• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Everyone wants health care to cost less but no one wants doctors, nurses, etc. to earn less. While insurance profits, costs attributable to excess malpractice law suits, and administrative costs are high, they don't make up the reason why health care in the US costs so much more than elsewhere.

There are no easy solutions.
 
Gotta Speakup said:
Everyone wants health care to cost less but no one wants doctors, nurses, etc. to earn less. While insurance profits, costs attributable to excess malpractice law suits, and administrative costs are high, they don't make up the reason why health care in the US costs so much more than elsewhere.

There are no easy solutions.
Click to expand...

What I would like to see is the actual factors that affect the cost of medicine be defined and then we can go from there. Hospitals (until the recent Time piece) wouldn't even admit they had a system for determining how much something cost. It isn't the people who save lives that should be punished. It is those who manage the money making beast.

Two things would tremendously reduce the costs on day one:

1. Protect physicians who make tough decisions by completely changing malpractice tort claims. This would reduce defensive medicine, and would cut the number of procedures or labs ordered dramatically. I don't believe the studies that show it would only reduce the costs by 2%. That just isn't realistic. Knowing how physicians practice in the real world, it would be MUCH more than 2%.

2. Make the non-profit hospitals clearly define the cost of procedures and what each cost entails. (I.e. Back surgery - $15,000 physicians (surgeon, gas) $2,000 nurses. $2,000 scalpels, gauze, other materials. $1,000 medicines. $30,000 administrative costs.) That way someone can choose the hospital they go to. The hospitals with excessive administrative fees would lose business. That tied with more strict regulations on the non-profit status of hospitals and the CEO compensation would greatly reduce the cost of healthcare.

Start with those too things. Then if costs don't come down dramatically in year 1, start cutting pay if that is the only way to reduce costs. Personally, I think if cut physician pay you are only going to create an even greater gap between the number of doctors needed and those existing. Burnout is at an all time high, schools costs are at an all time high, pay is stagnating, and respect is at an all time low. We now have gaps that are being filled by foreign trained physicians because our US medical schools aren't getting enough qualified people to attend. Why is that? High costs, and low return over time.

Just something to think about.
 
michaelskis said:
All of those would roll perfectly into an Health Savings Account system.
.
Click to expand...

This idea is so wrong on so many different levels. First it implies that people understand the system and are able to make rational decisions. Second, it's ripe for abuse from the financial types. Third it implies you know what going to happen to you and how much it's going to cost when it happens. It doesn't cover all the people. Just a select few who think they know what they are doing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whose Yur Planner said:
This idea is so wrong on so many different levels. First it implies that people understand the system and are able to make rational decisions.
Click to expand...
As someone who has used an HSA for several years, it is not that complicated. I believe it is easier to use than Obamacare will be.

Whose Yur Planner said:
Second, it's ripe for abuse from the financial types.
Click to expand...
HSA's are nothing new and health insurance and the medical industry is abused all the time.

Whose Yur Planner said:
Third it implies you know what going to happen to you and how much it's going to cost when it happens. It doesn't cover all the people. Just a select few who think they know what they are doing.
Click to expand...
You don't understand HSA's do you. It is real insurance with different levels including catastrophic coverage which in some cases will cover 100% of your bill if you are admitted into the hospital. The big benefits are there is more flexibility, the money remains in an a private account. Here is a link that might explain them a bit more.
 
michaelskis said:
As someone who has used an HSA for several years, it is not that complicated. I believe it is easier to use than Obamacare will be.

HSA's are nothing new and health insurance and the medical industry is abused all the time.

You don't understand HSA's do you. It is real insurance with different levels including catastrophic coverage which in some cases will cover 100% of your bill if you are admitted into the hospital. The big benefits are there is more flexibility, the money remains in an a private account. Here is a link that might explain them a bit more.
Click to expand...

While HSAs offer advantages, there are certainly disadvantages. From the Mayo Clinic.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/health-savings-accounts/GA00053

Illness can be unpredictable, making it hard to accurately budget for health care expenses.
Information about the cost and quality of medical care can be difficult to find.
Some people find it challenging to set aside money to put into their HSAs. People who are older and sicker may not be able to save as much as younger, healthier people.
Pressure to save the money in your HSA might lead you to not seek medical care when you need it.
If you take money out of your HSA for nonmedical expenses, you'll have to pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...

HSAs are certainly an option. But they do not meet the varied health insurance needs of 300+ million people.
 
michaelskis said:
As someone who has used an HSA for several years, it is not that complicated. I believe it is easier to use than Obamacare will be.

HSA's are nothing new and health insurance and the medical industry is abused all the time.

You don't understand HSA's do you. It is real insurance with different levels including catastrophic coverage which in some cases will cover 100% of your bill if you are admitted into the hospital. The big benefits are there is more flexibility, the money remains in an a private account. Here is a link that might explain them a bit more.
Click to expand...

I had a perfectly good comment that I've self edited. It must be nice to be perfect. Thanks btrage for making some of the same points I was going to, but in a far nicer way.
 
michaelskis said:
You don't understand HSA's do you. It is real insurance with different levels including catastrophic coverage which in some cases will cover 100% of your bill if you are admitted into the hospital. The big benefits are there is more flexibility, the money remains in an a private account. Here is a link that might explain them a bit more.
Click to expand...

An HSA is NOT insurance. It's a savings account to be used for the specific purpose of paying for health care expenditures that your high cost insurance plan does not. Yes, you chose which one you want to participate in and it functions a lot like an IRA, earnings are not taxed if used for qualified expenditures, and unlike an FSA the funds roll over every year.
 
kjel said:
An HSA is NOT insurance. It's a savings account to be used for the specific purpose of paying for health care expenditures that your high cost insurance plan does not. Yes, you chose which one you want to participate in and it functions a lot like an IRA, earnings are not taxed if used for qualified expenditures, and unlike an FSA the funds roll over every year.
Click to expand...

It appears that you are correct. My forms say that my insurance is an HSA, but I checked with further in the plan and it is a hybrid where my premiums are partly paid by the HSA along with co-pays and the actual bills above and beyond what would otherwise be covered.
 
kjel said:
An HSA is NOT insurance. It's a savings account to be used for the specific purpose of paying for health care expenditures that your high cost insurance plan does not. Yes, you chose which one you want to participate in and it functions a lot like an IRA, earnings are not taxed if used for qualified expenditures, and unlike an FSA the funds roll over every year.
Click to expand...

That's what I understood it to be. It might help some who are willing to try it. However, it is not a solution to the over all problem.
 
michaelskis said:
It appears that you are correct. My forms say that my insurance is an HSA, but I checked with further in the plan and it is a hybrid where my premiums are partly paid by the HSA along with co-pays and the actual bills above and beyond what would otherwise be covered.
Click to expand...

My husband's employer does something similar. The insurance policy they provide is terrible (I've never actually seen them pay for anything) but his employer puts money into an HSA every year and gives him an HSA debit card, for him to pay what is due after the insurance does their write-off thing. He can also use the HSA money to pay for prescriptions and other qualified health care expenses. So it's all the same to my husband, but his employer must save money by doing it this way.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
That's what I understood it to be. It might help some who are willing to try it. However, it is not a solution to the over all problem.
Click to expand...

I have an HSA and a high deductible plan. My deductible is $6,000. I pay roughly $240 per month for a family plan. My work throws in money to the HSA.

I think HSA's are a great vehicle to pay for insurance. The problem still remains with the insurance industry. We really have three discussions in one with healthcare:

1. Insurance costs. Who is covered, etc.
2. How people pay for insurance. What the government does to help that process.
3. How to lower the cost of healthcare to make the other two parts easier.
 
Hink said:
I have an HSA and a high deductible plan. My deductible is $6,000. I pay roughly $240 per month for a family plan. My work throws in money to the HSA.

I think HSA's are a great vehicle to pay for insurance. The problem still remains with the insurance industry. We really have three discussions in one with healthcare:

1. Insurance costs. Who is covered, etc.
2. How people pay for insurance. What the government does to help that process.
3. How to lower the cost of healthcare to make the other two parts easier.
Click to expand...

We also have an HSA at our employer which helps for the big expenditures. The basic component of our plan is very good, if you need surgery or other more costly treatment it is not so the employer provides $9K per family in reimbursements for the coinsurance and deductible charges.

I think that one of the real issues in the health care debate is WHAT DOES A VISIT/PROCEDURE/SERVICE ACTUALLY COST? Nobody can tell you, each hospital charges something different, some states weigh in on how much someone without insurance can be charged, and the insurance companies negotiate rates of reimbursements with providers that causes an ordinary person to scratch their head. I do know that every hospital has something called a "master file" which determines the rate for any given service or procedure which forms the basis for negotiation.

There's been a recent series in the NY Times about the insanity of pricing in the health care system called Paying Till It Hurts, there have been 3 installments so far: colonoscopy, pregnancy/childbirth, and joint replacement. It's an excellent read and provides comparisons between different regions of the country and to other western countries. Before the argument of "well those countries have a national insurance program..." gets trotted out, a good example is St. Mary's Hospital's private Lindo Wing (where Prince George was born) has their fees noted on the website plain as day and it's much, much less than comparable childbirth services cost in the U.S. http://www.imperial.nhs.uk/privatehealthcare/lindo-wing-prices.html
 
Hink said:
I have an HSA and a high deductible plan. My deductible is $6,000. I pay roughly $240 per month for a family plan. My work throws in money to the HSA.

I think HSA's are a great vehicle to pay for insurance. The problem still remains with the insurance industry. We really have three discussions in one with healthcare:

1. Insurance costs. Who is covered, etc.
2. How people pay for insurance. What the government does to help that process.
3. How to lower the cost of healthcare to make the other two parts easier.
Click to expand...

I thinks HSA's are an option for some. However, there are those who tout it as the alternative to ACA when it really isn't. Btrage did a good summery of some of the problems with HCA. It really isn't the option. The three points you bring up are good and help frame the discussion.
 
michaelskis said:
.

.

You don't understand HSA's do you. It is real insurance with different levels including catastrophic coverage which in some cases will cover 100% of your bill if you are admitted into the hospital. .
Click to expand...

No it is not the same thing as insurance. My goodness. Another day another totally false statement from you.
 
Some Greek Dude

imaplanner said:
No it is not the same thing as insurance. My goodness. Another day another totally false statement from you.
Click to expand...

When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.
Click to expand...

False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.
Click to expand...

Loved reading these in college.
 
I have not heard the term "Global Warming" in a while. The way Al Gore talked, I thought we would be underwater by now, but according to NOAA, the average global air temperature has been declining since 2000.
 
michaelskis said:
I have not heard the term "Global Warming" in a while. The way Al Gore talked, I thought we would be underwater by now, but according to NOAA, the average global air temperature has been declining since 2000.
Click to expand...

It's called global climate change now, and I just read this fascinating and sad article about a native village on the coast of Alaksa soon to be underwater... sad. :(

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/may/13/newtok-alaska-climate-change-refugees
 
terraplnr said:
It's called global climate change now, and I just read this fascinating and sad article about a native village on the coast of Alaksa soon to be underwater... sad. :(

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/may/13/newtok-alaska-climate-change-refugees
Click to expand...

Personally, I think we hit a plateau and while the temperature has increased over the past 100 years, I think that we will see it plateau for a while. I do think situations like this are because of global warming, however I am still not sold on the idea that it is human caused global warming. I do however thing we need to take better care of the planet for a wide range of other reasons.

I also wonder about some of these manufacturing companies that are not permitted to operate in the US because they might produce some problems. Instead they go to a 3rd world country where it is a free for all and they can pump as many toxins into the environment as they want. Are we doing the planet a disservice with overly strict regulations if this occurs or do you think that the rest of the world will follow our lead.
 
michaelskis said:
but according to NOAA, the average global air temperature has been declining since 2000.
Click to expand...

surprise! This is also not true. Average global air temperatures, for the last decade hit a plateau. They have not been declining. Declining would mean that temperatures are continuously going down since 2000, which is patently false.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201308.gif

Yet within the last ten years we have had some of the warmest years on record - 2012 was extremely warm compared to historical averages. And this has been happening during a time of far lower than average solar activity.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/06/nation/la-na-noaa-heat-20130807


michaelskis said:
Personally, I think we hit a plateau
Click to expand...

Oh, my bad. You knew it had plateaued and not actually dropped. I didn't realize you were purposefully misleading in order to troll. Troll away skis.
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
I have not heard the term "Global Warming" in a while. The way Al Gore talked, I thought we would be underwater by now, but according to NOAA, the average global air temperature has been declining since 2000.
Click to expand...

http://epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

Go there. Learn more. Then come back to discuss your thoughts.

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts.asp

Or there.

Ps. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp anyone who is a scientist, and actually studies and knows about this stuff, says it is happening. I believe them because they are smarter than us. Even though I like to pretend like I am a scientist and my anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
 
Hink said:
http://epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

Go there. Learn more. Then come back to discuss your thoughts.

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts.asp

Or there.

Ps. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp anyone who is a scientist, and actually studies and knows about this stuff, says it is happening. I believe them because they are smarter than us. Even though I like to pretend like I am a scientist and my anecdotal evidence proves nothing.
Click to expand...

There is no question that over the past 100 years and based on particular data sets, that is 100% true. But there are also data sets based on gas bubbles found in ice that date back to pre-historic times showing that the earth was not only hotter than it is now, the levels of carbon-dioxide was off the charts compared to today, and that was before human intervention. I also think about the amount of toxic gases that are released naturally from the earth from geysers, volcano, and other animals.

I have heard scientists say that while we are not the primary cause of the problem, at best we are just making it worse.
 
michaelskis said:
I have heard scientists say [content removed because it is irrelevant] that we are just making it worse.
Click to expand...

That is the point. Issues related to climate change has the ability to cause alot of problems, from more severe storms, sea level rising and wiping away communities and infrastructure, to impacting where wildlife and other things can thrive (which impact habitats as well as agriculture), etc.

Secondly, our contribution also has secondary impacts since our GHG emissions also results in pollution. Finding sustainable alternatives would help both. Regardless, we're going to have to deal with the impacts from the change.
 
michaelskis said:
Personally, I think we hit a plateau and while the temperature has increased over the past 100 years, I think that we will see it plateau for a while. I do think situations like this are because of global warming, however I am still not sold on the idea that it is human caused global warming. I do however thing we need to take better care of the planet for a wide range of other reasons.

I also wonder about some of these manufacturing companies that are not permitted to operate in the US because they might produce some problems. Instead they go to a 3rd world country where it is a free for all and they can pump as many toxins into the environment as they want. Are we doing the planet a disservice with overly strict regulations if this occurs or do you think that the rest of the world will follow our lead.
Click to expand...

Please define what you mean by "overly strict regulations" Please keep in mind I come from the least environmentally friendly state in the union. Also keep in mind I've seen the effects on people when what few laws there are, are not enforced.
 
michaelskis said:
I did realize that NOAA lies. After all, they are part of the Government and the government NEVER lies.
Click to expand...

You can't help yourself from trolling can you? His point was whatever wacko website you are getting your information from is lying, or perhaps and maybe more likely its just you purposefully doing it. In any case, noaa doesn't say global air temperatures have been declining since 2000. I linked to the actual noaa source of global temperature anamolies. You linked to nothing.
There is a difference between the ten year average sitting essentially unchanged and actual decreasing temps. I just can't imagine that you don't understand this, and so the question is why you continue in your purposeful misinformation. I think it has to be that either you are purposefully trolling or you are more than willing to outright lie to support your politics- which is really just another type of trolling.

And a question for the moderators here. Is it appropriate to continue to let this guy purposefully troll us with blatant misinformation and outright false statements? It's pretty obvious he's doing it willfully.
 
imaplanner said:
And a question for the moderators here. Is it appropriate to continue to let this guy purposefully troll us with blatant misinformation and outright false statements? It's pretty obvious he's doing it willfully.
Click to expand...


We have discussed this thread, and intend to be hands off unless personal attacks occur. Civil discourse is healthy. We will allow a certain amount of trolling, if that's what you want to call it. I am not sure that stating your political position in a political thread is really trolling since that is kind of what political discussion is all about. We are all adults, so if someone posts things that any of us do not like we are all free not to respond. We are each free to argue or not argue as we choose. Just as I decided to stop participating in the lead free debate. Political threads will always get people worked up, so participate at your own risk. As long as things stay civil, the mods are not going to get involved.
 
giff57 said:
We have discussed this thread, and intend to be hands off unless personal attacks occur. Civil discourse is healthy. We will allow a certain amount of trolling, if that's what you want to call it. I am not sure that stating your political position in a political thread is really trolling since that is kind of what political discussion is all about. We are all adults, so if someone posts things that any of us do not like we are all free not to respond. We are each free to argue or not argue as we choose. Just as I decided to stop participating in the lead free debate. Political threads will always get people worked up, so participate at your own risk. As long as things stay civil, the mods are not going to get involved.
Click to expand...

Well said and thanks. I'll try to limit my involvement. I'm more than happy to discuss politics and opposing views. I just have an admittedly difficult time with deliberate misinformation. I guess that's my personal issue though.
 
imaplanner said:
Well said and thanks. I'll try to limit my involvement. I'm more than happy to discuss politics and opposing views. I just have an admittedly difficult time with deliberate misinformation. I guess that's my personal issue though.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. And the deliberate misinformation here on climate of late is so weak and inane that you must take heart that transparent misinformation is the best they can do. That is: their best shot was blocked three rounds ago and countered with a hard left to the body and a right to the chin. You are simply seeing the drunken wobble around the ring. Sadly, the corporate press is reporting the bout as a draw because one of the judges was bought off to call it even (the ring announcers said as much).
 
imaplanner said:
Well said and thanks. I'll try to limit my involvement. I'm more than happy to discuss politics and opposing views. I just have an admittedly difficult time with deliberate misinformation. I guess that's my personal issue though.
Click to expand...

201201-201212.png

Take a look at the time period from 2000 on.

(from NOAA)









On a side note, the Democrats and President remind me of a typical 2 year old who throws a fit of they don't get 100% of their way. The house Republicans have offered two different bills and the D's and President are saying that they not support it unless it is everything they want. Then there is the discussion of the debt ceiling. They need it to go up (or away) so they can increase the debt. This is a great sign of what is wrong with America. The federal government spends too much money.
 
michaelskis said:
On a side note, the Democrats and President remind me of a typical 2 year old who throws a fit of they don't get 100% of their way. The house Republicans have offered two different bills and the D's and President are saying that they not support it unless it is everything they want. Then there is the discussion of the debt ceiling. They need it to go up (or away) so they can increase the debt. This is a great sign of what is wrong with America. The federal government spends too much money.
Click to expand...

When /if the government shuts down tonight, the fault will lay squarely on the republicans and rightfully so. If the Democrats picked gun control and said they wouldn't pass a bill until some gun control was enacted it would be a constitutional issue or obstructionism, or "this would make the founding fathers cry", bullshit from the right. But when the Republicans put something that has nothing to do with the bill at hand in the bill they want it to be presented as "standing up for the American people".

The Republican presidential candidate, running against Obamacare lost in 2012. The democratic candidate running on Obamacare won. The Senate, which was up for grabs in 2012 went squarely back into the hands of the democrats. The house, after gerrymandering the hell out of the boundaries in 2010, stuck with the republicans, but they had 1.4 million less votes nationally.

The Supreme Court said the law was legal.

This will hopefully drum up the needed support in the sane portion of the republican party to stop listening to the tea party and start getting their ship straight again. If the republicans lose one seat in these horribly gerrymandered house districts it will say a lot. "The people" are clearly going to blame the group that would rather see thousands put on furlough and lose there jobs so they can "stand up" to a law that hasn't even been enacted yet to assure that people don't lose jobs.

The irony is so deep that Cousteau couldn't get through it.
 
Hink said:
When /if the government shuts down tonight, the fault will lay squarely on the republicans and rightfully so.
Click to expand...
How so? Did the house republicans vote to fund everything else? Did the senate democrats vote no to fund everything else? The house is saying sure, lets fund everything but this... but the senate democrats are saying, "NO, nothing gets funded if this is not also funded." This is the second bill, and this time, it only delays Obamacare for a year. It is still there (and still stupid), but once again the brats in the Senate are pounding their feet and saying, No, it is everything or nothing.

Hink said:
If the Democrats picked gun control and said they wouldn't pass a bill until some gun control was enacted it would be a constitutional issue or obstructionism, or "this would make the founding fathers cry", bullshit from the right. But when the Republicans put something that has nothing to do with the bill at hand in the bill they want it to be presented as "standing up for the American people".
Click to expand...
Health care is not a constitutional right whereas gun ownership is.
Hink said:
The Republican presidential candidate, running against Obamacare lost in 2012. The democratic candidate running on Obamacare won. The Senate, which was up for grabs in 2012 went squarely back into the hands of the democrats. The house, after gerrymandering the hell out of the boundaries in 2010, stuck with the republicans, but they had 1.4 million less votes nationally.
Click to expand...
And going back to the constitution, the House of Representatives has the power of the purse. Over 50% of the american public (Some of whom also voted for Obama) say that they don't like the bill.

Hink said:
The Supreme Court said the law was legal.
Click to expand...
The supreme court said that it was legal ONLY because it is a tax.... although the President repeadely sold it by saying "No this is not a tax"

Hink said:
This will hopefully drum up the needed support in the sane portion of the republican party to stop listening to the tea party and start getting their ship straight again. If the republicans lose one seat in these horribly gerrymandered house districts it will say a lot. "The people" are clearly going to blame the group that would rather see thousands put on furlough and lose there jobs so they can "stand up" to a law that hasn't even been enacted yet to assure that people don't lose jobs.

The irony is so deep that Cousteau couldn't get through it.
Click to expand...
I think that this is only going to cause more people to hate federal politics.


On a side note, what is the worst that would happen if the Federal Government will shut down for a few days to a week?
 
I must start this out with a sigh, since it seems you have forgotten the past weeks of threads on these topics and how much of what you are saying is not rooted in truth... but with that...
michaelskis said:
How so? Did the house republicans vote to fund everything else? Did the senate democrats vote no to fund everything else? The house is saying sure, lets fund everything but this... but the senate democrats are saying, "NO, nothing gets funded if this is not also funded." This is the second bill, and this time, it only delays Obamacare for a year. It is still there (and still stupid), but once again the brats in the Senate are pounding their feet and saying, No, it is everything or nothing.
Click to expand...

Yes and that doesn't make it a compromise. You are saying that the "Senate is pounding their feet and saying, No, it is everything or nothing" and in the same breath trying not to blame the republicans for doing the same thing (Either remove funding for Obamacare or we won't support it). The fact that you do not see the hypocrisy in these arguments is odd.

The fact that the republicans would risk jobs, our economy, and the future on this "fight" is what is really telling.

michaelskis said:
Health care is not a constitutional right whereas gun ownership is.
And going back to the constitution, the House of Representatives has the power of the purse. Over 50% of the american public (Some of whom also voted for Obama) say that they don't like the bill.
Click to expand...

Yea, yea. I should have gone with gay rights then. Since you seem to agree on that topic. Let's go with a scenario where they said you have to permit gay marriage as a federal law or we will not pass the spending bill. Then what? Is that the WORST THING EVER? I bet Sean Hannity would be up in arms. Ted Cruz would say the Democrats are putting their belief in gay marriage above the government. Can't the democrats say that about Obamacare? You are putting your belief in a healthcare system that you don't like above the government and the people? Hmmm....?

Also, give it up on 50% polling data. Polls don't dictate regulation. Or we would have gay rights, abortion would be legal in the country, and church and state would be MUCH more defined. Polling doesn't matter.

michaelskis said:
The supreme court said that it was legal ONLY because it is a tax.... although the President repeadely sold it by saying "No this is not a tax"
Click to expand...

I don't care why. It is legal. I don't care if the president called it a turd salad. It is legal.

michaelskis said:
I think that this is only going to cause more people to hate federal politics.
Click to expand...
If you are talking about the government shutting down because of the republicans I agree with you. This is going to disenfranchise more people to how government politics works. It will however help our country move forward away from hyper-partisans like Cruz, and back to reality, in the real world that the rest of us live in.

michaelskis said:
On a side note, what is the worst that would happen if the Federal Government will shut down for a few days to a week?
Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe 1 million people would be put on furlough. National Parks will be closed. Small Business Loans will be stopped. I mean it isn't like those jobs matter though.... WE NEED TO REMOVE OBAMACARE not matter the consequences! For the children!! :r:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tions-and-answers-about-the-shutdown/2888419/

Also, look at this... it is from Forbes... http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnf...ask-chinas-permission-first/?partner=yahootix
 
I'm more and more convinced that Congressional Republicans don't actually hate the Affordable Care Act. I would bet that a lot of them actually find the principles behind it to be sound.

They're just using it as a tool to continue to feed the libertarian/tea party base. They realize that there is no other political issue that can get them votes, so even though they don't hate the Act, they pretend they do, and the ignorant masses just follow along.

It's actually a brilliant political move. When combined with the latent racism that exists towards Obama, they've stumbled upon gold.

But what's even more shocking is that a Republican could still not win the White House in 2012, and House Republicans received less votes than their Democratic counterparts in 2012. It really speaks to the ineptitude of the GOP to actually stand for something.

It's a sad day for the GOP. And I say this having voted for Democrats and Republican presidential candidates.

Why is the funding of the Federal government being held up by the Affordable Care Act, something which was passed by Congress and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court? I just don't get it, other than there being sour grapes by those who don't like it. And that is no way to govern a country.
 
Last edited:
Hink said:
I must start this out with a sigh, since it seems you have forgotten the past weeks of threads on these topics and how much of what you are saying is not rooted in truth... but with that...


Yes and that doesn't make it a compromise. You are saying that the "Senate is pounding their feet and saying, No, it is everything or nothing" and in the same breath trying not to blame the republicans for doing the same thing (Either remove funding for Obamacare or we won't support it). The fact that you do not see the hypocrisy in these arguments is odd.

The fact that the republicans would risk jobs, our economy, and the future on this "fight" is what is really telling.
Click to expand...
So instead of moving forward on what they can agree on, the Senate is saying no to everything. That is not hypocrisy. The senate can hold the line on other bills until the funding is reintroduced, but instead they are holding America hostage.

Hink said:
Yea, yea. I should have gone with gay rights then. Since you seem to agree on that topic. Let's go with a scenario where they said you have to permit gay marriage as a federal law or we will not pass the spending bill. Then what? Is that the WORST THING EVER? I bet Sean Hannity would be up in arms. Ted Cruz would say the Democrats are putting their belief in gay marriage above the government. Can't the democrats say that about Obamacare? You are putting your belief in a healthcare system that you don't like above the government and the people? Hmmm....?
Click to expand...
I don't care about what Sean Hannity says. I am not a fan of Ted Cruz after his 21 hours of speaking that did not actually result in anything. As I mentioned before, I have friends that are gay, one in particular that I recognize the relationship between him and his partner no different than my wife and I.

Hink said:
Also, give it up on 50% polling data. Polls don't dictate regulation. Or we would have gay rights, abortion would be legal in the country, and church and state would be MUCH more defined. Polling doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, so the people can voice their opinion on who should be president, but not how they feel on individual regulations. Now that is hypocrisy.

Hink said:
I don't care why. It is legal. I don't care the president called it a turd salad. It is legal.
Click to expand...
That is what the supreme court says. I don't agree with it, but it is. It is also a tax, which the president knew but lied to the people.

Hink said:
If you are talking about the government shutting down because of the republicans I agree with you. This is going to disenfranchise more people to how government politics works. It will however help our country move forward away from hyper-partisans like Cruz, and back to reality, in the real world that the rest of us live in.
Click to expand...
There is no one on the Senate that lives in the real world. Instead, the senate is going to shut down the government instead of voting to fund the government. The house has provided 2 bills, the way the constitution says it should.

Hink said:
I don't know, maybe 1 million people would be put on furlough. National Parks will be closed. Small Business Loans will be stopped. I mean it isn't like those jobs matter though.... WE NEED TO REMOVE OBAMACARE not matter the consequences! For the children!! :r:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...tions-and-answers-about-the-shutdown/2888419/

Also, look at this... it is from Forbes... http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnf...ask-chinas-permission-first/?partner=yahootix
Click to expand...

The second bill delays it for a year... as for Forbes, oh wait a second. People say that they lie. I agree that there are long term ramifications and that it is wrong to shut down the entire government long term. But for a few days to a week... people will get angry that the senate voted no to provide paychecks for park workers... twice.
 
My last contribution to the shutdown portion of this thread...

The "crisis" is manufactured by House leadership.

As we all (should) know, in the federal budget process an initial budget is prepared and voted on in the House...then it moves to the Senate. As is usually the case, the budget bills that each chamber approved are different.

Now, as we all should have learned in Civics class...the resulting bills should then be scheduled for a committee of conference, where the 2 chambers work out the differences through negotiation and compromise. When they finish their work, the amended bills go back the the House and Senate for votes. In the end, what should result is an adopted budget.

Compare that to what we have now. The first 2 steps happened, the House passed their budget, the Senate passed theirs. What failed to happen was the committee of conference. Why you ask? Because the House leadership (back in May) refused to create one or appoint members to one even though the Senate Budget Committee was ready and willing to have one.

Failing to have a committee of conference, the government is forced into these continuing resolution votes, like we are seeing right now.

So, rather that follow the constitutionally sound process of negotiating and compromising, we end up with the hostage taking exercise we see now.

For these reasons, I hold the House leadership responsible for any shutdown or default (if god forbid they go down that road).
 
michaelskis said:
That is what the supreme court says. I don't agree with it, but it is. It is also a tax, which the president knew but lied to the people.

.
Click to expand...



There is already a "TAX" on healthcare because we the people have to pay extra for those who go to hospitals & ERs for their primary care & those who go to the hospital when they have to and CANNOT PAY THE BILL. Like I said before - pay me now or pay me later scenario. Get off you high horse and stop with the repetitive arguments that hold no merit or don't add information to the conversation/discourse. You've stated you think its a tax, we get it, move on.

It's like the citizens who yells at a public hearing that the $300,000 house that's being built across from their $400,000 will kill the neighborhood...and all us planners role our eyes at them as they stand at the podium.

Politics are $hi+ right now because its all special interest groups, not general citizens. All we have are politicians now and no statesmen who actually helped made the country great.
 
michaelskis said:
So instead of moving forward on what they can agree on, the Senate is saying no to everything. That is not hypocrisy. The senate can hold the line on other bills until the funding is reintroduced, but instead they are holding America hostage.
Click to expand...

So it is okay for them to do it later, but not now? Really? Come on....

michaelskis said:
I don't care about what Sean Hannity says. I am not a fan of Ted Cruz after his 21 hours of speaking that did not actually result in anything. As I mentioned before, I have friends that are gay, one in particular that I recognize the relationship between him and his partner no different than my wife and I.
Click to expand...

Okay, well you might not personally like either of them, that doesn't mean that the republicans who are in the house don't support their rhetoric. You are missing the point. The point is that it is a partisan topic that doesn't really have anything to do with the issue at hand that is being used to create an issue.

The point is it isn't relevant to actual discussion.


michaelskis said:
Hmmm, so the people can voice their opinion on who should be president, but not how they feel on individual regulations. Now that is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
You can feel whatever you want to feel. There isn't anything that stops you. You shouldn't think though that just because you like or dislike something that it should change. This is a democracy where we elect people to vote on these things. I won't list the number of things that show 50% approval or disapproval that are not voted on. This is a really, really weak argument so I will let it go.

michaelskis said:
That is what the supreme court says. I don't agree with it, but it is. It is also a tax, which the president knew but lied to the people.
Click to expand...
Yep. He just out and lied. What a liar. He is also a doo-doo head and a poopy pants. Awe shucks.


michaelskis said:
There is no one on the Senate that lives in the real world. Instead, the senate is going to shut down the government instead of voting to fund the government. The house has provided 2 bills, the way the constitution says it should.
Click to expand...

The Senate provided one bill. They most likely will provide the second this afternoon. So this 2 bills junk is just that. Both the House and the Senate are doing the same thing. Don't you see that? The fact that you choose to ignore the house doing it is what makes it ironic.

michaelskis said:
The second bill delays it for a year... as for Forbes, oh wait a second. People say that they lie. I agree that there are long term ramifications and that it is wrong to shut down the entire government long term. But for a few days to a week... people will get angry that the senate voted no to provide paychecks for park workers... twice.
Click to expand...

The point of Forbes was that you seemed to trust their judgment. I was going with something you might believe. Maybe not.

The fact that you accept shutting down the government and having millions of government worker lose their pay is telling. You want to fight Obamacare to protect jobs, small business, and the "people". Yet you shut the government down which hurts, jobs, small business, and the "people". Do you not see the problem in that argument?

That is why the republicans are going to lose this. It is a false narrative and instead of arguing over what to fund, we are arguing over Obamacare which will be funded no matter which rational scenario plays out.
 
dw914er said:
:r:



Have we been watching the same legislature?
Click to expand...

Point taken, they are all like that.. both sides.

Can someone tell me with the exception of the Healthcare Bill, what has the House of Representative voted to not fund?

Now can some tell me what the Senate has voted to not fund?
 
Hink said:
So it is okay for them to do it later, but not now? Really? Come on....
Click to expand...

The point is that damage starts tomorrow if it is funded. If it is so wonderful and people want it so badly, why can't get be approved at a later time?


Hink said:
Okay, well you might not personally like either of them, that doesn't mean that the republicans who are in the house don't support their rhetoric. You are missing the point. The point is that it is a partisan topic that doesn't really have anything to do with the issue at hand that is being used to create an issue.

The point is it isn't relevant to actual discussion.
Click to expand...

You brought up talking heads and Cruz... not me.

Hink said:
You can feel whatever you want to feel. There isn't anything that stops you. You shouldn't think though that just because you like or dislike something that it should change. This is a democracy where we elect people to vote on these things. I won't list the number of things that show 50% approval or disapproval that are not voted on. This is a really, really weak argument so I will let it go.
Click to expand...
It is about as weak as saying that Obama was elected so we must all fall in line with his hope and changes BS and give him what ever he wants. [/QUOTE]

I have made my statements before. The government needs to get out of the marriage business and that if two people are in love, they should have the same rights as everyone else. I have sent letters to my representatives saying such.

Hink said:
Yep. He just out and lied. What a liar. He is also a doo-doo head and a poopy pants. Awe shucks.
Click to expand...
So it is a big deal when Fox lies, but not the President? The point that he lied is relevant because do you think that he would have been able to get it passed if they knew it was a tax? Doubt it.

Hink said:
The Senate provided one bill. They most likely will provide the second this afternoon. So this 2 bills junk is just that. Both the House and the Senate are doing the same thing. Don't you see that? The fact that you choose to ignore the house doing it is what makes it ironic.
Click to expand...

And the fact is that bills for funding originate in the house according to the constitution, the house bill funds everything BUT Obamacare (and now just delays it).
[/QUOTE]

Hink said:
The fact that you accept shutting down the government and having millions of government worker lose their pay is telling. You want to fight Obamacare to protect jobs, small business, and the "people". Yet you shut the government down which hurts, jobs, small business, and the "people". Do you not see the problem in that argument?
Click to expand...
Here we go with this YOU stuff again. I am not a member of Congress. I agree that for a few weeks, it is a bad thing. As someone who lost a job because of the economy, I know what it is like. Although I knew that I was not going back to that company any time soon. As soon as the Senate votes to approve the funding for each of those employees, they get to go back to job.

Hink said:
That is why the republicans are going to lose this. It is a false narrative and instead of arguing over what to fund, we are arguing over Obamacare which will be funded no matter which rational scenario plays out.
Click to expand...

The house only wants to not fund Obamacare. The Senate will vote no on everything else just to get their way. I wonder what would happen if the House sent individual bills to the senate to fund each section independently. Would the Senate vote no on those too?




imaplanner said:
Read the information in your link please. Specifically what the blue line shows about changes in trends. It's not what you seem to think it is.
Click to expand...
Yep... it has gone up long term. I don't think that I argued that point.
 
Back
Top