timschochet

The Tea Party is back in business!

6,281 posts in this topic

I play in a fall softball league on the Ellipse. They are apparently starting to kick teams off the Ellipse. I just got notice that all games are cancelled until the shutdown is over, and with winter coming soon, games might be postponed until spring now. :kicksrock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boasting an average 2.5 million readers per month (2013),[3] the site is described by Newsweek as, "Muck, raked: If you're looking for alleged GOP malfeasance, the folks at rawstory.com are frequently scooping the mainstream media."[4] It was referred to as a "liberal blog" by Howard Kurtz in 2005.[5]

:lol: The article gives a brief narrative of a study conducted by reputable pollsters regarding the Republican base. Why don't you read it and tell us what you take issue with, rather than shooting the messenger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

It's not unanswerable at all, in fact it's already been answered. They would blame the failure on the right, and use it to push for more "reform".

Who is "they"? I'm speaking of public opinion. You believe that if Obamacare were allowed to just happen and was unpopular, the public would blame the right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

It's not unanswerable at all, in fact it's already been answered. They would blame the failure on the right, and use it to push for more "reform".

Who is "they"? I'm speaking of public opinion. You believe that if Obamacare were allowed to just happen and was unpopular, the public would blame the right?

Of course. They already do. Supporters believe it would be even better if not for the concessions made to Republicans. Any failure will be blamed on the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play in a fall softball league on the Ellipse. They are apparently starting to kick teams off the Ellipse. I just got notice that all games are cancelled until the shutdown is over, and with winter coming soon, games might be postponed until spring now. :kicksrock:

This shutdown is really having an impact. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many libs would still support Obamacare if they got this letter in the mail?

Sticker Shock: Californians suddenly discover why all the Republican shouting over #Obamacare.

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | October 6th, 2013 at 11:00 AM | 59

And BOOM goes the dynamite.

Meet Tom Waschura, Californian, father of two – oh, and right: Obama supporter. Just got a letter from his healthcare provider telling him that his private health insurance just went up by ten grand a year:

“I was laughing at Boehner — until the mail came today,” Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.

“I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy.”

It's amazing. Health care costs and premiums didn't go up at all in the last 20 years, but only since the passage of the ACA.

Ever since Congress passed ObamaCare, eating hamburgers and french fries make you fat. THANKS OBAMA!!!!

Couple of key points in that article: more hospitals in the Bay Area are owned by hospital groups that can demand higher rates because of the lack of competition. (yah free market!) A frustrated Vinson went on the Covered California site to see what she would pay for the same policy if she lived in Los Angeles or Sacramento. She discovered she would save at least $100 monthly. Not all of the sticker shock can be blamed on Obamacare.

Basically, it appears health care monopolies are driving up the price in the bay area.

$100 a month is a far cry from the $10k extra annual premium this father will be paying. And if "monopolies are driving up the price", wouldn't that already be the case for the father? He's not moving his address, only his coverage (cause he has to).

Edited by matttyl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

It's not unanswerable at all, in fact it's already been answered. They would blame the failure on the right, and use it to push for more "reform".

Who is "they"? I'm speaking of public opinion. You believe that if Obamacare were allowed to just happen and was unpopular, the public would blame the right?

Of course. They already do. Supporters believe it would be even better if not for the concessions made to Republicans. Any failure will be blamed on the right.

People who already support Obamacare are not the ones who will decide whether it's popular or not. That will be the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS...US VS THEM...RED VS BLUE.. LEFT VS RIGHT! You morons that are using this country as some sort of turf war are the biggest problem of all.... on BOTH sides. :lmao:

Jesus you're dense.

Edited by [icon]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many libs would still support Obamacare if they got this letter in the mail?

Sticker Shock: Californians suddenly discover why all the Republican shouting over #Obamacare.

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | October 6th, 2013 at 11:00 AM | 59

And BOOM goes the dynamite.

Meet Tom Waschura, Californian, father of two – oh, and right: Obama supporter. Just got a letter from his healthcare provider telling him that his private health insurance just went up by ten grand a year:

“I was laughing at Boehner — until the mail came today,” Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.

“I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy.”

It's amazing. Health care costs and premiums didn't go up at all in the last 20 years, but only since the passage of the ACA.

Ever since Congress passed ObamaCare, eating hamburgers and french fries make you fat. THANKS OBAMA!!!!

Couple of key points in that article: more hospitals in the Bay Area are owned by hospital groups that can demand higher rates because of the lack of competition. (yah free market!) A frustrated Vinson went on the Covered California site to see what she would pay for the same policy if she lived in Los Angeles or Sacramento. She discovered she would save at least $100 monthly. Not all of the sticker shock can be blamed on Obamacare.

Basically, it appears health care monopolies are driving up the price in the bay area.

$100 a month is a far cry from the $10k extra annual premium this father will be paying. And if "monopolies are driving up the price", wouldn't that already be the case for the father? He's not moving his address, only his coverage (cause he has to).

A monopoly is driving up his cost. As pointed out, Obamacare is not the sole (key word) reason for his increase. I know several people who have had their rates decrease. When's the last time you heard that? One is saving $400/yr for the exact same plan/coverage. Another is saving $600.

I'll know soon what the "damage" is to my plan. I fully expect to pay more as it's gone up every year for as long as I can remember.

Edited by 3C's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to get pulled back into a political argument. I've stated here many times that I do not have a "side" in this. And as a impartial observer, my opinion is that both sides are wrong.

Please note that I have said "my opinion."

Those that look only to confirm their belief that both sides are at fault have the same blinders that any partisan participant. And usually having checked out of the political debate those blinders are even worst. Does being neutral really mean refusal to weigh the choices at all?

What do you mean by this. Are you saying refusal to argue about the issues makes it less likely to understand the issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS...US VS THEM...RED VS BLUE! :lmao:

Jesus you're dense.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here.

If you truly want to get rid of Obamacare and reduce spending, you need political capital to do so. In other words, you need to win elections. That means, in this instance, it absolutely IS all about Republicans vs. Democrats. The only way for Republicans to accomplish their goals is to win more elections. Shutting down the government, threatening to not raise the debt ceiling- these things will cause them to lose elections, not win. The net result of these actions will be to make Obamacare more permanent, not less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite political quotes is from Joe Biden. He was on Jay Leno and Leno asked him a question about George W.'s policies and he said his dad told him this: "Never question another man's motive. Question his judgement, but not their motive. It's not your role."

I'm taken aback, here. An astute quote from Joe? You sure there isn't a wetback joke or something in here that I've missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play in a fall softball league on the Ellipse. They are apparently starting to kick teams off the Ellipse. I just got notice that all games are cancelled until the shutdown is over, and with winter coming soon, games might be postponed until spring now. :kicksrock:

This shutdown is really having an impact. :mellow:

Well, my wife is furloughed. And I have a lot of friends furloughed too. Yes, my softball league is a minor casualty, but that does not mean there are not greater impacts out there.

Edited by Don Quixote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A monopoly is driving up his cost. As pointed out, Obamacare is not the sole (key word) reason for his increase. I know several people who have had their rates decrease. When's the last time you heard that? One is saving $400/yr for the exact same plan/coverage. Another is saving $600.

I'll know soon what the "damage" is to my plan. I fully expect to pay more as it's gone up every year for as long as I can remember.

Wouldn't that same "monopoly" have already driven the cost up of his current plan? Again, he's not moving his address - only his coverage. The new plan is apparently $10k per year more.

I've heard of quite a few people paying less - most of the time thanks to subsidies. And the person "saving $400" isn't getting the exact same plan (more than likely) as 99% of current plans don't meet all the mandated EHBs. Some older and sicker folks will also be paying less, as this is how the new system is set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A monopoly is driving up his cost. As pointed out, Obamacare is not the sole (key word) reason for his increase. I know several people who have had their rates decrease. When's the last time you heard that? One is saving $400/yr for the exact same plan/coverage. Another is saving $600.

I'll know soon what the "damage" is to my plan. I fully expect to pay more as it's gone up every year for as long as I can remember.

Wouldn't that same "monopoly" have already driven the cost up of his current plan? Again, he's not moving his address - only his coverage. The new plan is apparently $10k per year more.

I've heard of quite a few people paying less - most of the time thanks to subsidies. And the person "saving $400" isn't getting the exact same plan (more than likely) as 99% of current plans don't meet all the mandated EHBs. Some older and sicker folks will also be paying less, as this is how the new system is set up.

Wrong. The person "saving $400" is getting the exact same plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play in a fall softball league on the Ellipse. They are apparently starting to kick teams off the Ellipse. I just got notice that all games are cancelled until the shutdown is over, and with winter coming soon, games might be postponed until spring now. :kicksrock:

This shutdown is really having an impact. :mellow:

Well, my wife is furloughed. And I have a lot of friends furloughed too. Yes, my softball league is a minor casualty, but that does not mean there are not greater impacts out there.

Really??? You funnin' us about this here furlough bidness? Cause Statorama can detect no sign that the GOVERNMENT IS EVEN SHUT DOWN. Your story sure sounds fishy! #toidiots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS...US VS THEM...RED VS BLUE! :lmao:

Jesus you're dense.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here.

If you truly want to get rid of Obamacare and reduce spending, you need political capital to do so. In other words, you need to win elections. That means, in this instance, it absolutely IS all about Republicans vs. Democrats. The only way for Republicans to accomplish their goals is to win more elections. Shutting down the government, threatening to not raise the debt ceiling- these things will cause them to lose elections, not win. The net result of these actions will be to make Obamacare more permanent, not less.

It isn't difficult Tim. It just requires a little bit of an open mind. If Obamacare is as terrible as the Tea Party believes it will be, then 6 months from now, they will say "See... We did what we could. We tried to stop this terrible law and were laughed at for it. We need to repeal this law and make life better for Americans." They will now be in a position to be able to say that. It will resonate with the American public.

If there was no shutdown, then Dems would be blaming concessions to the Republicans as the reason there was so much wrong with Obamacare. They would argue not for its repeal, but for reforming it to what they "originally" planned. Even with Republicans denying this, it would become a fight of who does the American public believe. Despite both sides being snakes in the grass and ready to lie at a moment's whim to get their way, right now the public would likely take Democratic word before Republican.

So, what this shutdown really did is make the Democrats OWN this law. They can no longer say with any conviction that the Republicans are at fault for what is wrong with the law. It is a Democratic law. It's their baby. If it bombs, it will all be on them. So, while public opinion may dislike the Republican tactics right now, 6 months from now, it may look like a genius move. However, that's only the case if Obamacare is as bad as they believe it will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS...US VS THEM...RED VS BLUE! :lmao:

Jesus you're dense.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here.

If you truly want to get rid of Obamacare and reduce spending, you need political capital to do so. In other words, you need to win elections. That means, in this instance, it absolutely IS all about Republicans vs. Democrats. The only way for Republicans to accomplish their goals is to win more elections. Shutting down the government, threatening to not raise the debt ceiling- these things will cause them to lose elections, not win. The net result of these actions will be to make Obamacare more permanent, not less.

It isn't difficult Tim. It just requires a little bit of an open mind. If Obamacare is as terrible as the Tea Party believes it will be, then 6 months from now, they will say "See... We did what we could. We tried to stop this terrible law and were laughed at for it. We need to repeal this law and make life better for Americans." They will now be in a position to be able to say that. It will resonate with the American public.

If there was no shutdown, then Dems would be blaming concessions to the Republicans as the reason there was so much wrong with Obamacare. They would argue not for its repeal, but for reforming it to what they "originally" planned. Even with Republicans denying this, it would become a fight of who does the American public believe. Despite both sides being snakes in the grass and ready to lie at a moment's whim to get their way, right now the public would likely take Democratic word before Republican.

So, what this shutdown really did is make the Democrats OWN this law. They can no longer say with any conviction that the Republicans are at fault for what is wrong with the law. It is a Democratic law. It's their baby. If it bombs, it will all be on them. So, while public opinion may dislike the Republican tactics right now, 6 months from now, it may look like a genius move. However, that's only the case if Obamacare is as bad as they believe it will be.

So the 40-something times they voted to repeal it was just for show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS...US VS THEM...RED VS BLUE! :lmao:

Jesus you're dense.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here.

If you truly want to get rid of Obamacare and reduce spending, you need political capital to do so. In other words, you need to win elections. That means, in this instance, it absolutely IS all about Republicans vs. Democrats. The only way for Republicans to accomplish their goals is to win more elections. Shutting down the government, threatening to not raise the debt ceiling- these things will cause them to lose elections, not win. The net result of these actions will be to make Obamacare more permanent, not less.

Tim - I'm with you on this one. I agree that this catastrophe is entirely on the Republicans. But you gotta know that you've said the same thing dozens of times in this thread and the people you're arguing with aren't exactly going to change their tune. At this point you're just feeding the trolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A monopoly is driving up his cost. As pointed out, Obamacare is not the sole (key word) reason for his increase. I know several people who have had their rates decrease. When's the last time you heard that? One is saving $400/yr for the exact same plan/coverage. Another is saving $600.

I'll know soon what the "damage" is to my plan. I fully expect to pay more as it's gone up every year for as long as I can remember.

Wouldn't that same "monopoly" have already driven the cost up of his current plan? Again, he's not moving his address - only his coverage. The new plan is apparently $10k per year more.

I've heard of quite a few people paying less - most of the time thanks to subsidies. And the person "saving $400" isn't getting the exact same plan (more than likely) as 99% of current plans don't meet all the mandated EHBs. Some older and sicker folks will also be paying less, as this is how the new system is set up.

Wrong. The person "saving $400" is getting the exact same plan.

That's the only thing you have to respond to? Nothing about the original father getting the ridiculous increase?

As for the person saving $400, is that per month? Are they getting a subsidy? What's their approximate age (just curious on that one)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

It's not unanswerable at all, in fact it's already been answered. They would blame the failure on the right, and use it to push for more "reform".

Who is "they"? I'm speaking of public opinion. You believe that if Obamacare were allowed to just happen and was unpopular, the public would blame the right?

"They" is the left. Do you really think they'd just sit back and say "Our bad"? No, they'd spin the blame on the right, just like both sides do on every issue now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A monopoly is driving up his cost. As pointed out, Obamacare is not the sole (key word) reason for his increase. I know several people who have had their rates decrease. When's the last time you heard that? One is saving $400/yr for the exact same plan/coverage. Another is saving $600.

I'll know soon what the "damage" is to my plan. I fully expect to pay more as it's gone up every year for as long as I can remember.

Wouldn't that same "monopoly" have already driven the cost up of his current plan? Again, he's not moving his address - only his coverage. The new plan is apparently $10k per year more.

I've heard of quite a few people paying less - most of the time thanks to subsidies. And the person "saving $400" isn't getting the exact same plan (more than likely) as 99% of current plans don't meet all the mandated EHBs. Some older and sicker folks will also be paying less, as this is how the new system is set up.

Wrong. The person "saving $400" is getting the exact same plan.

That's the only thing you have to respond to? Nothing about the original father getting the ridiculous increase?

As for the person saving $400, is that per month? Are they getting a subsidy? What's their approximate age (just curious on that one)?

HFS! I see why people get annoyed responding to you. RIF.

As pointed out, Obamacare is not the sole (key word) reason for his increase.

One is saving $400/yr

Now, go play in traffic or something kid, you're bothering me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got news of another client who was supposed to receive his permanent disability from SSID, and along with it about 3 years of back payments in one lump sum, which he was going to then use to save his house because he couldn't afford the payments when he was hurt, is SOL because it isn't happening with the shut down.

So, that's 3 out of a couple hundred. I'm sure I'll find out about more soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

It's not unanswerable at all, in fact it's already been answered. They would blame the failure on the right, and use it to push for more "reform".

Who is "they"? I'm speaking of public opinion. You believe that if Obamacare were allowed to just happen and was unpopular, the public would blame the right?

"They" is the left. Do you really think they'd just sit back and say "Our bad"? No, they'd spin the blame on the right, just like both sides do on every issue now.

What the left does or does not do has nothing to do with my point. My point- actually Court Jester's- is that the shutdown is a distraction from the main subject of whether Obamacare works or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HFS! I see why people get annoyed responding to you. RIF.

As pointed out, Obamacare is not the sole (key word) reason for his increase.

One is saving $400/yr

Now, go play in traffic or something kid, you're bothering me.

Yet again, for the third time, "the monopoly" can not be the biggest reason for the person's increase in premium as "the monopoly" is the current situation as well. That's not changing for this person. The only thing that's changing is his coverage. "The monopoly" was the case both before and after the ACA, so where is the $10k increase coming from?

Is the person "saving $400" getting any subsidy which is responsible for their "savings"? Simple question.

So one person pays $10k more a year and another one "saves" $400 a year and it's all good?!

Edited by matttyl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS...US VS THEM...RED VS BLUE! :lmao:

Jesus you're dense.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here.

If you truly want to get rid of Obamacare and reduce spending, you need political capital to do so. In other words, you need to win elections. That means, in this instance, it absolutely IS all about Republicans vs. Democrats. The only way for Republicans to accomplish their goals is to win more elections. Shutting down the government, threatening to not raise the debt ceiling- these things will cause them to lose elections, not win. The net result of these actions will be to make Obamacare more permanent, not less.

Tim - I'm with you on this one. I agree that this catastrophe is entirely on the Republicans. But you gotta know that you've said the same thing dozens of times in this thread and the people you're arguing with aren't exactly going to change their tune. At this point you're just feeding the trolls.

There are trolls here and I try not to engage with them. But I don't believe that icon is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS...US VS THEM...RED VS BLUE! :lmao:

Jesus you're dense.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here.

If you truly want to get rid of Obamacare and reduce spending, you need political capital to do so. In other words, you need to win elections. That means, in this instance, it absolutely IS all about Republicans vs. Democrats. The only way for Republicans to accomplish their goals is to win more elections. Shutting down the government, threatening to not raise the debt ceiling- these things will cause them to lose elections, not win. The net result of these actions will be to make Obamacare more permanent, not less.

Tim - I'm with you on this one. I agree that this catastrophe is entirely on the Republicans. But you gotta know that you've said the same thing dozens of times in this thread and the people you're arguing with aren't exactly going to change their tune. At this point you're just feeding the trolls.

Which is why I am done arguing with them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HFS! I see why people get annoyed responding to you. RIF.

As pointed out, Obamacare is not the sole (key word) reason for his increase.

One is saving $400/yr

Now, go play in traffic or something kid, you're bothering me.

Yet again, for the third time, "the monopoly" can not be the biggest reason for the person's increase in premium as "the monopoly" is the current situation as well. That's not changing for this person. The only thing that's changing is his coverage. "The monopoly" was the case both before and after the ACA, so where is the $10k increase coming from?

Is the person "saving $400" getting any subsidy which is responsible for their "savings"? Simple question.

So one person pays $10k more a year and another one "saves" $400 a year and it's all good?!

yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS...US VS THEM...RED VS BLUE! :lmao:

Jesus you're dense.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here.

If you truly want to get rid of Obamacare and reduce spending, you need political capital to do so. In other words, you need to win elections. That means, in this instance, it absolutely IS all about Republicans vs. Democrats. The only way for Republicans to accomplish their goals is to win more elections. Shutting down the government, threatening to not raise the debt ceiling- these things will cause them to lose elections, not win. The net result of these actions will be to make Obamacare more permanent, not less.

It isn't difficult Tim. It just requires a little bit of an open mind. If Obamacare is as terrible as the Tea Party believes it will be, then 6 months from now, they will say "See... We did what we could. We tried to stop this terrible law and were laughed at for it. We need to repeal this law and make life better for Americans." They will now be in a position to be able to say that. It will resonate with the American public.

If there was no shutdown, then Dems would be blaming concessions to the Republicans as the reason there was so much wrong with Obamacare. They would argue not for its repeal, but for reforming it to what they "originally" planned. Even with Republicans denying this, it would become a fight of who does the American public believe. Despite both sides being snakes in the grass and ready to lie at a moment's whim to get their way, right now the public would likely take Democratic word before Republican.

So, what this shutdown really did is make the Democrats OWN this law. They can no longer say with any conviction that the Republicans are at fault for what is wrong with the law. It is a Democratic law. It's their baby. If it bombs, it will all be on them. So, while public opinion may dislike the Republican tactics right now, 6 months from now, it may look like a genius move. However, that's only the case if Obamacare is as bad as they believe it will be.

So before this shutdown, Republicans were concerned that the public might think the GOP was responsible for Obamacare? Is this shtick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got news of another client who was supposed to receive his permanent disability from SSID, and along with it about 3 years of back payments in one lump sum, which he was going to then use to save his house because he couldn't afford the payments when he was hurt, is SOL because it isn't happening with the shut down.

So, that's 3 out of a couple hundred. I'm sure I'll find out about more soon.

He already received his decision, but isn't going to get paid? Or he's waiting on a decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

It's not unanswerable at all, in fact it's already been answered. They would blame the failure on the right, and use it to push for more "reform".

Who is "they"? I'm speaking of public opinion. You believe that if Obamacare were allowed to just happen and was unpopular, the public would blame the right?

"They" is the left. Do you really think they'd just sit back and say "Our bad"? No, they'd spin the blame on the right, just like both sides do on every issue now.

What the left does or does not do has nothing to do with my point. My point- actually Court Jester's- is that the shutdown is a distraction from the main subject of whether Obamacare works or not.

Of course it has to do with your point- spin influences public opinion. I agree with some of what Court Jester said, but he also pretty much made my point- the left still blames Bush for most of their problems, they'll find a way to spin this on them as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

It's not unanswerable at all, in fact it's already been answered. They would blame the failure on the right, and use it to push for more "reform".

Who is "they"? I'm speaking of public opinion. You believe that if Obamacare were allowed to just happen and was unpopular, the public would blame the right?

Of course. They already do. Supporters believe it would be even better if not for the concessions made to Republicans. Any failure will be blamed on the right.

People who already support Obamacare are not the ones who will decide whether it's popular or not. That will be the general public.

I'm talking about those that were all for Obamacare just because of who proposed it and have no idea about what it really involves...the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few conservatives here, like Court Jester, have raised the unanswerable question: if Obamacare is so disastrous and going to be so unpopular, why not just let it happen? Wouldn't the GOP be far better off with a public which is focused on Obamacare and rejecting it? Why distract attention away from the ACA with a government shutdown?

Perhaps because some people are more interested in the best interest in the country, rather than sacrificing the welfare of the American people in exchange for political capital in a stupid slapfight between a battle of two ####ty parties.

So the Republican party is going to serve the best interests of the country by LOSING political capital?

IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS...US VS THEM...RED VS BLUE! :lmao:

Jesus you're dense.

I don't think I'm the one being dense here.

If you truly want to get rid of Obamacare and reduce spending, you need political capital to do so. In other words, you need to win elections. That means, in this instance, it absolutely IS all about Republicans vs. Democrats. The only way for Republicans to accomplish their goals is to win more elections. Shutting down the government, threatening to not raise the debt ceiling- these things will cause them to lose elections, not win. The net result of these actions will be to make Obamacare more permanent, not less.

It isn't difficult Tim. It just requires a little bit of an open mind. If Obamacare is as terrible as the Tea Party believes it will be, then 6 months from now, they will say "See... We did what we could. We tried to stop this terrible law and were laughed at for it. We need to repeal this law and make life better for Americans." They will now be in a position to be able to say that. It will resonate with the American public.

If there was no shutdown, then Dems would be blaming concessions to the Republicans as the reason there was so much wrong with Obamacare. They would argue not for its repeal, but for reforming it to what they "originally" planned. Even with Republicans denying this, it would become a fight of who does the American public believe. Despite both sides being snakes in the grass and ready to lie at a moment's whim to get their way, right now the public would likely take Democratic word before Republican.

So, what this shutdown really did is make the Democrats OWN this law. They can no longer say with any conviction that the Republicans are at fault for what is wrong with the law. It is a Democratic law. It's their baby. If it bombs, it will all be on them. So, while public opinion may dislike the Republican tactics right now, 6 months from now, it may look like a genius move. However, that's only the case if Obamacare is as bad as they believe it will be.

So the 40-something times they voted to repeal it was just for show?

Do you think the average person knows about how many times the Republicans tried to repeal it?

They will know about it through this shutdown though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play in a fall softball league on the Ellipse. They are apparently starting to kick teams off the Ellipse. I just got notice that all games are cancelled until the shutdown is over, and with winter coming soon, games might be postponed until spring now. :kicksrock:

T&P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Tea Party Congress. I hope Boehner grows a pair at some point

“I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we’re] going broke,” Yoho said. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, that will sure as heck be a moment. “I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets,” since they would be assured that the United States had moved decisively to curb its debt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-ted-yoho-government-shutdown-is-the-tremor-before-the-tsunami/2013/10/04/98b5aa8c-2c3c-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story_1.html

To fix a problem that no one in the markets is particularly concerned about, this guy is going to threaten the full faith and credit of the US dollar. The world's reserve currency. How does someone that dumb get elected to anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume he means it will bring stability to world markets by convincing the world to diversify its reserve currency. That'd sure be awesome for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got news of another client who was supposed to receive his permanent disability from SSID, and along with it about 3 years of back payments in one lump sum, which he was going to then use to save his house because he couldn't afford the payments when he was hurt, is SOL because it isn't happening with the shut down.

So, that's 3 out of a couple hundred. I'm sure I'll find out about more soon.

He already received his decision, but isn't going to get paid? Or he's waiting on a decision?

Aleady got decision. Weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your Tea Party Congress. I hope Boehner grows a pair at some point

I think we need to have that moment where we realize [were] going broke, Yoho said. If the debt ceiling isnt raised, that will sure as heck be a moment. I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets, since they would be assured that the United States had moved decisively to curb its debt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-ted-yoho-government-shutdown-is-the-tremor-before-the-tsunami/2013/10/04/98b5aa8c-2c3c-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story_1.html

To fix a problem that no one in the markets is particularly concerned about, this guy is going to threaten the full faith and credit of the US dollar. The world's reserve currency. How does someone that dumb get elected to anything?

Seems like someone should step in and try to negotiate a way to avoid this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got news of another client who was supposed to receive his permanent disability from SSID, and along with it about 3 years of back payments in one lump sum, which he was going to then use to save his house because he couldn't afford the payments when he was hurt, is SOL because it isn't happening with the shut down.

So, that's 3 out of a couple hundred. I'm sure I'll find out about more soon.

He already received his decision, but isn't going to get paid? Or he's waiting on a decision?

Aleady got decision. Weeks ago.

You aren't that guy who was on 60 Minutes last night, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.