The (un)Affordable Health Care Act & Debt Ceiling Controversies

[saevel25]

Then inform me, because as I understand it, the tea-partiers are whiny little babies who don't like Obamacare.  A law, which was passed (legally), was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional, and should now be in effect but since they (wahhh, wahhh) don't like it, they refuse to fund it.  So, instead, they are playing terrorists and holding the government and the country hostage.  And on top of that, there is apparently more than enough votes to pass the bill to raise the debt ceiling and move on, but simply because of the tea-partiers, Boehner won't let it come to a vote.

They keep saying that the democrats won't negotiate with them, and that is a bunch of crap.  There is nothing to negotiate.  You lost.  Shut up and move on.  (I'm talking to republican congressmen there, not you @newtogolf just fyi. ;))

Anyways, that is how I understand it.  If I'm misinformed, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. :)

All political parties are whiny little babies, especially liberals and republicans. Don't start stereotyping ;)

Also, Roberts was an idiot in that case. He should have sent it back to congress. No way he can justify that that part of the law is a TAX and not a FINE. Congress said it was a FINE, they documented as a FINE, they even said it was a FINE in their testimony to the supreme court. One judge goes out there and says its a TAX. WTF man.

Oh, the fight hasn't lost. As per Abraham Lincoln, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Guess what Obama has done since it was passed. Giving out exemptions, holding off on when it starts, pushing more and more of the bill down the road. Why, because Lincoln was right, ITS A BAD LAW, and Obama doesn't want it to become active all at the same time. He knows it would cause mayhem and the strongest push to repeal it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Of course, I am not finished. Let's talk about this shutdown and debt ceiling.

These fiscally responsible Pubs are causing our debt to get more expensive.

In 2011, the US was downgraded because we went to the brink.

Now, an hour ago:

"With the federal government on the brink of a default, a House Republican effort to end the shutdown and extend the Treasury’s borrowing authority collapsed Tuesday night as a major credit agency warned that the United States was on the verge of a costly ratings downgrade."

Granted, the tea baggers have a point about making the government more efficient, but I fear they want to radically do away with government instead of slowly slimming it down. They'd rather dafult based on their theories that default would be no big deal.

But people buy our debt based on the strength of our economy, and their faith and credit that we will resolve our issues.

No more.

Once you go to default, not only will it kill our economy and cause US panic, it will cause worldwide panic.

Also, it will hasten the fall of the dollar -- and the world will move to another currency -- our interest rates will increase and our ability to dominate the financial world will crumble.

And we owe it all to a GOP leadership that cowers over 60-80 radical Congressmen and their cohorts in crime like the Koch Brothers. If the economy fails, the Koch Brothers will not suffer, neither will the 1%, and neither will these extremist politicians -- they don't have to worry about re-election - they've gerrymandered the districts to have a "let them eat cake" attitude. Pitiful.

It is small business, upper middle, middle, lower upper, the poor, the downtrodden, the hungry -- you name it, who will suffer. It will raise the deficit. Because guess what happens when the economy craters -- more people go on welfare.

Thanks,  radical right and the cowards of the GOP Leadership for bringing us to the brink.

I suggest you raise the limit, open up the Gov't and negotiate with other leaders on an even bargaining basis.

eff you.

Yet the senate hasn't even passed a long term budget in over 4 years now. Do you know that its their job to send a budget to the house to be reviewed and voted on? Its in the constitution as one of the primary jobs of the senate.

I do agree, the tea party have gone on strong here. I don't agree with holding the government hostage. But I do say this, should a government be this large, were we are facing supposed mayhem if they don't raise the debt ceiling. Why put all our bags in one basket here with the federal government. Wasn't this the fear of the founding father's who were against a strong central government. Why should we all be held hostage by a feeble entity. Why not just let the states govern themselves, and let them be able to tailor their laws for the people who live there? That way, one law in California is designed for them, and another law in Ohio is designed for Ohio. Instead of saying, OK all states must do this. Then you get people falling thru the cracks, wasted money, ect..

Here's the thing, no one can make it affordable. The bill did nothing to address the underlying issues with the rising costs to American's health care. If anything, the health care law will increase costs.

They put that chart up showing how much spending there will be in health care. It does taper down a bit, kinda starts to level off, but it does not reduce costs at all. It does not fix the problem. Health care will become a major spending issue for us all. It will not be economical. Unless we can fix the underlying problems with our nations health, how doctors are being treated and paid, and getting the people back to a doctor patient relationship instead of a doctor - health insurance provider - patient relationship.

[saevel25]

China has their own problems. They've been dumping so much money into their infrastructure development that their is whole city size areas with nobody living there. If they don't keep up the artificial demand created by their government putting money into their infrastructure, they will be going down harder than when our housing market hit. Don't think they are working things right on their side.

[Golfingdad]

All political parties are whiny little babies, especially liberals and republicans. Don't start stereotyping ;)

Who's stereotyping??  I'm not talking in generalities here, I'm talking about this specific case, right here, right now.  The ACA was passed by congress, approved by the Supreme Court, then survived 9000 stupid repeal votes.  You (tea partiers, republicans) lost.  It's over.  Don't play the "If I can't win, I'm going to take my ball and go home" game, unless you want to be looked at as whiny babies.

Sure, Dems can be whiny babies in their own right, but the topic here is the ACA and the Govt shutdown.  I was not stereotyping anybody.

Oh, the fight hasn't lost. As per Abraham Lincoln, "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Guess what Obama has done since it was passed. Giving out exemptions, holding off on when it starts, pushing more and more of the bill down the road. Why, because Lincoln was right, ITS A BAD LAW, and Obama doesn't want it to become active all at the same time. He knows it would cause mayhem and the strongest push to repeal it.

How could you, or anybody else for that matter, possibly have any idea how good or bad this law is until we see it enacted?  I said it above in this very thread ... if it is a bad law, then it can be repealed.  Or fixed.  But for now, the majority of congress wants it enacted (or is at least willing to vote that way), and the majority of the people of this country want it enacted.  Let's give it its chance.

[saevel25]

Who's stereotyping??  I'm not talking in generalities here, I'm talking about this specific case, right here, right now.  The ACA was passed by congress, approved by the Supreme Court, then survived 9000 stupid repeal votes.  You (tea partiers, republicans) lost.  It's over.  Don't play the "If I can't win, I'm going to take my ball and go home" game, unless you want to be looked at as whiny babies.

Sure, Dems can be whiny babies in their own right, but the topic here is the ACA and the Govt shutdown.  I was not stereotyping anybody.

How could you, or anybody else for that matter, possibly have any idea how good or bad this law is until we see it enacted?  I said it above in this very thread ... if it is a bad law, then it can be repealed.  Or fixed.  But for now, the majority of congress wants it enacted (or is at least willing to vote that way), and the majority of the people of this country want it enacted.  Let's give it its chance.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/16/usa-today-pew-poll-health-care-law-opposition/2817169/

Actually as of last month, people don't like it. Its a USA today poll to, i wouldn't dare post a Foxnews pole ;)

Will the health care law provide plans to people who can't afford it, yes. It will provide health care. The costs, the quality of care, and the impact it will have on the medical field is what worries me. I worry about the number of doctors we will have access to in the future. Who wants to be a doctor if they have to have 250K+ in student loan debt, have to have insurance against law suites, and then they provide services only to be undercut by the government on reimbursements. There is a reason why doctors are not taking on medicare patients now. Even the CBO, the federal government's own economic analysis say it wont cut costs. It might flatten the curve for a bit, but then the costs will climb again.

The only thing in this bill that can possibly stop the rise in health care cost is with the professional board it created. The only way they can stop the costs is if they undercut doctor's services (like medicare does already to doctors), or reduce benefits offered on the planvs. That is the only mechanisms they have. Either one is not good.

[Golfingdad]

... i wouldn't dare post a Foxnews pole ;)

I'm not afraid to do that.  In fact, here are several:

OK, I guess that if you wanted to nitpick, these are technically columns, but ... whatever. ;)

Will the health care law provide plans to people who can't afford it, yes. It will provide health care. The costs, the quality of care, and the impact it will have on the medical field is what worries me. I worry about the number of doctors we will have access to in the future. Who wants to be a doctor if they have to have 250K+ in student loan debt, have to have insurance against law suites, and then they provide services only to be undercut by the government on reimbursements. There is a reason why doctors are not taking on medicare patients now. Even the CBO, the federal government's own economic analysis say it wont cut costs. It might flatten the curve for a bit, but then the costs will climb again.

The only thing in this bill that can possibly stop the rise in health care cost is with the professional board it created. The only way they can stop the costs is if they undercut doctor's services (like medicare does already to doctors), or reduce benefits offered on the planvs. That is the only mechanisms they have. Either one is not good.

So status quo is cool then?  I will be the first to admit I know very, very little about the specifics of the ACA, and whether or not it will turn out to be a good idea in the long run.  All I do know is that our current health care system stinks (too many people don't have any coverage, and those that do are paying too much), and nobody has offered up a reasonable alternative.

So if the choice is between the devil I do know and the (perhaps, but also perhaps not) devil I don't know, then I'm going with the one I don't know, because maybe, just maybe, it will turn out to be a success?

[Jeremie Boop]

Just want to say, this whole "raise the debt ceiling" sounds like a good idea. Can we implement it for ourselves? "Hey visa? Yeah I know I'm already over my limit but can you raise it so I can spend more?"

I know that's rather simplistic in view but that's how it sounds to me. I'm not saying I want to default, but continuously raising a debt ceiling is not going to help get us on the right track.

[Ernest Jones]

Just want to say, this whole "raise the debt ceiling" sounds like a good idea. Can we implement it for ourselves? "Hey visa? Yeah I know I'm already over my limit but can you raise it so I can spend more?"

Visa would say "YES" with a big toothy grin.

[saevel25]

So status quo is cool then?  I will be the first to admit I know very, very little about the specifics of the ACA, and whether or not it will turn out to be a good idea in the long run.  All I do know is that our current health care system stinks (too many people don't have any coverage, and those that do are paying too much), and nobody has offered up a reasonable alternative.

So if the choice is between the devil I do know and the (perhaps, but also perhaps not) devil I don't know, then I'm going with the one I don't know, because maybe, just maybe, it will turn out to be a success?

I am not talking about the status quo. I never said keep things the same. I said there are a multitude of other options available that have greater possibility for curbing health care costs, than having the government provide ealth care. All the government did was create a new demand for a service. Now more people will be on health care, and a new supply of money will enter the market. This in turn will increase costs because now hospitals know the government will foot the bill for a lot of expensive procedures. Even if the government thinks they are undercutting them, like they do with medicare, they hospitals will make more money. The real problem is the death of the family practitioner. Ones who don't have the other funds that hospitals get from research, and other avenues of revenue. More and more people will be going to hospitals rather than their family doctor.

I talked to a friend of mine who is a surgeon in Florida. He says the health care law will drive people to go to hospital more. Which is bad, because it takes time away from emergency care, to provide basic health care needs.

No I rather not, After reading the bill, I found it lacking.

[Jeremie Boop]

Visa would say "YES" with a big toothy grin.

That would depend on the history of repayment. If I had as bad a history as the US has right now they'd probably laugh and hang up on me.

[cipher]

I can't wait for this thread to end, so everyone hurry up and get it out of your system...

[iacas]

All I know is that my economics professor told me in college that the national debt is not particularly relevant because, unlike people, countries don't have a life span or a life expectancy.

She may or may not have been Chinese, though, so take that memory for what it's worth.

[Mr. Desmond]

The government is not providing health care.

They are providing a way for people with pre-existing conditions or who can't afford insurance -- to be able to obtain insurance through choosing PRIVATE health insurance through health care exchanges. The government also provides subsidies to those who can't afford insurance according to their guidelines.

In order to do the deal, and allow insurance companies to take the risk of insuring the uninsurables, the government had to force everybody into the system. The more people in the system, the less costly it is for health insurance companies.

Under the pre ACA system, the hospitals got screwed, too - you could go to the ER without insurance and ignore the bill that was sent. People who could afford insurance also did this - the  hospitals got screwed by people with money.

The ACA system forces everyone to take personal responsibility (ahem, isn't that the GOP catchword?).

Before the haters arrive, do I agree with the premise of the bill - to allow kids and those with pre-existing conditions, and the poor to obtain private health insurance? YES.

Do I agree with the huge bureaucracy, irresponsible people not caring for their health and then getting insurance at the last second before their heart explodes, and many of the details? NO.

The ACA needs fixing. Even the Prez is open to fixing it. Even when they pass a tax bill, they always pass a corrections act - the ACA is no different - it's a huge bill with errors - fix it.

Okay, I had to have a nuke stress test... It costs $2k here; in other countries, $600-800  WHY?

Stress Test --  it's a big machine that takes a 15 min picture after they put the isotopes in you; you get stressed for 12 minutes to get to 100% heart rate and put more isotopes in you, and they take another pic for 15 minutes. Done. $2k and no happy ending...

And next week, I get to spend more money when they put a stent in -- but at least the pain I've had for 2 years will go away.

And good luck to me if it wasn't for ObamaCare - I'm 6ft and 174 skinny - take care of myself - but private insurance would drop me like a rock if they could

[nick1998bunker]

New government system altogether

[Lihu]

China has their own problems. They've been dumping so much money into their infrastructure development that their is whole city size areas with nobody living there. If they don't keep up the artificial demand created by their government putting money into their infrastructure, they will be going down harder than when our housing market hit. Don't think they are working things right on their side.

No, every government as large as theirs is going to have many issues. The only thing is that they can react quickly, when something does happen.

[Lihu]

New government system altogether

I don't blame you for feeling that way.

[nick1998bunker]

I don't blame you for feeling that way.

I developed my own way. They can make decisions quickly and have a better chance of it being the right one.

[Golfingdad]

I am not talking about the status quo. I never said keep things the same. I said there are a multitude of other options available that have greater possibility for curbing health care costs, than having the government provide ealth care. All the government did was create a new demand for a service. Now more people will be on health care, and a new supply of money will enter the market. This in turn will increase costs because now hospitals know the government will foot the bill for a lot of expensive procedures. Even if the government thinks they are undercutting them, like they do with medicare, they hospitals will make more money. The real problem is the death of the family practitioner. Ones who don't have the other funds that hospitals get from research, and other avenues of revenue. More and more people will be going to hospitals rather than their family doctor.

I talked to a friend of mine who is a surgeon in Florida. He says the health care law will drive people to go to hospital more. Which is bad, because it takes time away from emergency care, to provide basic health care needs.

No I rather not, After reading the bill, I found it lacking.

I understand, but you're not a congressman (I think) so your ideas, even if they were good, are not an option.  All that exists that is actually concrete right now is the status quo or the ACA.  Those are the only current choices, so it stands to reason that if you are emphatically against giving the ACA a fair shake, then you are for the status quo.

And I think everybody "knows a surgeon" or a small business owner that will back up their opinion.  My wife worked for a local hospital a couple of years ago, and we both went a a seminar that they put on very excitedly praising the ACA.  Ask my current boss, and you'll get the opposite answer. ;)

The only fact is that nobody really KNOWS.

I can't wait for this thread to end, so everyone hurry up and get it out of your system...

LOL, or we could just skip to the parts where we stray off-topic and start calling each other names? ;)

[cipher]

LOL, or we could just skip to the parts where we stray off-topic and start calling each other names? ;)

Ha Ha, that is why I am not going to touch this one!