Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › shutdown
- This topic has 218 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
livinincali.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 9, 2013 at 9:44 AM #766568October 9, 2013 at 11:02 AM #766571
FlyerInHi
GuestLivin, some good points. But…
ACA less popular with whom? The website problems only affect those who want to sign up. Notwithstanding the sign up problems, people who now qualify are still better off since they will eventually be able to sign up.
My insurance is still the same so I’m indifferent. I didn’t even bother to log in for curiosity.
On fiscal conservatism… Interest rates are low, the deficit has been cut in half and shrinking, debt to GDP is down, about 73% now. There is evidence health care costs are down. Looks pretty good to me.
So maybe future entitlements are potential problems and republicans probably want to cut social security, Medicare and Medicaid. And we may want to do tax reform such as lowering the corporate rate and eliminating deductions.
So why don’t Republicans run on the reforms they want and let voters decide the next election cycle?
Notwithstanding possible future fiscal constraints, slow growth today is not because of the deficit and the debt. So I don’t understand the need for the brinksmanship and the manufactured crisis every year.
What is the clear and present danger that require such nutty politics.? Today, Republicans want to negotiate but they won’t say what they want.
October 9, 2013 at 12:18 PM #766572livinincali
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
ACA less popular with whom? The website problems only affect those who want to sign up. Notwithstanding the sign up problems, people who now qualify are still better off since they will eventually be able to sign up.
[/quote]Well potentially less popular with a 29 year healthy waitress that wasn’t expecting to see a brand new out of pocket expense of $100/month for a health care service they haven’t had to use. Affordable is somewhat subjective. Because it’s often is comparison to something else. Say you never shopped for health insurance or don’t think you need it. You might get sticker shock when you see it costs 100 or 200 or whatever amount of money per month depending on your circumstances. What if you where lead to believe it would be free or very cheap? What do you say when if isn’t anywhere close to your expectations?
Obviously one of the admitted issues is that in order to make health insurance affordable for those with pre-existing conditions you have to get a bunch of healthy people that will in effect be subsidizing them. The net benefit for one particular class of people is a net loss for another group of people. How cheap could young healthy people get coverage if they were only included in the risk pool of other young healthy people.
[quote]
So why don’t Republicans run on the reforms they want and let voters decide the next election cycle?
[/quote]The tea party republicans did that in 2010 and won on a platform of fiscal conservatism. They seem to be the primary reason the shutdown continues. Attempting to honor that pledge to the people that elected them. Granted they are a minority, but a lot of people think the government should reduce it’s deficit and eventually start paying down the debt. Of course one you start talking about lines items to cut or taxes to increase nobody likes what it would take to actually balance a budget.
October 9, 2013 at 12:24 PM #766573SK in CV
Participant[quote=livinincali]Well potentially less popular with a 29 year healthy waitress that wasn’t expecting to see a brand new out of pocket expense of $100/month for a health care service they haven’t had to use. Affordable is somewhat subjective. Because it’s often is comparison to something else. Say you never shopped for health insurance or don’t think you need it. You might get sticker shock when you see it costs 100 or 200 or whatever amount of money per month depending on your circumstances. What if you where lead to believe it would be free or very cheap? What do you say when if isn’t anywhere close to your expectations?
[/quote]
Who was it that lied and created those expectations that it would be free or very cheap? I would argue that it was never proponents of the legislation. Though I would also argue that $100 a month IS very cheap.
October 9, 2013 at 12:46 PM #766574Participant[quote=SK in CV]
Who was it that lied and created those expectations that it would be free or very cheap? I would argue that it was never proponents of the legislation. Though I would also argue that $100 a month IS very cheap.[/quote]Does it matter. I think pretty much everyone would admit we didn’t really know what it was going to cost until the exchanges came out. What it actually costs for each individual varies quite a bit so it’s difficult to know how affordable it is or isn’t for each individual. One thing we do know is that many uninsured are due to a preexisting condition where this law will certainly help make insurance affordable for them.
Based on Kaiser it looks like the typical 28 year old waitress would be expected to pay about $200/month out of pocket after subsides. Looks like they assume people have 5-10% of their annual budget available to pay for premiums before even factoring in max out of pocket expenses. For somebody living paycheck to paycheck 8% of their gross seems pretty high to me.
October 9, 2013 at 12:54 PM #766575no_such_reality
Participant[quote=zk][quote=no_such_reality]
Unless you can answer that question, it appears you’re the one who’s been brainwashed.[/quote]
Already did.
The House has sent CRs forward to fund everything funded only needing an one year moratorium on the individual mandate. Not gutting of obamacare, not a defunding.
They also sent separate ones forward, such are funding the death benefit. Oops, looks like that ones blowing up on the chosen one.
Or maybe funding the NIH Child Cancer research, Nope, in the word of Harry, why would we want to vote on that…
Your position is the partisan sound bite of ‘clean CR’
meaning, lets continue to spend without any controls.Obama and Reid have said they will not negotiate. They will not vote on anything but a blank slate of a CR.
October 9, 2013 at 1:09 PM #766577Participant[quote]
Bash: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds the NIH. Will you, at least, pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that republicans are?REID: Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he’s, did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer, and it’s this: What right do they have to pick and choose what part of government’s going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going home here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. I don’t what other word I can use. They are obsessed with this Obamacare thing.
As has been pointed out on the floor in the past few days, they did the same thing on Social Security, they did the same thing on Medicare, now they’re doing it on this. It’s working now and it’ll continue to work and people will love it even more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.
DANA: But if you can help one child, why won’t you do it?
REID: I, listen…
SCHUMER: Why pit one against the other?
REID: Why, why, why would we want to do that? I have, I have 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have, they have a few problems of their own. This is, to have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you’re as irresponsible and reckless.
[/quote]
That’s your people!
October 9, 2013 at 1:10 PM #766578Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=zk][quote=no_such_reality]
Unless you can answer that question, it appears you’re the one who’s been brainwashed.[/quote]
Already did.
The House has sent CRs forward to fund everything funded only needing an one year moratorium on the individual mandate. Not gutting of obamacare, not a defunding.
They also sent separate ones forward, such are funding the death benefit. Oops, looks like that ones blowing up on the chosen one.
Or maybe funding the NIH Child Cancer research, Nope, in the word of Harry, why would we want to vote on that…
Your position is the partisan sound bite of ‘clean CR’
meaning, lets continue to spend without any controls.Obama and Reid have said they will not negotiate. They will not vote on anything but a blank slate of a CR.[/quote]
This is total fiction. The house didn’t send a CR funding everything the Dems wanted except for whatever. What the dems wanted was a CR at pre-sequester levels. The WH, Reid and Boehner negotiated that down to a CR funding at sequester levels. Read that again. The WH and the Dems in the senate negotiated that CR DOWN to the sequester levels. And Boehner agreed to it.
And then the House republicans wanted more. First defunding of all of the ACA. Then defunding bits and pieces of it.
And the separate one funding military benefits, that originated in the house, was passed in the Senate, and signed by the President? That would be the bill that omitted funding military death benefits. It’s a nice story that it was Obama that failed to fund the death benefits. But it never happened. That bill originated in the house. Written by house republicans. Why do Republicans hate the widows so?
Obama and Reid already negotiated, and gave up a lot. And had an agreement. And then the Republicans decided to shut the government down. After getting the concessions they wanted. It’s the Republicans that keep moving the goal post and then whine that there is no movement.
October 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM #766576GuestI don’t see how people rationally point to the website rollout glitches to conclude that Obamacare is unpopular with the general population
People who a log on are shoppers who want the product. They could disappointed at the price of the product. But are they against it?
If you’re not shopping, do you care is an e-commerce site is not performing well?
October 9, 2013 at 1:19 PM #766579ParticipantLOL, oh, a CR isn’t good enough, we need a CR to roll back the prior cuts.
LOL
Really paints a good picture of negotiating after passing a CR doesn’t it.
October 9, 2013 at 1:20 PM #766580ParticipantWhite House: Death benefits for military families ‘to be fixed today’
Oops must be getting too much egg on his face from that one.
Maybe the park rally will be next?
October 9, 2013 at 1:24 PM #766581all
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
They also sent separate ones forward, such are funding the death benefit. Oops, looks like that ones blowing up on the chosen one.
[/quote]That is not trying to solve the deficit issue. What is not being paid is $100,000 ‘gratuity’ on top of $400,000 life insurance policy. Does that really help with deficit reduction more than IRS audits?
October 9, 2013 at 1:26 PM #766582Participant[quote=all][quote=no_such_reality]
They also sent separate ones forward, such are funding the death benefit. Oops, looks like that ones blowing up on the chosen one.
[/quote]That is not trying to solve the deficit issue. What is not being paid is $100,000 ‘gratuity’ on top of $400,000 life insurance policy. Does that really help with deficit reduction more than IRS audits?[/quote]
No, it’s just petty behavior that one side can’t admit they’re participating in.
October 9, 2013 at 1:32 PM #766583Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
No, it’s just petty behavior that one side can’t admit they’re participating in.[/quote]There are no sides. Just hundreds of people sharing the same goal – getting reelected.
October 9, 2013 at 1:38 PM #766585paramount
ParticipantAs this slideshow demonstrates, the federal govt is involved in a lot of things they shouldn’t be.
This is what happens when govt no longer serves citizens:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/01/politics/gallery/government-shutdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.