans? Oh wait... they their own.

Um... like what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haight wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Haight wrote:
I'd support this for sure, and i'm just about left as you come. I think it's a good idea, and fair, and would force congress to live with the same decisions they make on behalf of their constituency.

It has the same chance of passing as I have of successfully backstroking to Neptune, but that doesn't make it any less a good idea.

But... it would be... wait for it... mean to do so.

Left wing does not always mean bleeding heart. I know you know your political history enough to know that, i've seen your threads and comments in OT

I was being cheeky.