Shutting Down the Government: Genius, or Stupid?

[Angel!]

Lol on the quote. I didn't realize they were that focused on the ACA. Crazy. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with this stand.

This thread reminded w of pbp's thread where he was going to provide healthcare/insurance solutions. I bumped it up to see if he has some. I am tired of the republican bitching about a plan with republican roots. Especially when I have yet to them propose anything better.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 19, 2013 11:20:51 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 19, 2013 11:10:29 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I am predicting a much different outcome...the ACA will be such a mess for so many years, people won't know what the hell is going on.  The exchanges will be a mess, people wil be set up incorrectly, they will find out they received too much subsidy and get pissed that they owe money back, etc, etc.  Its a huge clusterfuck of a bill that bites off far more than the government (and the people) can chew.  That's one thing government is always bad at - doing too much at once.

I guess we will see soon. 12 more days until the exchanges open.

Until they're due to open.  Which of course is not happening in most states.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2013 13:38:21 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Lol on the quote. I didn't realize they were that focused on the ACA. Crazy. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with this stand.

This thread reminded w of pbp's thread where he was going to provide healthcare/insurance solutions. I bumped it up to see if he has some. I am tired of the republican bitching about a plan with republican roots. Especially when I have yet to them propose anything better.

that is because it is essentially THEIR proposal.

everyone is going to know about this within a week, imo.  certainly within two.  and i don't think they are going to like it.

[Angel!]

Sept 19, 2013 13:52:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 19, 2013 11:20:51 GMT -5 Angel! said:

I guess we will see soon. 12 more days until the exchanges open.

Until they're due to open.  Which of course is not happening in most states.

Link?  I know a few states are only going have the exchanges partially up and running.  But, I have heard nothing about MOST states being delayed.  In fact, MOST states are going to be in the federal exchange which they are still claiming is on track to be up on Oct 1. 

We will see, undoubtedly a few states will have delays or bugs in the system. 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2013 14:44:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 19, 2013 13:52:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Until they're due to open.  Which of course is not happening in most states.

Link?  I know a few states are only going have the exchanges partially up and running.  But, I have heard nothing about MOST states being delayed.  In fact, MOST states are going to be in the federal exchange which they are still claiming is on track to be up on Oct 1. 

i think Paul is confusing what states refused to participate with the exchanges themselves.  23 states are participating in state or partnered programs = 46%.  the balance are in federal programs.

We will see, undoubtedly a few states will have delays or bugs in the system. 

i am sure that some states will actively subvert the ACA.  that is entirely their choice, of course.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2013 14:49:57 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Some states, including mine, have opted out of opening Exchanges.  THis does not prevent one from signing up though, as they simply use the Federal Exchange, which is available.

precisely.

Dem- this surprised me.  Maine is the ONLY state in NE that did NOT do a state sponsored or partnered exchange.  why?

[Angel!]

Sept 19, 2013 15:11:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 19, 2013 14:44:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Link?  I know a few states are only going have the exchanges partially up and running.  But, I have heard nothing about MOST states being delayed.  In fact, MOST states are going to be in the federal exchange which they are still claiming is on track to be up on Oct 1. 

i think Paul is confusing what states refused to participate with the exchanges themselves.  23 states are participating in state or partnered programs = 46%.  the balance are in federal programs.

We will see, undoubtedly a few states will have delays or bugs in the system. 

i am sure that some states will actively subvert the ACA.  that is entirely their choice, of course.

Probably.  Although I would think most states that might do so already opted out of created their own exchange, which would make it harder to subvert.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2013 15:20:52 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 19, 2013 15:11:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am sure that some states will actively subvert the ACA.  that is entirely their choice, of course.

Probably.  Although I would think most states that might do so already opted out of created their own exchange, which would make it harder to subvert.

the ACA has a built in irony clause.  the states that most sternly object to it will have the most federal intervention.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The government will eventually defund and shut itself down. It has to. It's just math. And at this rate- it won't be much longer:

blog.heritage.org/2013/09/19/obamacare-raising-health-care-spending-number-of-the-day-621000000000/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

The UN-Affordable Care Act is going to add $.621 trillion to the budget over the next ten years- and that's the projection, so you can just take that, and double it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 19, 2013 14:44:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Sept 19, 2013 13:52:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Until they're due to open.  Which of course is not happening in most states.

Link?  I know a few states are only going have the exchanges partially up and running.  But, I have heard nothing about MOST states being delayed.  In fact, MOST states are going to be in the federal exchange which they are still claiming is on track to be up on Oct 1. 

We will see, undoubtedly a few states will have delays or bugs in the system. 

Well, I was wrong.  It's not most states- it's all states.

www.cnbc.com/id/101023525

Obamacare is likely to have a "rocky" enrollment start on Oct. 1 in some states, because of ongoing technology challenges facing new online health insurance exchanges, a leading expert told lawmakers Tuesday.

"At this moment, not a single state appears to be completely ready," W. Brett Graham of the Salt Lake City-based consulting firm Leavitt Partners said in testimony to a Republican-controlled House oversight panel.

He said states should be capable of providing "baseline functionality" when enrollment begins in three weeks. But he cautioned about the potential for delays: "Most, if not all, exchanges will experience a rocky enrollment period as they work to overcome both known and unknown operational challenges."

Leavitt Partners has been involved in the design and development of some state exchanges and tracks exchange progress nationwide. The firm is headed by former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, a former Utah governor who held the health post under Republican President George W. Bush.

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2013 13:09:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 19, 2013 12:58:34 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Is this time different than the previous times they threatened to shutdown? I figures it was more of the same song and dance, but maybe I am missing information.

yes.  the loud long moaning about repealing Obamacare is a major factor this time.

here is how i view it:

Said Ornstein: “The bizarreness of this monomaniacal focus on Obamacare, given that it is fundamentally a Republican program from the 1990s mixed in with Romneycare,” says it all. “Obamacare relies on the private sector; there is no public option. That you are willing to bring the country to its knees to sabotage it … just shows this is a party that has gone off the rails.”

Ornstein wrote a book on how extremist politics is killing our political system.

Here's what confuses me about the "it was a Republican program frm the 1990's" statement:  if the Democrats were against it then, why are they for it now?  Did they just vote against it then due to partisan politics?  If not, then there must be something vastly different in the current version...

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2013 13:38:21 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Lol on the quote. I didn't realize they were that focused on the ACA. Crazy. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with this stand.

This thread reminded w of pbp's thread where he was going to provide healthcare/insurance solutions. I bumped it up to see if he has some. I am tired of the republican bitching about a plan with republican roots. Especially when I have yet to them propose anything better.

Kind of like the Democrats during Bush II's SS reform...and they still don't have any ideas to fix SS besides screwing over future generations.

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2013 13:57:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 19, 2013 13:38:21 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Lol on the quote. I didn't realize they were that focused on the ACA. Crazy. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with this stand.

This thread reminded w of pbp's thread where he was going to provide healthcare/insurance solutions. I bumped it up to see if he has some. I am tired of the republican bitching about a plan with republican roots. Especially when I have yet to them propose anything better.

that is because it is essentially THEIR proposal.

everyone is going to know about this within a week, imo.  certainly within two.  and i don't think they are going to like it.

I still say that's bullshit...or else why would the Democrats all of a sudden like it now? They didn't like it then, but like it now - something is different about it. Unless, of course, Dems were just being partisan back then, in whcih case why bitch about Reps being partisan now? They're all just playing their BS games as usual...

[billisonboard]

... But he cautioned about the potential for delays: "Most, if not all, exchanges will experience a rocky enrollment period as they work to overcome both known and unknown operational challenges."

Leavitt Partners has been involved in the design and development of some state exchanges and tracks exchange progress nationwide. The firm is headed by former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, a former Utah governor who held the health post under Republican President George W. Bush.

Maybe if states hadn't had this private firm involved, things would be smoother.

[Angel!]

Sept 19, 2013 16:01:54 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 19, 2013 14:44:20 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Link?  I know a few states are only going have the exchanges partially up and running.  But, I have heard nothing about MOST states being delayed.  In fact, MOST states are going to be in the federal exchange which they are still claiming is on track to be up on Oct 1. 

We will see, undoubtedly a few states will have delays or bugs in the system. 

Well, I was wrong.  It's not most states- it's all states.

www.cnbc.com/id/101023525

Obamacare is likely to have a "rocky" enrollment start on Oct. 1 in some states, because of ongoing technology challenges facing new online health insurance exchanges, a leading expert told lawmakers Tuesday.

"At this moment, not a single state appears to be completely ready," W. Brett Graham of the Salt Lake City-based consulting firm Leavitt Partners said in testimony to a Republican-controlled House oversight panel.

He said states should be capable of providing "baseline functionality" when enrollment begins in three weeks. But he cautioned about the potential for delays: "Most, if not all, exchanges will experience a rocky enrollment period as they work to overcome both known and unknown operational challenges."

Leavitt Partners has been involved in the design and development of some state exchanges and tracks exchange progress nationwide. The firm is headed by former Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, a former Utah governor who held the health post under Republican President George W. Bush.

You claimed they weren't opening. Your own link says they are opening with "basic functionality", just in some states it won't be fully operational. So they are opening. And this article seems to just talking state exchanges - most states actually are going to be on the federal exchange. Where does that stand?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2013 16:08:48 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 19, 2013 13:09:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes.  the loud long moaning about repealing Obamacare is a major factor this time.

here is how i view it:

Said Ornstein: “The bizarreness of this monomaniacal focus on Obamacare, given that it is fundamentally a Republican program from the 1990s mixed in with Romneycare,” says it all. “Obamacare relies on the private sector; there is no public option. That you are willing to bring the country to its knees to sabotage it … just shows this is a party that has gone off the rails.”

Ornstein wrote a book on how extremist politics is killing our political system.

Here's what confuses me about the "it was a Republican program frm the 1990's" statement:  if the Democrats were against it then, why are they for it now? 

they weren't.  my congresswoman was openly opposed to it.  but she felt it was the best they were going to get.

Did they just vote against it then due to partisan politics?  If not, then there must be something vastly different in the current version...

that is not my understanding.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2013 16:10:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 19, 2013 13:38:21 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Lol on the quote. I didn't realize they were that focused on the ACA. Crazy. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with this stand.

This thread reminded w of pbp's thread where he was going to provide healthcare/insurance solutions. I bumped it up to see if he has some. I am tired of the republican bitching about a plan with republican roots. Especially when I have yet to them propose anything better.

Kind of like the Democrats during Bush II's SS reform...and they still don't have any ideas to fix SS besides screwing over future generations.

SS is not a major problem, imo.  overhauling it is a really bad idea.  tweaking it is fine.  we should do that.

[jkapp]

Sept 19, 2013 16:22:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 19, 2013 16:08:48 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Here's what confuses me about the "it was a Republican program frm the 1990's" statement:  if the Democrats were against it then, why are they for it now? 

they weren't.  my congresswoman was openly opposed to it.  but she felt it was the best they were going to get.

Did they just vote against it then due to partisan politics?  If not, then there must be something vastly different in the current version...

that is not my understanding.

So then was it that Dems voted against it in the 90's because they didn't want to give Reps credit for reform? To me, this all still boils down to bs political gamesmanship on both sides. The problem is the Dems were able to force this crap through this time, and now we're going to get butt-rammed by it.

[Angel!]

Sept 19, 2013 16:12:29 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 19, 2013 13:57:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is because it is essentially THEIR proposal.

everyone is going to know about this within a week, imo.  certainly within two.  and i don't think they are going to like it.

I still say that's bullshit...or else why would the Democrats all of a sudden like it now? They didn't like it then, but like it now - something is different about it. Unless, of course, Dems were just being partisan back then, in whcih case why bitch about Reps being partisan now? They're all just playing their BS games as usual...

Democrats weren't necessarily against it then.  It was just during the time when Hilary was trying to put through her reform, so the bill never even got voted on.

Take a look at the comparison:
www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-Comparison.aspx

Both bills:
- Require people to purchase insurance
- Require employers to offer insurance
- Get rid of pre-existing conditions
- Provide subsidies for lower income groups
- Establish some sort of exchange for purchasing insurance
- Establish minimum benefits that must be offered

Oh and then there is Romneycare

www.diffen.com/difference/Obamacare_vs_Romneycare

Both Obamacare and Romneycare:
- Require people to purchase insurance
- Require employers to offer insurance
- Provide subsidies for lower income groups
- Establish minimum benefits that must be offered

But, yeah, lets keep pretending the ACA isn't based on Republican proposals .  All the basics are the same.  And they fix many of the biggest problems in our current system.  I have yet to see a current republican plan that actually fixes some of these issues.  They have no proposals, yet they want to destroy something that will actually help millions of people.   
[/a]

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2013 16:25:46 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 19, 2013 16:22:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is not my understanding.

So then was it that Dems voted against it in the 90's because they didn't want to give Reps credit for reform?

voted against what, jk?

To me, this all still boils down to bs political gamesmanship on both sides. The problem is the Dems were able to force this crap through this time, and now we're going to get butt-rammed by it.

yeah, us partisans tend to see it that way.  that helps obfuscate the fact that both parties are owned by the HC industry.

[EVT1]

I am enjoying the perpetual conservative freakout on Obamacare and all of the histrionics.  I wonder what would have happened if they passed a liberal bill?  Mass suicide? 

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2013 22:12:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am enjoying the perpetual conservative freakout on Obamacare and all of the histrionics.  I wonder what would have happened if they passed a liberal bill?  Mass suicide? 

rapture.

[Virgil Showlion]

Sept 19, 2013 22:12:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am enjoying the perpetual conservative freakout on Obamacare and all of the histrionics.  I wonder what would have happened if they passed a liberal bill?  Mass suicide? 

Look at it this way: If government spending on healthcare explodes and brings the country to its knees, they'll take just as much delight in telling you "I told you so" and calling you a fool, even though the ACA was effectively the same thing as RomneyCare.

[Angel!]

Sept 20, 2013 0:27:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 19, 2013 22:12:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am enjoying the perpetual conservative freakout on Obamacare and all of the histrionics.  I wonder what would have happened if they passed a liberal bill?  Mass suicide? 

Look at it this way: If government spending on healthcare explodes and brings the country to its knees, they'll take just as much delight in telling you "I told you so" and calling you a fool, even though the ACA was effectively the same thing as RomneyCare.

Yep. I wonder what happens then. I can't see going backwards to our current system where if have preexisting conditions or are lower income you are just sol on insurance. People don't tend to like giving up benefits once they have them. Maybe we do end up with universal healthcare if this blows up. I know some want that.

[jkapp]

Sept 20, 2013 0:27:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 19, 2013 22:12:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am enjoying the perpetual conservative freakout on Obamacare and all of the histrionics.  I wonder what would have happened if they passed a liberal bill?  Mass suicide? 

Look at it this way: If government spending on healthcare explodes and brings the country to its knees, they'll take just as much delight in telling you "I told you so" and calling you a fool, even though the ACA was effectively the same thing as RomneyCare.

And the Dems will still find some way to blame the Reps for it failing too...just more games...

[zibazinski]

Anyone hear the latest on the Cleveland Clinic? This is the place that moved heaven and earth to save DFs life. Very sad.

[Deleted]

Sept 20, 2013 8:23:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sept 20, 2013 0:27:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Look at it this way: If government spending on healthcare explodes and brings the country to its knees, they'll take just as much delight in telling you "I told you so" and calling you a fool, even though the ACA was effectively the same thing as RomneyCare.

And the Dems will still find some way to blame the Reps for it failing too...just more games...

 The games are only possible because of the existence of hyperpartisan pawns. Without those pawns, the games could not be played.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 19, 2013 15:59:05 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The government will eventually defund and shut itself down. It has to. It's just math. And at this rate- it won't be much longer:

blog.heritage.org/2013/09/19/obamacare-raising-health-care-spending-number-of-the-day-621000000000/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

The UN-Affordable Care Act is going to add $.621 trillion to the budget over the next ten years- and that's the projection, so you can just take that, and double it.

did you add the taxes and penalties in?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 20, 2013 0:27:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Sept 19, 2013 22:12:53 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I am enjoying the perpetual conservative freakout on Obamacare and all of the histrionics.  I wonder what would have happened if they passed a liberal bill?  Mass suicide? 

Look at it this way: If government spending on healthcare explodes and brings the country to its knees

it WILL explode.  but the ACA has ZERO to do with it.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 20, 2013 7:02:42 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Exactly Angel.  The reason many of us were not "for" the ACA was because what we wanted was universal single payer coverage, like most developed nations have.  If the ACA eventually develops into that, so much the better.

half the people that oppose the ACA oppose it for that reason.  so when Paul and others run these stats about how the ACA has a plurality or narrow majority of people that hate it, remember that HALF of those people want a STRONGER BILL.