Obama Government Shutdown?

[moevillini]

I agree on the cuts part of your message. Unfortunately I do not trust either side at all to make appropriate cuts. They will both go after their oponnents golden eggs.

Cut a non partisan group to review federal sepnding, all spending, and have them submit a list of what needs to be cut and have DC make it happen.

isn't that what they were supposedly doing last year with the sequester process? but the bipartisan "super committee" couldn't agree on anything and so across the board reductions went into effect.

 

[Stoked]

isn't that what they were supposedly doing last year with the sequester process? but the bipartisan "super committee" couldn't agree on anything and so across the board reductions went into effect.

They cut a bunch of crap and still spend way over their revenue. There are tons of crap they could cut. Idiotic military projects, foreign aid, subsidies for certain things...

 

[♪alt13]

Maybe we need a health care revolution in order to force term limits and line up both sides and shoot them and stuff.


Ok, to edit, maybe we need people to get up in arms about it. It seems to me that until it actually threatens some politicians position of ease and comfort then they will be driven harder by lobbyists than constituents to affect real change. Maybe that is the impetus we need. Not sure how that would look, and can public outrage really affect public policy?

The discussion about healthcare isn't going any better on this board than in congress. I think the problems with washington are definitely a reflection of us. Everyone has predetermined overly entrenched positions that they are not willing to budge on.

Srs count how many times posters have said I don't really know what obamacare does or why costs are so high but I am for/against obamacare. The congress is uncooperative and polarized because we are uncooperative and polarized.

 

[LogGrad98]

The discussion about healthcare isn't going any better on this board than in congress. I think the problems with washington are definitely a reflection of us. Everyone has predetermined overly entrenched positions that they are not willing to budge on.

Srs count how many times posters have said I don't really know what obamacare does or why costs are so high but I am for/against obamacare. The congress is uncooperative and polarized because we are uncooperative and polarized.

I agree that congress is not further along than we are on obamacare, but I disagree that they are a direct reflection of the populace. I think we have reached a point where it is largely the opposite. People latch onto the talking points of their party and reflect what the leaders want them to think. That is why people, like most of us on this board, don't know what Obamacare is about. We haven't taken the time to look into it and understand it. Instead we try to get our info from the politicians and their message is mixed beyond all recognition. So to franklin's point, instead of people trying to find out what it is they are for or against they just rail against or for it as their party tells them to. The exact same conversation franklin posted could be had from the opposite side with generally the same results, only instead of trying to throw everyone under the bus liberals would generally just throw conservatives under the bus, blaming it all on the repubs, and then touting obamacare as the answer when they have zero clue what it really entails. I don't pretend I know much more about the ACA than others, but I have been involved in the decision-making process of a large corporation regarding issues that the ACA has a direct impact on. And the impact I have seen so far does not fill me with hope. And the talk from the insurance companies actually scares me.

 

[♪alt13]

I agree that congress is not further along than we are on obamacare, but I disagree that they are a direct reflection of the populace. I think we have reached a point where it is largely the opposite. People latch onto the talking points of their party and reflect what the leaders want them to think. That is why people, like most of us on this board, don't know what Obamacare is about. We haven't taken the time to look into it and understand it. Instead we try to get our info from the politicians and their message is mixed beyond all recognition. So to franklin's point, instead of people trying to find out what it is they are for or against they just rail against or for it as their party tells them to. The exact same conversation franklin posted could be had from the opposite side with generally the same results, only instead of trying to throw everyone under the bus liberals would generally just throw conservatives under the bus, blaming it all on the repubs, and then touting obamacare as the answer when they have zero clue what it really entails. I don't pretend I know much more about the ACA than others, but I have been involved in the decision-making process of a large corporation regarding issues that the ACA has a direct impact on. And the impact I have seen so far does not fill me with hope. And the talk from the insurance companies actually scares me.

So let's break the cycle. Lets have an open balanced fair discussion about the issues. Lets talk about healthcare and health insurance and not spout off sound bites. lets not talk about bills or acts but specific measures. I'm down. If for no other reason than to regain hope that we, as Americans, can be reasonable.

 

[franklin]

Link below. Read the article and draw your own conclusions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/09/three-key-questions-for-obamacares-rollout/

That spiel doesn't answer anything I asked Vinny. Don't get why you thought it did.

The discussion about healthcare isn't going any better on this board than in congress. I think the problems with washington are definitely a reflection of us. Everyone has predetermined overly entrenched positions that they are not willing to budge on.

Srs count how many times posters have said I don't really know what obamacare does or why costs are so high but I am for/against obamacare. The congress is uncooperative and polarized because we are uncooperative and polarized.

And my contribution has been adopted, big thanks heyhey. Bowing back out.

 

[♪alt13]

That spiel doesn't answer anything I asked Vinny. Don't get why you thought it did.
And my contribution has been adopted, big thanks heyhey. Bowing back out.

Vinyl

That said, I was always under the impression that the ACA would not do anything to lower health insurance costs. Mainly because it doesnt touch the issues that lead to exorbitant health costs in this country.

You

I don't know all the causes, but at least it gets rid of the unneeded emergency room visits (in theory).

Article

According to research conducted by my colleagues and me at the Manhattan Institute and published at Forbes.com, many will see their rates double or even triple under the law. Healthier and younger individuals will face the steepest hikes.

I could have simply said No Vinyl it won't reduce healthcare costs and if Franklin thinks it will he is high in the night. Instead I provided a link. Now that I have spelled it out for you, you can provide me with some evidence to back up any claim that you may have that it won't increase premiums or you could always "Bow Back Out."

 

[franklin]

Vinyl

You

Article

I could have simply said No Vinyl it won't reduce healthcare costs and if Franklin thinks it will he is high in the night. Instead I provided a link. Now that I have spelled it out for you, you can provide me with some evidence to back up any claim that you may have that it won't increase premiums or you could always "Bow Back Out."

You're equating individual rates with overall healthcare costs? Great demagoguery, but I'm not interested. Everyone already knows it will raise rates for some and lower them for others. I'm surprised you're acting so shocked about that, but not surprised you're only including the side that will see rate increases trying to trick people into thinking that means overall costs will go up. SMD

 

[franklin]

Here's my solution: 10% national sales tax and get rid of the individual mandate and all these requirements that are allegedly hurting business or forcing them to push workers from full time to part time. Give everyone with health insurance a tax credit of say 50% of gross income up to $173k (just underneath congress' pay) or whatever the average spending is in each bracket to offset the new tax. Everyone worried that they'll get unemployed and get hit with the full tax can go onto Obamacare for a couple of months for the $50 minimum/month family coverage. It would be a smart thing to do anyway.

We all know how paranoid conservatives would respond to that.

 

[Stoked]

You're equating individual rates with overall healthcare costs? Great demagoguery, but I'm not interested. Everyone already knows it will raise rates for some and lower them for others. I'm surprised you're acting so shocked about that, but not surprised you're only including the side that will see rate increases trying to trick people into thinking that means overall costs will go up. SMD

I think that remains to be seen. If some are goign up and some are going down I am sure that one side would outwiehg the other. I would be interested to see a report on that.

 

[Harambe]

Link below. Read the article and draw your own conclusions.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/09/three-key-questions-for-obamacares-rollout/

So, I don't actually see the study. I see a guy writing an article, about what another guy said something after he made a study. As we've seen with the media, that scenario can oft go bad.. quickly.

If anyone is under the illusion that everyone's rates will go down day 1 (March 15th?), they're hilariously misinformed. Many people's rates will go down through the marketplace, others will go up. Double is a strong word.

After a few years, 2017 I believe was the target, premium prices will begin to go back down. I may be wrong, but one of the underlying themes here is an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. Those that have never had health insurance will, due to preventative medicine being very cheap, get it, reducing compounding problems that often result in a visit to the ED(which, in it's current state, is all to familiar seeing someone with a legit emergency that could have got it fixed if they would have had preventative medicine).

I really would like to see the study in it's entirety though. I'm interested to understand how they balance what people will save in out of pocket expenses vs the initial cost, as well as how many ED visits could be avoided given access to preventative medicine, as well as how they gauge the success/failure of the 80/20 rule, and then again how they estimate what happens in 2017.

 

[Harambe]

But then again, why is this thread being brought back up to the first page? Hadn't we decided as a group that the shutdown is nothing more than a pissing contest?

Since that's my opinion, I'll agree with those that feel as if our representatives don't represent us as individuals or districts, but only represent a left or right.