View Full Version : Yet another Obamacare screwup
iris lily
10-26-13, 11:46am
No subsidies for you, 36 states!
Now there's another problem issue buried in the insane legislation that is the ACA: people who reside in the 36 states that opted out of the federal exchange are not supposed to get a subsidy. I'll bet this comes as a surprise to Obama voting citizens in those 36 states. It surely came as a surprise to me. That's how the law was written.
The IRS is scurrying around making regulations to address this, but since when does regulatory activity take precedent over law? Would that be now in the Kingdom of Obama? I guess that if His Royal Highness doesn't get want he wants via law or the courts upholding of such, he can rule by regulation.
From where I sit the White House strategy now seems to be: regulate away any unpleasantness and keep Justice John Roberts in your pocket if the issue ends up in front of the Supremes.
What a cluster __!__ this is, and tyranny it may be.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-glitch-20131025,0,5402697.story#axzz2iqH2qRD4
Well, then Speaker of the House Pelosi did cheerfully advise us that we had to pass the law before we could see what's in it.
The ACA may be the largest, most complicated, purely partisan legislation ever forced upon this country. It's no surprise to me that it is filled with screw-ups and un-intended consequences, and, it should be no surprise to anyone at this point that the current governing posture is to accomplish partisan goals through regulation rather than competent legislation.
This is yet another craven tactic by self-centered right-wingers to try to obstruct the intention of the law that was passed, by quibbling about the regulations set forth the accomplish the stated intention of that law. Agencies passing regulations to accomplish what laws charge them to do is not just a common approach, it is the singular approach used by our government for practically everything.
They've tried 40+ times now, with different approaches, to do whatever they could to stand in the way of this law being executed, demonstrating a level of egoism unprecedented in American History. Even members of their own party have declared such efforts as irresponsible. It's time to move on to other business of the nation and let this law have its impact.
I wonder if we could start picking through SS and Medicare line by line and and derail those as well?
This is yet another craven tactic by self-centered right-wingers to try to obstruct the intention of the law that was passed, by quibbling about the regulations set forth the accomplish the stated intention of that law. Agencies passing regulations to accomplish what laws charge them to do is not just a common approach, it is the singular approach used by our government for practically everything.
So, is the letter of the law really just a suggestion? More and more, I'd say the current view of our betters is yes.
The idea that this is a "craven tactic by self-centered right-wingers to try to obstruct the intention of the law" conveniently overlooks the fact that the "intention" was plainly stated multiple times within the law. Is it proper to interpret otherwise?
I think it is ridiculous to claim that the law's not saying specifically that it includes the federal exchange means that it excludes the federal exchange.
By that "logic", our state exchange here doesn't qualify - after all, the state contracted the work out to a commercial contractor.
Incredible. Utterly incredible.
I think it is ridiculous to claim that the law's not saying specifically that it includes the federal exchange means that it excludes the federal exchange.
It's not that the law doesn't specifically say that federal exchanges are included, it's that it specifically says that in order to receive a subsidy you must be signed up through a state exchange. To me, it seems ridiculous to conclude that's not the intention of the law. I suppose some may feel comfortable with the concept of ignoring plainly written elements of duly enacted laws, although I believe that the capricious nature of individual interpretation is a poor basis for governance.
By that "logic", our state exchange here doesn't qualify - after all, the state contracted the work out to a commercial contractor.
Sorry, but I don't see the "logic" of that supposition.
The way I understand it, the states have the option the make Medicaid coverage available to low incomes with the federal government picking up the cost for the first three years. The states basically have three choices, to let the feds pick up the bill, to ignore things completely, or to come up with their own plan which would allow them to have control over what is being done without being under the thumb of the federal plan. Only Pennsylvania has been working on the third plan. Those opting out of fed coverage appear to have done so as a protest against Obamacare, possibly at the expense of their citizens. I see it as a fault in the plan's design compounded by the states making a political point over the welfare of their citizens. Another hose up by both sides.
iris lily
10-26-13, 8:29pm
The way I understand it, the states have the option the make Medicaid coverage available to low incomes with the federal government picking up the cost for the first three years. The states basically have three choices, to let the feds pick up the bill, to ignore things completely, or to come up with their own plan which would allow them to have control over what is being done without being under the thumb of the federal plan. Only Pennsylvania has been working on the third plan. Those opting out of fed coverage appear to have done so as a protest against Obamacare, possibly at the expense of their citizens. I see it as a fault in the plan's design compounded by the states making a political point over the welfare of their citizens. Another hose up by both sides.
And I see it as at least my state tax dollars aren't spent on the mandated thing. If we must have an exchange available to citizens in the state as declared by Federal law, why not piggy back on the thing* created by the Feds? Why duplicate that effort and then my state as well as Federal tax dollars create it?
* of course The Thing is completely unworkable, the website still useless, but in theory, this is my thinking. And it's hardly the fault of my state government that The Thing does not work.
iris lily
10-26-13, 8:32pm
I wonder if we could start picking through SS and Medicare line by line and and derail those as well?
hey, good idea! 'Course those laws were written back in the day when we didn't pass legislation to find out what was in it and those laws were, I suspect, better legal documents. And then, they've been tested over time and bugs worked out.
But ok, I'm game for reviewing the SS and Medicare enabling legislation. When do we start?
Single payer.
Too easy :-(
It's not that the law doesn't specifically say that federal exchanges are included, it's that it specifically says that in order to receive a subsidy you must be signed up through a state exchange.The state exchanges for 36 states can be found at healthcare.gov.
To me, it seems ridiculous to conclude that's not the intention of the law.That is not a logical conclusion of the intent of the subsidies within the context of the law.
Sorry, but I don't see the "logic" of that supposition.Why am I not surprised that you don't see it?
Single payer.I think that some folks are so intent on making sure that there is little relief provided for those less fortunate in our society that anything that would have such a non-obstruct-able impact on the situation wouldn't stand a chance.
I think that some folks are so intent on making sure that there is little relief provided for those less fortunate in our society that anything that would have such a non-obstruct-able impact on the situation wouldn't stand a chance.
I hear and read statements like this all the time and am always saddened to see just how little communication really goes on in real life conversations and online discussions. If you're stuck in the mindset that the only opposition to your desires is the result of someone wanting to hurt someone else, you're not listening.
Many people are concerned about undue intrusion into their personal lives and the dangers of an overly intrusive government. They're also concerned about adhering to the rule of law rather than partisan interpretation through regulation, otherwise we're all subject to the potential tyranny of the majority. That doesn't make anyone mean spirited.
ApatheticNoMore
10-27-13, 12:16pm
I hear and read statements like this all the time and am always saddened to see just how little communication really goes on in real life conversations and online discussions. If you're stuck in the mindset that the only opposition to your desires is the result of someone wanting to hurt someone else, you're not listening.
opposition at perhaps the only level that matters (money and campaign donations) is about vested interests protecting their profits (economic rent). It's why the Democrats took single payer off the table (and yes they did). But can any good healthcare system, single payer or not, be implemented while this is the case? I'm doubtful. We shall see :)
Many people are concerned about undue intrusion into their personal lives and the dangers of an overly intrusive government.The implication that people don't hear or understand such claims is without merit. The expectation that such a claim automatically rationalizes what you advocate for is unreasonable.
They're also concerned about adhering to the rule of law rather than partisan interpretation through regulation, otherwise we're all subject to the potential tyranny of the majority.The term "tyranny of the majority" has rightfully been applied with regard to matters of oppression, not taxation. It is only in the last generation that right-wing perspective has corrupted the concept of oppression to mean more than the right to conduct one's self, in the context of one's body, one's family and one's worship, in accordance with one's own beliefs and values, i.e., corrupted the concept of oppression by considering one's money as if it part of one's self (and even then, considering not only one's money, but even that portion of wages that is rightfully taxation, the cost of living in society, in that corrupted manner). It is a patently avaricious perspective, and that vice is the foundation of the criticism.
The term "tyranny of the majority" has rightfully been applied with regard to matters of oppression, not taxation.
I suppose that is a matter of perspective. The phrase "tyranny of the majority", used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. To say that it doesn't come into play in every aspect of governance is to ignore the obvious.
... the right to conduct one's self, in the context of one's body,... in accordance with one's own beliefs and values,
This site was founded partly on the thoughts brought forth in Vicki Robin and Joe Dominguez's fine book "Your Money Or Your Life."
"Money" represents my life energy. I have to expend time and effort to get money, I have to expend time and effort to replace money I've traded away to other people.
When you take my money against my will, you are in truth taking my irreplaceable life's energy. It is very little different morally to take an hour of a man's wages against his will, or to simply force him to work for an hour against his will, enslaving him temporarily to accomplish your ends.
corrupted the concept of oppression by considering one's money as if it part of one's self
I suppose that is a matter of perspective. Or rather an effort to change the meaning and significance of a concept.
This site was founded partly on the thoughts brought forth in Vicki Robin and Joe Dominguez's fine book "Your Money Or Your Life." "Money" represents my life energy. I haven't read it, but there is no reason to believe that books written since the early 1970s would be unaffected by the changing of priorities I alluded to. Regardless, it will be interesting to see what it says about abrogating one's obligations to society and how it otherwise extols the virtues of a (literally) antisocial outlook.
I have to expend time and effort to get money, I have to expend time and effort to replace money I've traded away to other people. When you take my money against my will, you are in truth taking my irreplaceable life's energy.The reality, though, is that taxation comes before the money is actually yours. When you're offered a salary it is offered with the understanding that a portion of that money is tax. "Your" money is your net income, not the gross.
Or rather an effort to change the meaning and significance of a concept.
So, can I assume that you believe in the collectivist view that money is not property? Otherwise, the economic concept of private property refers to the rights owners have to the exclusive use and disposal of a physical object. Property is not a table, a chair, or an acre of land. It is the bundle of rights which the owner is entitled to employ those objects. The alternative (collectivist) view is that private property consists merely of a legal deed to an object with the use and disposal of the object subject to the whims and mercies of the state. Under this latter view, the state retains ownership and may at any time regulate or even repossess the property it temporarily cedes to individuals.
The Founding Fathers upheld the economic view of property. They believed that private property ownership, as defined under common law, pre-existed government. The state and federal governments were the mere contractual agents of the people, not sovereign lords over them. All rights, not specifically delegated to the government, remained with the people–including the common-law provisions of private property. Consequently, the constitutional rights regarding free speech, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, and private property rights are all claims that individuals may hold and exercise against the government itself. In brief, private property refers to the rights of owners to use their possessions which are enforceable against all nonowners–even the government.
Sophistry, bUU.Evasion, bae.
So, can I assume that you believe in the collectivist view that money is not property?Not at all. You need to read more carefully:
The reality, though, is that taxation comes before the money is actually yours. When you're offered a salary it is offered with the understanding that a portion of that money is tax. "Your" money is your net income, not the gross.You are claiming something is your property but which isn't.
And nothing anyone says is going to get you to admit otherwise, no doubt, so it makes little point in trying to get you to change your perspective. What's important is that you come to respect the fact that many people disagree with you, and indeed perhaps more people than agree with you (which would explain why your way isn't the way things are). Since the matter at hand is whether or not what we're talking about is part of one's self or rather a token of participation in society's economy, it will matter if indeed more people disagree with you than agree with you, even if that isn't unsatisfactory from your perspective.
You are claiming something is your property but which isn't.
Under a progressive taxation scheme, that is clearly not true. Perhaps under a flat tax, everyone in, scheme I could agree, but only if I ignored the reality that having an obligation to pay something doesn't diminish my ownership of the currency being transferred to fulfill the obligation.
And nothing anyone says is going to get you to admit otherwise, no doubt, so it makes little point in trying to get you to change your perspective.
Oh you could certainly try, I'm always open to any reasonable argument.
Sophistry, bUU.
Not really - doesn't everyone employed complete a W-4 form allowing an employer to deduct taxes from their wages? As far as I know no is forced to fill it out or sign it - although it's unlikely your employer will allow you to work if you refuse.
flowerseverywhere
10-27-13, 10:28pm
Iris, is this really a new screw up or just now being reported? If you read about why Jan Brewer decided to have Arizona participate in the Medicaid expansion it was all about getting the most in subsidies for her citizens. Seemed she realized in January her own impoverished citizens would be worse off than legal immigrants.
flowerseverywhere
10-28-13, 8:38am
Iris, I wanted to add this morning that the more I read about this health care law I have to admit you we're right about many of your reservations. I am increasingly concerned about the in sustainability of our welfare state, and the expansion of our government. You are one of the few people, though, who are willing to say that you welcome scrutiny of medicare and social security, even if it may lower your benefits. People love to argue about shrinking government as long as their benefits of having a big government are not cut.
iris lilies
10-28-13, 10:30am
Iris, I wanted to add this morning that the more I read about this health care law I have to admit you we're right about many of your reservations. I am increasingly concerned about the in sustainability of our welfare state, and the expansion of our government. You are one of the few people, though, who are willing to say that you welcome scrutiny of medicare and social security, even if it may lower your benefits. People love to argue about shrinking government as long as their benefits of having a big government are not cut.
Well to be honest I don't receive SS or Medicare, but I am in countdown mode now. And my favorite low hanging fruit, means testing for SS, was just debunked recently (was it here?) as being any real solution to SS. :(
Well to be honest I don't receive SS or Medicare, but I am in countdown mode now. And my favorite low hanging fruit, means testing for SS, was just debunked recently (was it here?) as being any real solution to SS. :(
Unless you are going to consider SS to be some sort of public pension, means testing is not a bad option. Or medicare for that matter.
Not really - doesn't everyone employed complete a W-4 form allowing an employer to deduct taxes from their wages? As far as I know no is forced to fill it out or sign it - although it's unlikely your employer will allow you to work if you refuse.
So that makes it...coercion?
You are claiming something is your property but which isn't.
Interesting concept. Curious if we can agree that an individual's time/life energy belongs to them? If not then I guess the disconnect is obvious enough. If so, at what point does a portion of that become the property of the collective? I have no problem with contributing my 'fair' (pesky word) share or a share proportional to my derived benefit, but I'm not comfortable with the notion that a government effectively owns a portion of my life's production as a matter of course.
ApatheticNoMore
10-29-13, 11:38pm
Interesting concept. Curious if we can agree that an individual's time/life energy belongs to them?
of course, it's why we're going to abolish work after all! :)
I may work for my paycheck, more or less :), but I consider what I earn, the hourly rate to be the result of many factors. My time as such is not necessarily more valuable in any but a marketplace sense than someone earning less. It is to me of course, but so is their time to them. So ... 4 hour days ..
So that makes it...coercion?
One could argue that - one could argue that being forced to follow traffic laws, get licensed, maintain your vehicle to a certain standard to be able to drive is coercion - or being forced to pay dues and follow a dress code to belong to a country club.
No subsidies for you, 36 states!
Now there's another problem issue buried in the insane legislation that is the ACA: people who reside in the 36 states that opted out of the federal exchange are not supposed to get a subsidy. I'll bet this comes as a surprise to Obama voting citizens in those 36 states. It surely came as a surprise to me. That's how the law was written.
The IRS is scurrying around making regulations to address this, but since when does regulatory activity take precedent over law? Would that be now in the Kingdom of Obama? I guess that if His Royal Highness doesn't get want he wants via law or the courts upholding of such, he can rule by regulation.
From where I sit the White House strategy now seems to be: regulate away any unpleasantness and keep Justice John Roberts in your pocket if the issue ends up in front of the Supremes.
What a cluster __!__ this is, and tyranny it may be.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-glitch-20131025,0,5402697.story#axzz2iqH2qRD4
Not an Obamacare screw up. Completely, totally, and 100% the fault of our petulant republican state legislature. IN those states where they have set up exchanges, things are progressing smoothly. This 'screw up' is the result of your (and mine) republican legislature that refuses to do anything at all to help get this LAW implemented simply because they hate Obama so much, they would rather screw their own people than allow this LAW to implement smoothly and as it is intended to go.
Let me repeat that. Our legislature, which is REPUBLICAN, is willing to sacrifice YOU for political reasons. YOU are the pawn in this nasty REPUBLICAN hissy fit. Make no mistake about it. It is REPUBLICANS who don't want YOU to get health care that is affordable, accessible, and available to all. Obama has nothing to do with it.
And your state taxes have nothing to do with it either. If these morally bankrupt states were to expand medicare, the feds would pick up the tab 100% for THREE years. Then 90% of the tab thereafter. So you see, these REPUBLICAN legislatures really have NO excuse to not do this other than their hate for Obama exceeds their responsibility to, or concern for their own citizens. I know we differ on politics, but let's be honest enough to put the blame where the blame belongs.
When Bush put in place his drug program, democrats didn't like it, but they at least tried to help their own people to work with it and get it going. The only tyranny here is the one perpetrated by the REPUBLICANS on their own people!
It's rather disingenuous for REPUBLICANS to do absolutely everything in their power to make this as painful and convoluted as they can, and then complain that it isn't working!
And I keep reading how some people are blaming Obama for what is obviously republican obstructionism. Unbelieveable! But then, those are the same people who blamed Obama for the recent government shutdown, cause, of course, he could have simply paid their ransom...so it was his fault!:~)
I'm reminded of that scene from 'O Brother Where Art Thou' where John Goodman breaks off a limb and starts whacking the guy up side the head. While they are fighting, George Clooney just sits there with chicken in his mouth and a confused look on his face saying something like, "Uh I don't understand..." before Goodman whacks him on the head.
Republicans 'leaders' are Goodman and their constituents are George Clooney. They don't get up and run, they don't fight back, or rightfully see Goodman as the enemy. They just take it in the head...over and over again, never seeing or believing what is happening, or who is doing the whacking.
Won't set up exchanges....Whack!
Disenfranchise collective bargaining....Whack!
Against living wage, social safety, unemployment benefits...Whack Whack Whack!
Ridiculous voter ID laws...Whack!
Complete regulation of women's bodies....Whack!
More guns!...whack! (the only one who can stop a bad 12 year old with a gun is a good 12 year old with a gun!)
What I don't understand - getting back to the OP - is how obamacare didn't provide a safety net for those low income people in non-medicaid expanded/non-exchange states to provide them affordable insurance. How was that left out? What is the plan for them - often the ones who need affordable healthcare the most.
What I don't understand - getting back to the OP - is how obamacare didn't provide a safety net for those low income people in non-medicaid expanded/non-exchange states to provide them affordable insurance. How was that left out? What is the plan for them - often the ones who need affordable healthcare the most.
It did - the Supreme Court overturned that part of the law, which in turn allowed the states to decide whether they would provide that safety net or not.
goldensmom
10-31-13, 12:34pm
.......Our legislature, which is REPUBLICAN, is willing to sacrifice YOU for political reasons. YOU are the pawn in this nasty REPUBLICAN hissy fit. Make no mistake about it. It is REPUBLICANS who don't want YOU to get health care that is affordable, accessible, and available to all.
The Republican lead state legislature in the state in which I reside voted to expand Medicaid and participate in the exchange. Hmmmmmm....
It did - the Supreme Court overturned that part of the law, which in turn allowed the states to decide whether they would provide that safety net or not. But isn't there some way for individuals in those states who are low income to buy health insurance elsewhere (another state? thru the feds? or...?)? Wasn't there a "Plan B"? Seems that if the Feds can offer Medicare and partially funded medicaid for citizens irregradless of their state, they could find a way to do that for Obamacare for those who have no other options to buy affordable healthcare due to low income and assets (and I still think Obamacare DOES need to consider assets and not just income for subsidies and medicaid).
Well, I'm confused too. Even in the states that did not opt for medicaid expansion, isn't there still a sliding scale where lower incomes qualify for subsidies or tax credits which would help with insurance costs? I sort of thought that was the principal behind things, to make health care insurance affordable. Not to increase costs. The medicaid gap would have provided additional help for those below 138% of the poverty for those who would have difficulty affording insurance even with the sliding scale subsidies. Where as you would still be eligible for subsidies if you make less than 400% of the poverty level.
But isn't there some way for individuals in those states who are low income to buy health insurance elsewhere (another state? thru the feds? or...?)? Wasn't there a "Plan B"? Seems that if the Feds can offer Medicare and partially funded medicaid for citizens irregradless of their state, they could find a way to do that for Obamacare for those who have no other options to buy affordable healthcare due to low income and assets (and I still think Obamacare DOES need to consider assets and not just income for subsidies and medicaid).
Medicaid is run by the states - maybe I'm wrong but I thought you could only get medicaid through a state. And I think that was the primary reason the medicaid mandate portion of Obamacare was struck down. It definitely shot a hole in the intent of the law. And one that could not get fixed in the legislature for obvious reasons.
of course, it's why we're going to abolish work after all! :)
I may work for my paycheck, more or less :), but I consider what I earn, the hourly rate to be the result of many factors. My time as such is not necessarily more valuable in any but a marketplace sense than someone earning less. It is to me of course, but so is their time to them. So ... 4 hour days ..
In the end it's kind of a shame that any of us has to work, aye? Still, those toilets would get pretty gross if someone didn't...
When you get right down to it the whole concept of one person's skill set being more valuable than another's is pretty arbitrary. At least until you need a liver transplant or a bomb defused. Supply and demand I guess.
Completely, totally, and 100% the fault of our petulant republican...
(Fill in scapegoat/strawman there.) I really don't think its as simple as partisan politics anymore, peggy. Is one side willing to blow off their big toe to end it and is the other side willing to sling 40 million people into insurance no-man's-land until the bugs can be worked out? Absolutely! Secretary Sebelius has demonstrated idiocy beyond comprehension. John Boehner is quite possibly even more ridiculous with his please all the right wing all the time attempts. Nancy Pelosi just wants to pass the damn things so we can see what's in them. That's just a few examples of the kind of leadership we, all of we, elected. And then there's our President who seemingly spends most of his time trying to figure out who will get flipped under the bus (or the elephant's ass) next. I'm ready to order my "Recall Them All" t-shirt. If they don't make one I will fill that void. America. What a country!
In the end it's kind of a shame that any of us has to work, aye? Still, those toilets would get pretty gross if someone didn't...
Oddly, at our fire station the toilets get cleaned, and the floors mopped, and the dishes done, and equipment repaired, and protective clothing mended, and so on.... And we're an almost entirely volunteer outfit.
Wonder how that happens?
Under a progressive taxation scheme, that is clearly not true.You must be using the word "true" in a manner inconsistent with standard definitions. You're crafting definitions to suit your political preference. Luckily, your political preference doesn't resemble anything close to how things work in this country.
Oh you could certainly try, I'm always open to any reasonable argument.Sorry, Alan, but I don't believe that. Let's not get further into it. I don't believe you're going to consider any argument, including the one that best reflects the reality we live in, as "reasonable". You've made clear time and time again that the only arguments you consider reasonable are the ones you like. Period. So let's not belabor the point, since that would just be an exercise in futility.
Interesting concept. Curious if we can agree that an individual's time/life energy belongs to them? If not then I guess the disconnect is obvious enough. If so, at what point does a portion of that become the property of the collective? I have no problem with contributing my 'fair' (pesky word) share or a share proportional to my derived benefit, but I'm not comfortable with the notion that a government effectively owns a portion of my life's production as a matter of course.The problem is that you and Alan are insisting that the actual salary you're quoted when you take a job is 100% an integral part of the life energy that you'd expend in that job. That's a gross fabrication - not even remotely resembling a "reasonable argument" (to use Alan's words). Money never - NEVER - is part of you. Money is a medium of exchange that society offers under specific terms and conditions, including taxation. So when you are offered money for some work, you are implicitly offered that percentage of the amount quoted that is net after taxes. Period. No equivocations. No creative dodges or evasion. The money isn't you. The portion of the money that goes toward taxes was never yours. Ever. Denying that your income is subject to taxation, defined by society's processes, is explicitly contrary to the reality.
One could argue that - one could argue that being forced to follow traffic laws, get licensed, maintain your vehicle to a certain standard to be able to drive is coercion - or being forced to pay dues and follow a dress code to belong to a country club.Precisely. Maturity includes acknowledging that the world isn't just "all about you" and that just because you want something to fit your own specifications doesn't mean it should. We live in society with others, and that society has standards and procedures for determining the parameters of participation therein. There are quite remarkable protections for civil rights - i.e., the conduct of your life within your own skin, within your own home and family, and within your own worship - but when you go out and around among others in society - i.e., engage other in work either as an employee or employer, buy or sell things from other people, etc. - you are subject to expectations which are reasonable even though you petulantly decide to call them otherwise.
What I don't understand - getting back to the OP - is how obamacare didn't provide a safety net for those low income people in non-medicaid expanded/non-exchange states to provide them affordable insurance. How was that left out? What is the plan for them - often the ones who need affordable healthcare the most.If the crafters of ACA had their druthers, they would have just passed universal healthcare and that would have been it. However, they recognized that they live in society with others, and therefore only a compromise proposal (ACA) could have made it through Congress. A more comprehensive reform would have been opposed by blue dogs and would have been filibustered by right-wing nut-jobs in the Senate.
In the end it's kind of a shame that any of us has to work, aye? Still, those toilets would get pretty gross if someone didn't...Such nonsensical comments are utterly childish, as far as I'm concerned. You're essentially just talking into a vacuous echo chamber, presumably because you are unwilling to admit that any perspectives other than the ones you support are reasonable.
Sorry, Alan, but I don't believe that. Let's not get further into it. I don't believe you're going to consider any argument, including the one that best reflects the reality we live in, as "reasonable". You've made clear time and time again that the only arguments you consider reasonable are the ones you like. Period. So let's not belabor the point, since that would just be an exercise in futility.
........
Such nonsensical comments are utterly childish, as far as I'm concerned. You're essentially just talking into a vacuous echo chamber, presumably because you are unwilling to admit that any perspectives other than the ones you support are reasonable.
Thanks for that, I truly enjoy a heaping helping of irony with my morning coffee, although I might need a bigger spoon. :D
Thanks for proving my point.
LOL, I'm not sure what your point was, other than that anyone with differing viewpoints are not reasonable. Every discussion doesn't need to be an argument, lighten up, have a little fun and smile. :cool:
The problem is that you and Alan are insisting that the actual salary you're quoted when you take a job is 100% an integral part of the life energy that you'd expend in that job. That's a gross fabrication - not even remotely resembling a "reasonable argument" (to use Alan's words). Money never - NEVER - is part of you. Money is a medium of exchange that society offers under specific terms and conditions, including taxation. So when you are offered money for some work, you are implicitly offered that percentage of the amount quoted that is net after taxes. Period. No equivocations. No creative dodges or evasion. The money isn't you. The portion of the money that goes toward taxes was never yours. Ever. Denying that your income is subject to taxation, defined by society's processes, is explicitly contrary to the reality.
And if my income is in the form of something other than money how will your benevolent overlords exact their pound of flesh?
Such nonsensical comments are utterly childish, as far as I'm concerned. You're essentially just talking into a vacuous echo chamber, presumably because you are unwilling to admit that any perspectives other than the ones you support are reasonable.
What Alan said. Sometimes nonsensical comments can be made with nothing more than nonsense in mind. Give it a shot sometime. Who knows, you would probably be good at it.
Oddly, at our fire station the toilets get cleaned, and the floors mopped, and the dishes done, and equipment repaired, and protective clothing mended, and so on.... And we're an almost entirely volunteer outfit.
Wonder how that happens?
Lots of strange goings on in those deep woods up there bae. If the government doesn't do it for you it surely must have something to do with Sasquatch or pixies.
Lots of strange goings on in those deep woods up there bae. If the government doesn't do it for you it surely must have something to do with Sasquatch or pixies.
It brings up, I think, an interesting question - if there wasn't a volunteer fire station, would you have to go without? Or would government have to step in and fill the role?
Heaven forbid! Clearly the trappings of civilization and a humane society are anathema to the likes of Gregg and Alan.
iris lilies
11-1-13, 11:01am
Heaven forbid! Clearly the trappings of civilization and a humane society are anathema to the likes of Gregg and Alan.
http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4935846274468072&pid=15.1
Heaven forbid! Clearly the trappings of civilization and a humane society are anathema to the likes of Gregg and Alan.Clearly!!
You know that character Gru in the movie Despicable Me? He was totallly based on me! Well, until he started getting nice near the end, that was Gregg.
Medicaid is run by the states - maybe I'm wrong but I thought you could only get medicaid through a state. And I think that was the primary reason the medicaid mandate portion of Obamacare was struck down. It definitely shot a hole in the intent of the law. And one that could not get fixed in the legislature for obvious reasons. I think that's true but as Peggy pointed out somewhere above, the Feds said they will pay 100% of the states medicaid coverage for 3 years of Obamacare and 90% for the years after. So I'm thinking that if the Feds are willing to foot the bill, then there must be some way that the people in the states without exchanges or expanded medicaid can apply directly to the feds for coverage. But then I guess doctors and hospitals in those states wouldn't accept that coverage so may not work. Maybe there can be some way to use doctors and hospitals can accept those patients via some tweaking (or twerking :-)!) of the same rules that allow them to accept federally funded medicare patients directly.
Personally I don't think the feds should have the right to tell the states what to do with their own medicaid programs or tell private insurers who they must cover and what they must charge UNLESS those programs are receiving funding from the Feds. But I do think they should find a way to offer the citizens of a state the same benefits that other US citizens can receive - especially as those state citizens are paying federal taxes.
Clearly!!
You know that character Gru in the movie Despicable Me? He was totallly based on me! Well, until he started getting nice near the end, that was Gregg.
Awww shucks Alan, my heart is still three sizes too small.
I think that's true but as Peggy pointed out somewhere above, the Feds said they will pay 100% of the states medicaid coverage for 3 years of Obamacare and 90% for the years after. So I'm thinking that if the Feds are willing to foot the bill, then there must be some way that the people in the states without exchanges or expanded medicaid can apply directly to the feds for coverage.There isn't such a means. The state government is the means by which Medicaid benefits are administered; there is no federal infrastructure for administration of a healthcare system for the indigent as there is one for the elderly and disabled (Medicare). This points out why folks need to work to get their state government to take the incremental amount of responsibility for those most vulnerable in their state.
It would have been nice if ACA simply accomplished affordability for those earning < 133% FPL through a direct expansion of Medicare, but it is quite clear that that would have been opposed by the blue dogs and would have probably led to a filibuster of ACA in the Senate.
There isn't such a means. The state government is the means by which Medicaid benefits are administered; there is no federal infrastructure for administration of a healthcare system for the indigent as there is one for the elderly and disabled (Medicare). This points out why folks need to work to get their state government to take the incremental amount of responsibility for those most vulnerable in their state.
It would have been nice if ACA simply accomplished affordability for those earning < 133% FPL through a direct expansion of Medicare, but it is quite clear that that would have been opposed by the blue dogs and would have probably led to a filibuster of ACA in the Senate.
Yes I understand that currently there isn't a way for low income people in those states to receive medicaid or even completely subsidized health insurance from a private insurer but it seems that there should be a way to do that - and the makers of the ACA should have provided a way to do that. Seems an easy enough thing to do.
Yes I understand that currently there isn't a way for low income people in those states to receive medicaid or even completely subsidized health insurance from a private insurer but it seems that there should be a way to do that - and the makers of the ACA should have provided a way to do that. Seems an easy enough thing to do.
Well, the biggest mistake the makers of the ACA made was in assuming every state would want to look out for their people. Clearly that's not true. All but one of those states is republican ruled. Apparently their disdain for President Obama outweighs their concern and responsibility to their citizens.
Actually, this points out the need for people to get totally involved in state and local elections. Forget the Presidency..the republicans have. They know the real power is in congress and state legislatures. Unfortunately the majority of people don't realize that (even as their state legislatures install draconian voting laws, strict legislation on women's bodies, etc..) And only turn out for the presidential elections. The President can't force states to care for their own. The people must elect those who do, and toss those who boldly brag about their indifference to them.
gimmethesimplelife
11-4-13, 7:06pm
Well, the biggest mistake the makers of the ACA made was in assuming every state would want to look out for their people. Clearly that's not true. All but one of those states is republican ruled. Apparently their disdain for President Obama outweighs their concern and responsibility to their citizens.
Actually, this points out the need for people to get totally involved in state and local elections. Forget the Presidency..the republicans have. They know the real power is in congress and state legislatures. Unfortunately the majority of people don't realize that (even as their state legislatures install draconian voting laws, strict legislation on women's bodies, etc..) And only turn out for the presidential elections. The President can't force states to care for their own. The people must elect those who do, and toss those who boldly brag about their indifference to them.I have a good friend who has been working the seasonal resort circuit with me for a few years and he's wanting to stay somewhere for awhile now. We had a talk much like your post here, Peggy. I basically told him to comparison shop states and go with the one that's the best fit for him - in this case, we're talking of someone who refuses to live in a state that has not expanded Medicaid, even though he won't qualify for it. I mentioned Oregon - I've lived in Portland for five and half years in the 90's and I knew it would be a good fit for him. But my point is, not all states are the same - some take better care of their people and some seemingly could care less - Louisiana sticks out in my mind as the latter as an example. It's like there's a choice - if you care and are willing to pony up some taxes, there are states you would be a better fit in. If you are all about survival and every person for themselves, there are states where you will save on taxes and assume more risk - for some, this is going to appeal more.
I live in a state that is somewhere in the middle of these two poles and it is endlessly interesting to me to see Arizona grow increasingly more humane over time. Rob
..... Louisiana sticks out in my mind as the latter as an example. It's like there's a choice - if you care and are willing to pony up some taxes, there are states you would be a better fit in. If you are all about survival and every person for themselves, there are states where you will save on taxes and assume more risk - for some, this is going to appeal more.
I live in a state that is somewhere in the middle of these two poles and it is endlessly interesting to me to see Arizona grow increasingly more humane over time. RobIt's interesting to me to see the words various people use to describe something. Humane would not be my first choice to describe a group or entity which grants itself benefits on the backs of others, including future generations. I could appreciate it as an antonym, but that's not quite right either.
gimmethesimplelife
11-4-13, 7:54pm
It's interesting to me to see the words various people use to describe something. Humane would not be my first choice to describe a group or entity which grants itself benefits on the backs of others, including future generations. I could appreciate it as an antonym, but that's not quite right either.Well, Alan, I guess on this one I'm just going to agree to disagree then.....Rob
PS I just thought of something....you are in Ohio, right? John Kasich is your governor, I believe? I actually have a great deal of respect for him for his stance of compassionate conservatism and his expanding Medicaid as per ObamaCare in Ohio. Very curious to ask you, though - what is your take on Kasich, given that he is a conservative and went ahead with Medicaid expansion?
Yes I understand that currently there isn't a way for low income people in those states to receive medicaid or even completely subsidized health insurance from a private insurer but it seems that there should be a way to do that - and the makers of the ACA should have provided a way to do that. Seems an easy enough thing to do.That's not true. Every part of healthcare reform is difficult because of the general opposition to any change in the status quo since many people benefit from the status quo, and because of the half-general opposition to social conscience by those who place their own comfort and luxury over the basic needs of others.
That's not true. Every part of healthcare reform is difficult because of the general opposition to any change in the status quo since many people benefit from the status quo, and because of the half-general opposition to social conscience by those who place their own comfort and luxury over the basic needs of others.
Well I meant that technically it shouldn't be a hard thing to do not socially or politically. Basicly the feds say everyone must buy insurance so they need to find a way to by pass those states who resist changing their policies and give their citizens the same availability and access to healthcare subsidies as everyone else. If that means those citizens have to buy their own insurance outside the exchanges and then send the bill directly to DC to get their subsidies, then they need to find a way to do that if the feds want health insurance to be a legally mandatory thing..
If that means those citizens have to buy their own insurance outside the exchanges and then send the bill directly to DC to get their subsidies, then they need to find a way to do that if the feds want health insurance to be a legally mandatory thing..Such a provision in the ACA would have guaranteed its defeat in Congress.
I suspect that many of the ideas you have for making what you feel should be an "easy enough thing to do" happen will still fall into the quagmire of requiring political momentum. You may find it impossible to come up with any means that would be "easy enough thing to do". As I mentioned above, every part of healthcare reform is difficult because of the general opposition to any change in the status quo. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.
Such a provision in the ACA would have guaranteed its defeat in Congress.
I suspect that many of the ideas you have for making what you feel should be an "easy enough thing to do" happen will still fall into the quagmire of requiring political momentum. You may find it impossible to come up with any means that would be "easy enough thing to do". As I mentioned above, every part of healthcare reform is difficult because of the general opposition to any change in the status quo. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.
Single payer (as in expanding Medicare to everyone and then let anyone buy whatever add-ons they wanted) I still think would have been the best solution, but it would never pass.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.