I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
A delay of the corporate mandate also kills the law completely, and Obama just pulled that one out of his ass
That is what lit a fire under Cruz to do the filibusters
Delay of the corporate mandate gives businesses a bit more time to roll out their infrastructure changes and hiring restructuring, which is really needed as changing a 30k person employer from part time to full time schedules and re-budgeting that is not a quick or easy process. Companies are encouraged to (and many already are) implementing the mandate requirements before the future deadline.
Eliminating the individual mandate destroys the insurance industry's stake-hold in the law, breaks the entire purpose of the exchanges, and will lead to it being delayed ANOTHER year and so on infinitely until Republicans have enough support to repeal the bill in full.
The former is done to ensure timely compliance and to prevent mass-terminations of employment during corporate restructuring. The latter does nothing similar for the individual payer as they already can qualify for the credits (assuming financial issues are a concern), get insurance from their employer or private parties, or choose to have no insurance and pay the fine. Almost no one will pay the fine except on ideological principles as the need of insurance is critical in US society and the credits make it possible to pay far less and actually get some form of insurance.
They've had 4 frickin' years to plan for this. FOUR YEARS. This is not one of those deadlines you play chicken with unless you're really excited about getting fined. Also, the fines only ramp up over time, so if you're a bit late, it's not the end of the world.
Gee look at all that
If only the Democrats would try to negotiate.
i was actually trying to find that earlier. do you have the source?
if there's one thing i agree with Jasc on, it's that Obama was dumb to delay the mandate for businesses. he should have just had the mandate go into effect as planned for everyone.
The employer delay was tough politically and not preferable, but it had to be done. The rules and regs just came out this summer, giving pretty much zero time for employers to get their IT together enough to meet the reporting requirements. Remember they have been working on the Exchanges since 2010 and they're barely functional. It was way too onerous on the employers to force them to meet the requirements laid out by January. There would have been a riot.
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
Except that Republicans within the House believe that a clean budget extension bill can pass, and that Boehner is completely full of shit when he says he wants to fund the government again but just doesn't have votes to do it without Democrat concessions.
It's says a lot about Boehner that he says that over and over again but never actually tries putting a clean budget extension up for a vote.
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
A delay of the corporate mandate also kills the law completely, and Obama just pulled that one out of his ass
That is what lit a fire under Cruz to do the filibusters
Delay of the corporate mandate gives businesses a bit more time to roll out their infrastructure changes and hiring restructuring, which is really needed as changing a 30k person employer from part time to full time schedules and re-budgeting that is not a quick or easy process. Companies are encouraged to (and many already are) implementing the mandate requirements before the future deadline.
Eliminating the individual mandate destroys the insurance industry's stake-hold in the law, breaks the entire purpose of the exchanges, and will lead to it being delayed ANOTHER year and so on infinitely until Republicans have enough support to repeal the bill in full.
The former is done to ensure timely compliance and to prevent mass-terminations of employment during corporate restructuring. The latter does nothing similar for the individual payer as they already can qualify for the credits (assuming financial issues are a concern), get insurance from their employer or private parties, or choose to have no insurance and pay the fine. Almost no one will pay the fine except on ideological principles as the need of insurance is critical in US society and the credits make it possible to pay far less and actually get some form of insurance.
Excluding the corporate workforce from the exchanges nukes the underwriting for the insurance companies and will cause them to increase premiums on people who how now legally obligated to buy insurance under penalty of law
Everywhere, everywhere throughout the health insurance world, premiums are higher for people who our out of work or otherwise without access to employment benefits, including wives and children who cannot work
by excusing corporations but mandating presumably non-working or individuals who are otherwise unable to obtain employer based healthcare, you are condeming them to inordinarily higher premiums unless they are poor enough to get a credit
The exchanges don't cap premiums. They only stimulate competition. The only price controls on premiums are the credits, which will not be given to a lot of people who aren't particularly rich... over 400% of poverty, which is what, 40, 50 grand a year in New York City?
Oh, come on now. The world is always ending. If you dwell on that nonstop you won't be able to function at all without going crazy.
seems kind of beside the point
there's an actual crisis threatening to ruin a significant number of lives and set back important scientific research for decades. it's pretty far from business as usual
I think there's a middle ground between dwelling on it nonstop and people mostly talking about a pop star, a movie remake, and some other person
to me it goes to show a serious disconnect between the average person and shit that matters
But what are they supposed to do
This is out of everyone's hands, what actual good does it do for people to sit around and go "well this is shitty" instead of try and be happy and wait for something to happen with this
yeah, I guess if the only option is sitting around then they might as well just ignore the problem
people deciding to talk about an issue and do something about it never changes anything
It's also worth noting that the Democrats already negotiated this budget. The level of spending the Senate passed is far below what Senate Democrats wanted, but they compromised so the House would pass it.
Everyone in the right already thinks that the memorial stuff is the democrats' faults and that they're just being shitty by closing down the monuments
So that's not going to be taken as "look at the stupid shit this shutdown is causing" but instead "look at how awful the democrats are being by being whiny and pedantic about the shutdown"
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
A delay of the corporate mandate also kills the law completely, and Obama just pulled that one out of his ass
That is what lit a fire under Cruz to do the filibusters
Delay of the corporate mandate gives businesses a bit more time to roll out their infrastructure changes and hiring restructuring, which is really needed as changing a 30k person employer from part time to full time schedules and re-budgeting that is not a quick or easy process. Companies are encouraged to (and many already are) implementing the mandate requirements before the future deadline.
Eliminating the individual mandate destroys the insurance industry's stake-hold in the law, breaks the entire purpose of the exchanges, and will lead to it being delayed ANOTHER year and so on infinitely until Republicans have enough support to repeal the bill in full.
The former is done to ensure timely compliance and to prevent mass-terminations of employment during corporate restructuring. The latter does nothing similar for the individual payer as they already can qualify for the credits (assuming financial issues are a concern), get insurance from their employer or private parties, or choose to have no insurance and pay the fine. Almost no one will pay the fine except on ideological principles as the need of insurance is critical in US society and the credits make it possible to pay far less and actually get some form of insurance.
Excluding the corporate workforce from the exchanges nukes the underwriting for the insurance companies and will cause them to increase premiums on people who how now legally obligated to buy insurance under penalty of law
Seriously, you do not know what you're talking about. The "corporate workforce" is not excluded. EVERYONE still must have insurance. The employer delay means large employers don't have to PROVIDE it for their employees until 2014, but the employees still have to have it. If they can't get it through work then they get it through other means.
Everyone in the right already thinks that the memorial stuff is the democrats' faults and that they're just being shitty by closing down the monuments
So that's not going to be taken as "look at the stupid shit this shutdown is causing" but instead "look at how awful the democrats are being by being whiny and pedantic about the shutdown"
Blame Obama Backfires as Disapproval of Republican Shutdown Tactics Surges to 70%
it doesn't look like everyone's opinion is set in stone as to who to blame for this
Lockout on
0
Options
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
From what I've seen in a first perusing of the health exchange here in WA, Amy and I can get the same level of coverage we have now for less money, or more coverage for the same price or a smidge less.
It's nice to live in a state where they put in the effort to cooperate with this and get their shit mostly together.
It took a couple days for the website to get un-wanged from the launch traffic, but it seems to be fine now.
BLM - ACAB
+7
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I hear this "legitimize hostage tactic" thing parroted all the time
tell me, if the "hostage tactic" becomes legitimized, exactly what is the perceptible difference between that and what we have now
it happens almost every time
Not with the debt ceiling though. If I remember correctly nobody ever threatened to deny raising it until this crop of tea partiers rose to power.
Prior to 1995 there was a rule where every time the budget passed the ceiling raised, it was repealed, and then we had a shutdown.. which was resolved for the rest of Clinton's term
and since then, this is the first era there has been a GOP house and a Democratic president at the same time
It's expected that you'll only see debt limit controversy when the President wants to spend money and the party that doesn't want to spend money controls the house
democrats don't exactly care
You just proved the point that it is only the GOP which wants to damage America through hostage governance.
I proved that the GOP is the only party who has any reason to challenge a president against increasing spending. Obama doesn't have to let it go to Sudden Death Overtime. He chooses to.
So he should just give in earlier?
And after he gives in to their demands, they demand more.
So he gives in to those demands and they demand more.
Until we hit whatever deadline comes up and they can say "The President is not giving into our demands. This is all his fault!"
He should make some attempt to work with the duly elected members of the House of Representatives beyond "not at all"
It is not the president's duty to negotiate with a minority of one party of one house over the funding of a law that was already passed
Well your premise is wrong, since the Boehner has already announced that they will fully fund Obamacare in FY14 in exchange for a one year delay in the individual mandate
A delay of the individual mandate kills the law completely. I'm sure he'll agree to fund a law that he knows won't exist by that point.
A delay of the corporate mandate also kills the law completely, and Obama just pulled that one out of his ass
That is what lit a fire under Cruz to do the filibusters
Delay of the corporate mandate gives businesses a bit more time to roll out their infrastructure changes and hiring restructuring, which is really needed as changing a 30k person employer from part time to full time schedules and re-budgeting that is not a quick or easy process. Companies are encouraged to (and many already are) implementing the mandate requirements before the future deadline.
Eliminating the individual mandate destroys the insurance industry's stake-hold in the law, breaks the entire purpose of the exchanges, and will lead to it being delayed ANOTHER year and so on infinitely until Republicans have enough support to repeal the bill in full.
The former is done to ensure timely compliance and to prevent mass-terminations of employment during corporate restructuring. The latter does nothing similar for the individual payer as they already can qualify for the credits (assuming financial issues are a concern), get insurance from their employer or private parties, or choose to have no insurance and pay the fine. Almost no one will pay the fine except on ideological principles as the need of insurance is critical in US society and the credits make it possible to pay far less and actually get some form of insurance.
Excluding the corporate workforce from the exchanges nukes the underwriting for the insurance companies and will cause them to increase premiums on people who how now legally obligated to buy insurance under penalty of law
Seriously, you do not know what you're talking about. The "corporate workforce" is not excluded. EVERYONE still must have insurance. The employer delay means large employers don't have to PROVIDE it for their employees until 2014, but the employees still have to have it. If they can't get it through work then they get it through other means.
Exactly. All those people still have to get insurance, they just have fewer options than they will come open enrollment in 2014. And as far as having four years already to plan, that really isn't that much time for a full corporate restructure. Contrary to popular belief, it can take many years to get changes down the pipe if you want to preserve your current profits and sales.
Does that mean those corporations shouldn't have completed their stuff by now? Of course not. They should have got their acts together and tried to wrap up this year. Does that make the extension some kind of blasphemy? Not at all. It's really a non-issue, all those needing insurance have places to get it right now, at this moment, via the exchanges or through individuals looking directly with their preferred carriers (or continuing on existing corporate plans where already available). The only thing that happens with the corporate extension is that new options will be delayed a year.
Posts
They've had 4 frickin' years to plan for this. FOUR YEARS. This is not one of those deadlines you play chicken with unless you're really excited about getting fined. Also, the fines only ramp up over time, so if you're a bit late, it's not the end of the world.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/19-times-democrats-tried-to-negotiate-with-republicans-20131007?mrefid=mostread
The employer delay was tough politically and not preferable, but it had to be done. The rules and regs just came out this summer, giving pretty much zero time for employers to get their IT together enough to meet the reporting requirements. Remember they have been working on the Exchanges since 2010 and they're barely functional. It was way too onerous on the employers to force them to meet the requirements laid out by January. There would have been a riot.
@Grey Ghost
I read this whole thing. I got curious about the band. I found...this:
http://www.fox10tv.com/news/robodrum-performs-on-studio-10
It's gotta be Dutschke's band. Yikes.
Except that Republicans within the House believe that a clean budget extension bill can pass, and that Boehner is completely full of shit when he says he wants to fund the government again but just doesn't have votes to do it without Democrat concessions.
It's says a lot about Boehner that he says that over and over again but never actually tries putting a clean budget extension up for a vote.
Excluding the corporate workforce from the exchanges nukes the underwriting for the insurance companies and will cause them to increase premiums on people who how now legally obligated to buy insurance under penalty of law
Everywhere, everywhere throughout the health insurance world, premiums are higher for people who our out of work or otherwise without access to employment benefits, including wives and children who cannot work
by excusing corporations but mandating presumably non-working or individuals who are otherwise unable to obtain employer based healthcare, you are condeming them to inordinarily higher premiums unless they are poor enough to get a credit
The exchanges don't cap premiums. They only stimulate competition. The only price controls on premiums are the credits, which will not be given to a lot of people who aren't particularly rich... over 400% of poverty, which is what, 40, 50 grand a year in New York City?
yeah, I guess if the only option is sitting around then they might as well just ignore the problem
people deciding to talk about an issue and do something about it never changes anything
on an unrelated note,
So that's not going to be taken as "look at the stupid shit this shutdown is causing" but instead "look at how awful the democrats are being by being whiny and pedantic about the shutdown"
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Seriously, you do not know what you're talking about. The "corporate workforce" is not excluded. EVERYONE still must have insurance. The employer delay means large employers don't have to PROVIDE it for their employees until 2014, but the employees still have to have it. If they can't get it through work then they get it through other means.
Blame Obama Backfires as Disapproval of Republican Shutdown Tactics Surges to 70%
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/07/americans-disapprove-gop-tactics-approve-obamas-handling-week.html
it doesn't look like everyone's opinion is set in stone as to who to blame for this
It's nice to live in a state where they put in the effort to cooperate with this and get their shit mostly together.
It took a couple days for the website to get un-wanged from the launch traffic, but it seems to be fine now.
Exactly. All those people still have to get insurance, they just have fewer options than they will come open enrollment in 2014. And as far as having four years already to plan, that really isn't that much time for a full corporate restructure. Contrary to popular belief, it can take many years to get changes down the pipe if you want to preserve your current profits and sales.
Does that mean those corporations shouldn't have completed their stuff by now? Of course not. They should have got their acts together and tried to wrap up this year. Does that make the extension some kind of blasphemy? Not at all. It's really a non-issue, all those needing insurance have places to get it right now, at this moment, via the exchanges or through individuals looking directly with their preferred carriers (or continuing on existing corporate plans where already available). The only thing that happens with the corporate extension is that new options will be delayed a year.
They are apples and oranges.
XBox LIVE: Bogestrom | Destiny
PSN: Bogestrom