The Tea Party is back in business! (1 Viewer)

[3C's]

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.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[matttyl]

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?!

 

[timschochet]

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!

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.

 

[badmojo1006]

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!

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

 

[3C's]

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

 

[timschochet]

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!

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?

 

[Henry Ford]

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?

 

[humpback]

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.

 

[jamny]

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.

 

[jamny]

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!

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.

 

[Christo]

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.

T&P

 

[dparker713]

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?

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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.

 

[jonessed]

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.

 

[Christo]

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?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

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?

Ummm.....

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I blame the left

better one

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

From Forbes...

The bottom line is that the resulting Obamacare replacement plan would provide for universal coverage (which Obamacare fails to do), with no individual mandate, no employer mandate, and a net tax and spending cut of at least $1 trillion over the first 10 years alone. The public would overwhelmingly embrace such a Republican health care alternative as vastly preferable to Obamacare. What a resounding reversal that would be in the public’s appraisal of President Obama and his legacy for Obamacare to be replaced by such a Republican alternative based on freedom of choice, market competition and incentives, rather than Obamacare’s effective take over and control over health care.

Health care based on the free market is pretty clearly second best and the public realizes this. There will be no clamor for more of the old system when other countries have better ones. As in so many other issues, demographics and shifting public opinion will make single payer inevitable.

How about this approach:

• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition.
• Give individuals comparable tax breaks and incentives to self-insure as companies get to insure their employees. This increases the incentive for individuals to shop for their own healthcare. This increases competition.
• Reduce the regulations that give insurance companies less incentive to create tailored plans. This increases competition among insurance companies.
• Encourage the use of HSA's in conjunction with high-deductible emergency plans. This encourages competition for those dollars and introduce price awareness among consumers.
• Expand medicare-type programs for the poor and destitute so that they can afford health care. Have a means test to make sure that it's not being abused. This can also be done at the state level and not the federal level.
• Introduce a voucher system for those who find insurance prices just out of reach. This can also be done at the state level and not the federal level.

The private marketplace gives the most incentive for innovation in both service and price.

The problem that we have now is that we have neither a free market system or a socialist system. Either would be preferable to the over-regulated quasi-free/quasi-socialist system we have now. As a person who loves individual liberty, I support the free market system.

 

[timschochet]

From Forbes...

The bottom line is that the resulting Obamacare replacement plan would provide for universal coverage (which Obamacare fails to do), with no individual mandate, no employer mandate, and a net tax and spending cut of at least $1 trillion over the first 10 years alone. The public would overwhelmingly embrace such a Republican health care alternative as vastly preferable to Obamacare. What a resounding reversal that would be in the public’s appraisal of President Obama and his legacy for Obamacare to be replaced by such a Republican alternative based on freedom of choice, market competition and incentives, rather than Obamacare’s effective take over and control over health care.

Health care based on the free market is pretty clearly second best and the public realizes this. There will be no clamor for more of the old system when other countries have better ones. As in so many other issues, demographics and shifting public opinion will make single payer inevitable.

How about this approach:

• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition.
• Give individuals comparable tax breaks and incentives to self-insure as companies get to insure their employees. This increases the incentive for individuals to shop for their own healthcare. This increases competition.
• Reduce the regulations that give insurance companies less incentive to create tailored plans. This increases competition among insurance companies.
• Encourage the use of HSA's in conjunction with high-deductible emergency plans. This encourages competition for those dollars and introduce price awareness among consumers.
• Expand medicare-type programs for the poor and destitute so that they can afford health care. Have a means test to make sure that it's not being abused. This can also be done at the state level and not the federal level.
• Introduce a voucher system for those who find insurance prices just out of reach. This can also be done at the state level and not the federal level.

The private marketplace gives the most incentive for innovation in both service and price.

The problem that we have now is that we have neither a free market system or a socialist system. Either would be preferable to the over-regulated quasi-free/quasi-socialist system we have now. As a person who loves individual liberty, I support the free market system.

Some of your ideas sound familiar, because I heard a few of them last year from Mitt Romney. I voted for Mitt, but he lost.

I think your ideas are worth consideration, JoJo. But if you want to get them enacted, you need to win elections. You don't shut down the government in order to force your POV on a President and a majority in the Senate who rejects them. That doesn't work for me, and the polls show it doesn't work for the American people.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I'll get right on "winning elections"

 

[spreagle]

I'm totally fine with Tea Party tough tactics, compare and contrast applying the Constitutional power of the purse to tactics of a few Wisconsin Democrat Fleebaggers running and hiding for 3 weeks, shutting down Wisconsin government to prevent a quorum on a union vote they didn't agree with. A quorum meant that only a few Democrats could shut down government, Democrats were fine with that at the time, no problem with just a few shutting down government because was just playing by existing quorum rules, but if Tea Partiers try to get their way BY FOLLOWING EXISTING RULES that's out of bounds? Sorry I reject that. Fleebags returned only when threatened with contempt, I don't think the Tea party can be charged with anything. Tea Party holds the high ground compared to democrat tactics IMO.

I do wonder if Obama is looking for ways to delay things with some sort of legal actions ... Here in Wisconsin democrats are real good about using the legal system and crooked judges to their advantage.

 

[Doug B]

• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition.

Anyone know why this isn't allowed under the present version of Obamacare? What's so bad about insurance being sold nationally?

Hoping for a totally non-partisan answer, but if none is forthcoming ... so be it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'll get right on "winning elections"

Solid. It will be a lot more productive than throwing out 4-5 vague talking points that have no chance to introduced as legislation.

 

[Doug B]

You don't shut down the government in order to force your POV on a President and a majority in the Senate who rejects them. That doesn't work for me, and the polls show it doesn't work for the American people.

This is the beginning and the end of the current issue. Obamacare's flaws absolutely must be fought in a different arena (i.e. not during annual appropriations).

 

[Slapdash]

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

Wow, that is some crazy.

 

[badmojo1006]

I'll get right on "winning elections"

2004, the Democrats lost the Presidential election which they thought for sure they would win. They were devastated. Did they whine? Sure. But they dusted themselves off and figured out how to win. And they won the House and Senate in 2006.

Right now, the Republicans are still fighting the 2012 Presidential Election. They need to move on.

 

[tommyGunZ]

• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition.

Anyone know why this isn't allowed under the present version of Obamacare? What's so bad about insurance being sold nationally?

Hoping for a totally non-partisan answer, but if none is forthcoming ... so be it.

It'll be a race to the bottom. Something like this was proposed a few years ago; IIRC the CBO found that it would not significantly reduce costs and that the results would be more healthy people jumping in the pool, and higher risk, sicker folks being left out. In essence, it's not a solution - it's just one of those Republican talking points that sounds good until you get into the weeds.

 

[Doug B]

Thanks for answering, guys. I don't understand the guts of the issue well enough to appreciate your responses, so I'm plowing through this right now to better grok the pros & cons.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'll get right on "winning elections"

2004, the Democrats lost the Presidential election which they thought for sure they would win. They were devastated. Did they whine? Sure. But they dusted themselves off and figured out how to win. And they won the House and Senate in 2006.

Right now, the Republicans are still fighting the 2012 Presidential Election. They need to move on.

Dems still talk about how Al Gore is REALLY their President. Not taking anything away from the rest of what you said, but I think to say that they "dusted themselves off and moved on" is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[badmojo1006]

I'll get right on "winning elections"

2004, the Democrats lost the Presidential election which they thought for sure they would win. They were devastated. Did they whine? Sure. But they dusted themselves off and figured out how to win. And they won the House and Senate in 2006.

Right now, the Republicans are still fighting the 2012 Presidential Election. They need to move on.

Dems still talk about how Al Gore is REALLY their President. Not taking anything away from the rest of what you said, but I think to say that they "dusted themselves off and moved on" is a bit of an overstatement.

That was 2000 with Gore. And are the Democrats still trying in Congress to overturn that election?

 

[dparker713]

I'm totally fine with Tea Party tough tactics, compare and contrast applying the Constitutional power of the purse to tactics of a few Wisconsin Democrat Fleebaggers running and hiding for 3 weeks, shutting down Wisconsin government to prevent a quorum on a union vote they didn't agree with. A quorum meant that only a few Democrats could shut down government, Democrats were fine with that at the time, no problem with just a few shutting down government because was just playing by existing quorum rules, but if Tea Partiers try to get their way BY FOLLOWING EXISTING RULES that's out of bounds? Sorry I reject that. Fleebags returned only when threatened with contempt, I don't think the Tea party can be charged with anything. Tea Party holds the high ground compared to democrat tactics IMO.

I do wonder if Obama is looking for ways to delay things with some sort of legal actions ... Here in Wisconsin democrats are real good about using the legal system and crooked judges to their advantage.

See, reasonable people find both sets of actions reprehensible. But only one has the potential to crush the economy of the entire country.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I'll get right on "winning elections"

2004, the Democrats lost the Presidential election which they thought for sure they would win. They were devastated. Did they whine? Sure. But they dusted themselves off and figured out how to win. And they won the House and Senate in 2006.

Right now, the Republicans are still fighting the 2012 Presidential Election. They need to move on.

Dems still talk about how Al Gore is REALLY their President. Not taking anything away from the rest of what you said, but I think to say that they "dusted themselves off and moved on" is a bit of an overstatement.

That was 2000 with Gore. And are the Democrats still trying in Congress to overturn that election?

Don't try and confuse me with facts and realities.

Whoops.

 

[matttyl]

• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition.

Anyone know why this isn't allowed under the present version of Obamacare? What's so bad about insurance being sold nationally?

Hoping for a totally non-partisan answer, but if none is forthcoming ... so be it.

Because states like to regulate these types of things to protect their citizens and it won't make that big of a difference (about 2% IIRC) in the cost of insurance.

I would imagine a lot has to do with the networks for the plans. For instance I have a plan for here in Virginia. My "network" covers a lot of the larger Virginia hospitals. If my plan were to be sold in Maryland, DC, North Carolina and in other states - then the network would have to extend to those states as well, which would dive costs up, not down. I mean, why would someone in Maryland buy my plan if no providers in Maryland were in the network?

 

[timschochet]

I'm totally fine with Tea Party tough tactics, compare and contrast applying the Constitutional power of the purse to tactics of a few Wisconsin Democrat Fleebaggers running and hiding for 3 weeks, shutting down Wisconsin government to prevent a quorum on a union vote they didn't agree with. A quorum meant that only a few Democrats could shut down government, Democrats were fine with that at the time, no problem with just a few shutting down government because was just playing by existing quorum rules, but if Tea Partiers try to get their way BY FOLLOWING EXISTING RULES that's out of bounds? Sorry I reject that. Fleebags returned only when threatened with contempt, I don't think the Tea party can be charged with anything. Tea Party holds the high ground compared to democrat tactics IMO.

I do wonder if Obama is looking for ways to delay things with some sort of legal actions ... Here in Wisconsin democrats are real good about using the legal system and crooked judges to their advantage.

See, reasonable people find both sets of actions reprehensible. But only one has the potential to crush the economy of the entire country.

Exactly. I condemned what the Wisconsin Dems did at the time, in this forum. I wrote that it was an attack on the integrity of our system of government. This is even worse however.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Wow, the KooKs really have nothing to say about trying to destroy the American economy.

They really hate our Soul Brother President.

Wow. I love the "if you're not with us, you're a racist" play. I used to think you were a fairly intelligent poster but damn....

Well, same back at you. Maybe the Republican KooKs should concentrate on defeating their political opponents at the ballot for a change?

 

[encaitar]

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!

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?

The average voter is quite indifferent to what the government is doing. Had the shutdown never happened and Obamacare failed, there would've been millions who would've bought whatever spin the Dems threw on the situation. Spin such as "Republicans kept us from passing the law we really wanted, it's their fault". You know it would've happened.

This shutdown opens the eyes of all Americans, no matter how indifferent they are to government. Having everyone in the media and from the Democratic party point out how it's about Obamacare and not funding is exactly what the GOP wants. Now, if the ACA is as horrible as the GOP expects, no one will believe any spin the Dems throw on it. It's probably a failing strategy because if Obamacare turns out to be neutral or even only a little negative, then it's still a negative point for the GOP.

 

[Sand]

Wow, the KooKs really have nothing to say about trying to destroy the American economy.

They really hate our Soul Brother President.

Wow. I love the "if you're not with us, you're a racist" play. I used to think you were a fairly intelligent poster but damn....

Well, same back at you. Maybe the Republican KooKs should concentrate on defeating their political opponents at the ballot for a change?

And leave the Democrats to going back to defeating their political opponents from the bench, I guess?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

From Forbes...

The bottom line is that the resulting Obamacare replacement plan would provide for universal coverage (which Obamacare fails to do), with no individual mandate, no employer mandate, and a net tax and spending cut of at least $1 trillion over the first 10 years alone. The public would overwhelmingly embrace such a Republican health care alternative as vastly preferable to Obamacare. What a resounding reversal that would be in the public’s appraisal of President Obama and his legacy for Obamacare to be replaced by such a Republican alternative based on freedom of choice, market competition and incentives, rather than Obamacare’s effective take over and control over health care.

Health care based on the free market is pretty clearly second best and the public realizes this. There will be no clamor for more of the old system when other countries have better ones. As in so many other issues, demographics and shifting public opinion will make single payer inevitable.

How about this approach:

• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition.
• Give individuals comparable tax breaks and incentives to self-insure as companies get to insure their employees. This increases the incentive for individuals to shop for their own healthcare. This increases competition.
• Reduce the regulations that give insurance companies less incentive to create tailored plans. This increases competition among insurance companies.
• Encourage the use of HSA's in conjunction with high-deductible emergency plans. This encourages competition for those dollars and introduce price awareness among consumers.
• Expand medicare-type programs for the poor and destitute so that they can afford health care. Have a means test to make sure that it's not being abused. This can also be done at the state level and not the federal level.
• Introduce a voucher system for those who find insurance prices just out of reach. This can also be done at the state level and not the federal level.

The private marketplace gives the most incentive for innovation in both service and price.The problem that we have now is that we have neither a free market system or a socialist system. Either would be preferable to the over-regulated quasi-free/quasi-socialist system we have now. As a person who loves individual liberty, I support the free market system.

Some of your ideas sound familiar, because I heard a few of them last year from Mitt Romney. I voted for Mitt, but he lost.I think your ideas are worth consideration, JoJo. But if you want to get them enacted, you need to win elections. You don't shut down the government in order to force your POV on a President and a majority in the Senate who rejects them. That doesn't work for me, and the polls show it doesn't work for the American people.

If you read the post you were replying to you would see we were debating whether a free market system > Obamacare, and not arguing your "Tea Party needs to win elections" mantra that you have posted nearly 1000x in this thread already.

Tim, you really should just change your signature to whatever talking points you want people to see x1000 and make blank replies to every post people make, it would save you a lot of typing and accomplish the same thing.

 

[Henry Ford]

• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition.

Anyone know why this isn't allowed under the present version of Obamacare? What's so bad about insurance being sold nationally?

Hoping for a totally non-partisan answer, but if none is forthcoming ... so be it.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

 

[Woogie Lee]

I'll get right on "winning elections"

2004, the Democrats lost the Presidential election which they thought for sure they would win. They were devastated. Did they whine? Sure. But they dusted themselves off and figured out how to win. And they won the House and Senate in 2006.

Right now, the Republicans are still fighting the 2012 Presidential Election. They need to move on.

Dems still talk about how Al Gore is REALLY their President.

REALLY????

 

[The Commish]

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.

We generally disagree with the state of Washington (it least that's how it seems), but we do agree that the spin machine is front and center for both parties and they use it to their full advantage. This is probably THE biggest weapon either party has and it's been encouraged by the way our "media" does business in covering the issues. With all that said, it's hard to disagree that the GOP didn't whiff on this big time by not letting it play out and expending any credibility they have left. Yeah, when ACA fails to meet expectations the Dems are going to be firing up their spin machine and they're going to have WAY more credibility than the GOP does. Not because they are better or right but because the GOP used all their political capital in a VERY poor manner. Simply put, the Dems are playing the game way better than the GOP is. Unfortunately, that's the gauge most voters go by and a pretty significant part of why we're in the situation we are.

 

[The Commish]

I'll get right on "winning elections"

2004, the Democrats lost the Presidential election which they thought for sure they would win. They were devastated. Did they whine? Sure. But they dusted themselves off and figured out how to win. And they won the House and Senate in 2006.

Right now, the Republicans are still fighting the 2012 2008 Presidential Election. They need to move on.

fixed

 

[Phil Elliott]

Not sure if the President is driving a honda, but it sounds like he has turned over the "non-negotiations" over to Harry Reid.

 

[Doug B]

The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945.

Thanks for the info.

 

[[icon]]

Wow, the KooKs really have nothing to say about trying to destroy the American economy.

They really hate our Soul Brother President.

Wow. I love the "if you're not with us, you're a racist" play. I used to think you were a fairly intelligent poster but damn....

Well, same back at you. Maybe the Republican KooKs should concentrate on defeating their political opponents at the ballot for a change?

The Republicans are just as lame as Democrats these days.. neither is acting in the best interests of the people. HTH.

Not sure what that has to do with your pathetic race-baiting though.

 

[cstu]

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.

That's awesome of Republicans to shut down the entire government just so a few brain dead dolts out there can finally learn they really don't like Obamacare.

 

[Joe T]

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.

That's awesome of Republicans to shut down the entire government just so a few brain dead dolts out there can finally learn they really don't like Obamacare.

HOLD EVERYTHING. This is huge. When did the entire government get shut down? I haven't seen that report yet. I'll take a link please. Oh wait, just more hyperbole and fear mongering. Carry on.

Just curious, are you related to Tim?