So who do you think will blink first?
MSNBC Odds of Shutdown Increase
CNN House GOP Plan
FOX News Obamacare Delay
Of course, Hiram will say the GOP is threatening the good name of America. However, I am trying to figure out how in the world does one stop the excessive spending without cutting up the credit cards?
Thoughts? On the negotiations? Obamacare funding? Other?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
It certainly won't be Obama.
So he will not negotiate to keep the government running? Now who is being stubborn... Who then is actually shutting down the government?
I was watching a Sunday AM news show where a Senate Democrat kept saying the they were open to reforming Obamacare, however they were against tying it to the spending and debt limit talks.
I found that interesting since it seems hard to believe that the Democrats / Obama are willing to change or discuss anything unless their backs are up against a wall. Which of course is how most negotiations happen, both sides need to have some thing the other wants.
So he will not negotiate to keep the government running?
No.
"i was watching a Sunday AM news show where a Senate Democrat kept saying the they were open to reforming Obamacare,"
Of course they are, but Republican don't want to reform Obamacare, they want to terminate it, and so there is not common basis for negotiation.
It's not our backs that are up against the wall. Obama isn't running for anything.
--Hiram
You know, it always amazes me how little people understand the process of negotiation. The other day, I received an email from Rep. Sarah Anderson, identifying three specific problems with MnSure. I thought each issue she raised was valid. So what I would ask of her is, if we agreed to positively and mutually address these issues, what do we get in return? Would she support MnSure going forward? Could we count on her support for addressing problems we see in MnSure, or in problems that will go forward? If her answer to questions like that is "yes" than we have a negotiation. If the answer is no, if she isn't prepared to bring anything to the table herself, the negotiation is a non starter.
--Hiram
The Republicans are in the position of the famous hostage seen in "Blazing Saddles". In effect, they are telling us that we either give them what they want, or they will commit political suicide. That logic is compelling for them, but what's in it for us?
--Hiram
So what is the hypothetical result of this negotiation that you think Obama should take part in. Delay the implementation of ACA for 6 months? Would the crazy GOP accept that?
I expect my piddly amount of retirement savings to take a big hit when the GOP antics tank the stock market.
Of course "political suicide" implies that you believe the majority of Americans support Obamacare... Remember that it became a law when the Democrats held both houses and the Presidency. (ie little negotiation needed)
Now that folks are beginning to see some of the cost and other consequences impacting them, I am not sure where the population is leaning on being forced to buy insurance, losing their current insurance, reduced hours, their premiums increasing, etc.
If enough folks are start beginning to regret OCare, maybe the GOP will be seen as heroes... One never knows.
Laurie,
Remember... Just don't sell if it goes down... In fact buy some more, because it will likely pop back up.
Of course "political suicide" implies that you believe the majority of Americans support Obamacare..
They may not support Obamacare but they support what it does.
--Hiram
After re-reading my comment, I thought it may have sounded anti-Obamacare. The reality is I really don't know where I stand on it.
I do see the benefits of protecting people against pre-existing condition injustice, lifetime benefit limits, etc. However I also do acknowledge that it is one big extension of welfare in many ways.
So we will see where this goes...
"they support what it does"
Hiram, What are you basing this opinion on?
Hiram, What are you basing this opinion on?
Polls. And even the most die hard Republicans tell you, once Obamacare is in place, no one will want to go back. That's why they are so desperate to stop it's implementation, even to the point of ruining the economy. What's unpopular is paying for things. This is never surprising.
==Hiram
Usually I have found that people are okay with paying for things that have comparable or higher value to themselves. (ie getting a good deal) In this case, a lot of people will be paying for other people's health insurance. I am guessing the payers won't see this as a good deal...
Then again a lot of people do like social security and medicare, since they are going to get far more out of the system than they paid in. Of course that leaves us again with failing trust funds and the problem of who is going to make up the financial difference?
If the Democrats can keep 51% receiving extra and 49% paying extra. Their model should work out well for them in our Democracy.
However if the 51% are getting more than the world market rate, that makes the USA less competitive and we will all be riding in a balloon that is leaking more helium than is being pumped in. (ie down we go)
Then again a lot of people do like social security and medicare, since they are going to get far more out of the system than they paid in.
Some do, and some don't. I have put in a lot more than I have gotten out of my car insurance, and I don't think that's a bad thing.
Somebody has to pay America's health care bill. Obamacare did not create that painful necessity, it merely addresses it.
==Hiram
Politicians promising to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul. Politicians passing out money from the Magic Money Tree can always find people willing to believe in it. The simple fact is that Obamacare cannot possibly work, because it promises to deliver more health care to more people, with fewer doctors and fewer dollars than we now spend. It is failing miserably because it must, and the sooner it gets replaced with something that makes sense the better. Now, as far as the politics goes, if you are expecting common sense, logic and reason to prevail you are looking in the wrong place.
So Hiram referenced those vague "surveys" to support his opinion that it is working and people like it.
Jerry, Can you do any better in providing a source to support your opinion that it is failing miserably?
And what would you replace it with? And don't just say "get gov't out" of healthcare. We all know there are too many blood sucking businessmen and con artists in the system to not have it regulated.
http://www.askheritage.org/what-are-the-top-12-obamacare-failures/
Notice these are only the top 12, according to one source. Other places they cite delays in over 1/2 of the original provisions.
The solution-- the "replacement"-- is exactly to "get government out." The amount of regulation needed compared to the amount of market interference we have currently, let alone with Obamacare added, is trivial.
Heritage 12 Obamacare Failures
Jerry,
The link definitely supports your statement.
Just curious, what do you think are the good aspects of Obamacare? Any?
This is somewhat interesting. CNN Premium Fact Check
MN premiums up ~40%, overall premiums similar, however 60% of Americans will get them subsidized by other tax payers.
And don't forgot, this is above and beyond Medicaid.
This Madness Will Never End
Laurie, whoever wrote that article has got one of the greatest liberal blindnesses known. It flies directly into the face of what anybody paying attention already knows, which is that Obama is driving a massive, unsustainable debt and the sensible thing to do is to cut up the credit cards, though we have to do so gradually because we've gotten SO FAR in the hole under these Democrat fantasists. It even flies in the face of the most fundamental definition. When there is a disagreement over how to proceed, there must be TWO parties involved or there is no disagreement. It is absolutely impossible, by definition, for Republicans to be solely responsible for the failure of the government to have a budget, ESPECIALLY since Republicans HAVE adopted a budget every year, including this one. Democrats in the Senate, contrary to law, have NOT adopted a budget since Obama became President! Whose fault is that?
John, Obamacare as a whole is a disaster and should never have passed any reasonable legislative body. Normally I would say something to the effect that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," and then posit that intentions are ALL Democrats consider when they make law. The two laws they keep trying and failing to repeal, however, are the Law of Unintended Consequences and the Law of Supply and Demand. This bill is a classic example, in spades. I'm not even sure there intentions were right, on this one.
The one possibly useful thing, however, is the "exchanges," a central website where people can shop for insurance. There are a number of private exchanges around, and they are solving a small slice of the problem on the individual market. Small business exchanges would be a boon as well. But let government step in with all its mandates, paperwork, regulation and general incompetence, and you have exactly the fiasco that we have. It is all too predictable. Even in Massachusetts, where the Romneycare exchanges run well, costs are high and many remain uninsured. Do I need to say it again? Get government out and "things" go better.
I think I also support the aspect where insurance companies can not deny care for pre-existing conditions or lifetime limits.
At least not if they can prove they have been continuously insured.
G2A Pre-Existing Condition Fraud
The Pre-existing condition (PEC) problem is a fanciful notion from politicians trying to sell something. Fact is that you can already buy insurance that covers pre-existing conditions, but then it's not "insurance" and the rates are very high, as they must be. There are "high risk pools" in which everyone has some sort of PEC, in some places, that share the risk and bring the rates down, but the more common circumstance is that a pre-existing conditions is simply not covered by your insurance policy until after some period of time, or specifically excluded from your coverage altogether. All of those approaches bring the cost of care in line with the premiums being paid, which is the only equation possible. One of the more fantastic notions of liberal government is that, somehow, the amount of health care paid for by "insurance" can exceed the amount paid for said insurance-- i.e. that you can get more out than you put in.
The common suspicion is that, under Obamacare, PEC rules would mean that nobody in their right mind would buy insurance until they got sick, meaning insurance companies would be guaranteed to pay out more than they take in for each customer. One suspects this is just one more ploy to force all insurance companies out of business so we can get to that marvelous single-payer system that works so well.
Lifetime limits are similar. I suspect you can buy insurance with about any limit, or even no limit, if you are willing to pay the premium accordingly. You cannot just nullify the limits and expect premiums to stay the same.
I think PEC transfers should just be built into all our rates if one can prove they have been continuously insured. This fear of becoming unemployed, losing insurance and not being able to replace for a reasonable price is wrong. It allows the industry to cherry pick... Next they will be genetically testing us...
"I think PEC transfers should just be built into all our rates if one can prove they have been continuously insured. This fear of becoming unemployed, losing insurance and not being able to replace for a reasonable price is wrong. It allows the industry to cherry pick.."
Two problems with one solution. Simply eliminate the tax deduction for employers paying health insurance, and transfer the income and the tax deduction to the employee. The employee than buys a policy that is theirs, regardless of employer. This is what McCain proposed during his Presidential run, and Obamacare does exactly the opposite.
The problem with the current system isn't "continuation of benefits" it's "interruption of employment" and, although you can get COBRA insurance, it's pretty expensive when you are unemployed, and then only for 18 months.
Post a Comment