So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[Tricky]

Even if my premiums increase 5x it's a good deal since there is no cap on the benefit. With the ACA I'm not an accident or illness away from bankruptcy.

This is a good point. I won't deny that Obamacare is going to cost more money, at least up front. But for the money we spend, many thousands of people will have better health care. The health of a country can be correlated with the health of its people. Why do we care more about money than people? Where did this meme come from?

 

[Cleon]

Millions of the poorest people won't get health insurance because their Republican state governments are refusing to expand Medicaid under the ACA:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/h...ted=all&gwh=23E647D35521B5965D6F7D04468EF260&

The Republicans will point to these people and triumphantly bellow that Obamacare hasn't helped them. Gotta love politics.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... Why do we care more about money than people?

Whatever commodity is most often exchanged for other commodities or for services is money. Cowrie shells, cigarettes, fox pelts can serve as "money". Money is usually portable and durable. Money signifies control over (generalized) resources. Money facilitates apples to oranges comparisons (which grocery store managers must make when ordering). Money facilities apples to music comparisons (which investors must make when directing funds). The dichotomy "money or people" is false, since it ignores the value people place on resources. If you think that's inconsequential, try remain indifferent when you return to your high-altitude campsite and find that someone stole your sleeping bag, tent, food, and portable stove. You're dead, buddy.
You still regard control over resources as a matter of indifference?

 

[quadraginta]

Whatever commodity is most often exchanged for other commodities or for services is money. Cowrie shells, cigarettes, fox pelts can serve as "money". Money is usually portable and durable. Money signifies control over (generalized) resources. Money facilitates apples to oranges comparisons (which grocery store managers must make when ordering). Money facilities apples to music comparisons (which investors must make when directing funds). The dichotomy "money or people" is false, since it ignores the value people place on resources. If you think that's inconsequential, try remain indifferent when you return to your high-altitude campsite and find that someone stole your sleeping bag, tent, food, and portable stove. You're dead, buddy.
You still regard control over resources as a matter of indifference?

Who said anything about "inconsequential" or "indifferent"?

If only there was a name for criticizing arguments no one ever made.

 

[eeyore1954]

These are the federal poverty guidelines:
http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html

This is a subsidy calculator. If you plug in a Honolulu zip code for a family of two adults and more than three children making $120K, it tells you the subsidy will be zero.
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[1][tobacco]=0&child-count=3&child-tobacco=0

Subsidy examples:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1738900

It just doesn't look to me like these subsidies are going to be as huge for people with good incomes as some people seem to think/hope/fear.

I used a calculator where instead of three or more I actually had to list the five children and ages and received a credit of several thousand. I believe under the new insurance for each additional child your insurance goes up so the premium is higher for 5 children rather than 3. I don't know about other states but currently in NY my family plan rate was always the same for me with 5 kids as it was for someone with 1.

 

[eeyore1954]

Even if my premiums increase 5x it's a good deal since there is no cap on the benefit. With the ACA I'm not an accident or illness away from bankruptcy.

Just some financial planning advice.
To really be safe from bankruptcy because of accident or illness you also need protection from lost income. Which from my experience is usually the main cause of a medical bankruptcy.

 

[SkepticalDrew]

Just some financial planning advice.
To really be safe from bankruptcy because of accident or illness you also need protection from lost income. Which from my experience is usually the main cause of a medical bankruptcy.

This. Unfortunately just having health insurance isn't enough with a lot of cases.

 

[Upchurch]

Back to the OP, here's a possible reason, Travis:

More details are emerging about Wednesday's closed-door meeting where Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) evidently received an earful from his Republican colleagues, with one senator describing what transpired as a "lynch mob."

A report published Friday by The New York Times shed more light on the private lunch, indicating that Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Dan Coats (R-IN) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) blasted Cruz for leading the charge to block funding for the Affordable Care Act, a quixotic effort that led to the government shutdown.

It appears the GOP is upset with the current situation, as well.

 

[DavidJames]

Back to the OP, here's a possible reason, Travis:



It appears the GOP is upset with the current situation, as well.

Headline quote on CNN now:

House Speaker John Boehner urges White House to negotiate on shutdown, Obamacare: 'This is not some damn game

*********** moron.

 

[Biscuit]

Oh yeah. I got mine! I now have the ability to purchase health insurance. What a freaking parasite I am!

Oh. But you think that I shouldn't be able to because some companies are acting without morals or ethics and cutting down on working hours?

Wow.

So what other basic things should we do without because of a lack of ethics from companies? Should we stop using bridges because we can't count on companies actually building them to code? Should we stop buying food from supermarkets because we can't count on companies not spraying them with poison?

My point being that we shouldn't end highly beneficial programs just because some companies out there are unscrupulous and will game the system. What we should do is make it so they can't game the system! That's a solution to the problem you brought up. Not going back to the same terrible system we had before where tens of millions of tax paying citizens such as myself are completely unable to buy health insurance because of pre-existing health problems.



And you know what? We pay higher prices for gasoline because we implement safety laws for workers that drill for oil and transport it to refineries. Should we repeal basic worker safety laws?

This is exactly right. The people complaining that you and I will finally be able to buy health insurance are playing a game of, "I already had mine so screw you."

I don't speak for travis but I know that I have never once wanted any care for free, never wanted a handout, I just want the opportunity to participate in the health insurance system. The ACA is an improvement and improvements have costs but you know what? Travis and I are going to be allowed to bear some of the costs as well.

 

[Travis]

Back to the OP, here's a possible reason, Travis:



It appears the GOP is upset with the current situation, as well.

What I find baffling is the seeming surprise from the Tea Party that shutting down the government in an attempt to prevent tens of millions of citizens from getting healthcare would be unpopular.

I mean are they so far gone into their own echo chamber that they thought of themselves as potential heroes for daring to stand up against those evil people with preexisting conditions and tell them that their only proper place in American society is in a grave?

 

[Biscuit]

What I find baffling is the seeming surprise from the Tea Party that shutting down the government in an attempt to prevent tens of millions of citizens from getting healthcare would be unpopular.

I mean are they so far gone into their own echo chamber that they thought of themselves as potential heroes for daring to stand up against those evil people with preexisting conditions and tell them that their only proper place in American society is in a grave?

That echo chamber is a labyrinth and they are lost but someone installed a microphone.

It's the talking points they care about. After all they got theirs so screw us.

 

[Mister Earl]

Wooooweeee!

Been following this debacle over the past few days. Man, what a freakshow! The Republicans are taking a shellacking! With a bit of luck, they will fall to ruin, and perhaps the ol' Republican party I care about arises from its ashes.

Even polls from Fox News is starting to show this.
http://www.fark.com/goto/7961672/ht...pproval-gop-skyrocketing-shut-government.html

 

[Mister Earl]

What I find baffling is the seeming surprise from the Tea Party that shutting down the government in an attempt to prevent tens of millions of citizens from getting healthcare would be unpopular.

I mean are they so far gone into their own echo chamber that they thought of themselves as potential heroes for daring to stand up against those evil people with preexisting conditions and tell them that their only proper place in American society is in a grave?

I'm pretty sure the objective is, and has almost always been in recent times, the preservation of profits for those that pad the campaign coffers. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; If the Republicans put as much effort into helping the common man as they have into protecting profits for the big guys, this place would have been paradise ages ago.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Who said anything about "inconsequential" or "indifferent"?

Me. I wrote: "If you think that's inconsequential, try remain indifferent". You are familiar with the conditional "if", right? My point, which I made explicit, was that Cleon's "people or money" dichotomy is false.

 

[uke2se]

Me. I wrote: "If you think that's inconsequential, try remain indifferent". You are familiar with the conditional "if", right? My point, which I made explicit, was that Cleon's "people or money" dichotomy is false.

No, it wasn't false in the context of his post.

ETA: In fact, there was no such dichotomy at all.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm pretty sure the objective¹ is, and has almost always been in recent times, the preservation of profits² for those that pad the campaign coffers. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; If the Republicans put as much effort into helping the common man as they have into protecting profits² for the big guys, this place would have been paradise ages ago.

Back to the topic of government schools and the production of adults who think like Earl.
1. "The objective" is a statement of intention. Intentions are invisible, mental events and so a matter of inference. If you want to slander the opposition, invisible demons are better (less subject to disproof) than, say, a criminal record. If I say: "Earl has been convicted of molesting sub-teen boys", that's actionable. If I say: "John Boehner doesn't care about the common man", there's no obvious rebuttal. The sensible alternative to ad hominem argument is a policy discussion: What are the legitimate functions of government?
2. "Profit" is a book keeping term: the difference between total revenues and total costs. An organization which has no line in its balance sheet for profit, such as a church, labor union, or government, must attribute all revenues to costs. This says nothing about the motives of the individuals in that organization.

 

[Cleon]

Me. I wrote: "If you think that's inconsequential, try remain indifferent". You are familiar with the conditional "if", right? My point, which I made explicit, was that Cleon's "people or money" dichotomy is false.

No, it wasn't false in the context of his post.

ETA: In fact, there was no such dichotomy at all.

Not to mention that I posted nothing whatsoever about "people or money."

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What I find baffling is the seeming surprise from the Tea Party that shutting down the government in an attempt to prevent tens of millions of citizens from getting healthcare would be unpopular.

I mean are they so far gone into their own echo chamber that they thought of themselves as potential heroes for daring to stand up against those evil people with preexisting conditions and tell them that their only proper place in American society is in a grave?

We're all terminally ill. The "public goods" argument for charity (e.g., tax-subsidization of care for people with pre-existing conditions) contains a flaw: corporate oversight is a public good and the State itself is a corporation. State assumption of responsibility for the provision of the public good of charity transforms the free rider problem at the root of public goods analysis but does not eliminate it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Not to mention that I posted nothing whatsoever about "people or money."

Sorry. That was "Tricky" (the post before Cleon's), not "Cleon".