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

[Tricky]

I don't get why people believe the "cheaper, more efficient" hype. ACA is another inter-generational wealth transfer from the young and healthy to the old and feeble.

Cheaper and more efficient than having all their medical stuff done for free in the emergency room. And yes, in a civilized society, the young and healthy DO contribute to the well-being of the old and feeble. What would you recommend we do with them?

 

[uke2se]

And I think that's stupid, unless it's highly qualified. Some amount of money (i.e., control over resources) is worth some amount of human life.
Sir-Drinks-a-Lot said it best.

No amount of money is worth a single human life on it's own. The only reason money sometimes is valued above human lives is because the money can sustain other human lives. Money itself is not worth a human life.

 

[Mister Earl]

I hope he isn't going on about the soylent solution.

 

[davefoc]

Only that's just a naive and not well thought out view that is primarily used as rhetoric to argue for spending on social 'welfare' programs or for people to help them make themselves feel better.

"You don't want to pay for plan X to help the poor and less fortunate? Well, I do because I value people more than money. And why are you such a racist?" Rinse and repeat.

Is any of this relevant to this discussion? Isn't the issue whether it is a legitimate legislative technique to threaten the shut down of the government if your side doesn't get their way?

I suppose if an argument was being made that the ACA was some sort of massively evil plot to murder people that even extreme measures to prevent its implementation would be justified. But the ACA doesn't look like that to me. It looks like routine legislation that is passed by Democrats when they're in power to implement expanded transfer of wealth schemes to benefit people they see as less fortunate.

So, there are lots of arguments possible against various ideas of the Democratic party and when the Republicans have control of the legislative process they can modify or eliminate them by normal legal legislative processes. But the Republicans don't have control of the legislative process. They have control of one third of the legislative process and under the normal rules that control the governance of the US that means they can't do anything except make a lot of noise about how bad the Democrats are.

What the Republicans are attempting to do here is to bypass the intent of the constitution and institute legislation with only the control of one house of congress. Obviously the Democrats can't allow that or the Democrats would be ceding legislative control to people who don't have a constitutional basis for having it.

Not only are the Republicans attempting to implement this scheme with only control of the house, they are attempting to implement this scheme with only a minority of house members that support the scheme.

This is a silly, unjustified, hypocritical, harmful scheme that is being perpetrated on the US by a minority of people in the House of Representatives. I don't know where this is going to end. If the Republicans don't back down soon the damage to the US will be massive. But if they do back down it will make it obvious to even their most partisan supporters that this was an irrational scheme that's only likely outcome was damage to the US.

 

[elbe]

I hope he isn't going on about the soylent solution.

I fully support Soylent Green's euthenasia system. That seems like a good way to die.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh noes! The Dems appear to have found a way around the Republican blockade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...o-force-republicans-to-reopen-the-government/

But they are citing a bill that hasn't passed yet. That's confusing. I take it they might be able to force this bill but not the clean budget extension bill?

It'll be great not only if they get it done, but also to put an end to minority hostage taking.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Cheaper and more efficient than having all their medical stuff done for free in the emergency room. And yes, in a civilized society, the young and healthy DO contribute to the well-being of the old and feeble. What would you recommend we do with them?

Unfortunately as bad as I think the ACA law is, it wasn't a suitable issue to bring in as a condition for the federal budget stuff, and there were way better priorities to chase if anything was going to be a condition for getting the federal budget settled... in particular I wish they aimed at the budget ceiling instead because... frankly trying to defund Obamacare was a losing fight and trying to change it is not nearly as urgent right now as keeping the country able to have its funding in order. Committing to slowing or reversing the debt increase in the long terms would have been a far better focus considering the budget stuff and the debt ceiling are about two weeks apart...

The actual compromise in my opinion should never have, and should not continue to be a choice between defunding the healthcare law and the government shutdown.... It should be finding a middle ground on SOMETHING, and having that consensus be the working process towards getting the differences settled. Again, the ACA itself is important, but not as much as setting up plans for the funding of the government and all of the obligations (IE welfare, debts, etc) that are already in place.... Republicans have this notion apparently that it's a first priority above the debt and funding of government and all else, whereas democrats think for whatever reason that compromising has to mean that there's this false choice dilemma between compromising on the ACA or nothing at all.

Can't fault the OP for being angry about the shut down... I had to tune off the talk shows tonight because this shutdown stuff is making for a media frenzy full of hype, and that stuff got to be way more than I could stomach for once... :\ Well.... the Hannity level ones anyway... the local talk shows are more in middle.

 

[C_Felix]

I don't get why people believe the "cheaper, more efficient" hype. ACA is another inter-generational wealth transfer from the young and healthy to the old and feeble.

So, now the ACA is communist?

I'm guess Malcolm received an advanced copy of next week's talking points.

 

[Biscuit]

I don't get why people believe the "cheaper, more efficient" hype. ACA is another inter-generational wealth transfer from the young and healthy to the old and feeble.

Because it will be less expensive and more efficient than the previous system. Access to preventative medicine alone confirms this. Are there even better options than the ACA? Yes, look to all other first world countries that get better results for less money.

I am pissed at the GOP because they haven't proposed any other option, instead they just want me to sit on the health care sidelines till a catastrophe occurs. After all they got theirs so screw me.

 

[Unabogie]

Using Oregon as an example,

A sampling of rates shows increases from 24 to 54%.

[qimg]http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq12/kendal_056/rank_zps49647b38.png[/qimg]

Most people don't qualify for subsidies:

[qimg]http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq12/kendal_056/eleg_zpsb0686a29.png[/qimg]

Therefore many people have have had increases and most don't qualify for subsidies.


http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2013/what-will-obamacare-cost-you-map.html

Most 25-year-old non-smokers in California face higher premium costs under Obamacare, even when you take the subsidies into account.

[qimg]http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/06/CA-HIX-25-net-subsidies.png[/qimg]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/07/the-war-on-bros-exchange-subsidies-wont-protect-young-people-from-obamacares-higher-insurance-premiums/

Thousands of people will pay higher rates as a result of Obamacare despite subsidies.

I call ******** on these numbers. I live in Oregon, don't qualify for subsidies, and buy insurance on the open market. My wife has a pre-existing condition that necessitates us buy the more expensive coverage at $316 a month through OHIP. Once the Oregon exchanges are open (they are currently delayed) our cheapest option is with Moda at $166 a month.

So yeah, not buying right wing propaganda.

Proof here:

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files...remiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf

See the rates in Oregon?

Care to respond to the actual numbers instead of providing right wing bs?

 

[rustypouch]

Because it will be less expensive and more efficient than the previous system. Access to preventative medicine alone confirms this. Are there even better options than the ACA? Yes, look to all other first world countries that get better results for less money.

I am pissed at the GOP because they haven't proposed any other option, instead they just want me to sit on the health care sidelines till a catastrophe occurs. After all they got theirs so screw me.

I still don't get why people in the US are against UHC.

Every country that has it spends less than the US and has similar, if not better outcomes. As a bonus, people don't lose their houses if they get cancer or in a bad accident.

The ACA is a start, but it's a compromise that benefits the insurance industry.

 

[Mister Earl]

I still don't get why people in the US are against UHC.

We have "entertainment" media that constantly reports on a fictional universe as if it were actually happening.

 

[ehcks]

But they are citing a bill that hasn't passed yet. That's confusing. I take it they might be able to force this bill but not the clean budget extension bill?

It'll be great not only if they get it done, but also to put an end to minority hostage taking.

As I read it, they take a bill that hasn't been voted on for some amount of time, and force it to be voted on regardless of the speaker of the house. They can even amend it, up to entirely.

 

[marplots]

As I read it, they take a bill that hasn't been voted on for some amount of time, and force it to be voted on regardless of the speaker of the house. They can even amend it, up to entirely.

The only defense against a bad guy with procedural shenanigans is a good guy with procedural shenanigans.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Malcolm Kirkpatrick, how much money is a human life worth?

 

[gnome]

I understand the spirit of that question. However, I also agree that we place convenience and profit over human life all the time.

That people are a greater priority than profit is something I believe, but not useful as an absolute.

 

[Peephole]

I don't get why people believe the "cheaper, more efficient" hype. ACA is another inter-generational wealth transfer from the young and healthy to the old and feeble.

Can't old and sick people just die already? I mean come on.

 

[gnome]

Yes, we take young people's money, and all they get in exchange is to enter their thirties without unpaid hospital bills crippling their credit.

 

[Robrob]

I don't get why people believe the "cheaper, more efficient" hype. ACA is another inter-generational wealth transfer from the young and healthy to the old and feeble.

Sounds like someone is unclear as to how "insurance" works.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I read it, they take a bill that hasn't been voted on for some amount of time, and force it to be voted on regardless of the speaker of the house. They can even amend it, up to entirely.

I saw more about this on Rachel Maddow. The loop hole was used on that Reese Witherspoon movie which I found fascinating.

The HuffPo article says it's still a long shot and the earliest it can work is the 14th. I just wish the reasonable GOPers would grow some cajones.