Is anybody tired of Obama or the Democrats?

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/opinion/krugman-health-care-horror-hooey.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

This article illustrates the GOP style that has gotten me to the point where I would likely vote Democrat on any ballot where I feel the two candidates are reasonably comparable. While both sides are full of it, the Repubs seem to have completely abandoned the concept of at least basing their lies on a true story.

The Democrats have a hard time appealing to White men.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/us/po ... 40303&_r=0

So, for the time being, look for the Democrats to win elections during presidential election years, and the Republicans to win the off-year elections. Which means a lot of Republican governors, and Republican gains in Congress this November.

Democrats to women and minorities: "We need your vote"

Democrats to white men: "We need your wallet"

Indeed! I noticed enforcement of ACA doesn't start until next year when we have to actually PROVE we are covered by insurance. Things will get interesting once people who can't afford insurance have to start paying for everything else once the penalties kick in. You can kiss your tax refund buh-bye.

It seems if they can't get your wallet willingly, they'll confiscate it.

So the $95 penalty is going to eat up the tax refunds of those who don't have health insurance?

I find it amusing that so many white men seem to think they are somehow being singled out by the PPACA.

Are they refusing Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidies just out of spite? No handouts from the "Mongrel" in Washington?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNXmU4l-Rzs[/youtube]

I don't know what that has to do with anything…but the $95 is not entirely accurate. From my understanding RIGHT NOW it's $95 or 1% of income per adult, whichever is greater. Next year it's $325 or 2%, and beyond that it's $695 or 2.5%. For those of us who are lucky enough just to get $1000 in tax refunds, $695 is a pretty big chunk, the difference between a decent education for our kids and public school.

If you make a decent amount of money, of course, you can just eat the penalty and stay self-insured. You MIGHT be able to come out better that way if you don't really need the insurance and you manage to avoid hospitals and the like. Those most affected are going to be the so-called "young invincibles." The idea is that since they won't really use the insurance, they'll keep things reasonable for the elderly and infirm who DO need it.

What's happening right now, though, is the mandate keeps getting pushed back and the target group keeps putting off signing up. Which means Obamacare isn't getting funded.

From what I gather, all you have to do is claim "hardship" and you get out of the penalty. Nobody said anything about PROVING hardship, just claiming it. Without the penalty and without everyone signing up, and without enforcement of the mandate, Obamacare doesn't even exist. It looks to me like it's pretty much DOA legislation. My concern is if it's doomed by design then it will force the argument that we have no other choice but to go to a single-payer system.

Well, the Supreme Court doomed it in certain states that opted out of the Medicaid expansion.

The other choice is to go back to what we had before.

At least most people had coverage.

You must be watching Fox News. That's all BS propaganda, except the NSA thing, which has been around awhile.

Here's the thing: if you make enough to go past the set dollar value fine, then you make little enough to qualify for subsidies. The main idea behind this priotn was to strongly encourage those who can least afford to not be covered, and to allow an option for those die-hard conservatives dead set against buying health insurance to have an out.



"Young invincibles" are most certainly the ones who will feel this the most. But medical emergencies and the ensuing lifetime of debt that goes along with it are devastating to someone just starting out in life, who is expected to succeed if they just work hard enough.



Not entirely accurate. Funding comes in large part from cost reductions built in. And funding will happen whether you want it to or not. Without the ridiculous "Obamacare will kill America" propaganda BS, the ACA would be doing much better. It has become an issue of anti-Obama folks determined to make as many people suffer as possible just to become a self-fulfilling prophecy of doomsday. So far, those suffering the most damage are the millions of poor who would have benefitted from Medicaid expansion but live in Republican controlled states doing everything they can to make it fail.



Not true. While the requirements for proof are significantly less than most other legislation, it still is required. It will also likely become much more complicated as more and more anti-ACA folks talk about how many people must be gaming the system, which will also increase its cost and reduce its efficiency.



Here is the ONE THING that everyone should remeber about the ACA:
It is not about health care. At all. The individual mandate is only a tiny, tiny portion of the ACA.

This is a consumer protection act. It regulates the ability of insurance companies to screw over anyone they want to with no limitations whatsoever.

If the ACA does somehow end up repealed (a possibility if the Repubs can stop all the infighting and keep their heads down while the Dems sink their own ship), you will see the tide change drastically. There are already too many people who are benefitting under the law for any realistic politician to see any future after all the sad stories start rolling in. Most people are swayed by emotion, and since those doing the best are those who already are suffering in poverty, a loss of health coverage will provide no shortage of high caliber ammunition.

Is the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. There are tons of issues and problems. Is it an improvement? You bet your sweet bippy it is.
What needs to happen is for a bi-partisan solution to fix the issues instead of a line in the sand approach that will only exacerbate the negatives.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 17 Mar 2014, 9:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

Uhhh,,,

You going to go point by point? Your word doesn't exactly cut it.

Yep, that was not at all an appropriate response to Gibson using restricted wood. Militarized police in general are a pretty scummy lot.



Yeah, don't disagree with that.



Their effectiveness wasn't hindered all that much. 501C3 groups were already extremely powerful waayyy before the elections, and they essentially amount to quasi-legal money laundering operations. Which is probably why the IRS isn't a huge fan. These organizations are usually set up to funnel untraceable money into the treasuries of political campaigns. During the 2013 elections, Carl Rove alone funneled over 300 million bucks into Romney's campaign using his giant network of PACs and SuperPACs. All of it was wasted, of course (lol).



Right to Work is just a pretense to make employees into disposable serfs, no matter how good they are. One guy I worked with got dismissed from his position with no notice because "the budget didn't allow for his position." A couple months later, he was replaced by a desperate college graduate who was willing to work for a fraction of the amount. The man had been an employee of the company for well over two decades. And when you get a good evaluation at the end of the year, you get a raise. Turns out he got too many raises for doing too good of a job, so out the door he went.



People-in-the-know were reluctant to talk about Benghazi not because of the people who died, but because of the ridiculous amount of CIA activity in the immediate area. If history is any indication, there was probably an effort underway to set up a puppet dictator to fill the void left by our last one being beaten to death by a mob.



Hyperbole. Fox News is doing just fine. News Corp, not so much, but a lot of that has to do with the death of print media and the alleged massive amounts of illegal activity used to obtain information. Tyranny would be shutting them down by force.



Er, no. That falls under the jurisdiction of laziness and petty tribalism.



Oh, boo-hoo. The scary black man is wearing sunglasses at me. When will the madness end!? Hell, Obama himself doesn't like black nationalist groups because he considers them "professional victims."



Hyperbole again with the media. The government has oppressed its enemies for a loooonnngg time. All the way back to the beginning. Hell, show me a government that doesn't.

I'll take one for example. I assume by news organization you mean Fox news? You know that they successfully argued in court that they have a right to lie?

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox ... e-lawsuit/

Tyranny is using the public airwaves to propagate lies (against FCC policy, which Fox argued isn't a law, so they don't have to obey it).