Obamacare Mandate Postponed[W:42]

[nota bene]

if you don't mind, some of us will wait until it is fully implemented ... we'll see, but think how much better it could be if the Republicans had helped rather than trying from the beginning to sabotage it ... and please stop making these wild claims about "overwhelming" evidence ... and it's not a scam, it was a law passed by Congress ... and in case you weren't paying attention, Obama won in 2008 and 2012 and all cons can do is wish the worst for the country because the hate the big-eared guy ... still, you may get your wish ...

I don't know how you can say you'll wait when the Admin has already announced delaying this hugely important part of the Act--employer participation--for a year. Where is the wait-and-see in this?

 

[Jack Hays]

Me putting the context in changed the whole quote. You said it was critical of Obamacare therefore a Dem and not a right-wing echo-chamber source. I provide the context you ignored and the meaning was nothing of the sort. And you say I'm dodging?

These kinds of humiliating embarrassments will continue to dog you as long as you continue to believe that context doesn't matter. Meh... it's good entertainment for the rest of us though.

Nor did I ever claim Baucus was critical of Obamacare. This kind of sloppiness is at the heart of your debating weakness. I referred to doubts about Obamacare. Baucus has doubts. He's not critical; he helped draft it. Baucus has doubts and is not part of the right wing echo chamber.QED:mrgreen:

 

[poweRob]

Nor did I ever claim Baucus was critical of Obamacare. This kind of sloppiness is at the heart of your debating weakness. I referred to doubts about Obamacare. Baucus has doubts. He's not critical; he helped draft it. Baucus has doubts and is not part of the right wing echo chamber.QED:mrgreen:

He had doubts about people's understanding of Obamacare. Not doubts about Obamacare. Therefore destroying your point... on TOP of you saying that context doesn't matter.

This is great. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Jack Hays]

He had doubts about people's understanding of Obamacare. Not doubts about Obamacare. Therefore destroying your point... on TOP of you saying that context doesn't matter.

This is great. Keep 'em coming.

I would say he has doubts about Obamacare implementation based on the administration's inadequate communications strategy. He therefore has doubts about Obamacare.QED
I note with sadness that that you have stooped to lying about my previous posts. Another disappointment.:roll:

 

[poweRob]

I would say he has doubts about Obamacare implementation based on the administration's inadequate communications strategy. He therefore has doubts about Obamacare.QED
I note with sadness that that you have stooped to lying about my previous posts. Another disappointment.:roll:

Lying? lol

I'll just let the forum goers read what you've wrote.

 

[cpwill]

Looks to me like polticians are actually listening to their constituents in trying to implement a sweeping system in the least painful way possible.

If this idea is so awesome, then why is not implementing it "less painful"? IF - as conservatives have been saying - it's going to destroy jobs... then why did this ideas supporters argue the exact opposite? Were they lying then, or have they changed their mind since and neglected to inform us?


And what, exactly, gives the President the authority to simply unilaterally overturn the law?

 

[windowdressing]

I agree that people oppose Obamacare for different reasons. I disagree that some oppose it only because BHO wants it.

Not even some? Really? How many people who oppose it even know what it is? You've noted in the past that folks by and large are not as informed as they should be. There are people who support it who do so because Obama wants it, so why not on the other side? Jack, remember, objectivity ...

 

[windowdressing]

That's nothing more than an obvious variant on the “if you disagree with Obama's policies, it must be because you're a racist and you hate him because he's black” argument; mingled in with the standard far wrong principle that values “doing something” about a problem, even if it involves making the problem worse.

Of course those of us on the right opposed this plan. We on the right don't think it counts to “do something” unless what you propose to do has a plausible likelihood of solving, or at least mitigating the problem that is being addressed. If all you have to offer is something that will make it worse, then it is better to do nothing than to “do something”.

You on the wrong put forth a “solution” that could only make the problem worse, so those of us on the right certainly had to oppose it.

if only what you claim were true ... Obama, however, shoulders a good part of the blame for making one concession after another in the belief that the GOP wanted to compromise and for failing to see that from the first day of his presidency they were only interested in making sure he failed, even if it meant screwing the rest of us ...

 

[windowdressing]

I don't know how you can say you'll wait when the Admin has already announced delaying this hugely important part of the Act--employer participation--for a year. Where is the wait-and-see in this?

delays like this are not unusual (presidents do it for good and purely political reasons -- this one a bit of both) ... it becomes a big deal when it is Obama doing it ... this does get tiresome though ... and BTW, employer mandates is not a hugely important part of the Act ...

• Ninety-six percent of businesses in this country have fewer than 50 employees.

The vast majority of businesses are already exempt from having to offer their employees health insurance. For these employers, delaying the requirement a year means absolutely nothing.

• Ninety-six percent of businesses with more than 50 employees already offer insurance.

• Only the 4 percent of larger employers that do not offer health insurance will be impacted by the delay.... or by the requirement in general, for that matter.

What these stats show is that the employer requirement that is getting so much attention impacts a tiny sliver of businesses in this country. This requirement, and the decision to delay it, doesn't affect the vast majority of small businesses. Not one bit. Granted, delaying this requirement will allow larger businesses that will be impacted time to adjust and provide additional input to the Treasury on how the proposed requirements will work best.

But the most important provisions in the ACA for small business owners, such as health insurance exchanges, are still moving full-steam ahead.

John Arensmeyer: Decision to Delay Employer Mandate Has No Practical Impact on Small Firms

 

[Jack Hays]

Lying? lol

I'll just let the forum goers read what you've wrote.

That makes my point better than anything else. Thanks.:mrgreen::agree:thumbs:

 

[Jack Hays]

Not even some? Really? How many people who oppose it even know what it is? You've noted in the past that folks by and large are not as informed as they should be. There are people who support it who do so because Obama wants it, so why not on the other side? Jack, remember, objectivity ...

Not enough to matter.:mrgreen:

 

[windowdressing]

Not enough to matter.:mrgreen:

it's not just how many, but also who ... and when the who is virtually the entire GOP House, it matters ... gotta help my son move ... take care ...

 

[MMC]

If this idea is so awesome, then why is not implementing it "less painful"? IF - as conservatives have been saying - it's going to destroy jobs... then why did this ideas supporters argue the exact opposite? Were they lying then, or have they changed their mind since and neglected to inform us?


And what, exactly, gives the President the authority to simply unilaterally overturn the law?

Heya CPW.

This ^^^^^.....Needs to be addressed by the MS media as well. Plus again lets not forget the symbolic gesture the Demos did with Obama's Medical Device tax.

The need the money from the Small business owners and citizens to make his BS scam work. The Demos know that Small business drives the economy. Yet they all decided to screw over the entire country and now are fearing the backlash for election time.

What goes around comes around.

 

[cpwill]

Heya CPW.

This ^^^^^.....Needs to be addressed by the MS media as well. Plus again lets not forget the symbolic gesture the Demos did with Obama's Medical Device tax.

The need the money from the Small business owners and citizens to make his BS scam work. The Demos know that Small business drives the economy. Yet they all decided to screw over the entire country and now are fearing the backlash for election time.

What goes around comes around.

Maybe the plan is for Hillary to run against it? Or perhaps this administration wants an easier last two years, but doesn't really care about ole H? I'd buy that.

 

[Woodman909]

Hyperbole drowning in crocodile tears. You didn't get your way politically so it's not just something to disagree with... it has to be "by far the worst legislation in the history of this nation."

Glad to know that you think getting people health coverage is worse than the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Volstead Act, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, the Alien and Sedition Act or how about the wonderful Patrtiot Act? The list can go on and on and on but of course it's just a matter of opinion I suppose.

To each their own I guess.

Most of the legislation you listed were passed when our society was different an those evils existed before we came to our senses. People actually wanted those to be laws. The same cannot be said for this one.
Take a hard look at how this was passed. Nobody read the thing, and most of the 'laws' were worded as "TO BE DETERMINED". So you have a law, unfinished, where legislation is to be added going forward by persons never elected to an office, but appointed to a position. These terms will never be voted on to be made law as the constitution requires. How lucky we are to have SCOTUS loaded with morons who could not see this. And to be sure, you can bet this law will make getting health care harder, not easier. The only ones who love this law are the either the ones who will get something for nothing, the people who voted for it who think it will help perpetuate their miserable time in office, and people like you who love it because it makes you happy to support something that helps you follow the party line without having to use a brain. If this POS is so good, why is there such a long list of entities (like congress itself) that have paved a smooth road to opt out of it???

 

[humbolt]

Not even some? Really? How many people who oppose it even know what it is? You've noted in the past that folks by and large are not as informed as they should be. There are people who support it who do so because Obama wants it, so why not on the other side? Jack, remember, objectivity ...

How many who voted for it in Congress even know what it is?

 

[windowdressing]

How many who voted for it in Congress even know what it is?

thank you ... my point exactly ... when many of the people in Congress don't know what it is, imagine how much the general population knows ... ours has to be one of the most uninformed electorates in the world ...

 

[Jack Hays]

thank you ... my point exactly ... when many of the people in Congress don't know what it is, imagine how much the general population knows ... ours has to be one of the most uninformed electorates in the world ...

Pesky voters, not realizing what their masters have decided is best for them. Tsk tsk.

 

[polgara]

thank you ... my point exactly ... when many of the people in Congress don't know what it is, imagine how much the general population knows ... ours has to be one of the most uninformed electorates in the world ...

Good afternoon, windowdressing: :2wave:

:agree: And what makes it even sadder, most don't even care that they don't know!

 

[windowdressing]

Good afternoon, windowdressing: :2wave:

:agree: And what makes it even sadder, most don't even care that they don't know!

excellent point, as always ... hope you're well ... how's the recovery going?

 

[wbcoleman]

Heya WBC :2wave: What would happen if the US could hold off Obamacare until 2016.

Lets not forget.....that even the Demos voted to repeal Obama's Medical Device tax. Knowing it will hurt research. So this can be brought down upon them too. Despite Obama trying to be slick and get coverage for the 2014 Election. Then there is all that trouble he is facing with that 15 man panel. Which appears to be going Constitutional too.

Plus he knows with most of the Republican states not going with his exchanges. He will have to come up with more money. Which already insurance rates are up getting up there.

We still have to get our act together and nominate strong candidates in 2014 and 2016.

 

[wbcoleman]

it is a crying shame that most of the democratic seats are in good holding position.

They're not! Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia should be ours for the taking, and six seats is exactly what we need.

 

[Jack Hays]

They're not! Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia should be ours for the taking, and six seats is exactly what we need.

Excellent post. Excellent sig line.