Quote :

"you have a truly shitastic imagination"

beat me to it.

Quote :

"If you believe everything one party is telling you, then you have no imagination."

How can you say that with a straight face after your preceding post?

Quote :

"this law has already hurt myself and my family, as it was intended to do"

Yes, the people who crafted the ACA intended to hurt you and your family. Well thought out argument.

[Edited on October 2, 2013 at 3:04 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2013 3:00:39 PM

Quote :

"I dont have a problem with charity. I have a problem with it being mandatory, being more than I can afford, and being distributed in a manner that is based upon a warped concept of fairness, or worse yet, simple vote-buying."

which government services are charity and which government services are not, because you use all kinds of government services too

10/2/2013 3:05:55 PM

Quote :

"which government services are charity and which government services are not, because you use all kinds of government services too"

Clearly, the ones he doesn't use.

10/2/2013 3:08:56 PM

Quote :

"I can imagine few fates worse than an American population dependant on government for their very health and well-being"

Do you know what the ACA does?

10/2/2013 3:13:34 PM

you know already that he does not

10/2/2013 3:14:43 PM

[Edited on October 2, 2013 at 3:26 PM. Reason : Double post]

10/2/2013 3:24:35 PM

Quote :

"yes, the people who crafted the ACA intended to hurt you and your family. Well thought out argument. "

they had to know premiums would greatly increase. that does hurt his family.

i believe they wanted to get millions of voters on healthcare subsidies so they could say if you vote for the republicans they will take away your healthcare.

10/2/2013 5:37:34 PM

Quagmire02:

Quote :

"most of us are smart enough to realize how fucking childish and stupid the conservatives are being about this whole "let's hold the government hostage until we get our way, since we don't have the support of the people or judicial branch" bit / it's also why most of us are capable of understanding how a healthier, more educated public is a good thing for society as a whole /don't worry, you have plenty of company in your naivete"

Though I lean conservative on most issues, I consider myself a moderate, and by no means do I side staunchly with the GOP. I do, however, understand that there are a lot of very smart people with very good points on both sides of the aisle. I also believe that most, if not all, of our legislators genuinely have the best interest of their constituents in mind when they cast their votes. There are rational, substantive reasons that each side of this debate exists. If you believe that your side is right and the other side is simply "fucking childish and stupid", then you are failing to understand the nature of the debate and would be well advised put a bit more effort into understanding those whose opinion differs from your own, and a bit less effort in calling them names.

Furthermore, your statement:

Quote :

""let's hold the government hostage until we get our way, since we don't have the support of the people or judicial branch""

is a gross mischaracterization of the situation and a near-verbatim regurgitation of every liberal talking point I have heard over the last few days. (1) No one is being held hostage. (2) Republicans took control of the house in 2010 as a result of support of the people and largely in response to the public outcry against the ACA. (3) I agree that a healthier, more educated public is a good thing for society, but I dispute that ACA will make the public better educated and think there are more effective ways to make the public healthier. I am by no means alone in this assertion.

synapse:

Quote :

"Yes, the people who crafted the ACA intended to hurt you and your family. Well thought out argument."

For three consecutive years, my employer provided health coverage has changed. Each year the premiums have gone up and the coverage has gone down. This year, the ACA will cost me over $2k for inferior coverage. This is a direct result of the ACA. People who are already seeing the benefit of ACA coverage (for example: people with pre-existing conditions) are having their benefits paid by the premiums of those who don't have pre-existing conditions (for example: me). People who were previously excluded by the economics of the insurance market are now included. This is covered by the premiums of those who were not previously excluded (me) in the name of fairness. In many cases, not all, I disagree with the concepts of fairness that underlie the changes in the insurance market brought on by the law.

dtownral:

Quote :

"which government services are charity and which government services are not, because you use all kinds of government services too"

synapse:

Quote :

"Clearly, the ones he doesn't use."

That is exactly right. I vote in support of legislation that benefits me. Democracy.

jwb9984:

Quote :

"Do you know what the ACA does?"

Yes, I do.

dtownral:

Quote :

"you know already that he does not"

Are you afraid to let me answer for myself? I would not pretend to have read the bill in its entirety (who has?) but I have a done a lot of reading and I think I have an accurate idea of how it works. I understand that the government will pay private insurance companies a subsidy to help offset the cost of health coverage for certain groups of people. If this subsidy is what makes health care affordable for those people, then it must be true that without the subsidy, those people could not afford health care. I am of the opinion that if one cannot afford healthcare without government subsidies, then they are dependent on the government for their health care. I do not want myself, or any of my fellow Americans, to be dependent on government for our health care.

Though I could engage with you all at great length in debate over the tactics of the shutdown, it was only my intention to attempt to explain the thinking of the political right in adopting this strategy and to point out that it is not entirely without public support. Clearly, I was naive to think that I could do so on TWW without inviting flaming and name-calling. If you would genuinely like to understand why this is happening, I can try to help explain it to you. If you just want to scream about what a bunch of racist, bigoted, homophobic, stupid, redneck, selfish, rich, white, male, assholes conservatives must surely be to dare and disagree with your opinion then you may scream into the vacuum of the internet. Flame away!

10/2/2013 5:41:10 PM

Whoa whoa whoa, the soap box? In my chit chat?

That's totally uncalled for.

10/2/2013 5:46:05 PM

^its more likely than you think.

10/2/2013 5:48:18 PM

Quote :

"(2) Republicans took control of the house in 2010 as a result of support of the people and largely in response to the public outcry against the ACA. "

kind of a moot point seeing as how there have been multiple elections since 2010

just sayin'

10/2/2013 6:29:09 PM

Good point, although it was in response to a post implying that the affordable care act passed by the congress elected in 2008 did have the mandate from the people whereas the current group does not. Not only was the 2010 election more recent, but it resulted in the change in majority leadership that is pursuing the tactics discussed in this thread.

10/2/2013 6:40:14 PM

Quote :

". I am of the opinion that if one cannot afford healthcare without government subsidies, then they are dependent on the government for their health care. I do not want myself, or any of my fellow Americans, to be dependent on government for our health care. "

This doesn't make any sense at all, I don't think you understand what ACS is

10/2/2013 6:55:24 PM

Quote :

"So, yeah, you guys get to subsidize me playing it fast and loose with my womb. "

Hey Bridgetspk, dont be trolling me

10/2/2013 6:58:13 PM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/the-two-basic-facts-that-should-be-in-every-shutdown-story/280179/

Quote :

"To people who follow politics these two facts are obvious. But they're not part of most "tragedy of gridlock" false-equivalence stories, and I believe they would come as news to most of the public. The two facts are: 1. If the House of Representatives voted on a "clean" budget bill -- one that opened up the closed federal offices but did not attempt to defund the Obama health care program -- that bill would pass, and the shutdown would be over. Nearly all Democrats would vote for it, as would enough Republicans to end the shutdown and its related damage. (And of course it would pass has already passed the Senate, repeatedly, unless the minority dared filibuster it, and would be signed by the president.) For illustrations of the wanton damage, see here and here. 2. So far House Speaker John Boehner has refused to let this vote occur. His Tea Party contingent knows how the vote would go and therefore does not want it to happen; and such is Boehner's fear of them, and fear for his job as Speaker, that he will not let it take place. These two points are why the normal D.C.-poohbah moanings about the need for compromise do not apply. The Democratic administration, and a sufficient number of Republicans, already agree and are ready enough to compromise to solve this problem. If the normal machinery of democracy were allowed to work, the manufactured crisis would be over. The only reason the senseless damage is being done is that hostage-takers have terrorized members of their own party. I wish John Boehner were a vainer man. (And I wish that Boehner and vainer didn't rhyme, undercutting the point.) The way he could earn a place in history, admiring chapters in Profiles in Courage-type books, and even a long swing on the university-lecture circuit would be to defy his extremist minority. And maybe eventually he will."

10/3/2013 8:46:03 AM

Quote :

"(3) I agree that a healthier, more educated public is a good thing for society, but I dispute that ACA will make the public better educated..."

The ACA isn't meant to educate the public. WTF are you talking about???

Quote :

"Though I lean conservative on most issues, I consider myself a moderate, and by no means do I side staunchly with the GOP. I do, however, understand that there are a lot of very smart people with very good points on both sides of the aisle."

I've met a number of moderates out there, but you ain't one of them. It amuses me when people say bullshit like: "I'm a moderate, but I *lean* right." Funny enough I always hear this shit from *right* leaners, not left. Even better are the "I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal" assholes. Look, if you want to call yourself a moderate find us some liberal positions you have backed on this board. We'll be waiting...[forever].

Quote :

"I also believe that most, if not all, of our legislators genuinely have the best interest of their constituents in mind when they cast their votes."

Oh boy what kind of world do you live in where you believe this? Many do, but I wouldn't stretch it to most/all.

Quote :

"For three consecutive years, my employer provided health coverage has changed. Each year the premiums have gone up and the coverage has gone down."

Please, regale us with stories about how your health care coverage was increasing in years prior, along with your premiums going down. We'll be waiting...[forever].

Quote :

"This year, the ACA will cost me over $2k for inferior coverage. "

Wow I wasn't aware the ACA was a single-payer system. I must have missed that provision.

Quote :

"People who are already seeing the benefit of ACA coverage (for example: people with pre-existing conditions) are having their benefits paid by the premiums of those who don't have pre-existing conditions (for example: me). People who were previously excluded by the economics of the insurance market are now included. This is covered by the premiums of those who were not previously excluded (me) in the name of fairness."

You are woefully ignorant on what the ACA is, which actually isn't what's surprising. What's surprising, is the amount you've talked about it here without even a cursory glance at what it actually is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

10/3/2013 10:15:33 AM

^not to discount what you've provided, but the truth is always in the law itself, not it's Wikipedia page

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf

10/3/2013 10:21:29 AM

Quote :

"The ACA isn't meant to educate the public. WTF are you talking about???"

to his credit, i believe he's responding to my assertion that a healthier AND better educated public was in society's best interests...i probably shouldn't have brought up education in a healthcare debate, i just usually mention the two together

10/3/2013 10:42:41 AM

Quote :

"not to discount what you've provided, but the truth is always in the law itself, not it's Wikipedia page"

For sure, but if he hasn't even skimmed the highlights yet, I'm not sure the law itself is a good place to start.

10/3/2013 11:02:51 AM

We have to pay the health care bills one way or another. Seems to me better to pay it up front. No matter who is in charge or the policy most of us on this board are going to get stuck paying for everything that has happened the past 15 years or so. I love when the baby boomers make comments like "kids these days..." And "your generation is so lazy..." Fuck the baby boomers, what an entitled uninformed shitty generation. A generation of takers, and that includes both dems and reps.

As a side note, I hate every politician on either side. At what point do all people 35 and under find a way to unite and vote out old white men?

/nonsensical rant over.

10/3/2013 11:12:34 AM

Quote :

"As a side note, I hate every politician on either side"

why both sides? the democrats compromised, they cut spending way back and sent back a bill with spending at the levels that house republicans asked for.

10/3/2013 11:32:42 AM

I hate every politician

10/3/2013 11:35:17 AM

^^nope

10/3/2013 11:54:26 AM

yes, they did. the clean CR that was sent to the house had the spending that the house wanted.

10/3/2013 11:58:54 AM

Quote :

"I disagree with the concepts of fairness that underlie the changes in the insurance market"

-emory

this guy disagrees with "concepts of fairness"

10/3/2013 12:03:27 PM

Quote :

"As a side note, I hate every politician on either side. At what point do all people 35 and under find a way to unite and vote out old white men? "

we did, and look what it got us?

10/3/2013 12:07:55 PM

Quote :

"why both sides?"

LOL

10/3/2013 12:12:34 PM

Quote :

"yes, they did. the clean CR that was sent to the house had the spending that the house wanted."

I don't disagree with you, but can you find a link showing this?

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM. Reason : V thx]

10/3/2013 12:15:40 PM

one side has compromised, the other side has a single person who refuses to bring a clean CR to vote




also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/02/the-shutdown-is-ridiculous-the-fight-just-below-the-surface-is-not/

Quote :

"The continuing resolution (CR) that the Senate passed, the one that's ostensibly the Democratic position in this dispute now, spends $217 billion less on discretionary programs than Obama's budget would have. Break that number down for me. Where's it coming from? Surprisingly, while it's a little bit more of a cut for non-defense spending, it's not all non-defense. Some of the difference is defense as well. The Obama budget had $600 billion in it for non-defense discretionary spending, and the Senate CR says $467 billion. It's a $133 billion difference. But that leaves a big chunk in the defense as well. And it's mostly coming because of sequestration. It's sequestration but also the Budget Control Act's cap. One of the things that's interesting about that chart is that the Senate budget resolution is a pretty far move from the initial democratic position. At that point, we were already pretty far away from where Democrats started. When you mention the "original" Paul Ryan budget, which one are you referring to? The one we were using was the one they released when they took over, in early 2011. So we've been cutting spending at a faster pace than Paul Ryan wanted to when Republicans took over Congress. On discretionary spending at least, that's right. And that's what we're pointing out. We've already essentially adopted that Ryan budget, and obviously that was not seen at the time as a moderate approach to government spending."

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2013 12:16:06 PM

so in this instance, one side is less at fault, so that makes you trust all politicians on that side?

10/3/2013 12:18:14 PM

never trust politicians

10/3/2013 12:22:27 PM

Quote :

"We have to pay the health care bills one way or another."

Then it would be nice to see the gov't get serious about it and start over at the foundation. Without that these costs will continue to rise.

10/3/2013 1:06:29 PM

ACA was the compromise, it was the result of the "getting serious"

the democrats removed all the liberal parts from it except for the medicaid expansion, and the supreme court took care of that

10/3/2013 1:08:05 PM

Im pretty sure the subsidizing cost on the backs of middle class 20-30yr olds to pay for low income is a lib concept.

10/3/2013 1:16:48 PM

you'd be wrong, when republicans invented ACA it had subsidies and tax credits

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 1:26 PM. Reason : tax credits too]

10/3/2013 1:25:01 PM

synapse: Clearly, you have misread or misunderstood my previous post on a number of points. Quagmire was kind enough to point one of them out already.

Quote :

"Look, if you want to call yourself a moderate find us some liberal positions you have backed on this board. We'll be waiting..."

Where one lies in the spectrum of political preference is a matter of opinion. I consider myself a moderate, you may consider me whatever you wish. I break with the GOP on matters of gay rights, immigration reform, most environmental policy, drug law reform, and a number of other issues. I tend to side with the GOP on matters of fiscal policy, foreign policy, gun control, and entitlement reform. I consider my views on healthcare to be very moderate, and I do not view this law as a moderate approach at all. I doubt the law would have passed without a unified congress, super-majority in the senate, and the White house in the hands of a single party. I think its fair to say that it would not pass today.

Quote :

"Please, regale us with stories about how your health care coverage was increasing in years prior, along with your premiums going down. We'll be waiting...[forever]."

Quote :

"Wow I wasn't aware the ACA was a single-payer system. I must have missed that provision."

I never said it was a single payer system, nor did I say that health premiums were going down in the previous years. You are not debating my words, you are debating the words that you are putting in my mouth, and that is a bit juvenile (even for TWW). We just got letters from HR about insurance changes for next year. This year, coverage for myself and my family took $7,600 out of my paychecks. Next year, it will be $9,800. It is still a 90/10 plan but some of the deductibles went up a bit and a few perks were eliminated. It is a roughly equivalent plan but $2,000 is a pretty big chunk of change for slightly reduced benefits. Everybody knows that premiums have been rising for years, but an increase of this magnitude in a single year is unprecedented since I have been in the workplace. Millions of working people around the country are in my same position and very few are happy about it.

Quote :

"You are woefully ignorant on what the ACA is, which actually isn't what's surprising. What's surprising, is the amount you've talked about it here without even a cursory glance at what it actually is - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act"

I am absolutely not ignorant of what the ACA is or in how it functions, but if you have read the Wikipedia entry with the same level of reading comprehension that you have displayed in this thread then you very well may be. Your posts are rash, emotional, insulting, and utterly without substance. If you do not learn how to listen and understand those with differing political opinions, then you will remain a frustrated partisan voter for life. Breathe.

Quote :

"Snewf: -emory / this guy disagrees with "concepts of fairness""

Nobody disagrees with fairness, though we may disagree on what constitutes fairness in certain contexts. What I said was that "In many cases, not all, I disagree with the concepts of fairness that underlie the changes in the insurance market brought on by the law." I am willing to discuss further some examples of this in the language of the law itself, but then we would be discussing the law and not the shutdown. If you are interested in such a debate, I will follow you to the relevant thread in the soap box.

Quote :

"titans78:As a side note, I hate every politician on either side. NeuseRvrRat: I hate every politician emory: "I also believe that most, if not all, of our legislators genuinely have the best interest of their constituents in mind when they cast their votes." synapse:Oh boy what kind of world do you live in where you believe this?"

To me, this is the most disturbing opinion in the thread. I fear that discontent leads to voter apathy and voter apathy leads to election results that poorly reflect the will of the people.

10/3/2013 1:25:53 PM

Quote :

"Millions of working people around the country are in my same position and very few are happy about it. "

the people who couldn't get health insurance before are pretty happy though

10/3/2013 1:27:30 PM

^They certainly are, and I don't blame them. I do, however, think that there were better methods of extending coverage to those groups than the methods used in the healthcare law.

I also don't think that the government should force me to cough up and extra 2g's this year to help cover those people. They think that because of my income, I can afford higher premiums. I work very hard to cover a family of 4 and we are still on a budget. We do our finances and make our budget add up every month. We keep a spreadsheet of our bills. My wife has never told me that if I didn't approve the whole damned spreadsheet then I was holding the family hostage. When things get tight, we go through our expenses item by item. The government should have to do the same. That is what the House of Reps is trying to make the Senate Democrats do. It seems reasonable to me.

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 1:39 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2013 1:30:45 PM

sure there are, much better options, ACA is pretty shitty

unfortunately the republicans democrats killed them all because they knew they didn't have republican support and didn't have the balls to try to push it

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 1:32 PM. Reason : reassigned blame]

10/3/2013 1:31:45 PM

Quote :

"I am absolutely not ignorant of what the ACA is or in how it functions, but if you have read the Wikipedia entry with the same level of reading comprehension that you have displayed in this thread then you very well may be. Your posts are rash, emotional, insulting, and utterly without substance. If you do not learn how to listen and understand those with differing political opinions, then you will remain a frustrated partisan voter for life. Breathe."

10/3/2013 1:42:13 PM

Quote :

"I work very hard to cover a family of 4 and we are still on a budget. We do our finances and make our budget add up every month. We keep a spreadsheet of our bills. My wife has never told me that if I didn't approve the whole damned spreadsheet then I was holding the family hostage. When things get tight, we go through our expenses item by item. The government should have to do the same. That is what the House of Reps is trying to make the Senate Democrats do. It seems reasonable to me."

oh, so you're one of those people who equates a household budget to a national budget (regardless of how many times it's been pointed out that it's an absurd comparison)

it all makes sense now

10/3/2013 1:47:48 PM

It's definitely different, but how is it different? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that public money isn't wasted or used inefficiently? People go bankrupt. Companies go bankrupt. The government just keeps getting money no matter how poorly it performs.

Hint: if your answer is "households can't create money", you haven't solved the problem.

10/3/2013 1:51:38 PM

^^Its clearly an allusion to responsibility, and you're simply implying it's not because it makes you feel good to belittle people like emory.

You do this pretty regularly on this site; taking something out of context just to appeal to the emotions of your like-minded cohorts.

**e-high-five** right?

Quit being obtuse and thinking it's cool/funny.

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 1:53 PM. Reason : -]

10/3/2013 1:53:44 PM

Our annual deficit is falling faster than at any point in the past 30-40 years, 2/3rds of that reduction are from spending reductions. This administration should be a conservatives wet dream, I just don't get why they can't see that

10/3/2013 2:01:43 PM

SOMEONE TAKING SOMETHING ON THE INTERNET OUT OF CONTEXT!?!!? TELL THE NAZI'S!!!

10/3/2013 2:02:00 PM

Quote :

"Our annual deficit is falling faster than at any point in the past 30-40 years, 2/3rds of that reduction are from spending reductions. This administration should be a conservatives wet dream, I just don't get why they can't see that"

Unfortunately, there isn't any easy way to see exactly what money is coming in and what money is going out because Congress hasn't done a proper budget in years. Honestly, I think this is intentional. If we could see clear figures (not CBO estimates) since 2008, we'd probably find it alarming.

10/3/2013 2:09:16 PM

Quote :

"TELL THE NAZI'S!!!"

/godwin

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 2:11 PM. Reason : only 5 pages too!]

10/3/2013 2:10:58 PM

Quote :

" oh, so you're one of those people who equates a household budget to a national budget"

Certainly they differ in important ways. With respect to the use of line-item-approval as a method of spending control, they are analogous. I did not equate them, I made an analogy.

10/3/2013 2:15:35 PM

You know what this thread needs? Hitler cats...

10/3/2013 2:22:52 PM

^Or Hipster Hitler?

10/3/2013 2:26:23 PM