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

[davefoc]

A partisan such as myself? Just so you know, I don't root for either the blue team or the red team, although I do realize that for some people, which teams win is the most important thing.

This was hard to detect from your post which was a collection of pure Republican partisan BS talking points.

You're the one who just said you hoped that members of the red team did something that you've claimed is bad for the country just so that the members of your team can take control. And I'm the partisan?

What I said was that I thought Democrats like to win elections and I wouldn't be surprised if they were happy to see Republicans engaging in activities which will cause the Republican Party problems. I think Republicans would feel the same way if the roles were reversed. As for me, I think the Republican actions with regard to this are disgusting and I wish they'd stop.

EDIT: and for the record, I think it is absolutely stupid to try to work halt the ACA by denying funds to implementation and enforcement. If the Republicans want to repeal the ACA, they should repeal the ACA, not leave a law on the books that isn't enforced or implemented, leaving millions of people in limbo to the point where technically they are violating the law but they don't have the option of following it. Again, I don't give a crap about your red team vs blue team concerns.

This all seems reasonable to me and if you'd said this instead of posting nonsense Republican talking points I would not have made the comments I did in my post. For the record, I'm a registered Republican that generally votes for Republicans in California state elections and I generally vote for Democrats in National elections. I favor small government, free markets and fiscal conservatism. This of course means that the hypocritical, hyper spending Republican Party of today doesn't represent my views in that area and the relentless drive to get the country involved in unnecessary wars by the Republicans makes voting for Democrats a choice which is just based on picking the lesser of two evils.

 

[Bob001]

That didn't really clear up for me why the one is blackmail and the other isn't. It is 2 different entities essentially saying "my way or the highway". I'm curious why it is that in one of those cases it is blackmail but the other case isn't.

The difference is that the Affordable Care Act was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and then in 2012 the President campaigned on it and won re-election by more than five million votes, and the side that wants to defund/abolish it consists of about 30 right-wing extremists in one party in one house of one branch of government who are preventing a clean budget resolution from being voted on by the full membership of the House, which would surely approve it. If 30 congressmen lay down in the highway to, say, stop ambulances from taking uninsured people to hospitals, no one would say "let's negotiate, let's find something in the middle." In this case, "my way or the highway" is the legislative equivalent of laying across the highway to keep sick people from getting care.

 

[DavidJames]

Hey Mike - Why won't the Republicans vote on a clean CR?

 

[Unabogie]

The difference is that the Affordable Care Act was passed by both houses of Congress, signed by the President and affirmed by the Supreme Court, and then in 2012 the President campaigned on it and won re-election by more than five million votes, and the side that wants to defund/abolish it consists of about 30 right-wing extremists in one party in one house of one branch of government who are preventing a clean budget resolution from being voted on by the full membership of the House, which would surely approve it. If 30 congressmen lay down in the highway to, say, stop ambulances from taking uninsured people to hospitals, no one would say "let's negotiate, let's find something in the middle." In this case, "my way or the highway" is the legislative equivalent of laying across the highway to keep sick people from getting care.

Actually the votes to end this are there RIGHT NOW, but Boehner won't allow a vote on the House floor. There is no need to negotiate at all. Boehner just needs to relent and allow a vote. But to the larger question, anyone defending this kind of hostage taking is foolish beyond belief. This has never happened before and if Obama allowed this to continue, our entire system would break down. The Tea Party don't care if their numbers drop or if they lose the House, because they are all in deeply red districts where no other party can win, even if the Republican demonstrates incompetence or corruption. In those deep red districts, this is making them MORE popular, not less. In that environment, the incentive to take further hostages is immense. And I'm not even going to go into the "what if Democrats did the same thing" because Democrats don't do this kind of thing and never had. Rather, I'd ask what if this works, and becomes the norm whenever Republicans manage to grab hold of one house of Congress? What would be their incentive to stop and what kind of damange would they be willing to do?

Let's remember, they are currently threatening to cause the US to default on our debts and many of them are claiming that it's not a big deal.

It's not like these Tea Party nuts can't get any stupider. Has anyone see Blake Farenthold?



This guy is a walking SNL skit. We want to give this guy veto power over existing laws?

 

[Bob001]

No surprise that the campaign against the ACA is heavily funded by the Koch brothers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/u...lanning.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&pagewanted=all

 

[Mister Earl]

Apparently the Democrats have a plan in the works that will circumvent the obstructions from Boehner.

http://www.fark.com/goto/7961847/ht...o-force-republicans-to-reopen-the-government/

 

[Neally]

Please find me people that will now go without healthcare with Obamacare in place.

As I've shown, the losers are the ones that have less income now because of Obamacare. The other losers are the ones paying more for insurance. Don't you never mind about them losers though, you got yours.

 

[gnome]

Apparently the Democrats have a plan in the works that will circumvent the obstructions from Boehner.

http://www.fark.com/goto/7961847/ht...o-force-republicans-to-reopen-the-government/

I'm sure that when this happens they will be accused of malfeasance.

 

[Unabogie]

As I've shown, the losers are the ones that have less income now because of Obamacare. The other losers are the ones paying more for insurance. Don't you never mind about them losers though, you got yours.

And yet in Oregon we'll be paying much less. Care to address the numbers I posted? Here they are again. Why did the Manhattan Institute say we'd be paying more when we'll be paying much less?

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I work for the NPS. We are not trying to make anything more painful for anybody, let me assure you. We have been directed to keep 'through roads' open but to close campgrounds, overlooks, pullouts, and non-through roads as well as facilities. Here, we own a 200-foot wide road for 26 miles, with a number of pullouts and overlooks along it. Many people do not realize that we own that road. The pullouts are closed; the road itself is open. Nobody has passed on any information telling any of us to 'make things difficult'. None of us want to do that. None of us enjoy kicking people out of the parks and being cursed at and threatened and called various things that I can't type here. And none of it has anything to do with how much money it costs us to do these closures; that was never considered in the shutdown. I guarantee it will cost us more money to close things than to keep them open, but we don't have the choice to unilaterally keep a park open just because we want to. If any of us did that, we would not have a job to return to when this is over.

Bummer. Thanks for this first hand account.

My understanding was the reason for closing parking areas, turnouts, and other open air monuments was people like yourself were not able to properly police the areas preventing vandalism and other mischief, keep the trash picked up and facilities cleaned.

It's quite specious to read some disgruntled worker claiming he was told to make things miserable for the public. It's ludicrous.

It's disgusting disgruntled visitors would be blaming the rangers and other employees.

 

[uke2se]

As I've shown, the losers are the ones that have less income now because of Obamacare. The other losers are the ones paying more for insurance. Don't you never mind about them losers though, you got yours.

He get to have health care, you mean. When you try to make it sound like Travis is being greedy, it fails when someone comes along and mentions that all Travis wanted was health care.

 

[Neally]

And yet in Oregon we'll be paying much less. Care to address the numbers I posted? Here they are again. Why did the Manhattan Institute say we'd be paying more when we'll be paying much less?

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

Check ehealthinsurance.com and you'll find pre and post Obamacare numbers. Many people will be paying a lot more thanks to Obamacare.

 

[Neally]

He get to have health care, you mean. When you try to make it sound like Travis is being greedy, it fails when someone comes along and mentions that all Travis wanted was health care.

I'm sure the fact that Travis has health insurance will make those thousands of people with less income and higher insurance costs feel so much better.

 

[Unabogie]

Check ehealthinsurance.com and you'll find pre and post Obamacare numbers. Many people will be paying a lot more thanks to Obamacare.

I posted the actual numbers and explained what I'll be paying. I have no pre-existing condition but my wife does (and it's extremely minor, yet no insurer will cover her, so OHIP was our only option).

In the exchanges, my plan, which is costing me $265 a month will go down a little, and hers, which is $316, will go down a lot. The lowest bronze plan is $165 before subsidies for a person in their 40s. For someone younger, it's even cheaper. I posted the numbers for the new exchange. And under the new law, there are no lifetime caps, no cost differentials for pre-existing conditions, no cost differentials for gender, and a hard limit on both out of pocket expenses and a cap on how much your insurer can spend on ads and salaries instead of health care.

How on earth are we not getting a better deal under the new law? It's not even close.

You're just wrong on this. But thanks for finally responding. Care to quote the numbers you think proves your point?

 

[uke2se]

I'm sure the fact that Travis has health insurance will make those thousands of people with less income and higher insurance costs feel so much better.

It should. They get to spend a little of their money to make sure people all around the country get quality health care.

 

[Mister Earl]

I would figure Obamacare would be cheaper even for folks who aren't using it, simply because the uninsured who used to just show up at the emergency ward are now footing at least part of their own bill.

 

[Neally]

You're just wrong on this. But thanks for finally responding. Care to quote the numbers you think proves your point?

Check ehealthinsurance.com for 40 year old male in LA. Again this is the source that my cite used. I can believe some may pay less. Many people will pay more.

It should. They get to spend a little of their money to make sure people all around the country get quality health care.

Oh and earn less. But, if they are not totally thrilled with their now worse off situation, they just must be greedy scum.

But let's take that logic further. Everyone should be forced to buy motorcycle insurance to make sure that all the motorcycle riders pay a bit less for their insurance.

 

[Normal Dude]

I'm sure the fact that Travis has health insurance will make those thousands of people with less income and higher insurance costs feel so much better.

Even if that were true, I WOULD feel better, but then I'm not a selfish twat who'd rather have millions languish in poor health while bunkrupting themselves so I could save a few bucks.

 

[uke2se]

Oh and earn less. But, if they are not totally thrilled with their now worse off situation, they just must be greedy scum.

Do they earn little enough to go below the poverty line? If so, they can get welfare.

 

[Bob001]

.....
But let's take that logic further. Everyone should be forced to buy motorcycle insurance to make sure that all the motorcycle riders pay a bit less for their insurance.

Aw, c'mon, not everybody has a motorcycle. But everybody has a body that sooner or later will get sick or injured. And although ehealthinsurance does show higher rates starting in 2014 for the lowest cost policies (which cover more than the cheapest present policies, like office visits), it does not show the subsidies that are available to lower income people. The California exchange link lets you determine whether and how much help you can get:
https://www.coveredca.com/shopandcompare/#calculator

Webmd has a page with links to the individual marketplaces:
http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/insurance-marketplace/health-insurance-marketplace-faq