Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[Ravi]

He certainly wasn't saying that and I don't agree with the view.

Do you agree with my version then? Do you think we should use government as a tool to get other people to provide us with stuff we want?

Not that anyone asked me, but I believe the government should provide for the general welfare. That includes interstate highways, the military, and poverty relief.

That sounds like a "yes".

And that strikes me as dangerous. Government should protect us from those who would use force to get what they want. It shouldn't provide them the means.

Not seeing how something listed in the constitution could be deemed dangerous.

 

[dblack]

Not seeing how something listed in the constitution could be deemed dangerous.

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

 

[Ravi]

Not seeing how something listed in the constitution could be deemed dangerous.

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

 

[dblack]

Not seeing how something listed in the constitution could be deemed dangerous.

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

While I understand the logic, I still don't know why the GOP isn't keeping it in the forefront.

If there is a case for an unhappy birthday, then they should be spilling that at every turn.

 

[Greenbeard]

While I understand the logic, I still don't know why the GOP isn't keeping it in the forefront.

If there is a case for an unhappy birthday, then they should be spilling that at every turn.

Their focus these days is on planning how to restore the subsidies in the unlikely event the SCOTUS rules against the law next month.

"Repeal and replace" has given way to "restore and extend" among the GOP.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

RKMBrown candycorn If you can't abide by the OP's rules for this thread then please leave it.

 

[Ravi]

Not seeing how something listed in the constitution could be deemed dangerous.

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

I know several people that haven't paid income tax that aren't in jail.

 

[dblack]

Not seeing how something listed in the constitution could be deemed dangerous.

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

I know several people that haven't paid income tax that aren't in jail.

Heh... well, alrighty then.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Not seeing how something listed in the constitution could be deemed dangerous.

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

I know several people that haven't paid income tax that aren't in jail.

And that proves what ?

Supposed I said I knew several who had not paid taxes and were in jail.

What would that mean ?

 

[Ravi]

Not seeing how something listed in the constitution could be deemed dangerous.

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

I know several people that haven't paid income tax that aren't in jail.

And that proves what ?

Supposed I said I knew several who had not paid taxes and were in jail.

What would that mean ?

That you are being untruthful.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Not seeing how something listed in the constitution could be deemed dangerous.

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

I know several people that haven't paid income tax that aren't in jail.

And that proves what ?

Supposed I said I knew several who had not paid taxes and were in jail.

What would that mean ?

you can go awhile not paying taxes I still have not paid my 2013 and now 2014 taxes to the IRS out of protest over Obama care, but then again I don't owe thousands of dollars

 

[dblack]

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

I know several people that haven't paid income tax that aren't in jail.

And that proves what ?

Supposed I said I knew several who had not paid taxes and were in jail.

What would that mean ?

you can go awhile not paying taxes I still have not paid my 2013 and now 2014 taxes to the IRS out of protest over Obama care, but then again I don't owe thousands of dollars

Sure you can. You can break all kinds of laws and get away with it. That's not the point. Eventually, if you go on defying the law, you'll meet violent enforcement. That's simply the way government works. It's not a bad thing either. That's what's necessary to protect us from people who are willing to use violence to get their way. But we need to understand the nature of government when we're fantasizing about what we'd like it to accomplish. Because when we say something should be a government program, we're saying it should be a matter of laws - laws that are enforced by the police, with violent force if necessary.

Whenever we pass laws, no matter how benign they may seem, we need to ask ourselves if we're really willing to see someone go to jail (or worse) if they don't abide.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

I know several people that haven't paid income tax that aren't in jail.

And that proves what ?

Supposed I said I knew several who had not paid taxes and were in jail.

What would that mean ?

you can go awhile not paying taxes I still have not paid my 2013 and now 2014 taxes to the IRS out of protest over Obama care, but then again I don't owe thousands of dollars

Sure you can. You can break all kinds of laws and get away with it. That's not the point. Eventually, if you go on defying the law, you'll meet violent enforcement. That's simply the way government works. It's not a bad thing either. That's what's necessary to protect us from people who are willing to use violence to get their way. But we need to understand the nature of government when we're fantasizing about what we'd like it to accomplish. Because when we say something should be a government program, we're saying it should be a matter of laws - laws that are enforced by the police, with violent force if necessary.

Whenever we pass laws, no matter how benign they may seem, we need to ask ourselves if we're really willing to see someone go to jail (or worse) if they don't abide.

sorry pal your post kind of confuse me? I Will pay it eventually with penalties and interest when they start to send me letters and I have to go to the local IRS and sort it out. But it's my personal protest I don't want to buy something I don't want.

My company offers health care, kind of cheap medical, vision and dental for only before taxes at $25 bucks a week

But don't force me to buy something I don't want

 

[Foxfyre]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another shoe drops as was predicted when the government subsidies for the insurance companies phase out:

May 22, 2015:

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that Obamacare rates are about to shoot up, in some cases as much as 40%. The rate increases requested by insurance carriers vary state by state, but the overall picture is bad.

“In New Mexico, market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average jump of 51.6% in premiums for 2016,” the Journal reports. “The biggest insurer in Tennessee, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has requested an average 36.3% increase. In Maryland, market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates 30.4% across its products. Moda Health, the largest insurer on the Oregon health exchange, seeks an average boost of around 25%.”

Why? Because the young and healthy are not signing up for Obamacare, meaning the people who are covered under Obamacare are older and sicker and much more expensive for the insurance companies.

The Washington Examiner reported today that in Oregon the primary insurance carrier is facing costs (payouts) exceeding premiums (income) by just over 60%. “Moda Health, which serves roughly half of (Oregon’s) individual market, is aiming to raise rates by an average of 25.6 percent. As Jed Graham of Investor’s Business Daily noted, Moda’s costs for 2014 – the first year of Obamacare’s exchanges — exceeded its premiums by 61.5 percent.” . . .
OBAMACARE ENTERING THE JAWS PHASE John Gibson Radio Show​

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I don't want to argue over Constitutional interpretation, but the idea that government should be a tool to provide for our needs is, in fact, quite dangerous. Government employs the threat of violence to achieve its ends. As such, it should be used rarely, ideally only in situations that truly call for deadly force.

I disagree though I do not agree that one should be imprisoned for not paying taxes if that is what you are implying.

Really? Somehow, I doubt that you mean that taxes should be voluntary. And if they're not voluntary, that means someone who doesn't comply will end up in jail, or worse. You're kidding yourself with any other assumption.

I know several people that haven't paid income tax that aren't in jail.

And that proves what ?

Supposed I said I knew several who had not paid taxes and were in jail.

What would that mean ?

That you are being untruthful.

How convenient.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another shoe drops as was predicted when the government subsidies for the insurance companies phase out:

May 22, 2015:

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that Obamacare rates are about to shoot up, in some cases as much as 40%. The rate increases requested by insurance carriers vary state by state, but the overall picture is bad.

“In New Mexico, market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average jump of 51.6% in premiums for 2016,” the Journal reports. “The biggest insurer in Tennessee, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has requested an average 36.3% increase. In Maryland, market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates 30.4% across its products. Moda Health, the largest insurer on the Oregon health exchange, seeks an average boost of around 25%.”

Why? Because the young and healthy are not signing up for Obamacare, meaning the people who are covered under Obamacare are older and sicker and much more expensive for the insurance companies.

The Washington Examiner reported today that in Oregon the primary insurance carrier is facing costs (payouts) exceeding premiums (income) by just over 60%. “Moda Health, which serves roughly half of (Oregon’s) individual market, is aiming to raise rates by an average of 25.6 percent. As Jed Graham of Investor’s Business Daily noted, Moda’s costs for 2014 – the first year of Obamacare’s exchanges — exceeded its premiums by 61.5 percent.” . . .
OBAMACARE ENTERING THE JAWS PHASE John Gibson Radio Show​

What is an Obamacare rate ?

Does this mean rates under Obamacare ?

And these numbers are only meaningful if we keep it context of what used to exist.

I am not surprized that the system is penting up like this.....but the numbers are still more meaningful if they are held in context.

The one I am most anxious to hear is how much we've come down from our 16% of GDP thanks to Obamacare (if we've come down at all).

 

[Foxfyre]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, another shoe drops as was predicted when the government subsidies for the insurance companies phase out:

May 22, 2015:

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that Obamacare rates are about to shoot up, in some cases as much as 40%. The rate increases requested by insurance carriers vary state by state, but the overall picture is bad.

“In New Mexico, market leader Health Care Service Corp. is asking for an average jump of 51.6% in premiums for 2016,” the Journal reports. “The biggest insurer in Tennessee, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, has requested an average 36.3% increase. In Maryland, market leader CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates 30.4% across its products. Moda Health, the largest insurer on the Oregon health exchange, seeks an average boost of around 25%.”

Why? Because the young and healthy are not signing up for Obamacare, meaning the people who are covered under Obamacare are older and sicker and much more expensive for the insurance companies.

The Washington Examiner reported today that in Oregon the primary insurance carrier is facing costs (payouts) exceeding premiums (income) by just over 60%. “Moda Health, which serves roughly half of (Oregon’s) individual market, is aiming to raise rates by an average of 25.6 percent. As Jed Graham of Investor’s Business Daily noted, Moda’s costs for 2014 – the first year of Obamacare’s exchanges — exceeded its premiums by 61.5 percent.” . . .
OBAMACARE ENTERING THE JAWS PHASE John Gibson Radio Show​

What is an Obamacare rate ?

Does this mean rates under Obamacare ?

And these numbers are only meaningful if we keep it context of what used to exist.

I am not surprized that the system is penting up like this.....but the numbers are still more meaningful if they are held in context.

The one I am most anxious to hear is how much we've come down from our 16% of GDP thanks to Obamacare (if we've come down at all).

Obamacare rates are whatever an insurance company or HMO, forced to comply with Obamacare rules and regs, charges for health insurance coverage. Up until 2016, the federal government guaranteed insurance companies losing money that they would be reimbursed by the government for the first years. Well, those subsidies are now ending and the insurance companies will be raising rates to provide all that wonderful coverage mandated by the government.

Which just goes to show, when the government meddles in any product, it is a very rare thing that it will end as well as it would have in the free market and allowing the people to buy what they want.

 

[candycorn]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey folks,

This thread is about the article that claims the ACA is having an unhappy birthday.

While I agree it is unpopular (less popular than unpopular), I am not sure about the unhappy state of things for the ACA.

First and foremost, I don't see the establishment GOP still clamoring for it's repeal.

What happened ?

Have they caved....or have they always been so stupid ?

No.
In fact, it's evidence they have wised up a bit. The people like some things about the ACA and dislike others. Pretty much exactly the way it is with any other program that is offered by any other body. What the GOP has discovered is that the benefits far outweigh the angst and that the smarter path is to fix what is wrong with the ACA instead of a total repeal.

I'm pretty sure that if we had a GOP congress and a reform minded GOP President, the ACA would be pretty much gone. They might retain as separate law a couple of provisions that are popular in Obamacare, but I believe they would have revoked the orginal bill.

The reason it hasn't been done now is because of the certainty that Obama would veto that, they don't have the numbers to override a veto, and they don't want a failed attempt to give the oppostion ammunition to use next year.

Yeah, why let an imperfect outcome keep you from doing the right thing. We'll see what the candidates say about it in the upcoming year. Basically it will be a re-broadcast of the previous six years.

Playing the part of the GOP controlled House will be the vast multitude of clown car guys who have no shot and know they have no shot. They'll be for full repeal. Because it's easy to be brave and say what you'll do when you'll never be in the fight.

Playing the part of the grown-ups will be those who do well in the early contests. Knowing they may have to campaign in the Summer and Fall on what they say the previous winter, they will walk a finer line.

The question is whether Obamacare is the 'right thing'. I have certainly not seen any evidence of that, and if the GOP manages to repeal it, it will be because that is what their constituents want them to do. It sure isn't any skin off their nose as Obama and the Democrats conveniently exempted themselves from it when they passed the legislation.

Amy Neftzger wrote in The Orchard of Hope: "They don't see what they're doing. The only thing they see are their intentions."

Albert Camus is quoted as saying: "The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding."

John Stuart Mills wrote on the subject of liberty: ". . . the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, (or the good of others), is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. . . ."

No matter how pure or noble the intentions for Obamacare might have been, if it is not what the people want, and most especially if it does more harm than good, then it should not continue.