Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Merc14

Is Obamacare on death's door?

1,392 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Merc14

Merc, I agree with all of the above except the last sentence.

You can blame Congress. I do.

Harte

In what way, for making the law in the first place or not stopping Obama now or both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

From your own link;

Also:

Source

Included this last bit to show that Romney's plan never included the (added then repealed) employer mandate.

Harte

Where it ceased to be Romneycare converting itself into Patrickcare

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Included this last bit to show that Romney's plan never included the (added then repealed) employer mandate.

Just so I got this right, Romney didn't want the mandate, but Romneycare as implemented in MA did include a mandate, which was repealed because the mandate is duplicated in the ACA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

In what way, for making the law in the first place or not stopping Obama now or both?

The law was purposefully written open-ended like that so the Dems could avoid the mess they would get in when the opposition made public debate of several key issues they would have had to address.

I blame them for that.

Where it ceased to be Romneycare converting itself into Patrickcare

Romney's successor expanded the program and administered it in a more liberal way that was originally planned. That made it "Patrickcare."

As I clearly showed, the employer mnandate was not part of Romney's plan.

Here's more:

Mandate escape. Few voters know that Romney wanted an escape from the individual mandate. Voters may be more forgiving if he were to tell them he wanted to give citizens a way out and that he strongly opposed the employer mandate.

Real insurance. Romney wanted people to be able to purchase real health insurance that would have covered catastrophic events. Instead, the legislature insisted on including all of the 50-plus health insurance mandates already on the books. The legislature allowed the high-deductible plans only for some young people aged 18-26.

After the Massachusetts law was passed by the legislature, Romney continued to try to reshape it with his line-item veto.

For example:

Employer mandate: Vetoed. The bill called for a mandate on employers with 11 or more workers to provide health coverage or pay an annual fee of $295 per worker. Overridden.

Source

The "mandate escape clause" involved posting a bond to cover your health costs - this was in the Heritage Foundation's original suggestion, BTW.

Harte

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Just so I got this right, Romney didn't want the mandate, but Romneycare as implemented in MA did include a mandate, which was repealed because the mandate is duplicated in the ACA.

Yes, Romney's plan was not enacted. The MA Legislature's plan was enacted.

Harte

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scorpiosonic

Like I stated in another thread, he is usurping absolutely nothing. I know it "feels" like that, but it is not that.

Due to the way the bill is written (in such a way that the Democrats that voted for it can elude responsibility,) the Executive has the authority to implement the act in the way he sees fit. End of story. This is only an example of elections having consequences.

It is obvious that Obama has put off compliance with the ACA by large employers in order to attempt to dodge the worst of the fallout against Democrats in the next election. Whether this will work is the question. There is no specific date in the bill concerning when this complaince must start.

I certainly do agree with you about your conjecture concerning what posters here would be screaming madly about if Bush had done these sorts of things, though.

Harte

If there is no specific date for large employers to begin to comply, why would Obama decide to postpone a compliance date that doesn't exist?

Edited by scorpiosonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

He didn't.

He announced his interpretation of what the law says.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

Yes, Romney's plan was not enacted. The MA Legislature's plan was enacted.

Harte

Who was in charge of the state? Those are the games conservatives want to play when it is convenient? Well, hopefully we recover from Bush's War I, Bush's War II, Bush's Patriot Act, and Cruz's Shutdown. Patrickcare...c'mon...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Too bad it's not called Romneycare. It might have had a chance of succeeding then, huh?

Mass. Has the highest medical bills in the use. You might call that success i don't. Last I heard 15% of that state was without insurance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

Massachusett's plan was not intended to reduce health care costs, for some reason.

Harte

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Mass. Has the highest medical bills in the use. You might call that success i don't. Last I heard 15% of that state was without insurance.

think again


  • Report finds Massachusetts with lowest rate of uninsured in nation

    • Estimating 3.9 percent of Massachusetts residents are uninsured, the lowest uninsured rate in the nation, a
      released Tuesday examines the circumstances of the uninsured and calls for outreach efforts targeting groups of individuals and geographic areas of Massachusetts.


http://www.enterprisenews.com/x1893341647/Brockon-among-Massachusetts-cities-with-double-digit-uninsured-rate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

That's only addressing half his post. You know ninja, it seams the more insurance is involved the more things cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I am so glad the true believers think this thing is going well. Works for me, enjoy your success boys and let your people know how great it is. :tu:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I am so glad the true believers think this thing is going well. Works for me, enjoy your success boys and let your people know how great it is. :tu:

I suspect you have been listening to those raving right wing sooth sayers far to hard, the GOP will suffer if they do the same and you will have another term out in the wilderness. Here's a hint, most Americans are far more moderate than you :tu:

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I wonder how much effect people's opinions actually have on the process. I mean, if everyone was for it or if everyone was against it, how much would it affect its success or failure? Is the end result objective, or is it too general to refer to as a success?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I am certain that the audience here all deride this author, but the fundamental point is sound "libertarian Popularism will fail as a GOP project because it disadvantages the very people which it is attempting to attract";

[quote

Delusions of Populism

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 11, 2013 878 Comments


Have you heard about “libertarian populism” yet? If not, you will. It will surely be touted all over the airwaves and the opinion pages by the same kind of people who assured you, a few years ago, that Representative Paul Ryan was the very model of a Serious, Honest Conservative. So let me make a helpful public service announcement: It’s bunk.

]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/opinion/krugman-delusions-of-populism.html?_r=0

The GOP are on a one way track to oblivion unless they wise up and start addressing the real issues facing their constituency. Ideology can only take you so far - but most people are not ideologically driven. These boards are not a good sounding board for popular sentiment because everyone here has an axe to grind from their own ideological position.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

These boards are perfect for popular sentiment. The demographics couldn't be any more varied, people from all different parts of the country. Believe it or not, we are real Americans telling you how it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I suspect you have been listening to those raving right wing sooth sayers far to hard, the GOP will suffer if they do the same and you will have another term out in the wilderness. Here's a hint, most Americans are far more moderate than you :tu:

Br Cornelius

Actually I just have to read the neutral papers and watch the President delay, once again, a major component of Obamacare, the employer mandate. If this was such a good deal there woul be no delays aor exemptions and oh BTW, the website is broken and completely unsafe. People do not like this program and folks like pretending they do is fine by me.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

I suspect you have been listening to those raving right wing sooth sayers far to hard, the GOP will suffer if they do the same and you will have another term out in the wilderness. Here's a hint, most Americans are far more moderate than you :tu:

Br Cornelius

You realize your not a moderate either. And your article is by Paul krugman the left wing economic guru.

We can thank him for the bailouts....

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

You realize your not a moderate either. And your article is by Paul krugman the left wing economic guru.

We can thank him for the bailouts....

She probably thinks krugman is a moderate voice of reason. Isn't it amazing that Krugman is still considered and economist even though every single one of his predictions has been wrong?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

You realize your not a moderate either. And your article is by Paul krugman the left wing economic guru.

We can thank him for the bailouts....

Doesn't actually change the point he is making, if your policies attack those who you are trying to attract - your not going to do well. Its the lower middle class who have done worst out of pursuing a NeoLiberal agenda and that is who the GOP call their Libertarian Populist heartland. Its a bit of train wreck.

Thats not really anything other than common sense.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

Doesn't actually change the point he is making, if your policies attack those who you are trying to attract - your not going to do well. Its the lower middle class who have done worst out of pursuing a NeoLiberal agenda and that is who the GOP call their Libertarian Populist heartland. Its a bit of train wreck.

Thats not really anything other than common sense.

Br Cornelius

Neoliberalism the same as libertarianism? ....

Umm no lol. I assume your definition of neoliberal would be like Obama for example. Libertarianism is insnaley different then what he does. And it dosent attack anyone.

you may be out of touch with your definitions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Neoliberalism the same as libertarianism? ....

Umm no lol. I assume your definition of neoliberal would be like Obama for example. Libertarianism is insnaley different then what he does. And it dosent attack anyone.

you may be out of touch with your definitions

The GOP are fundamentally a NeoLiberal party to their core and any fancy dress they try to put on aint going to change that fact one tiny little bit.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

The GOP are fundamentally a NeoLiberal party to their core and any fancy dress they try to put on aint going to change that fact one tiny little bit.

Br Cornelius

I normally dont say this to people. But you really have no clue what your talking about at this point.

Im done with this conversation.

Have fun listing to krugman

Edited by spartan max2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I normally dont say this to people. But you really have no clue what your talking about at this point.

Im done with this conversation.

I believe your confusing your belief with reality again.

This view is often called “neoliberalism,” a term first used by interwar continental and British economists and philosophers to describe an economic doctrine that favors privatization, deregulation, and unfettered free markets over public institutions and government. These philosophers saw themselves as championing the values of classical liberalism in a mid-20th century world threatened by unchecked state power — a threat vividly embodied in the totalitarian societies of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Writers like Ludwig von Mises and Karl Popper saw hope in the liberalism of J.S. Mill and Adam Smith. They shared the earlier philosophers’ skepticism about the capacity of human reason to design functional and ethical social orders, and were committed to processes of “liberated” or open exchange to create knowledge and distribute wealth.

The meaning of the prefix has aroused a great deal of debate. For thinkers on the left, “neo” signals a liberalism shorn of many of the features that made classical liberalism plausible and effective. Recent scholarship on Adam Smith, for example, has emphasized the extent to which neoliberal thinkers such as F. A. Hayek focus on Smith’s celebration of self-organizing markets in The Wealth of Nations while neglecting Smith’s argument, in the Theory of Moral Sentiments, for the importance of non-market values in sustaining social orders. Indeed, the neoliberal embrace of the prospect of a social world almost wholly organized by market relations strongly distinguishes this thought from the classical liberal tradition, which fostered a capitalism embedded in the institutions of civil society, the norms of civilized communication, and state regulation of the economy.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/09/the_world_according_to_milton_friedman_partner/

Your just to funny in been so utterly wrong.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.