Democrats Ask for Relief from ACA

[fskimospy]

A solid majority of Democrats (58%) in the Senate supported the Iraq War...I consider that to be substantial. Democratic support in the House for the Iraq War was lower but still quite significant (82 Yea, 126 Nay). Attempts to frame Democrats as widely opposed to the Iraq War (at least initially) are very misleading, if not dishonest.

If you think 57% of congressional Democrats voting against it doesn't equal wide opposition, despite a relentless push for legislative support that's up to you I guess.

Given your previous statements about Democratic support for the Iraq war I don't think you're in a position to call anyone else's descriptions of it misleading or dishonest.

 

[umbrella39]

Awe... no more Band-Aid insurance for people who like to stiff the ER when they finally have something go wrong that their shit insurance didn't cover. Too bad. Time to grow up then pay up.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If you think 57% of congressional Democrats voting against it doesn't equal wide opposition, despite a relentless push for legislative support that's up to you I guess.

Given your previous statements about Democratic support for the Iraq war I don't think you're in a position to call anyone else's descriptions of it misleading or dishonest.

I think that's a very dishonest way to spin the numbers...the House numbers should not be used in a way to hide broad Democratic support for the war in the Senate. There was very strong bi-partisan support for the Iraq War. Deal with it.

 

[fskimospy]

I think that's a very dishonest way to spin the numbers...the House numbers should not be used in a way to hide broad Democratic support for the war in the Senate.

I think it's very dishonest to declare that Democratic support for the war in Iraq was overwhelming and that people who repeatedly made such a claim are probably not in a position to call others dishonest on the issue. 39% of House Democrats voted for it but you want to focus on the 58% of Senate Democrats that did. If you're going to call a 58-42 split in the Senate 'broad support' than you're going to have to call a 61-39 split in the House 'even more broad opposition'.

Like I said, you can call it whatever you want if it makes you feel better, I just supplied the real numbers on the issue and corrected a hugely false statement you made about Democratic support for the war.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I think it's very dishonest to declare that Democratic support for the war in Iraq was overwhelming and that people who repeatedly made such a claim are probably not in a position to call others dishonest on the issue. 39% of House Democrats voted for it but you want to focus on the 58% of Senate Democrats that did. If you're going to call a 58-42 split in the Senate 'broad support' than you're going to have to call a 61-39 split in the House 'even more broad opposition'.

Like I said, you can call it whatever you want if it makes you feel better, I just supplied the real numbers on the issue and corrected a hugely false statement you made about Democratic support for the war.

I've already admitted that my previous rhetoric was exaggeration or did you not see that? Anyway, I stand by my subsequent statements. There was substantial bi-partisan support in Congress for the war in Iraq....with overwhelming support among Democrats in the Senate.

 

[fskimospy]

I've already admitted that my previous rhetoric was exaggeration or did you not see that? Anyway, I stand by my subsequent statements. There was substantial bi-partisan support in Congress for the war in Iraq....with overwhelming support among Democrats in the Senate.

Whoa, now we're back to 'overwhelming support'! Interesting that a 29/21 (58% to 42%) split is now considered 'overwhelming'. Hell, 58% isn't even enough to surmount a filibuster, haha. That has to be one of the more generous uses of that term that I've encountered, but whatever works for you.

By the way, does that mean that you believe there was overwhelming opposition to the war in the House? Actually, we need a word stronger than overwhelming. Any ideas?

Stop trying to BS your way out of this. You said something that was really really wrong. At first I assumed you just mistook the 2001 AUMF for the Iraq AUMF and it was just a silly mistake. Trying to defend something so obviously wrong is not helping you.

 

[GreenGreen]

Now the Democrats are crying about how bad the penalties and subsidy overpayments are for their constituents. I say make them suffer or repeal the ACA or Obama Care.

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-democrats-seek-relief-health-080314080.html

Read some of the comments on this article and you will see what the country really thinks about Obama Care.

You democrats made up all these stupid laws up about ACA and now you are crying about it. Suffer the consequences or revoke the law.

Wait a second... I thought The ACA was pushed through almost exclusively by the Dems? Why would they suddenly backpedal on something that they were willing to divide the nation over?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Whoa, now we're back to 'overwhelming support'! Interesting that a 29/21 (58% to 42%) split is now considered 'overwhelming'. Hell, 58% isn't even enough to surmount a filibuster, haha. That has to be one of the more generous uses of that term that I've encountered, but whatever works for you.

By the way, does that mean that you believe there was overwhelming opposition to the war in the House? Actually, we need a word stronger than overwhelming. Any ideas?

Stop trying to BS your way out of this. You said something that was really really wrong. At first I assumed you just mistook the 2001 AUMF for the Iraq AUMF and it was just a silly mistake. Trying to defend something so obviously wrong is not helping you.

This is exactly what I did when I first made my statement of overwhelming support. But now I'm just setting the record straight on the actual Iraq Resolution where there was still strong support for the war among Democrats. And all the rest is rhetoric designed to irritate you.

 

[cliftonite]

I think that's a very dishonest way to spin the numbers...the House numbers should not be used in a way to hide broad Democratic support for the war in the Senate. There was very strong bi-partisan support for the Iraq War. Deal with it.

A little bit over half (57%) of the dems supporting is "broad" support?

 

[dank69]

So any reform that doesn't include preexisting conditions is "potato" in your little world. Got it.

No, a campaign speech and a non-starter of a bill is closer to "potato" than it is to "many reasonable alternatives."

 

[dank69]

A little bit over half (57%) of the dems supporting is "broad" support?

It was fucking overwhelming. Just like the overwhelming amount of input the GOP gave for the ACA that didn't amount to "no."

 

[fskimospy]

This is exactly what I did when I first made my statement of overwhelming support. But now I'm just setting the record straight on the actual Iraq Resolution where there was still strong support for the war among Democrats. And all the rest is rhetoric designed to irritate you.

I wouldn't worry about setting the record straight. I already did that.

 

[IGBT]

full mud slide effect of your obama care hits in 2018. you voted for this..twice. You have to pass it to find out what's in it.

 

[Spungo]

full mud slide effect of your obama care hits in 2018. you voted for this..twice. You have to pass it to find out what's in it.

You can't blame Pelosi for saying this. She's only repeating what her doctor said earlier in the day.

 

[werepossum]

Can you provide us those 'reasonable alternatives'?

So far the bill is actually working quite well. It has met or exceeded nearly every projection, something that is quite rare for a bill of this complexity.

You might want to look at some objective analysis of the ACA and get outside of that media bubble. You would be very surprised by what you learn, I imagine.

Well, it didn't meet "If you like your plan, you can keep it." Or "If you like your doctor, you can keep him."

You have to be joking. Is this like the 'Democrats overwhelmingly supported the Iraq War' thing where you rewrote history in your head?

Republicans were not open to meaningful health care reform prior to the ACA. Their solutions boiled down to selling insurance across state lines (not very helpful) and tort reform (laughable).

I think that was my bad, not Doc's. Although we might have said the same thing.

Families who find themselves in this situation are eligible for a coverage exemption on IRS form 8965, and do not have to pay the penalty. As stated in the Form 8965 instructions for Exemption A:

Pre-ACA these families were in a WORSE situation. At least now employer-based insurance must meet minimum standards for the policies and must offer affordable policies for the worker. Prior to the ACA, not even that standard was required. And if the company doesn't also offer affordable coverage for the entire family, the remainder of the family is exempt if premiums exceed 8% of household income.

So although your argument seems to be that ACA has made things worse, in fact you're dead wrong. A lot more people are now able to afford coverage than before the ACA. And those who cannot are exempt from the penalty.

I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Yes, to many people Obamacare is a godsend. To other people, it starts at major hassle and slides into major disaster. Not everyone has an extra 8% of household income to redistribute, not to mention the typically very large deductibles for the more affordable plans, and if those people liked their old, affordable plans they are now screwed. Especially so in Republican states without Medicaid expansion. There's both good and bad here, in different proportion for different folks, and I'm surprised and a bit dismayed at how quickly lefties say "fuck you" to those poor people who ended up losing under this bill.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, it didn't meet "If you like your plan, you can keep it." Or "If you like your doctor, you can keep him."


I think that was my bad, not Doc's. Although we might have said the same thing.


I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Yes, to many people Obamacare is a godsend. To other people, it starts at major hassle and slides into major disaster. Not everyone has an extra 8% of household income to redistribute, not to mention the typically very large deductibles for the more affordable plans, and if those people liked their old, affordable plans they are now screwed. Especially so in Republican states without Medicaid expansion. There's both good and bad here, in different proportion for different folks, and I'm surprised and a bit dismayed at how quickly lefties say "fuck you" to those poor people who ended up losing under this bill.

Remarkable spin. That 8% number you toss out isn't redistributed at all. It's what people spend on themselves for insurance. Subsidies on premiums are redistribution at a level above what participants pay.

People who liked their old affordable plans are often mistaken about what their old plans actually covered. Statements like "My old plan was better and a helluva lot cheaper!" require the reader to believe that Insurance Co's were stupid prior to the ACA. In most cases, I suspect that they were just forced to upgrade to adequate coverage. It insures them and the rest of us against bankruptcy induced losses incurred at their old plan limits, just for starters.

Yes, refusal to participate in Medicaid expansion is a fuckover. No, people falling into the gap aren't worse off than they were before. It's a "still fucked" deal that only individual states can address. Thank you, Justice Roberts.

Lefties aren't saying "fuck you" to poor people at all. Lefties want medicaid expansion everywhere. It was in the law before the conservative SCOTUS majority legislated from the bench.

 

[highland145]

Please, let's just have full implementation so we can see where the chips fall.

Statements like "My old plan was better and a helluva lot cheaper!" require the reader to believe that Insurance Co's were stupid prior to the ACA.

shens

Lefties aren't saying "fuck you" to poor people at all.

Because the poor aren't affected. The middle class is.

 

[fskimospy]

Please, let's just have full implementation so we can see where the chips fall.

shens

Because the poor aren't affected. The middle class is.

What do you think will be different about "full implementation" as compared to now?

 

[highland145]

What do you think will be different about "full implementation" as compared to now?

Why do you think the employer mandate has have been delayed?

 

[fskimospy]

Why do you think the employer mandate has have been delayed?

Because it's not a good idea and ultimately unnecessary anyway. It was made to keep employers from pushing too many people onto the exchanges but that hasn't happened anyway.

So again, what is the "full implementation"? I hate to break it to you but "full implementation" will basically not be any different than what we have now. What do you think will be different?

 

[highland145]

Because it's not a good idea and ultimately unnecessary anyway. It was made to keep employers from pushing too many people onto the exchanges but that hasn't happened anyway.

wut? But it has been good enough for me and my ilk? Or the many subjected to a penalty?




Edit: If it's such a good idea why is congress exempt?

 

[DCal430]

Please, let's just have full implementation so we can see where the chips fall.

shens


Because the poor aren't affected. The middle class is.

The middle class are helped by the ACA. Before the ACA a middle class person who gets cancer could find themselves jobless and without healthcare, now after ACA if they don't live in a backwards dark age state they can get medicaid.

 

[fskimospy]

wut? But it has been good enough for me and my ilk? Or the many subjected to a penalty?

Edit: If it's such a good idea why is congress exempt?

The individual mandate applies to everyone, congress included.

The employer mandate and the individual mandate are two really different things with totally different objectives. Not really sure why you would discuss them together.

Can you tell me what you think will be different now?

 

[dank69]

wut? But it has been good enough for me and my ilk? Or the many subjected to a penalty?




Edit: If it's such a good idea why is congress exempt?

It's like you haven't been paying attention for the last five years.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please, let's just have full implementation so we can see where the chips fall.

shens

Excuse me, but if you were paying $350/mo prior to the ACA for family coverage and now pay over $600 then you very likely had inferior coverage whether you realize it or not. You claim to have paid less for the same in the individual market than the total cost of a decent employer sponsored group plan even though you're well past the age where that was even possible. Your insurance company simply would not have been sufficiently stupid for it to be that way. They did not lose money on the whole class of plans like the one you had before. Hell, they had no imposed minimum medical loss ratios, either.

Because I have the paperwork from my group coverage in 2013 and joined the exchange in 2014, I can see that basically the same coverage from the same carrier, Kaiser, cost only slightly more today than it did then. I just paid a lot less out of pocket because my employer paid the bulk of it in 2013. Both were considerably cheaper than what similar plans would have cost us in the individual market in 2012. I checked at the time in anticipation of early retirement. Lower costs of an ACA exchange plan allowed me to retire early, regardless of the $14/mo subsidy we received in 2014.

Because the poor aren't affected. The middle class is.

That's not what werepossum offered. You're right that middle & working class people are affected, most who lack group coverage in a positive way by subsidies & medicaid extension. Rare edge cases to the contrary exist, I'm sure.