Obamacare cost...

[calicoug]

I made myself listen to your boy speak to a crowd in Maryland on the health care plan. He is as two faced, talk out both sides of his mouth as any politician ever. He does love to hear himself talk and after hearing the same stuff over and over again I backed out on my committment to hear the whole thing.

That man who wants civility can throw out the crap with the best of them, What kept ringing in my ear was not how good the plan was but how good it was for a certain class and how fair it is going to be to stick it to those SOBing rich folks. He has an uncontrollable hatred for the rich who won't agree with him.

Do you buy the shit that comes out of Pelosi's and Reid's mouths. Anarchy, terrorists and all that shit. Well I guess you do since you just used the slogan. I just realized that. You have dropped dramatically as far as someone to carry on a reasonable conversation with with. You have fallen into the cesspool with Nanci an and Harry. How sad. I can't think of any combination of two people (who aren't in prison) I have less respect for.

Threatening the full faith and credit of the US to get your way on legislation is beyond reckless. Republicans ought to be trying to win elections which would let them implement their ideas. They are apparently giving up on that and instead focusing on hostage taking. Am I supposed to pretend that is a valid basis for negotiations? I see now Republicans are also deciding they want to add abortion restrictions as part of their hostage process. They really are the children at the Ally Bank table.

[imanihonjin]

Of course, if you are looking for a solution that offers affordable healthcare to everyone but does not cost any money for anyone, I think he will continue to be disappointed.

I don't think it has anything to do with healthcare costing money, rather it has to do with either the quality of health care being lowered or the cost going higher that it otherwise would need to without the bill.

[byu71]

Threatening the full faith and credit of the US to get your way on legislation is beyond reckless. Republicans ought to be trying to win elections which would let them implement their ideas. They are apparently giving up on that and instead focusing on hostage taking. Am I supposed to pretend that is a valid basis for negotiations? I see now Republicans are also deciding they want to add abortion restrictions as part of their hostage process. They really are the children at the Ally Bank table.

You don't think the wreckless spending that has gone on by folks of your persuasion will threaten the full faith and credit of the US government? I guess you think our debt was downgraded because of the threat of not raising the debt limit? Well they raised the debt limit, why didn't our credit rating go up?

I guess we just come from different worlds. You think there is an endless supply of money to print and rich people to tax. People who think because I get an A in school and they get a C we should average our grades to a B are just not understandable to me.

[imanihonjin]

Threatening the full faith and credit of the US to get your way on legislation is beyond reckless. Republicans ought to be trying to win elections which would let them implement their ideas. They are apparently giving up on that and instead focusing on hostage taking. Am I supposed to pretend that is a valid basis for negotiations? I see now Republicans are also deciding they want to add abortion restrictions as part of their hostage process. They really are the children at the Ally Bank table.

So republicans winning elections don't count? Last I remember they won a majority in the house. I love how it is only the republicans threatening the full faith and credit of the US, aren't the dems doing the same freaking thing? Furthermore, isn't the way we currently spend money without paying for what we spend a far dangerous concern for the long term health of the full faith and credit of the US? Lastly, we could pay every stinking obligation that we currently owe and thereby meet the full faith and credit requirements even if the government shuts down. We may have to cut future obligations that we would otherwise have paid for, but we would have enough rolling in to meet the obligations we already have.

[Mormon Red Death]

No- the offset wouldn't be 1:1. But pretending there is no offset isn't correct. Individuals would be paid more money and corporations would spend less money (And would therefore have more to either return to shareholders or reinvest). The government would pay more money. There would be a reshuffling of the allocation of payment responsibility for healthcare from private enterprise to the government and more money would be available to the private sector.

Of course, if you are looking for a solution that offers affordable healthcare to everyone but does not cost any money for anyone, I think he will continue to be disappointed.

You like the president and his obamacare forget the two basic rules of insurance.


Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[calicoug]

You don't think the wreckless spending that has gone on by folks of your persuasion will threaten the full faith and credit of the US government? I guess you think our debt was downgraded because of the threat of not raising the debt limit? Well they raised the debt limit, why didn't our credit rating go up?

I guess we just come from different worlds. You think there is an endless supply of money to print and rich people to tax. People who think because I get an A in school and they get a C we should average our grades to a B are just not understandable to me.

Go back and read the S&P downgrade report. It answers your question.

[calicoug]

So republicans winning elections don't count? Last I remember they won a majority in the house. I love how it is only the republicans threatening the full faith and credit of the US, aren't the dems doing the same freaking thing? Furthermore, isn't the way we currently spend money without paying for what we spend a far dangerous concern for the long term health of the full faith and credit of the US? Lastly, we could pay every stinking obligation that we currently owe and thereby meet the full faith and credit requirements even if the government shuts down. We may have to cut future obligations that we would otherwise have paid for, but we would have enough rolling in to meet the obligations we already have.

Winning the House means controlling one half of Congress. Not even all Congress. So Republicans control 1/3 of the steps required to pass a law. If voters wanted them to control legislation, don't you think they would vote for... Republicans?

No, Dems are not doing the same thing at all. They are proposing a bill that only raises the debt ceiling. No other condition or requirement. That's actually the only step a party MUST take to raise the debt ceiling. Not sure how you can have an issue with taking the one necessary step in the process.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It will be amusing to watch as all the healthy 27-45 year old people just choose not to buy health insurance because paying the tax penalty is cheaper. Half of the uninsured in this country choose not to buy it because they don't see the point. They're healthy and relatively young. When the tax penalty is cheaper than the premiums, don't be surprised when they still refuse to buy it.

Then watch the healthcare exchange prices mushroom.

[imanihonjin]

Winning the House means controlling one half of Congress. Not even all Congress. So Republicans control 1/3 of the steps required to pass a law. If voters wanted them to control legislation, don't you think they would vote for... Republicans?

No, Dems are not doing the same thing at all. They are proposing a bill that only raises the debt ceiling. No other condition or requirement. That's actually the only step a party MUST take to raise the debt ceiling. Not sure how you can have an issue with taking the one necessary step in the process.

The voters did want house republicans to "control", at least partially, legislation. Therefore, the House is doing what it can with the leverage that it has. As posted in another thread on the fiscal cliff, Obama thinks that raising the debt limit is irresponsible and unpatriotic. The House is doing its very best, in light of the president's comments, to be responsible and patriotic, with what little leverage they have. I applaud them.

As for the dems not doing the same thing, sure they are. They are saying we didn't budget correctly and now you must either cave into our demands to increase out budget without any other concessions to stem off the practices that got us here or we are going to shut the government down. We made a mistake and we DEMAND that you solve our mistake or else.

One necessary step in the process? How about dealing with the debt limit when you pass reckless legislation that cannot meet the requirements of fitting into what was a prescribed debt limit?

[Pelado]

Boehner press secy @Brendan_Buck reminds that in 2006, Senator Obama was whistling a different tune about raising the Debt Limit. — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) September 18, 2013

In remarks on the Senate Floor on March 16, 2006, Sen. Obama said the need to raise the Debt Limit was "a sign of leadership failure." — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) September 18, 2013

Knoller was just warming up with his harsh "tweetment," which in essence said, "look-in-the-mirror pal":

Sen Obama said the need to raise the Debt Limit was another reflection of the "Government's reckless fiscal policies." — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) September 18, 2013

The, Sen Obama also denounced the rising National Debt as "a hidden domestic enemy" robbing cities & states of "critical investments." — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) September 18, 2013

Denouncing the ever-increasing National Debt, then-Sen. Obama told the Senate he would oppose an increase in the Debt Limit. — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) September 18, 2013

If running a $248 billion deficit in fiscal 2006 was "reckless," what adjective remains to describe running deficits over four times as large for four straight years?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...#ixzz2g1XINMym

[byu71]

Go back and read the S&P downgrade report. It answers your question.

You go back and read the report. Your understanding of economics is at level 2, mine is actually higher.

Now to be kinder, let me ask it this way. You actually think S&P would be just fine with our spending out of control as long as the Congress just said everytime, Oh, let's raise the debt ceiling again. Surely you have to be above level 2 in your understanding of economics, but why won't you exhibit it. Surely you know when politicians are blamed by S&P for not working better together they didn't point their finger at the republicans alone.

Are most of the people you foist your opinions on gullible?

Go read the report. LOL

[imanihonjin]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...#ixzz2g1XINMym

That Obama is just a radical right-wing terrorist.

[Pelado]

No- the offset wouldn't be 1:1. But pretending there is no offset isn't correct. Individuals would be paid more money and corporations would spend less money (And would therefore have more to either return to shareholders or reinvest). The government would pay more money. There would be a reshuffling of the allocation of payment responsibility for healthcare from private enterprise to the government and more money would be available to the private sector.

Of course, if you are looking for a solution that offers affordable healthcare to everyone but does not cost any money for anyone, I think he will continue to be disappointed.

Where did I pretend there was no offset? I specifically granted you the offset, and asserted that it would be woefully inadequate to cover the increase in prospective government spending, leading to a greater burden on the taxpayers and/or greater debt (leading to a greater burden on the taxpayers).

[Katy Lied]

I'm sure you are all again absorbing new data that shows premiums are going to be lower than even the CBO forecasts which conservatives said were unrealistic. I'm sure you all are also reading about the continuing trends with health care costs.

If not, start here:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...r-is-over.html

It's like the guy knows AA personally and wrote a letter just to him.

This is the source for that article:

94% of Uninsured Americans Will Have Obamacare Premiums Below What the CBO Projected.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/25/obamacare_premiums_will_be_cheaper_than_the_cbo_pr ojected.html

But the article's conclusion is that Obamacare will be cheaper than expected for 94% of all americans. So how can Slate extrapolate these figures from UNINSURED americans to all americans? Because, they reason, all americans with insurance will have to pay for the uninsureds that are entering the insurance marketplace. So its cheaper for them too.

Another trick: HHS examined the premium costs on a weighted average basis, grouping everyone into a group of 65 years or less. The problem is that premiums will rise most precipitously for young americans, and less for those in retirement, like people in their 50s and 60s. So combining costs for all americans into one big group mutes the sticker shock for younger americans.

There might be other questionable assumptions in the HHS report- I noticed these on a brief summary reading. (I think that this is the 15 page report released by Health and Human Svcs that everyone was pooh-poohing upon its release yesterday.)

[snowcat]

Offset this....