Final house bill only had one caveat

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Oct 1, 2013.

  1. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    64,522
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +5,348 / 142 / -35
  2. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,530
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +825 / 15 / -7
    Exactly how dumb does Breitbart think their readership is?

    From the article:

    How in God's name do they get to the idea that "the proposal would have only done this ONE thing" when their own article a paragraph later says in passing "oh and it would have also done this other thing too."?

    So sure, the final proposal would have only done away with Congressional subsidies. Except for the part where it also got rid of the individual mandate for a year. But you know, the individual mandate is no big deal, it's not like it was a crucial part of the law or we had one of the most contentious Supreme Court cases in the last 20 years over it or anything. Nah, it's just a little minor toss in, way less important than Congressional subsidies, and we're being totally intellectually honest by completely ignoring it for purposes of our headline and just mentioning it in passing in the article.
  3. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    64,522
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +5,348 / 142 / -35
    Ben the main thrust of the proposal was to make Congress abide by the law-I am sure there plenty of little things they threw in to try and appease the dems
  4. GatorFanCF
    Offline

    GatorFanCF Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +387 / 11 / -3
    Any writer who can't tell the difference be affect and effect should be sweeping the floors of the business instead of creating content. Ben has a point.

    Effectively, the House is saying:
    1. Give the average Joe the same thing you're giving big business (a waiver); and,
    2. Don't give the DC crowd additional funds to deal with this legislation that you're not giving the average Joe.
    What is wrong with that? Not trying to hijack the thread; because, as Ben posted, there was MORE THAN one thing. Okay, agreed. I thought the Dems were for the "average Joe" not big business? Hmmm....big business gets a break, Wall Street looking good....I thought we had a Marxist/Leftist in the White House?
  5. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,530
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +825 / 15 / -7
    They threw in getting rid of the very part of the law that the Supreme Court case was about to appease Democrats?

    I'll let you in on a little political secret. The congressional exemption fight? It's a publicity stunt and absolutely nothing else.

    The "other throw in" that Breitbart saw fit not to mention was suspending the single most prominent element of the law for the year.

    This might be the most intellectually dishonest statement, no strike that, biggest actual lie, I have seen as a headline in recent memory.
  6. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    64,522
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +5,348 / 142 / -35
    obviously ben you are for this so have at it-I am against it and will continue to try and find every thing I can to detract from it

    I don't understand why the Senate would be against the final bill sent to them-they refused to even bring it up or even meet with the House to discuss it-
  7. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,530
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +825 / 15 / -7
    The very article you linked, if you read beyond the headline, says it was in the bill.
  8. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    64,522
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +5,348 / 142 / -35
    yep-I didn't read far enough

    however-not sure why that is such a big deal-if your prezBO exempted(I still do not think he has the actual Constitutional power to do this) all his friends why should the little guy be stuck with it
  9. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,530
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +825 / 15 / -7
    Because at the end of the day whether or not the employer mandate is in place largely just changes who some people are going to be getting their insurance through (i.e., employer provided or individual market). The individual mandate, on the other hand, is the key cost control element to try to increase health plan enrollment and partially limit the massive premium increases that would otherwise come along with getting rid of pre-existing condition limitations (basically by trying to force as many people as possible to buy insurance before they get sick, since getting rid of pre-existing limits without a mandate means that there literally is no incentive to buy insurance until you are already sick).

    There can certainly be disagreement over whether the ACA is the best way of addressing the problems, but having the insurer regulations in place without an individual mandate is unquestionably much, much worse policy. As in, were I trying to bring about the failure of the private insurance market so that we could get to single payer, I would be hard pressed to come up with a better way of doing it than that. You think premiums are high now? Get rid of just the individual mandate in isolation - like that proposal would have done - and hold on to your butt.
  10. rivergator
    Online

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    29,751
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +755 / 44 / -12
    who did he exempt?
  11. gatorpa
    Offline

    gatorpa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,966
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    East Coast of FL
    Ratings Received:
    +271 / 9 / -1
    I thought the same thing about the last house version. Who is really for the avg Joe, the pubs appear to be here. NOT the do as I say don't do what I do Dems. If its good for me it's good for thee!
  12. g8orbill
    Online

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    64,522
    Likes Received:
    3,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +5,348 / 142 / -35
    I know you know this are just being your usual self-but just to placate you

    “Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation,” writes Paul Conner of the Daily Caller. “By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.”


    Because of the backlash over the waivers, HHS announced last summer that it would stop accepting applications for one-year waivers and would simply grant or deny waivers all the way through the end of 2013, according to The Hill.

    The total of 1,231 includes all of the waiver requests HHS granted — companies that only applied for a three-year waiver, companies that got a one-year waiver and an extension, and companies that received a one-year waiver but did not ask for an extension.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01/06/how-many-businesses-are-exempt-the-final-number-of-obamacare-waivers-is-in/#
  13. 108
    Offline

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,806
    Likes Received:
    219
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +602 / 22 / -4
    who you kidding

    its nothing but a game to delay it until the hope of defeating it entirely

    i will assume you know this but you are far more interested in appearances
    • Like Like x 1
  14. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,530
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +825 / 15 / -7
    It makes a good talking point, but it's absolutely awful policy.

    While the image of waiving the employer mandate but not the individual mandate certainly looks bad on the surface (and I don't personally think the administration should have delayed the employer mandate), the implications of an employer mandate waiver are vastly different from those of waiving the individual waiver.

    The actual effects of waiving the employer mandate aren't terribly significant, while waiving the individual mandate gives you a result that screws the insurance market up markedly worse than either all of ACA, or none of ACA, conceivably could.

    It's something the Republicans can push for to score political points solely because they know it can't pass. If they somehow passed it, your immediate result would be astronomical premiums, your down the road result might well be a completely nonfunctioning private market.
  15. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    10,854
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +398 / 107 / -38
    DC needs 2 parties made of grownups.

    Right now, they have the Dems and a bunch of petulant toddlers.
  16. HallGator
    Offline

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    41,998
    Likes Received:
    762
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +2,223 / 35 / -8
    It is breitbart. I stopped clicking on links to that site a long time ago.
  17. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    5,383
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +446 / 24 / -9
    You think?
  18. RealGatorFan
    Offline

    RealGatorFan Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,623
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +290 / 39 / -8
    The fact is the youth of America might the ones to defeat this farce of a bill. If the youth decide to say screw you Obama and take the penalty, the ACA is dead in the water. If they decide to increase the penalty, it might blow up in their face when it come to election time. Imagine if the 18-34 crowd decided to vote against the democrats in 2016?
  19. corpgator
    Offline

    corpgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +547 / 39 / -5
    Isn't it more truthful to say that the republicans shut down the government by refusing to pass a clean bill?
  20. gatordowneast
    Online

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,412
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +679 / 25 / -6
    But if Obamacare is so good, why wouldn't people sign up without penalty? Obama stood on the white house lawn on Tuesday and talked about how the Pubs wanted to keep people from getting healthcare. That was a bold faced lie. They wanted to keep people from being fined for not choosing to buy it.

Share This Page