Forum Thread

Gov. Shutdown

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 25 of 25 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Here's another example of Republican spin and blame:

    GAWKER: GOP Congressman Makes Park Ranger Apologize for Shutdown

    "In an astounding confrontation that took place yesterday at the World War II Memorial in DC, a Tea Party congressman from Texas appeared to blame the Park Service for denying veterans access to the facility — and then made a Park Ranger apologize for the shutdown. "How do you look at them and ... deny them access?" Rep. Randy Neugebauer asked the unidentified Ranger in an incredible exchange that was caught on camera by NBC Washington.

    In fact, the Park Service has been invoking the First Amendment in order to allow vets into the memorial despite the shutdown making it illegal for the department to do so.

    "It's difficult," the Ranger replied. "Well, it should be difficult," scorned the congressman. "It is difficult," the Ranger repeated. "I'm sorry, sir."

    "The Park Service should be ashamed of themselves," said Neugebauer. "I'm not ashamed," the Ranger retorted.

    "You should be," sneered Neugebauer."


    I would guess that Rep Neugebauer doesn't give a damn about all the poor people who have been affected. Fox News is also spinning this World War II memorial...but nothing about ordinary people being affected.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Schmidt Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: And how am I misinformed, the budget that the President sends down to the congress must be approved by both houses, which Sen. Harry Reid has refused to do, for the past 4 years, and as far as the fines are concerned the young workers will take the risk and not pay until 2016 when the IRS will begin enforcing the rule, that's what, 2 1/2 years of not supporting/funding the AFA , the estimate was closer to 40 million and so far only 4.5 million have signed up, and as for the many glitch's the Administration has spent millions for this very reason to insure a smooth transition and failed, what did our money buy? and I wish you stop thinking that I am a shill for Fox, as I have an Independent mind and perhaps Fox is only reporting what many people like myself actually feel.
    Johnnycee --

    You are indeed acting like a shrill for the Fox News agenda...or rather the Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch misinformation machine. Let's face it. Rupert Murdoch makes big money by selling misinformation to an ignorant public. I have followed them for years and the Affordable Care Act is just a part of their "hate Obama" campaign.

    I have read all your negative comments about the Affordable Care Act all over this website. They are the Rupert Murdoch talking points repeated again and again and again. I have not read any comments by you extolling the fact that millions of uninsured people are now finally being allowed to purchase health insurance from private insurance companies on an exchange where they can compare policies and pick and choose in plain language. This is the free market at work, but Rupert Murdoch does not believe in the free market. He is a corporate socialist...or maybe a better term is fascist.

    The law is not going to change. The President worked too hard for it. It is the law of the land and if Republicans want to repeal it they should run for office on that agenda and then pass new laws repealing it. Oh that happened in the last election. Repeal, repeal, repeal was the charge of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan everywhere they went...again and again and again. The American people said no to that in a very big way.

    So it's time that you and the Republicans get on board with it. Nothing will change.
    Other than seeing the name of Rupert Murdoch in the print media, I couldn't tell you anything about the man or his politics, in Pa. my state, the national council of actuaries has laid out a map of the entire US, and they predict that the cost of premiums in my state (Pa.) will rise by 28%, now that's not Fox saying that, and there are several other institutions who have pretty much have the same figures, and your right I don't like the Affordable Act, it's based on smoke and mirrors followed by the obligatory dog and pony show by the Democratic Leaders, the Administration spends millions trying to avoid what has been happening during the initial sign-ups, and they failed, where did the money go , why are employers laying off workers or cutting back hours to avoid the mandate, and your answer is that greedy companies want a larger profit, you follow the mantra that other people who have drunk the Kool-Aid do, and that is first attack the motives and the credibility of the opposing point of view, then start the name calling, if that doesn't dissuade the opponent ,then say that they are not independent thinkers but sheep being led by the fools, of course there is no evidence to those claims , but those who can't understand opposing points of views don't care. The millions who will be receiving Affordable Medical Care will do so on the backs of those who will now suffer having substandard medical care, and that is the talking point by many Medical and Doctors Associations, again not Fox.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    jamesn Wrote: Schmidt you say ..."The law is not going to change." and "Nothing will change."...

    It has already changed. When the law was signed it did not give exemptions for big business, did it?

    So, you are wrong, change has already occurred. I agree with johnny that all the exemptions make it harder for many Americans to accept it.

    No exemptions and no exceptions and then let's see how well it is accepted by the American people.
    jamesn --

    Yes you are right...the employer mandate for employers with more than 50 employees was deferred for one year, but that was due to recognition that the part of the law pertaining to the employer mandate was too complex and confusing as written. As per the statement from the Treasury:

    "Over the past several months, the Administration has been engaging in a dialogue with businesses - many of which already provide health coverage for their workers - about the new employer and insurer reporting requirements under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively. We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so. We have listened to your feedback. And we are taking action.

    "The Administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. This is designed to meet two goals. First, it will allow us to consider ways to simplify the new reporting requirements consistent with the law. Second, it will provide time to adapt health coverage and reporting systems while employers are moving toward making health coverage affordable and accessible for their employees. Within the next week, we will publish formal guidance describing this transition. Just like the Administration’s effort to turn the initial 21-page application for health insurance into a three-page application, we are working hard to adapt and to be flexible about reporting requirements as we implement the law."

    Now you can spin that anyway you want. With a reasonable Congress, the administration would have worked to fix that and other parts of the law as a part of the normal course of business. But you can't deal with this Congress on anything related to the ACA, so the only option to fix it was delay this part one year. Nevertheless, I wish they hadn't done it because it opened up new talking points on the right.

    Politico had a good article describing the problems with the employer mandate:

    Politico: How Obamacare affects businesses – large and small

    The one year delay allows the administration to address and fix the problems associated with this part of the law. It is not a reason to defer the whole law as Republicans want. Furthermore, this part of the law affects only a small fraction of the population. From Politico:

    "Obama administration officials say 96 percent of businesses in the United States are too small to be hit by the coverage requirements, and of the ones that are big enough to fall under the mandate, more than 90 percent already offer health coverage."

    This is not a law killer.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Schmidt you say ..."Now you can spin that any way you want."...

    No spin, just the truth. IT CHANGED. PERIOD. It is YOU who is spinning and making excuses.

    If the administration wants to defer the entire program for everyone for a year then I think most Americans could understand and would say that it is fair.

    But to give their big money doners a year out of the program while telling us little people that we have to enroll and it is just so obvious to many of us what is happening. The rich corporations can afford to buy off enough members of Congress to get out of it for a year, and the ordinary citizens don't.

    It's just that simple.

    Now the big companies have a year to try to get yet ANOTHER exemption, or loophole, or way out of the law. And if you think they won't try, you do not know how the system works. Just listen to the big labor unions and how they are crying about this law that they helped pass.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Okay...consider this from Robert Menendez speaking on Meet The Press:

    "96 percent of all companies in America weren't subject to the mandate because they're under 50 employees. Those who are subject to the mandate, 95 percent of them already offer insurance so, we're talking about probably 1 percent of the American workforce that works for a company subject to the mandate that didn't get insurance and will be able to get it in the health exchanges that open up in October."

    You claim that this is due to "big money donors" buying off members of Congress. Can you back up that claim? It would seem to me that the companies that benefit from this delay are hardly in the "Obama Donor" camp.

    So 95 percent of the companies subject to the mandate already offer insurance. So we are talking about about 1 percent of the workforce.

    I am not spinning this...I am simply pointing out that this was a complicated part of the law that needed time to be fixed and Obama obliged. It certainly doesn't affect a whole lot of people, and in any case, those employees affected can get their insurance on the exchanges in the meantime. So no one is left out.

    In the meantime people without insurance, (whether because they have a pre-existing condition, or it was too expensive, or because their company didn't offer insurance) are signing up in droves. Why would the administration put a one year hold on them signing up for insurance? They have been waiting a long long time, and for some of them the coverage is coming just in time.

    But let me close with another article:

    Think Progress: Under Obamacare, Disney World Will Promote Its Part-Time Workers To Full-Time Status

    "The happiest place on earth just got a little happier.

    "Walt Disney Co. announced on Wednesday that it is offering full-time employment to the 427 part-time employees at its Disney World theme park in Orlando, Florida who work at least 30 hours per week — the threshold at which the Affordable Care Act requires large employers with 50 or more workers to offer basic health benefits to employees or risk paying a $2,000 per employee fine after the first 30 workers.

    Disney already offers a level of health coverage that is acceptable under Obamacare to its full-time employees. But part-time workers, including those who work at the 30-hour cutoff set by the health law, receive more limited benefits. Instead of rolling back these workers’ hours to avoid expanding their health coverage, Disney is choosing to promote them to full-time status."

    I guess someone forgot to tell the folks at Disney that this will not sit well with the Tea Party Republicans.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Schmidt yes I think that "big money donars" buy off members of Congress. You don't agree?

    I think that big money has been "contributing" to members of Congress for a long time and for their "contributions" they get special favors, special legislation, special laws, special exemptions to some laws...the list is endless, in short they get all kinds of special treatment.

    What do you think all those lobbyists are in Washington for, anyway?

    I also think that if Obamacare is the law of the land, and it was set up to serve ALL Americans, then it should serve ALL Americans equally. I think if it is good enough for small business and individuals, then it should be good enough for big business, as well. If there are enough problems with the program to exempt all big business for a year, then exempt the rest of us, too.

    And since the program is upon us and ready to go, make it OPTIONAL so that the people who want it and need it can get it on schedule. OF COURSE people without insurance are signing up in droves, and good for them. But to hold a gun to our heads and make us sign up or pay a penalty while letting some people get a years deferment is not in any way right or fair.

    Any new government program this big is going to have growing pains, I think we'd all agree with that, but treat all of us the same. Exemptions for some and not others just gives ammunition to those who do not want it.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    You are quoting someone who tells the TV media his point of view without offering any facts to base his conclusions on, and you consider this facts, I am speaking solely about the validity of all American Companies 96% of them are under 50 employees, but I'll tell you what, those companies that are at 50 + employee's ,I wonder how many of them will be down to minus 50. I am glad for the Walt Disney employee's but what about the Cleveland Clinc ,and most of the major Airlines, also quite a few major retail chains, we won't even go into the fast food industry or the restaurant industry, hotel chains , hospitality industry, these are more than enough examples to show why the Law is not fair, if the younger workers don't sign up, then the Law is doomed to failure, and BTW, so far they aren't signing up in the numbers that are needed to sustain the Act.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Politifac: Sen. Robert Menendez says Obamacare’s employer mandate affects 1% of U.S. workforce

    "But that number, even if it's millions more, remains a small percentage of the U.S. workforce. We rate Menendez's claim Mostly True."

    Unlike Fox News and Republicans that just makes things up, there is some logic and truth behind statments made by Democrats.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    ..."MOSTLY TRUE"... Wow, that's pretty good for a politician to say something that is rated "Mostly True"! In the good ole days George Washington's motto was "I cannot tell a lie".

    But, another way of saying "Mostly True" would be "Partly False". Or "Just a Guess".

    ..."some logic and truth behind statements"... and if that's not a ringing endorsement, I don't know what is. SOME truth? SOME logic? How much? 40%? 75%?

    I read the article and it shows that no one knows how accurate the 1% figure is. It's just a guess. It pointed out that some employees..."work for a company that offers health insurance, but not to them."... And how many are out there like that? 1 million? 5 million? More?

    Menendez does not know how accurate the 1% figure is and neither does anyone else. One thing we DO KNOW is that the supporters will use any and all talking points that support Obamacare and the detractors will repeat any and all talking points that tear Obamacare down. There will be half truths, speculation, guesses, and even some flat out lies by both sides.

    And this Politifact rating seems to confirm that.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    This morning there was an interview of the Cleveland hospital president. He said clearly that the Obama plan will only increase health cost. The reason being that under the several plans people because of the economy, select the cheapest one with the highest co-pay. Therefore he has noticed that fewer people visit the hospital because they either hope the problem solves itself or take other steps or do nothing at all to fix their health. This implies less income for the hospital, while the overhead cost rises because of new equipment etc. So he says then our cost will have to increase to provide the same service. In other words what did Obama care solve? nothing I guess.