Just ridiculous!

[Anthony]

Everyone please let's not let this thread devolve into name calling -

I was trying to make light of the situation with my first comment - obviously there are many thoughts and beliefs that differ here - but remember - we all come to the forum because we love the VI.

[XOXO]

JMQ, do you realize how divisive your comments are? What a surprise to see a comment like this under the "great unifiers" leadership.

Another thought: if Obamacare is going to be such a hugely unpopular clusterf*ck, why not just let it roll out and fail miserably, so that you can then relentlessly leverage “We told you so” into unfettered control of all 3 branches of govt? That seems like a much sounder long term political strategy to me.

I am much less motivated by seeing this fail miserably just in the interest of saying "We told you so" and very motivated and worried about how much people will suffer because of Obamacare.

People will suffer financially because of Obamacare.
People will suffer healthwise because of Obamacare.
Business will suffer because of Obamacare.
The economy will suffer because of Obamacare.
Employment will suffer because of Obamacare.
America will suffer because of Obamacare.

If Obamacare is so great then why isn't Congress using it?

Does it bother you at all that Congress is not upholding the constitution? Senators cannot make a law that applies to the citizens but does not apply to them.

Yet, they are doing it.

[DrToons]

XOXO,

If you want people to take your predictions seriously, you should get your facts right.

Congress is subject to this law (found constitutional by the Supreme Court, by the way) and is only forced into the exchanges because of an amendment to the law. Otherwise they would be treated exactly as everyone else is under the law - people with coverage through their employer are not required to do anything to change their coverage unless the coverage does not meet minimum standards. There is nothing in the law that prohibits an employer from subsidizing employees in the exchanges, several national companies are going this route with part time employees.

There is a bill brought by Senator Vitter that is attempting to strip away the subsidy. But if you want Congress to be subject to the law like every one else, their original health plan should just be restored.

All the same predictions you've made were made when Medicare was passed in the 60's. Some of the most famous ones were made by Ronald Regean (we'll be telling our grandchildren what it was like to live in a free country). Those don't seem to have come about and even oppontents of the current health care law seem united in their support of Medicare.

People don't like change, but be brave, take a breath, and it will all be OK. Really.

[jmq]

JMQ, do you realize how divisive your comments are?

Sorry I guess I don't. When I used "you" in comments, I only meant the GOP leadership and when I talked about using "I told you so" as a strategy I simply meant that in 18 months the GOP can say "hey we tried it and it didn't work like it did in Massachusetts and here is why, so now elect us to the Presidency, the Senate, and the House to fully repeal it and replace it with our plan to cover folks without employer insurance and pre-existing conditions".

And if that strategy of letting it roll out and fail really has all of those dire consequences that you cite, will it do more harm to the economy than a govt shutdown and default will do? If so, why are healthcare and insurance company stocks doing so well over the past 20 months?

Regarding prognostications about changes to regulations and laws, recognize that my POV is way over-skewed by the fact that in my line of work, I have seen 30 yrs of falling sky comments from regulatory opponents entered into the Federal Register, 90% of which later prove to be untrue or overblown, because by the time a law or regulation does make it thru the system, most times it is watered down and/or amended to reflect a lot of special interests. Just like the Affordable Care Act was.

[XOXO]

JMQ, first and foremost, I meant to mention in my prior post that I have a lot of sympathy for you having cancer in your household. I hope that you are well and that Obamacare does help you get the coverage that you need. Without spreading my apprehension and concern about how this could really affect your household I will only mention that I don't like what I see in the big picture.

But, JMQ, do you really not see the divisiveness of your comments? I see a lot of we and they by almost everyone, including you. If President Obama delivered on his campaign promise of reaching across the isle we wouldn't be having a government shutdown. When President Obama said "I won" to republicans shortly after taking over power of the White House I knew that he didn't have any interest in working together. You seem to be supporting an either/or view of Obamacare vs. government shutdown. I don't support either/or; I support neither.

James Madison and the other Founders of the U.S. Constitution knew that the equal and unbiased application of the law to all people, especially elected officials, is essential to freedom and justice by a ruling class.

And so, referring to the members of Congress, James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 57: "[T]hey can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society."

Whew, I am relieved. I must be getting a 72% subsidy, regardless of my income. Taxpayers are subsidizing my personal health-care plans, right?

Obamacare makes healthy people pay more for insurance in order to subsidize sicker people. The real question is this: will healthier and younger individuals, who stand to face steep premium hikes under Obamacare, pay up? A Manhattan Institute study suggests that average to younger-than-average men will face underlying rate hikes of 97 to 99 percent, with women facing increases of 55 to 62 percent.

[Xislandgirl]

The direction that this post has taken is not something I miss about this forum

[toes in the sand]

Everyone please let's not let this thread devolve into name calling -

I was trying to make light of the situation with my first comment - obviously there are many thoughts and beliefs that differ here - but remember - we all come to the forum because we love the VI.

I agree and I do love the VI!

Unfortunately the name calling has already begun and it is pervasive. Not an adult way to start a constructive conversation and is makes it truly difficult to have a discussion instead of an argument. It is a discussion that I would like to have and one I wish the folks that we all elected would have. After all, that is what we elected them to do.
Both here and in Washington, think a fine start would be a graciuos apology to those with an opposing view and a commitment to discuss facts and not emotions.

Here is a start;
I truly apologize for any statements or remarks that I may have ever made that has offended anyone personally. It was not my intention and I will do my best to never use name calling or distortion to make a point or win an argument. I will keep at the top of my mind in any political discussion that it is not about "winning" but about what is best for those involved. If my mind is changed or if I am able to change the mind or view of another there is no losing if it moves us all that much closer to a solution.
Furthermore, I vow to live by my the inimitable words of Van Halen; "I got a drink in my hand, I got my toes in the sand. All I need is a beautiful girl"

[Anthony]

The direction that this post has taken is not something I miss about this forum

Agreed - I am going to lock this thread. It isn't helping my headache!