Paxton is taking a political position that ultimately costs him nothing. He knows those clerks will ultimately have to issue the licenses. All he said was that their First Amendment rights are intact (duh) and that some "accommodation" may be possible. That doesn't mean they don't have to do their jobs. If they refuse to issue licenses, they will pay the price, not the AG.
Remember George Wallace's "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" in Tuscaloosa? Great photo op that provided a generation's worth of red meat to the segregationist base. Wallace backed down - brilliantly and ironically justifying his surrender as being in the interest of law and order, casting the Feds as agents of miscegenist anarchy. You can expect similar theater this week, although on a much smaller scale.
It will take a lot longer than November 2016...
before the major negatives of Obamacare show up fully. Just as it turned people to the right originally, it is now in a quasi-honeymoon period where, at the very worst, it will be neutral for the Democrats.
-- it isn't going to drive people who dislike ACA to the voting booth specifically on that issue;
--Governors in states that didn't extend Medicaid will take some heat;
--Most major national polls currently have Obama's net approval rating at -2% to -3%, up from -10% or worse.
ACA just isn't going to have a significant impact on the 2016 Presidential election or the fight for control of the Senate. That isn't to say it isn't seriously flawed, just that it has faded as a national election issue, and its worst warts won't show up for some time. Democrats will also be in a position to point out that if Congress really wanted to do something about the flaws, or even replace ACA, it needed a plan, which it never had.
And btw, the idea that states refused to extend Medicaid because the would ultimately have to pick up 10% of the cost is a lie. 10% of ACA Medicaid subsidies is vastly lower than 100% of indigent care.
And, of course, the Republicans got lucky politically that SCOTUS went the way it did, or they would be looking at a much bigger mess in 2016. "Repeal and replace" needs a "replace," and they had none planned or shaped.
sucks for a lot of the working people who already had company sponsored healthcare.
My premiums have tripled for worse coverage.
What happened to if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?
it became too expensive for my employer to offer the same plans (since they fund 80% of it). So the coverage got worse, my premiums went up, and my salary of course stayed the same.
this is the majority of the professional people I work with who aren't simply blinded by politics they just want to accept it an be happy because Obama is their guy.
I pay enough in taxes not to get taxed another way by something not called a tax.
no denying that. But some people also look at healthcare getting more expensive and blame it on ACA, rather than a decade+ long trend of healthcare getting more and more expensive vs. inflation.
Also, some insurer are just giving a raw-er deal. Consumers are getting crappier/lazier, and some industries are stepping all over their customers.
my company employs 80,000 people, there is no surer way to crush employee morale than messing with employee comp and benefits.
this is not a laziness tactic on the part of my company nor is it a tactic for them to simply change the way they fund healthcare.
this is a direct result of ACA.
I'm truly glad more people get healthcare, if in fact they do. I would hate to raise a family and have to worry what we'd do if they get sick, but I was comfortable that I was paying enough in taxes already, and increasing my healthcare to fund others is just another tax for me.
In other words, they were going to skyrocket without the ACA anyway- have you not been paying attention to your plans and premiums over the last 20yrs?
To blame the ACA for something that was already happening is silly.
I dont trust you. Sorry, and not personal. Healthcare costs were exploding before ACA. Then ACA gets passed and it's suddenly ACA's fault? Horse. Shit.
Are there features of ACA that are causing premiums to go up? Yes, including the elimination of annual/lifetime benefit caps, the elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and a one time hit of previously uninsured people finally getting some treatment. One could name 10 others Im sure. That is costing everyone some in the pocketbook, I'll grant you.
But it's not the be-all. Healthcare costs are exploding for a lot of reasons. Costlier treatments, being able to keep people alive longer (so much spending is end of life) -- Obamacare isnt responsible for $50k cancer drugs that extend life by months. The Great Fattening of America. Perhaps most importantly, grossly anti-competitive moves in the hospital market, especially among putative non-profits.
I said "I dont trust you" I was being cutesy because you said "trust me". I dont think this is a trust issue -- I think the facts are a lot murkier than you portray.
I'm surprised that for an 80,000 employee company, Â
they would triple the employee premium as result of ACA. I always thought that a company that large would be better at minimizing such increase.
I guess I'm lucky that my company of less than 300 people hasn't had such a negative impact as of ACA. Our premium didn't increase by more than 5%, and while our provider has changed for the second time in two years (we just went back to the provider that we had two years ago), the coverage hasn't changed much for us.
my company sells software where you elect your benefits (among many other things). So we're required to know quite a bit about the ACA and how it impacts plan choices, premiums, and options as they have changed from prior years.
I know for a fact the increase I have experienced was unusually high due to the ACA.
But whatever, I don't care enough to debate it.
People tend to believe whatever they believe before they know the facts, and I don't care enough to change anyone's mind. I'm not anti-ACA in theory, but I also make no false claims about what it is.
Mind you, one time, large scale premium increases Â
were going to be inevitable before long, ACA or no ACA.
The ACA simply sped up the process for HI companies so that they now can increase the premiums, to account for the massive changes to the risk pool even over a relatively short (10 year) life span.
The HI companies are largely going to amortize differently than they would have. Major increases this year (for some), with dramatically slower premium growth in the near future, compared to moderate premium growth pre-ACA.
RE: Yup. this absolutely is a honeymoon period on ACA... Â
-- it isn't going to drive people who dislike ACA to the voting booth specifically on that issue;
--Governors in states that didn't extend Medicaid will take some heat;
--Most major national polls currently have Obama's net approval rating at -2% to -3%, up from -10% or worse.
ACA just isn't going to have a significant impact on the 2016 Presidential election or the fight for control of the Senate. That isn't to say it isn't seriously flawed, just that it has faded as a national election issue, and its worst warts won't show up for some time. Democrats will also be in a position to point out that if Congress really wanted to do something about the flaws, or even replace ACA, it needed a plan, which it never had.
And btw, the idea that states refused to extend Medicaid because the would ultimately have to pick up 10% of the cost is a lie. 10% of ACA Medicaid subsidies is vastly lower than 100% of indigent care.
And, of course, the Republicans got lucky politically that SCOTUS went the way it did, or they would be looking at a much bigger mess in 2016. "Repeal and replace" needs a "replace," and they had none planned or shaped.
Live with it.
When does the surcharge/tax on Cadillac Plans kick in? Lot of union members are going to be less than thrilled with that.
you are right about the polygamy thing vs gay marriage. years ago, it was ok to be openly against gay marriage. then times changed and it became a bad thing to be openly against it, and the politicians recognized it and laws are enacted accordingly.
polygamy still has too much bad connotation to it, and too many people are against it. we have it. it's called cheating, and a huge percentage of people engage in it. No one is willing to come out of the closet yet, though, mostly because the highest authority of all (the spouse) wouldn't take kindly to it.
realistically, though, there is no real reason polygamy shouldn't be legal. the concept of marriage is artificial. and though many people want to compare it to bestiality or marrying one's car, such comparisons are silly. and the reason it's illegal has a lot to do with religion, not with any rational line of thought. the reason it's unpopular has to do with men and women not being able to deal with a partner having other love interests, along with the historic abuses making it easy to hate.
who was it who said bigamy is having one wife too many, and so is monogamy?
you are right about the polygamy thing vs gay marriage. years ago, it was ok to be openly against gay marriage. then times changed and it became a bad thing to be openly against it, and the politicians recognized it and laws are enacted accordingly.
polygamy still has too much bad connotation to it, and too many people are against it. we have it. it's called cheating, and a huge percentage of people engage in it. No one is willing to come out of the closet yet, though, mostly because the highest authority of all (the spouse) wouldn't take kindly to it.
realistically, though, there is no real reason polygamy shouldn't be legal. the concept of marriage is artificial. and though many people want to compare it to bestiality or marrying one's car, such comparisons are silly. and the reason it's illegal has a lot to do with religion, not with any rational line of thought. the reason it's unpopular has to do with men and women not being able to deal with a partner having other love interests, along with the historic abuses making it easy to hate.
who was it who said bigamy is having one wife too many, and so is monogamy?
I think the only sticking point with that is going to be coercion. While there are some relationships that are polyamorous, you would assume that the bulk of these are going to be religiously motivated. Whether LDS gets back in the act (having basically repudiated the practice a century plus ago), it is certainly accepted by many adherents to Islam. And where the husband enters into a second or third union without the consent - potentially without the knowledge - of the existing spouse(s) there is an element of coercion that doesn't exist as readily between two people.
Counterpoint though is that once upon a time arranged marriages were common. was that a reason to make 2 person marriage illegal? how do we know 2 person marriages don't involve coercion?
There are multi-party legal contracts in many different areas. when you put in safeguards, it isn't an issue. marriage is a legal contract.
It's the Big Love scenario. Bill Paxton and his wives, and his chubby business partner and his wives were above board, but were persecuted. the old geezer and his slimy compound weren't above board. you're penalizing all because of the sins of a few. right now, people want to point to the sins and use it to paint a broad brush.
Counterpoint though is that once upon a time arranged marriages were common. was that a reason to make 2 person marriage illegal? how do we know 2 person marriages don't involve coercion?
There are multi-party legal contracts in many different areas. when you put in safeguards, it isn't an issue. marriage is a legal contract.
It's the Big Love scenario. Bill Paxton and his wives, and his chubby business partner and his wives were above board, but were persecuted. the old geezer and his slimy compound weren't above board. you're penalizing all because of the sins of a few. right now, people want to point to the sins and use it to paint a broad brush.
The problem is that you're trying to apply reason/logic to an essentially emotional subject. The whole purpose of spin is to paint a topic so it stirs up a particular constituency. You do that by appealing to emotion. The more one tries to appeal to reason/logic, the likely that appeal will fail, or be overwhelmed by a similar argument that baits with red meat.
who thinks the country is moving left to get as far away from the whackos on the far right as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
who thinks the country is moving left to get as far away from the whackos on the far right as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
The sad part is that the vast majority of folks "on the right" don't buy all that stupid BS. There are plenty here on BBI.
Sure, you can make a reasonable argument in defense of polygamy. Â
There's even a feminist argument in favor of permitting it, with appropriate protections against coercion and abuse. (This line of thinking resembles the feminist defense of prostitution, and relates to the asymmetrical harm done by restricting women's choices.) That's all very interesting, but it's a different discussion.
My point was a much narrower one: it's hard to see a strong equal-protection argument for quashing bans on polygamy. That's where the analogy to same-sex marriage falls apart, IMO.
Any two consenting adults can marry, with the stipulation that any consenting adult can marry exactly one other consenting adult at a time. Seems OK to me. I'll leave the finer points to constitutional scholars.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
I find the War on Christmas from one side and the War on Women from the other side equally stupid.
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Well the Dem leadership, especially Pelosi, is pretty far to the left. But Obama couldn't control his own party on TPP.
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
I thought that was understood. My first sentence called them the far Right. Frankly, I should say the Religious Right since that what it boils down to.
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
You could probably include the hardcore environmentalists in there as well, but they've been around so long they kinda just blend into the background.
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
Also I think the far left isn't quite as loud as the far right for whatever reason. They also seem much less angry. Could be the lack of gluten, meat, and GMO's in their diet I suppose.
there is no hook on the Far Left to gain a mass influx of zealots.
The right has one built in since the day of time - the fear of God.
They use that idea to beat their idiot followers to a pulp. Hell, probably not too unlike Radical Islamics who preach Fear of Allah with similar results in terms of entrancing a lot of narrow-minded thinkers.
We've had double-digit increases in H.C. costs every year... Â
for the last six years, and the trend goes back even longer than that.
Last year we were literally told we should "be grateful" because our increase came in at only 10%.
Here's an exact quote from our school district's superintendent letter on this year's premiums:
Quote:
Health Insurance Provider proposed a 32.9% increase based on district experience and medical inflation. The benefit’s (sic) committee sought quotes from other providers and negotiated with our current provider down to a 26.2% increase.
The benefit’s (sic) committee then looked at benefit changes to the base plan and buy-up plan to bring the premium down and still remain comparable to other districts. (shown on next slide).
The benefit changes resulted in a blended rate increase for the plans of 17.6%
So, basically after years of having our medical expenses growing at many multiples of inflation, we were now told that after the 2014-15 school year, based on our experience, our insurance premiums would rise by over 26%, and not wanting that, our benefits committee decided to slash benefits to keep our costs down to ONLY 17.6%.
Woohoo!
There are a lot of very conservative people in Idaho who are being squeezed so tightly by these rising medical costs that they are changing their opinions on single-payer system. It's a hard thing for them to accept, and many more are simply blaming ACA for these types of rate increases.
Just something to think about since this thread morphed into a discussion on ACA.
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Well, I think TPP is an example with respect to Congress, but I'm saying this on a wider scale. The best example would be the 2006 poll where 22.6% of Democrats thought it was "likely" that Bush had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks and 28.2% thought it was "somewhat likely". It seems that sitting presidents seem to attract this kind of thing. Linked is a Politico article.
I dont count abortion as "hard core" either way. It's just an exception. If you think abortion is murder, you're going to be against it in all its forms other than health of the mother. If you think that abortion isnt wrong, you're going to be anti-regulation.
No wing of the Democratic party is pushing for broad environmental reform right now (at least not hard). Where is the counter to NCLB? Bill Clinton, the living god of the party and husband of the presumptive nominee, was pro-welfare reform and a free trade zealot. No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels. No major crime/gun bill.
The party at this point has no internal pressure groups. The GOP had the evangelical block in the Bush years, and the Tea Party thereafter. Those groups had party leaders trembling. I dont know what the corollary groups are in the Dem caucus, but if it's the unions then they better buy scarier masks because the Dems dont even pander well to them.
About 25 years ago or so ago I had to take a public speaking course for another degree I was getting. I took it as a summer short course as I already was an adjunct at the college. It was taught by a high school teacher. Long story short as we butted heads throughout the course he asked me my political views in front of the class. I said a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. He told there was no such animal. Now it seems there are a lot of people who think like me.
Gays want to marry? More power to the group. I'm all for it. Always have been. There will be an industry that develops around that. Don't force churches or private companies to participate. It's their loss of business.
Same with the abortion issue that manh brought up. I have always been anti abortion/pro choice. How is that possible one might ask? It's really simple. I, myself, don't agree with abortion. But who am I to force that belief on anyone else. That is their choice.
I think the polls are reclassifying people who have two views on an issue. What you, yourself, believes and what you think you should force others to believe.
is a boogeyman invented to justify all the anger of the wingnuts. If you are talking about the freaks on the fringe with 0 power as the Hard Left that is responsible for all your perceive ills in society, then Fox is doing a great job selling
they're confined to college campuses and advocacy groups and while every now and again an idea will sneak out of there and gain traction they're not on major news channels (save occasionally as a real-life strawman on FNC) or otherwise addressing large audiences.
The difference between the far left and far right is that the Dems Â
largely ignore their extremists while the mainstream Republican leadership has to at least pay the right wing extremists lip service or else they get primary challenges from the tea party. This is because the right wing is more organized, votes as a block and backs it up by coming out in the primaries.
No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
I dont count abortion as "hard core" either way. It's just an exception. If you think abortion is murder, you're going to be against it in all its forms other than health of the mother. If you think that abortion isnt wrong, you're going to be anti-regulation.
No wing of the Democratic party is pushing for broad environmental reform right now (at least not hard). Where is the counter to NCLB? Bill Clinton, the living god of the party and husband of the presumptive nominee, was pro-welfare reform and a free trade zealot. No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels. No major crime/gun bill.
The party at this point has no internal pressure groups. The GOP had the evangelical block in the Bush years, and the Tea Party thereafter. Those groups had party leaders trembling. I dont know what the corollary groups are in the Dem caucus, but if it's the unions then they better buy scarier masks because the Dems dont even pander well to them.
The folks that refuse to brook any sort of regulation and suggest abortion as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. They exist, they repulse even a lot of pro choice people. But mainstream pro choice opinions aren't terribly offensive to relative moderates on either side of things.
who thinks the country is moving left to get as far away from the whackos on the far right as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
The sad part is that the vast majority of folks "on the right" don't buy all that stupid BS. There are plenty here on BBI.
It really is amazing how they allowed fringe groups to commandeer their party. The ironic aspect is that those fringe groups don't realize that what they have done is hindered themselves while helping the Dems. They have been granted so much power that for anyone to stand a chance to be nominated for President, they have to take stances that comes back to hurt them in the general election, even if they don't really believe in those hardline stances.
Remember George Wallace's "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" in Tuscaloosa? Great photo op that provided a generation's worth of red meat to the segregationist base. Wallace backed down - brilliantly and ironically justifying his surrender as being in the interest of law and order, casting the Feds as agents of miscegenist anarchy. You can expect similar theater this week, although on a much smaller scale.
before the major negatives of Obamacare show up fully. Just as it turned people to the right originally, it is now in a quasi-honeymoon period where, at the very worst, it will be neutral for the Democrats.
This is a honeymoon period??
-- it isn't going to drive people who dislike ACA to the voting booth specifically on that issue;
--Governors in states that didn't extend Medicaid will take some heat;
--Most major national polls currently have Obama's net approval rating at -2% to -3%, up from -10% or worse.
ACA just isn't going to have a significant impact on the 2016 Presidential election or the fight for control of the Senate. That isn't to say it isn't seriously flawed, just that it has faded as a national election issue, and its worst warts won't show up for some time. Democrats will also be in a position to point out that if Congress really wanted to do something about the flaws, or even replace ACA, it needed a plan, which it never had.
And btw, the idea that states refused to extend Medicaid because the would ultimately have to pick up 10% of the cost is a lie. 10% of ACA Medicaid subsidies is vastly lower than 100% of indigent care.
And, of course, the Republicans got lucky politically that SCOTUS went the way it did, or they would be looking at a much bigger mess in 2016. "Repeal and replace" needs a "replace," and they had none planned or shaped.
Live with it.
Is good for some
Didn't change much for some.
Taxes will have to be paid towards the subsidies
Some costs may go down as people are now covered that weren't before.
I am definitely in the sucks for some category though.
My premiums have tripled for worse coverage.
What happened to if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?
it became too expensive for my employer to offer the same plans (since they fund 80% of it). So the coverage got worse, my premiums went up, and my salary of course stayed the same.
this is the majority of the professional people I work with who aren't simply blinded by politics they just want to accept it an be happy because Obama is their guy.
I pay enough in taxes not to get taxed another way by something not called a tax.
Also, some insurer are just giving a raw-er deal. Consumers are getting crappier/lazier, and some industries are stepping all over their customers.
this is not a laziness tactic on the part of my company nor is it a tactic for them to simply change the way they fund healthcare.
this is a direct result of ACA.
I'm truly glad more people get healthcare, if in fact they do. I would hate to raise a family and have to worry what we'd do if they get sick, but I was comfortable that I was paying enough in taxes already, and increasing my healthcare to fund others is just another tax for me.
In other words, they were going to skyrocket without the ACA anyway- have you not been paying attention to your plans and premiums over the last 20yrs?
To blame the ACA for something that was already happening is silly.
Are there features of ACA that are causing premiums to go up? Yes, including the elimination of annual/lifetime benefit caps, the elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and a one time hit of previously uninsured people finally getting some treatment. One could name 10 others Im sure. That is costing everyone some in the pocketbook, I'll grant you.
But it's not the be-all. Healthcare costs are exploding for a lot of reasons. Costlier treatments, being able to keep people alive longer (so much spending is end of life) -- Obamacare isnt responsible for $50k cancer drugs that extend life by months. The Great Fattening of America. Perhaps most importantly, grossly anti-competitive moves in the hospital market, especially among putative non-profits.
No, the increase was nothing like what we've seen lately.
Like I said, some people believe what they want and I'm not getting into debating with people who call me a liar.
have a nice day.
I guess I'm lucky that my company of less than 300 people hasn't had such a negative impact as of ACA. Our premium didn't increase by more than 5%, and while our provider has changed for the second time in two years (we just went back to the provider that we had two years ago), the coverage hasn't changed much for us.
I know for a fact the increase I have experienced was unusually high due to the ACA.
But whatever, I don't care enough to debate it.
People tend to believe whatever they believe before they know the facts, and I don't care enough to change anyone's mind. I'm not anti-ACA in theory, but I also make no false claims about what it is.
The ACA simply sped up the process for HI companies so that they now can increase the premiums, to account for the massive changes to the risk pool even over a relatively short (10 year) life span.
The HI companies are largely going to amortize differently than they would have. Major increases this year (for some), with dramatically slower premium growth in the near future, compared to moderate premium growth pre-ACA.
-- it isn't going to drive people who dislike ACA to the voting booth specifically on that issue;
--Governors in states that didn't extend Medicaid will take some heat;
--Most major national polls currently have Obama's net approval rating at -2% to -3%, up from -10% or worse.
ACA just isn't going to have a significant impact on the 2016 Presidential election or the fight for control of the Senate. That isn't to say it isn't seriously flawed, just that it has faded as a national election issue, and its worst warts won't show up for some time. Democrats will also be in a position to point out that if Congress really wanted to do something about the flaws, or even replace ACA, it needed a plan, which it never had.
And btw, the idea that states refused to extend Medicaid because the would ultimately have to pick up 10% of the cost is a lie. 10% of ACA Medicaid subsidies is vastly lower than 100% of indigent care.
And, of course, the Republicans got lucky politically that SCOTUS went the way it did, or they would be looking at a much bigger mess in 2016. "Repeal and replace" needs a "replace," and they had none planned or shaped.
Live with it.
When does the surcharge/tax on Cadillac Plans kick in? Lot of union members are going to be less than thrilled with that.
polygamy still has too much bad connotation to it, and too many people are against it. we have it. it's called cheating, and a huge percentage of people engage in it. No one is willing to come out of the closet yet, though, mostly because the highest authority of all (the spouse) wouldn't take kindly to it.
realistically, though, there is no real reason polygamy shouldn't be legal. the concept of marriage is artificial. and though many people want to compare it to bestiality or marrying one's car, such comparisons are silly. and the reason it's illegal has a lot to do with religion, not with any rational line of thought. the reason it's unpopular has to do with men and women not being able to deal with a partner having other love interests, along with the historic abuses making it easy to hate.
who was it who said bigamy is having one wife too many, and so is monogamy?
polygamy still has too much bad connotation to it, and too many people are against it. we have it. it's called cheating, and a huge percentage of people engage in it. No one is willing to come out of the closet yet, though, mostly because the highest authority of all (the spouse) wouldn't take kindly to it.
realistically, though, there is no real reason polygamy shouldn't be legal. the concept of marriage is artificial. and though many people want to compare it to bestiality or marrying one's car, such comparisons are silly. and the reason it's illegal has a lot to do with religion, not with any rational line of thought. the reason it's unpopular has to do with men and women not being able to deal with a partner having other love interests, along with the historic abuses making it easy to hate.
who was it who said bigamy is having one wife too many, and so is monogamy?
I think the only sticking point with that is going to be coercion. While there are some relationships that are polyamorous, you would assume that the bulk of these are going to be religiously motivated. Whether LDS gets back in the act (having basically repudiated the practice a century plus ago), it is certainly accepted by many adherents to Islam. And where the husband enters into a second or third union without the consent - potentially without the knowledge - of the existing spouse(s) there is an element of coercion that doesn't exist as readily between two people.
Counterpoint though is that once upon a time arranged marriages were common. was that a reason to make 2 person marriage illegal? how do we know 2 person marriages don't involve coercion?
There are multi-party legal contracts in many different areas. when you put in safeguards, it isn't an issue. marriage is a legal contract.
It's the Big Love scenario. Bill Paxton and his wives, and his chubby business partner and his wives were above board, but were persecuted. the old geezer and his slimy compound weren't above board. you're penalizing all because of the sins of a few. right now, people want to point to the sins and use it to paint a broad brush.
Counterpoint though is that once upon a time arranged marriages were common. was that a reason to make 2 person marriage illegal? how do we know 2 person marriages don't involve coercion?
There are multi-party legal contracts in many different areas. when you put in safeguards, it isn't an issue. marriage is a legal contract.
It's the Big Love scenario. Bill Paxton and his wives, and his chubby business partner and his wives were above board, but were persecuted. the old geezer and his slimy compound weren't above board. you're penalizing all because of the sins of a few. right now, people want to point to the sins and use it to paint a broad brush.
The problem is that you're trying to apply reason/logic to an essentially emotional subject. The whole purpose of spin is to paint a topic so it stirs up a particular constituency. You do that by appealing to emotion. The more one tries to appeal to reason/logic, the likely that appeal will fail, or be overwhelmed by a similar argument that baits with red meat.
Everything is based on an agenda.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
The sad part is that the vast majority of folks "on the right" don't buy all that stupid BS. There are plenty here on BBI.
My point was a much narrower one: it's hard to see a strong equal-protection argument for quashing bans on polygamy. That's where the analogy to same-sex marriage falls apart, IMO.
Any two consenting adults can marry, with the stipulation that any consenting adult can marry exactly one other consenting adult at a time. Seems OK to me. I'll leave the finer points to constitutional scholars.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Quote:
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
1. I think you probably should have said "far Right".
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Quote:
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Well the Dem leadership, especially Pelosi, is pretty far to the left. But Obama couldn't control his own party on TPP.
I find the War on Christmas from one side and the War on Women from the other side equally stupid.
Agreed, but the media seems to play up the war on women much more, while (IMO) just mocks the war on christmas nonsense.
Quote:
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
I thought that was understood. My first sentence called them the far Right. Frankly, I should say the Religious Right since that what it boils down to.
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
You could probably include the hardcore environmentalists in there as well, but they've been around so long they kinda just blend into the background.
Quote:
In comment 12348172 njm said:
Quote:
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
For a variety of reasons I'd say it just isn't there. The media bias bit is at least a partial explanation. Everyone knew that Obama was lying through his teeth about gay marriage in 2008 and everyone was pretty much okay with it. But outside the really hardcore abortion zealots there really isn't an issue at this point where the hard Left is so far removed from the mainstream that their rhetoric is perceived to be beyond the pale by moderates on both sides.
Also I think the far left isn't quite as loud as the far right for whatever reason. They also seem much less angry. Could be the lack of gluten, meat, and GMO's in their diet I suppose.
The right has one built in since the day of time - the fear of God.
They use that idea to beat their idiot followers to a pulp. Hell, probably not too unlike Radical Islamics who preach Fear of Allah with similar results in terms of entrancing a lot of narrow-minded thinkers.
Last year we were literally told we should "be grateful" because our increase came in at only 10%.
Here's an exact quote from our school district's superintendent letter on this year's premiums:
The benefit’s (sic) committee then looked at benefit changes to the base plan and buy-up plan to bring the premium down and still remain comparable to other districts. (shown on next slide).
The benefit changes resulted in a blended rate increase for the plans of 17.6%
So, basically after years of having our medical expenses growing at many multiples of inflation, we were now told that after the 2014-15 school year, based on our experience, our insurance premiums would rise by over 26%, and not wanting that, our benefits committee decided to slash benefits to keep our costs down to ONLY 17.6%.
Woohoo!
There are a lot of very conservative people in Idaho who are being squeezed so tightly by these rising medical costs that they are changing their opinions on single-payer system. It's a hard thing for them to accept, and many more are simply blaming ACA for these types of rate increases.
Just something to think about since this thread morphed into a discussion on ACA.
Quote:
2. Couldn't you make the same statement about the far Left?
Explain please, because that just seems to me like a reflexive "pox on both their houses". Maybe I have a hard time seeing it from the inside (I'm moderate left but very Dem). But the far left just doesnt seem to be driving the party at all. It's not like the right, where Tea Party type candidates have been very successful in primaries.
What is the Dem equivalent to Boehner being routinely unable to control his right wing?
Well, I think TPP is an example with respect to Congress, but I'm saying this on a wider scale. The best example would be the 2006 poll where 22.6% of Democrats thought it was "likely" that Bush had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks and 28.2% thought it was "somewhat likely". It seems that sitting presidents seem to attract this kind of thing. Linked is a Politico article.
Link - ( New Window )
No wing of the Democratic party is pushing for broad environmental reform right now (at least not hard). Where is the counter to NCLB? Bill Clinton, the living god of the party and husband of the presumptive nominee, was pro-welfare reform and a free trade zealot. No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels. No major crime/gun bill.
The party at this point has no internal pressure groups. The GOP had the evangelical block in the Bush years, and the Tea Party thereafter. Those groups had party leaders trembling. I dont know what the corollary groups are in the Dem caucus, but if it's the unions then they better buy scarier masks because the Dems dont even pander well to them.
About 25 years ago or so ago I had to take a public speaking course for another degree I was getting. I took it as a summer short course as I already was an adjunct at the college. It was taught by a high school teacher. Long story short as we butted heads throughout the course he asked me my political views in front of the class. I said a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. He told there was no such animal. Now it seems there are a lot of people who think like me.
Gays want to marry? More power to the group. I'm all for it. Always have been. There will be an industry that develops around that. Don't force churches or private companies to participate. It's their loss of business.
Same with the abortion issue that manh brought up. I have always been anti abortion/pro choice. How is that possible one might ask? It's really simple. I, myself, don't agree with abortion. But who am I to force that belief on anyone else. That is their choice.
I think the polls are reclassifying people who have two views on an issue. What you, yourself, believes and what you think you should force others to believe.
Tough thing to do.
If not all the way there, I believe Bernie Sanders is awfully close.
Abortion is in a class by itself. Someone who believes life begins at conception is not a raving lunatic. If they firebomb a clinic that's a different story.
No wing of the Democratic party is pushing for broad environmental reform right now (at least not hard). Where is the counter to NCLB? Bill Clinton, the living god of the party and husband of the presumptive nominee, was pro-welfare reform and a free trade zealot. No one is saying roll back taxes to pre-Reagan levels. No major crime/gun bill.
The party at this point has no internal pressure groups. The GOP had the evangelical block in the Bush years, and the Tea Party thereafter. Those groups had party leaders trembling. I dont know what the corollary groups are in the Dem caucus, but if it's the unions then they better buy scarier masks because the Dems dont even pander well to them.
The folks that refuse to brook any sort of regulation and suggest abortion as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. They exist, they repulse even a lot of pro choice people. But mainstream pro choice opinions aren't terribly offensive to relative moderates on either side of things.
Quote:
who thinks the country is moving left to get as far away from the whackos on the far right as possible.
It sort of follows the same logic as posting on BBI sometimes. It is less about support for a topic and more about refuting the incoherent ramblings of morons.
The challenge in dealing with the Right is you have some smart people controlling a message to a slew of mouth-breathers who tote the line of the day without having a clue of what it means.
Watch. It won't be too long before the drumbeat starts about the Religious Freedoms of people getting trampled. You will hear many people start to spout this mantra off, yet very few will be able to tell you what freedoms have been infringed upon. Why? Because none have. Allowing gay marriage has no impact on non-gay's beliefs. It becomes a strawman argument. But watch - it will get parroted a lot. Oddly, Christians will be the ones claiming grievances, despite the religion standing for acceptance and respect. Yet another one of the hypocrises the Right foists upon us that drives a lot of people as far away from their stench as possible.
The sad part is that the vast majority of folks "on the right" don't buy all that stupid BS. There are plenty here on BBI.
It really is amazing how they allowed fringe groups to commandeer their party. The ironic aspect is that those fringe groups don't realize that what they have done is hindered themselves while helping the Dems. They have been granted so much power that for anyone to stand a chance to be nominated for President, they have to take stances that comes back to hurt them in the general election, even if they don't really believe in those hardline stances.