ACA absolutely is the law. USSC said so

Post #381,536 by boxley 10/2/13 9:09:02 PM Reply	ACA absolutely is the law. USSC said so and the IRS will start imposing an individual tax starting in 2014. Oprhans can keep medicaid until they are 26, the law isn't entirely bad at all. It's the crap part, that no one looked at how other countries have tried and failed with similar policies on protected employees vs unprotected employees. No one stopped to think that employers would scramble to unprotect employees because of the unknown costs in the future. Peru tried is and the entire country was fired with the same folks hired back as temps at a lower rate of pay with no benefits. The same thing happened in many countries that enacted laws like that. Our lawmakers either didn't understand or didn't care that it would happen here. That is my major gripe. Oh yea, state of minnesota was supposed to go live yesterday, but they asked folks to wait a few hours, and if you were Native American, try back in two weeks, go figure. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,538 by drook 10/2/13 9:54:08 PM Reply	Missed one Our lawmakers either didn't understand or didn't care that it would happen here. Or maybe some of them wanted it to fail, and those were willing to do anything it takes to make that happen. -- Drew
Post #381,539 by boxley 10/2/13 10:17:41 PM Reply	do you have any links that show there was any republican ammendments allowed in the bill? I remember pelosi refusing to allow any. Do you have a link to show that they had any input at all? I don't remember any, thought it was an all Democratic effort. A link to show what republican ammendments were accepted and passed would be nice, my memory is not all that good. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,541 by Another Scott 10/2/13 10:50:47 PM Reply	The Republicans added all kinds of stuff to the ACA. e.g. Grassley's stunt - http://www.forbes.co...acares-exchanges/ Boehner was shown to be two-timing the people about it, of course... http://www.forbes.co...n-the-government/ Also, too - http://mediamatters....eform-c/156944#12 In the House, http://www.huffingto...-al_n_339188.html HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,542 by boxley 10/2/13 11:16:52 PM Reply	thanks for the links. The first two links indicate that there was an ammendment to insist that congress critters and staff participate in the exchanges, rather benign second link is more of the same 3rd link is the most compelling REALITY: Senate bills included numerous GOP amendments, reflected bipartisan meetings. According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, the final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009. [HELP Committee document, 7/09] And according to the Senate Finance Committee's document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill. compelling if any of that was true. It may well be but the link to the document takes one to a 404, since many of the links media matters refer to dont exist except to allow media matters to pretend that all of their reporting may be accurate. Its a well know issue with them. 4th link quites Pelosi stating that she would not allow ammendments. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,545 by Another Scott 10/3/13 5:49:28 AM Reply	At that point, the heavy lifting was done in the Senate. This is all old news. If you really want the old links, most likely they're at the Wayback Machine - http://www.archive.org Link rot is not a MediaMatters conspiracy. ;-) The "rather benign" posturing by Grassley was a political stunt that was designed to embarrass the Democrats and make then vote against the bill. It does nothing productive, doesn't hurt him and his colleagues, but makes their staff take a huge financial hit (by removing the employer contribution to their health insurance). It's stupid and spiteful and would be removed if the House majority were a sensible group. You know as well as me that there were years of hearings and votes on all sorts of aspects of the ACA. The bill that passed was not "rammed down our throat" by Pelosi. The House had their version, but when it came down to the deadline, what mattered was what could get 60 votes in the Senate. So that's the version that passed. If Pelosi had allowed any amendments (Republican or Democratic) at that point, then at least one of the prima donnas in the Senate would have threatened to vote no, killing the bill. Since majority rule is a foreign concept in the Senate, she had to go along. Distilling all of that into something like "Pelosi was a tyrant and didn't allow Republican amendments" is disingenuous, and you know it. The other party is the one with a history of ramming. She didn't stop time and make a 15 minute vote last around 2 hours as Republicans did for the Medicare Part D vote. ;-) HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,559 by boxley 10/3/13 10:04:52 AM Reply	wasnt trying to go there my impression was that the repos obstructed the bill all the way to the bitter end but now if anyone brings up that obamacare sux a chorus of "its the republicans fault" springs up Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,563 by Another Scott 10/3/13 10:10:41 AM Reply	It was a long process with may facets. In committee, early on the Democrats were watering things down to try to get a few Rs on board. Eventually, once they had enough support, they stopped making changes to make sure it would pass. That's one reason why startup was delayed so long, I think. The uniform Republican opposition came later. That's my recollection, anyway. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,572 by boxley 10/3/13 3:06:15 PM Reply	thanks Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,847 by CRConrad 10/9/13 9:23:01 AM Reply	So, why can't it be thir fault both ways? The BOx scribbles: [M]y impression was that the repos obstructed the bill all the way to the bitter end but now if anyone brings up that obamacare sux a chorus of "its the republicans fault" springs up[.] So what? Yes, they obstructed it "to the bitter end"(), so it's their fault that it came late. AND they forced it to be watered-down as all Hell in order to squeeze through despite their obstructionism, so it's their fault that it "sux" in the sense of not covering all the things that it should. Why should it only be their fault one way or the other, when they set out to fuck it up any way they could? If it's slightly fucked-up in more ways than one, ALL those ways can logically be the fault of these too-successful fucker-uppers. (That seems to be all the Republicans are good for, by the way: Fucking stuff up.) --- (): And are now in the process of obstructing for obstructionism's own sake; far, far beyond any reasonable definition of "the end", be that "bitter" or sweet. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #381,852 by boxley 10/9/13 10:30:34 AM Reply	" they forced it to be watered-down as all Hell" the democratic party had sizable majorities and owned the white house, explain how this "forced" thing works will you? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,861 by drook 10/9/13 10:56:19 AM Reply	It's spelled F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R -- Drew
Post #381,863 by boxley 10/9/13 11:18:53 AM Reply	no It's spelled c-h-i-c-k-e-n-s-h-i-t Reid could have ended debate at any time under senate rules. He has done so twice since for less reason Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,888 by Ashton 10/9/13 6:02:33 PM Reply	+6.66: minimalist Definition of, 'to be a Repo 2013'
Post #381,571 by mmoffitt 10/3/13 12:54:14 PM Reply	Pelosi did let the most influential Republican amend it. She caved into the White House demand that there be no public option. HTH.
Post #381,552 by mmoffitt 10/3/13 8:40:48 AM Reply	Couldn't have been "all Democratic" There was no public option. There was no discussion even allowed of Single Payer. This is a Republican piece of legislation. It is exactly what Wall Street wanted. Obama gave Big Pharma everything it wanted before the bill was even discussed. It gave Wall Street private health insurers everything they wanted, again, before the bill was discussed.
Post #381,584 by Ashton 10/4/13 12:01:28 AM Reply	I fear that.. there's nothing hyperbolic in that summary: We get the 1% raking-off 15-20% (depending on whose guesstimates) CONTINUING. In Perpetuity. Can't EVER get the Insurance/Finance Mil.-industrial VETOES over-ridden under Vulture Capitalism Rules of Winner Takes All Thus, [pre-Revolution] we Are and shall Remain FUCKED [not just in ""health"" care.] *Don't get really-Sick..* in Murica! Evah==Go Elsewhere! for 1/4th to 1/10th of the 1%'s VIGORISH**
Post #381,546 by pwhysall 10/3/13 6:53:58 AM Reply	You should just go with universal healthcare Paid for out of general taxation. Costs less, works better. HTH!
Post #381,547 by drook 10/3/13 7:05:44 AM Reply	Well duh -- Drew
Post #381,553 by mmoffitt 10/3/13 8:42:47 AM Reply	Most of us know that. Unfortunately, so do all the fascists who make obscene profits from the delivery of healthcare in this country whilst simultaneously doing nothing to provide it. And those people own our government. Including the White House.
Post #381,560 by boxley 10/3/13 10:07:05 AM Reply	yup another 2% on the payroll tax would be close to covering Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,568 by pwhysall 10/3/13 12:33:37 PM Reply	Which part of "costs less" did you miss?
Post #381,570 by mmoffitt 10/3/13 12:51:59 PM Reply	That would still be less for us. Because we'd all be able to drop the pre-tax health insurance premium amount we pay now. (Aside: God, what it must be like not to see that $300 deduction from each of one's paychecks)
Post #381,573 by boxley 10/3/13 3:12:38 PM Reply	we dont have the cash unless we raise some our paroll taxes are ssi (social security, pensions disability) medicare (this currently only pays for pensioners and disabled peoples medical and welfare recieptiants) and doesnt really take in enough to pay for that unemplyment tax and fedral tax (support wars and bankers) so additional monies would need to come in to get it going Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #381,574 by Another Scott 10/3/13 3:22:16 PM Reply	Raising the FICA limit slowly would do it. People making < $50k aren't undertaxed. Cheers, Scott.
Post #381,575 by boxley 10/3/13 3:29:25 PM Reply	that would work as well Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!