Has anyone been reading about this? The employer mandate for health insurance is being delayed a year, to 2015. The individual mandate is still going into effect, along with the penalties for non-compliance. The health insurance exchanges look like they are also going into effect in 2014 as well.
I've been researching the ACA over the past few weeks and am doing a seminar for my clients tomorrow on all of the regulations they need to know about, and I can't believe the sheer amount of confusion I know this will cause for businesses. The pay or play laws in particular are going to cause some massive headaches for businesses and the IRS alike.
I've been able to amass a lot of information on the employer and individual mandates if anyone is interested. There are quite a few things that people may not be aware of. If anyone has any questions I probably have the answer. The company I work for seems to give us more and more information on the ACA the moment the information is released or a regulation is approved.
Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.
Honestly I think it is quite arrogant of the president for him to rewrite the law with his regulatory powers while threatening to veto an actual bill that does the same thing, especially since Congress has the Constitutional authority to rewrite or make changes to the law.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.
If only.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.
If only.
"We?" lol
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.
1. I can see hundreds of really good reasons to keep congress from getting any ideas that they will be able to set timetables for the president in this case.
2. Unconstitutional is a much harder sell than most people give it. I actually don't think it is given the text of the law
Posted by Thesifer (Member # 12890) on :
I hope they now delay the individual mandate, causing Insurance Companies to lose tons of people that don't have to worry about not having insurance and having "pre-existing conditions" and then go out of business when they get flooded - and we get a Public Option or Single Payer.
But that's probably just wishful thinking.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.
If only.
"We?" lol
There's a thing called "rhetoric".
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.
1. I can see hundreds of really good reasons to keep congress from getting any ideas that they will be able to set timetables for the president in this case.
2. Unconstitutional is a much harder sell than most people give it. I actually don't think it is given the text of the law
Any non-political reasons out of those hundreds?
If Congress (whose responsibility it is to make changes to law under the Constitution) passed a bill doing the exact same thing the Administration is already doing, what reason would there be to veto it, if not for politics?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: I hope they now delay the individual mandate, causing Insurance Companies to lose tons of people that don't have to worry about not having insurance and having "pre-existing conditions" and then go out of business when they get flooded - and we get a Public Option or Single Payer.
But that's probably just wishful thinking.
Very wishful thinking. Delaying the individual mandate would do nothing at all. The individual mandate for 2014 is a 1% fee on your gross wages if you do not have insurance. For someone making 50,000 a year, this is $500, which is far less than what that person would be paying for a year in monthly premiums.
Many people who do not currently have insurance but have it available to them will simply take the fine for the first few years.
Delaying the employer mandate will simply mean that more people will be using the exchanges for the 2014 enrollment period. If a company does not offer coverage that meets the minimum required benefits, has deductibles that are too high, or is deemed unaffordable to an employee, they can go through the exchanges.
Delaying the mandate may cause more of a mess than it will help. Many employees will go through the exchanges for 2014, but will be forced to switch to their employer's health insurance plans when the mandate goes into effect. It will work like this:
1) My employer doesn't offer health insurance, so I go through an exchange. Open enrollment is from October 1, 2013 to March 14, 2014.
2) I have health insurance until the end of 2014.
3) Due to the mandate, my employer offers health insurance for the 2015 year that meets the minimum benefit requirements, and is deemed "affordable." (Health insurance premiums cannot exceed 9.5% of my annual adjusted gross income)
4) I am forced to go to my employer's health plan if I want health insurance. I can opt out of my employers plan, but will be unable to use the exchanges because my employer's plan meets those minimum requirements. If I do opt out I will not be able to sign up for health insurance until the next open enrollment period and will be subject to the tax penalty for that year.
And to those thinking your taxes will go up, they won't be unless you opt out of insurance or make over $200,000 a year. There are four taxes / fees in the Affordable Care act, and they will all be included in your premiums. Generally (From what I have read) this calculates out to a little under $100 a year.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.
If only.
"We?" lol
There's a thing called "rhetoric".
There's a thing called "credibility." It's actually a part of rhetoric. Specifically, part of what it involves is not claiming membership in a group, to which you do not actually belong. Especially, and importantly in this case, not doing so in order to make what you have to say sound better, or make yourself appear to be a party with an interest different from the one you actually have.
This is not to say you have *no* interest, simply that you have the interests of a *non* member. These are different interests, and you don't get to claim those of American citizens and residents; at least not without people pointing that out- which rather lessens the impact of your "rhetoric."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.
1. I can see hundreds of really good reasons to keep congress from getting any ideas that they will be able to set timetables for the president in this case.
2. Unconstitutional is a much harder sell than most people give it. I actually don't think it is given the text of the law
Any non-political reasons out of those hundreds?
If Congress (whose responsibility it is to make changes to law under the Constitution) passed a bill doing the exact same thing the Administration is already doing, what reason would there be to veto it, if not for politics?
Considering it is about direct management of a law and governmental system between two sections of government, I have no idea how a reason for it could be, expressly, 'non-political'
but on the whole the entire event is an example of what's been going on recently: as congress becomes more deadlocked, dysfunctional, and useless, the executive accrues power, first through stopgap measures just to keep some systems working, then more, then more, then more.
at any rate, the best reason the executive has right now to not give congress an inch in determining timetables for this bill is that congress is deadlocked, dysfunctional, and useless, and the house voted something like 40 times to grandstand about deleting this bill from existence, while accomplishing nothing. the republicans would prevent congress from doing anything with obamacare that wasn't designed to destroy it, any 'adjusted timetables' or congressional influence on it would be sabotage, poison pills, etc.
which is really sad, given that for all its flaws, obamacare is better than nothing
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.
If only.
"We?" lol
There's a thing called "rhetoric".
There's a thing called "credibility." It's actually a part of rhetoric. Specifically, part of what it involves is not claiming membership in a group, to which you do not actually belong. Especially, and importantly in this case, not doing so in order to make what you have to say sound better, or make yourself appear to be a party with an interest different from the one you actually have.
This is not to say you have *no* interest, simply that you have the interests of a *non* member. These are different interests, and you don't get to claim those of American citizens and residents; at least not without people pointing that out- which rather lessens the impact of your "rhetoric."
Aside from that there's more than one reason as to what would make the "we" pronoun appropriate "credibility" doesn't really factor in here, I don't need to be a part of the victimized class of peoples who get charged 50,000$ for a finger to point out how retardedly and bafflingly stupid such a societal set up is. My voice in the ring isn't "less" for not being an American resident. It's a matter of "Rhetoric" because it is just what came naturally to mind because affordable healthcare should be a universal human right.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If it wasn't something of a pattern of yours when commenting on all manner of American politics, current events and historical, that would all be more credible.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: My voice in the ring isn't "less" for not being an American resident.
You're absolutely right. But your voice is *different*. You are not a US Citizen, nor a resident. The issues of what class you belong to have a bearing on your view of this debate- and while I agree with your views on it, I along with others in this discussion appreciate being clear on what our personal stakes really are. This is something that affects you *if* you visit the US, and through the machinations of international economics, etc. You mention being a "victim" class. Well, you don't have an inherent right to visit our country, nor can you claim yourself a victim of our system's vastly unfair and punitive medical system- it doesn't hold water. I can- I am a citizen with a right to be in America if I want to be, and a duty bound up in that to fulfill tax burdens and other obligations you don't have. It doesn't affect your direct tax burden, nor laws that directly impact you. That is an important distinction, and while it doesn't change the validity of your point of view, it *does* matter in evaluating it. You need to take that into account before you talk about "we" and "us," when you talk about the US.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I know right? If only we had Single Payer which would've resulted in less confusion, higher savings, lower costs, less red tape and better care and universal coverage.
If only.
I'll say it then.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Works for me. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: My voice in the ring isn't "less" for not being an American resident.
You're absolutely right. But your voice is *different*. You are not a US Citizen, nor a resident. The issues of what class you belong to have a bearing on your view of this debate- and while I agree with your views on it, I along with others in this discussion appreciate being clear on what our personal stakes really are. This is something that affects you *if* you visit the US, and through the machinations of international economics, etc. You mention being a "victim" class. Well, you don't have an inherent right to visit our country, nor can you claim yourself a victim of our system's vastly unfair and punitive medical system- it doesn't hold water. I can- I am a citizen with a right to be in America if I want to be, and a duty bound up in that to fulfill tax burdens and other obligations you don't have. It doesn't affect your direct tax burden, nor laws that directly impact you. That is an important distinction, and while it doesn't change the validity of your point of view, it *does* matter in evaluating it. You need to take that into account before you talk about "we" and "us," when you talk about the US.
I'm not even sure what you are really arguing, the usage of "we" or "us" is just a pronoun of symbolic meaning, its irrelevant in this context because that isn't a part of the grounds of the argument. Trying to argue that I have slightly less ethos? How does it matter? The argument is primarily rooted in its logos/pathos, the lack or lesser ethos doesn't affect the argument.
I don't need to be an American citizen to comment, nor do I need to recognize that there is even an distinction because it isn't important, it isn't germane to the discussion.
If your *really* going to go into the "I pay taxes/this stuff affects me/so my opinion evaluates as more important", that's pretty dumb because I can always point out; with quite a bit of validity that if and when your country collapses into a third world hellscape (Maybe when the Republicans next default on the ~debt ceiling~) it damn well affect Canada's economy, and my economic well being. The whole world is hostage to American economic whimsy so damn straight our opinions whether its Canadian, Russian, Afrikaner or Chinese evaluates as just as relevant as yours because we're all in the same damn boat.
quote:Interestingly, the president has said he will veto any house bill that delays the employer mandate until 2015, even though his administration just did the same thing. Many argue that the delay, if not done through congress, is unconstitutional.
1. I can see hundreds of really good reasons to keep congress from getting any ideas that they will be able to set timetables for the president in this case.
2. Unconstitutional is a much harder sell than most people give it. I actually don't think it is given the text of the law
Any non-political reasons out of those hundreds?
If Congress (whose responsibility it is to make changes to law under the Constitution) passed a bill doing the exact same thing the Administration is already doing, what reason would there be to veto it, if not for politics?
Considering it is about direct management of a law and governmental system between two sections of government, I have no idea how a reason for it could be, expressly, 'non-political'
but on the whole the entire event is an example of what's been going on recently: as congress becomes more deadlocked, dysfunctional, and useless, the executive accrues power, first through stopgap measures just to keep some systems working, then more, then more, then more.
at any rate, the best reason the executive has right now to not give congress an inch in determining timetables for this bill is that congress is deadlocked, dysfunctional, and useless, and the house voted something like 40 times to grandstand about deleting this bill from existence, while accomplishing nothing. the republicans would prevent congress from doing anything with obamacare that wasn't designed to destroy it, any 'adjusted timetables' or congressional influence on it would be sabotage, poison pills, etc.
which is really sad, given that for all its flaws, obamacare is better than nothing
True, it is better than nothing. What this does though is set a precedent. The Supreme Court ruled the penalty is a tax. The POTUS no say when it comes to Tax law. The executive branch is basically stating that it will not enforce tax law for a year. This is a dangerous thing to start.
What happens if a president decides that any penalties for his rich buddies not paying taxes should just not be enforced for a year? Or if a President decides to raise / lower tax rates on a whim? They can now point to precedent to argue that they have the power to do it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In this case, I'm actually inclined to agree with Geraine. It's a bad precedent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
of course it is. and it's entirely the inevitable byproduct of Congress in its current form.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You are entitled to have an opinion. However, as you aren't a resident or a citizen, your opinion DOES matter less, and holds less weight.
It's not your system, or your rights that are being discussed, nor is it your wallet that might be affected.
If you don't understand that....well, that's yet another factor why your opinion might matter less.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Okay, I don't think that's true. It might be an underlying cause of being misinformed. But that's the credibility (or weight). But look at this way: One could argue that pro-activity over something you have no stake in and don't benefit from the results of, should be applauded even more when you have something at stake. And I don't want to appear to be defending Blayne. Trust me. I really, really don't. But I feel like if this were any other canuck you guys wouldn't be getting as distracted with it. Saying "we" specifically might lose you some credebility, but getting into skirmish with a "teammate" over something so marginal and petty is kind of missing the point considering why you don't like it in the first place.
[ July 26, 2013, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: of course it is. and it's entirely the inevitable byproduct of Congress in its current form.
That may be so, but that doesn't make it right, or legal for that matter.
Since the federal government wasn't enforcing immigration laws, did Arizona have a right to take it upon themselves?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Atlantic had a pretty good article the other day about how Republicans are going even further off the deep end than we've seen thus far on the Obamacare issue. Many are gearing up for a threat to defund the entire government or not pass the debt ceiling hike later this year unless Obama agrees to repeal the health care plan. They also have an all out push to make sure the plan is as difficult to enact as possible.
Thankfully the media is finally starting to call them out on it. Though I doubt it'll extend much beyond the New Yorker and The Atlantic.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Atlantic had a pretty good article the other day about how Republicans are going even further off the deep end than we've seen thus far on the Obamacare issue. Many are gearing up for a threat to defund the entire government or not pass the debt ceiling hike later this year unless Obama agrees to repeal the health care plan. They also have an all out push to make sure the plan is as difficult to enact as possible.
Thankfully the media is finally starting to call them out on it. Though I doubt it'll extend much beyond the New Yorker and The Atlantic.
Mike Lee from Utah started this. From the interview I heard, funding Obamacare is a completely separate vote from the debt ceiling, divided by a month or two. Lee is trying to get support to not fund Obamacare, which would effectively kill it completely.
By his own admission it is a long shot, but he's trying anyways.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Word on the hill is that he's gained support from most of the GOP leadership to put a gun to Obama's head when the debt ceiling vote comes up.
Boehner is terrified of his own caucus and won't put up a fight, not with Cantor breathing down his neck, and McConnell is up for any extreme in the Senate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: of course it is. and it's entirely the inevitable byproduct of Congress in its current form.
That may be so, but that doesn't make it right, or legal for that matter.
We can talk about whether it is right, but in this case it essentially becomes legal and we're talking about whether or not this is what will happen in all cases where a country's legislature becomes useless (the executive, or some form thereof, will abrogate power to itself to move around deadlock. if congress fails, it doesn't just fail itself, it fails the balance of power for the whole nation).
In this case, the republicans have put the executive in a position where they are weaponizing doing the 'right' thing — they will immolate the system to save themselves. The current "destroy everything and break government until we get what we want" thing that's getting ramped up by republican senators is just more evidence to this fact. They make doing the "right" thing politically unapproachable.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: You are entitled to have an opinion. However, as you aren't a resident or a citizen, your opinion DOES matter less, and holds less weight.
It's not your system, or your rights that are being discussed, nor is it your wallet that might be affected.
If you don't understand that....well, that's yet another factor why your opinion might matter less.
As umberhulk says at most not being a part of the system would make it more possible to be less informed of such a system.
Of course considering the whole "death panels" thing being a part of the system, especially one as large and complex as national healthcare where the best criticism has been "The bill is too long to read!" being a part of said system isn't a guaranteer of being well informed either.
Anyways, I feel that the assertion "You are not a part of this group, ergo you cannot comment on it on the same levels of those in the group" is unsupported. It is *not* that "understand" your point, fallacy aside! Its that I, after a reasoned analysis completely reject it. Especially as I've already demonstrated that *I am* in some way affected.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Samprimary: of course it is. and it's entirely the inevitable byproduct of Congress in its current form.
That may be so, but that doesn't make it right, or legal for that matter.
We can talk about whether it is right, but in this case it essentially becomes legal and we're talking about whether or not this is what will happen in all cases where a country's legislature becomes useless (the executive, or some form thereof, will abrogate power to itself to move around deadlock. if congress fails, it doesn't just fail itself, it fails the balance of power for the whole nation).
In this case, the republicans have put the executive in a position where they are weaponizing doing the 'right' thing — they will immolate the system to save themselves. The current "destroy everything and break government until we get what we want" thing that's getting ramped up by republican senators is just more evidence to this fact. They make doing the "right" thing politically unapproachable. [/QUOTE}
It takes two to tango. Neither side is working with the other. You can blame only republicans, but keep in mind this happened during republican administrations as well.
Congress being broken does not give a carte blanche to the president to do whatever he wants. You can argue that he has a moral right to do something, but the law of the land is not based on what someone deems moral.
If the roles were reversed and there were democrats that did not like a certain type of legislation on tax law that would benefit a certain group, would you complain if a republican president chose to take it upon himself for what he and some of his party thought was "moral?"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:You can blame only republicans, but keep in mind this happened during republican administrations as well.
The Democratic party used the debt ceiling vote as leverage for securing Republican support of their agenda during the Bush years?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
First, a reminder from 2011, just in case we're going to stick to the predictable habits of the past:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just to reinforce, there's two things going on here which are direly repetitive and need to end.
1. false equivalence arguments - no, both sides are not equally guilty. they never are.
2. responding to a claim that one side is more guilty, more culpable, or bears more responsibility for a negative thing by saying 'how dare you claim that one side has a monopoly/commits 100% of/is totally at fault for ...'
secondly
quote:Congress being broken does not give a carte blanche to the president to do whatever he wants. You can argue that he has a moral right to do something, but the law of the land is not based on what someone deems moral.
I'll reiterate the previous point: a very consistent and inescapably predictable trend is that when a congress/parliament/whatever legislative branch of government becomes deadlocked through intransigent obstructionism or any other form of paralysis, the nearly inescapable trend is consistently always that power will become abrogated to executive. I'm not talking about whether or not that's "moral," rather than the fact that every single time this sort of thing happens, the end result is an unchecked executive. This is one of the reasons why I completely loathe what republicans have done to congress, as it is vastly accelerating the decay of the balance of powers.
The republicans have repeatedly shown over the length of Obama's first term that they were willing in sufficient numbers to paralyze the nation and subvert and destroy working parts of government with the intent of preventing a second term. His re-election did not end this poison pill mentality — they are continuing it with the intent to try as much as is possible to make things worse in the hopes that they can foster and inspire blame towards the democratic party, in the hopes that it inspires a reversal of their decay and a people to vote for them as the alternative that will make things better again. In turn, Obama has shown that he is just as willing or even eager to recklessly expand the power of the presidency in the face of the impotence of congress. No president thereafter is likely to willingly scale back the executive when they know that congress will just weaponize this with further obstructionism. It becomes a one-way street.
And under no circumstances here are we talking about "it takes two to tango!" or the idea that the scale of intransigent obstructionism has ever, ever, ever been matched by democrats. It has not. The republicans are doing something to congress (and thus the nation) right now, which is bad. The democrats are not. When the democrats are doing it, it will be a different story. But right now they are not, and never have done this to the extent the republicans are.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Alright Sam, remove the last part of my sentence and I will rephrase. You can blame only republicans for the failure of congress, but it isn't only their fault.
I could argue that one of the reasons for the obstructionism is due to Reid not letting any Republican amendments through. He's now blocked more minority amendments than his five predecessors combined. At times even REASONABLE requests for amendments have completely halted bills from being passed. Take a look at the Defense Authorization bill in 2010. Susan Collins (One of the last moderate republicans in the senate) asked that Reid allow 15 amendments and four days of debate. Keep in mind that normal defense bills take weeks to debate and usually have hundreds of amendments. Reid chose to deny the request, knowing that some of the republican backed amendments were likely to pass. The result? The bill failed 57-40.
So yes, Republicans obstruct in cloture votes. Reid obstructs on allowing minority amendments, But nobody really pays attention to those. If the republicans ever gain control of the senate and don't allow any minority amendments and the democrats start voting against everything they don't have a say in, I won't blame them.
So you can argue that republicans obstruct in cloture votes on an unprecedented level, and you'd be right. Democrats have obstructed on the amendment process on an unprecedented level. That is why they are both to blame.
I'm happy that there are at least SOME things they seem to be working out, such as Immigration. The difference? Reid allowed some minority amendments to be brought to the floor. Not very many, but enough to please (13?) Republicans who voted yes on the bill.
I'm trying to understand why you think the President now having power over tax law is good. Saying "Because Congress isn't working!" really isn't a good excuse to subvert the Constitution and essentially say that the countries laws can be changed on a whim by one man and his administration.
Please explain how subverting the Constitution completely and bypassing Congress is GOOD for the country. We have balance of powers for a reason. You and many others disagree with how Republicans are acting, as I do. But how does one make the leap that taking power away from Congress and giving it to one man is a positive thing?
Secondly, I am curious to know if you would be throwing a stink about this if it were a Republican president doing this.
We hold elections for a reason. If you don't like the way Republicans are acting, get involved in the elections and vote them out.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm trying to understand why you think the President now having power over tax law is good. Saying "Because Congress isn't working!" really isn't a good excuse to subvert the Constitution and essentially say that the countries laws can be changed on a whim by one man and his administration.
you're not .. I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. I'm sure not saying this. Maybe go back and reread, I dunno.
quote:So you can argue that republicans obstruct in cloture votes on an unprecedented level, and you'd be right. Democrats have obstructed on the amendment process on an unprecedented level. That is why they are both to blame.
Are you saying that this means that republicans and democrats are equally to blame for the failure of congress.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm trying to understand why you think the President now having power over tax law is good. Saying "Because Congress isn't working!" really isn't a good excuse to subvert the Constitution and essentially say that the countries laws can be changed on a whim by one man and his administration.
you're not .. I don't think you're listening to what I'm saying. I'm sure not saying this. Maybe go back and reread, I dunno.
quote:So you can argue that republicans obstruct in cloture votes on an unprecedented level, and you'd be right. Democrats have obstructed on the amendment process on an unprecedented level. That is why they are both to blame.
Are you saying that this means that republicans and democrats are equally to blame for the failure of congress.
I re-read your post and I still come to the same conclusion. Congress not acting the way they should hardly makes it "legal" for the President to expand the powers of the executive branch.
I don't believe republicans and democrats are equally to blame. While I think what Reid is doing is absolutely reprehensible, republicans should not filibuster to the extent they have.
If the republican leadership was smart, they would continue to try and submit amendments. If Reid denies any amendments from being submitted fine, they vote no. They could then turn this whole "obstruction" argument back on the democrats. If a bill turns out to be bad for the country, the only ones to blame would be democrats.
You can already see some blow back like this on Obamacare. More and more politicians are trying to distance themselves from the bill, especially those from states with high union worker populations. (Unions are now saying Obamacare is a job killer. Surprise surprise!) They'll never vote to repeal it of course, (The DNC would fund primary opponents if they did) but they will try to keep it out of the campaign completely.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You said "I'm trying to understand why you think the President now having power over tax law is good."
You don't get that I in no way think that the way the balance of powers WILL change because of how republicans have broken congress is "good."
Just "inevitable."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't believe republicans and democrats are equally to blame. While I think what Reid is doing is absolutely reprehensible, republicans should not filibuster to the extent they have.
So you think Democrats are more to blame? *laugh*
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't believe republicans and democrats are equally to blame. While I think what Reid is doing is absolutely reprehensible, republicans should not filibuster to the extent they have.
So you think Democrats are more to blame? *laugh*
I think you are reading things into Geraine's statement that were not said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, one of the two is "reprehensible," where the other shouldn't be doing what it's doing to the current extent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, it's like
99/100ths of the problem: "they are doing it beyond the extent to which they should be doing it."
1/100ths of the problem: "absolutely reprehensible!"
On the whole though I find pulling up the fact that minority amendments are largely being blocked by Reid to be a rather pointless attempt at diverting criticism for the brokenness of congress, especially considering that tree-filling to block minority amendments was primarily the result of the GOP abusing minority amendments to junk up and blatantly poison-pill bills that they wanted to fail.
Geraine, please show me the editorials and stuff you are getting the minority amendment issue from. I'd like to see this like of reasoning and attack from its source.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Our founding fathers created a system with powerful protections. The Congress has the right to make laws and make the budget. The President has the right to enforce those laws as he sees fit.
So the Supreme Court considers the fees charged for not offering insurance to be a tax, and the executive branch decided not to enforce that tax until next year.
They do so in order to make things easier. No problem.
But somebody starts complaining that this allows the President and the Executive Branch to unilaterally decide when and how to enforce tax law.
Yes--that is what the Executive Branch does.
Buy, what if the President decides that some taxes don't need to be collected elsewhere--like for his good buddies?
Well then, we don't reelect that President, and we have the next President collect the back taxes owed.
I can see many reasons where the Executive Branch would take it on its own not to collect taxes due--in the case of a disaster, or economic collapse of an industry. If they have a good reason, as President Obama has for the delay in the Insurance Tax, then it is his duty to delay it.
The President has the power to pardon any person or entity he feels fit to pardon. Pardoning someone from paying their taxes is part of that power. Sure, if its abused then he and his party will pay for that abuse.
Until its abused, don't panic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Get rid of Congress entirely.
At this point I'd vote for a democratically elected monarch for a 6 year term.
One of the joys of the British system is that a government can actually enact its policy. Bizarre, I know, but one side clearly wins, and they can enact their policy for a period of time. Then people can actually sort of gauge whether they like that party or not, because they've actually done something to like or not like.
In America? Not so much. We vote defensively.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, it's like
99/100ths of the problem: "they are doing it beyond the extent to which they should be doing it."
1/100ths of the problem: "absolutely reprehensible!"
On the whole though I find pulling up the fact that minority amendments are largely being blocked by Reid to be a rather pointless attempt at diverting criticism for the brokenness of congress, especially considering that tree-filling to block minority amendments was primarily the result of the GOP abusing minority amendments to junk up and blatantly poison-pill bills that they wanted to fail.
Geraine, please show me the editorials and stuff you are getting the minority amendment issue from. I'd like to see this like of reasoning and attack from its source.
I don't know why you are using those percentages, other than to show the same political bias you think I am showing.
I'm not assigning a percentage of the blame on either side - it is utterly useless to.
You can say it is an attempt to deflect criticism, but the tree filling began well before the republicans had the ability to filibuster. There are records (You can look them up on congresses website and read through them if you like) that show Reid was doing this back as far back as 2008. In 2010 he said he was going to stop doing this, but as of right now hasn't.
Again, not making excuses for republicans. If you want to play word games fine, I think their behavior is "reprehensible" as well.
This is a pretty good article on it from the New York Times:
Yes, republicans have tried to fill the amendment process with bad amendments. To that I question "Why not just vote those amendments down" and two, why not read and allow some amendments that are reasonable? Throwing a blanket ban on republican amendments is not the way you should go about things.
The immigration bill was a positive break from this trend, as there was a very good republican amendment that was voted on and that passed. We need more bipartisan work like this. It's amazing how the republicans didn't filibuster and Reid allowed some amendments, eh?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Our founding fathers created a system with powerful protections. The Congress has the right to make laws and make the budget. The President has the right to enforce those laws as he sees fit.
So the Supreme Court considers the fees charged for not offering insurance to be a tax, and the executive branch decided not to enforce that tax until next year.
They do so in order to make things easier. No problem.
But somebody starts complaining that this allows the President and the Executive Branch to unilaterally decide when and how to enforce tax law.
Yes--that is what the Executive Branch does.
Buy, what if the President decides that some taxes don't need to be collected elsewhere--like for his good buddies?
Well then, we don't reelect that President, and we have the next President collect the back taxes owed.
I can see many reasons where the Executive Branch would take it on its own not to collect taxes due--in the case of a disaster, or economic collapse of an industry. If they have a good reason, as President Obama has for the delay in the Insurance Tax, then it is his duty to delay it.
The President has the power to pardon any person or entity he feels fit to pardon. Pardoning someone from paying their taxes is part of that power. Sure, if its abused then he and his party will pay for that abuse.
Until its abused, don't panic.
It could be argued that this is already being abused, and we already have history stating that the president cannot do this.
Article II section 3 states "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a discretionary power.
While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.
Nixon tried to do that by not spending money appropriated by Congress and was told he couldn't. In Clinton vs. City of New York, the opinion read "There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."
Then there is Kendall v. United States, which said the president being able to do this "would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice."
The ACA did not contain anything in the bill that allows the President to delay, suspend, or repeal it. Basically under this precedent, if a republican president wins in the next 8-12 he could have simply choose not to enforce any part of the ACA, effectively getting rid of it completely.
Then we will be here listening to the same people that think it is ok now bitch and moan about him doing it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not assigning a percentage of the blame on either side - it is utterly useless to.
Then, a simple question: between Republicans and Democrats, which party is more responsible for the complete degradation of congress into its current state?
Are you going to say that it's useless to assign percentages so we can't say it's one way or another, just a binary calculation that holds both sides at fault?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Careful guys. Samp is on a crusade!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think he's just calling somebody on some stupidity, actually.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Seems to me like an attempt to minimize his team's (Democrats) culpability by making sure that Geraine knows and admits that Republicans are more responsible therefore exonerating Democrats of any blame.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I cannot be held responsible for your misconceptions, and frankly think it's unfair of you to blame Samp for 'em. Seriously, Sam's been quite up-front about why he's having this particular discussion, and your imputed motives drip of bias and quite frankly either a lack of reading comprehension or attention.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm not assigning a percentage of the blame on either side - it is utterly useless to.
Then, a simple question: between Republicans and Democrats, which party is more responsible for the complete degradation of congress into its current state?
Are you going to say that it's useless to assign percentages so we can't say it's one way or another, just a binary calculation that holds both sides at fault?
My point is assigning a percentage of blame is useless. Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference. In your opinion, republicans are more to blame. That's fine. Many people agree with you. If you speak to to others (mostly republicans) they'll tell you that democrats are more to blame. They believe republicans using the filibuster is the only way they can prevent horrible legislation from being passed. I can see both arguments, but I'm not going to blame one side more than the other.
If you and I stabbed someone but I stabbed him 10 times while you only stabbed him 9, should we both be charged with (attempted) murder or should you get a lesser charge because you stabbed him less times than you?
That's the way I look at the whole situation. Neither one of us should have stabbed the poor sap, and both are to blame.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I cannot be held responsible for your misconceptions, and frankly think it's unfair of you to blame Samp for 'em. Seriously, Sam's been quite up-front about why he's having this particular discussion, and your imputed motives drip of bias and quite frankly either a lack of reading comprehension or attention.
I would say mine drips about as much bias as yours and Sam's post. My attempt was to show that. I've noticed that Sam in particular is quick to point out that other people are bias but refuses to acknowledge his own.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Careful guys. Samp is on a crusade!
Samprimary is always on a crusade.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think it's a flaw in the human condition: the need to see responsibility as a balance-type scale that evens out as long as the weight on both sides is the same. In reality, each person (or party) has his own, individual scale that he should be accountable for.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
I disagree. Let's use an analogy.
Two teams are playing football. One is doing a lot of holding; the other is chopping up opponents with axes. Fans of the first team point out that a lot of the holding that's happening is because players are trying to hold back the crazy men with axes, but fans of the second team are saying, "That's just an excuse! Holding is reprehensible! Both teams are committing a lot of fouls, so it's not like we could get this game back on track if we concentrated on punishing the ones who're killing players on the other team!"
Stabbing was used earlier, but we're not talking about two acts of equal severity; one of these two teams is being much worse for democracy, and it's not the Democrats. If we want to fix the problem, working on getting someone to admit more deliberately disruptive amendments is not the way to do it; getting Republicans to actually vote responsibly is. Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
It takes two to cooperate. It only takes one to stop cooperation.
The Republicans set up road blocks and have said, "Concede or we will do nothing."
This leaves the Democrats with two choices--concede completely to whatever demands the Republicans in the minority desire, or let the road be blocked.
Either way, they are no longer governing.
The difference is, when the Democrats refuse to concede-- the Republicans aren't governing either.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
I disagree. Let's use an analogy.
Two teams are playing football. One is doing a lot of holding; the other is chopping up opponents with axes. Fans of the first team point out that a lot of the holding that's happening is because players are trying to hold back the crazy men with axes, but fans of the second team are saying, "That's just an excuse! Holding is reprehensible! Both teams are committing a lot of fouls, so it's not like we could get this game back on track if we concentrated on punishing the ones who're killing players on the other team!"
Stabbing was used earlier, but we're not talking about two acts of equal severity; one of these two teams is being much worse for democracy, and it's not the Democrats. If we want to fix the problem, working on getting someone to admit more deliberately disruptive amendments is not the way to do it; getting Republicans to actually vote responsibly is.
I see your analogy a little differently. Both actions in Congress (filibustering AND not filling the tree) are negative actions. The REAL problem in your analogy are the fans. That is, those that see something wrong and instead just want to holler and shout about the opposite team instead of actually doing something to stop the behavior.
Which is what we do when we vote. We already know what CAN be done about it, but taking the easy way out (just having the president take over) is like the Football Commissioner just deciding who wins based on how he is feeling that day or how fans will react.
As for amendments, there have been NUMEROUS amendments that have been submitted that weren't just designed to throw a wrench in getting bills passed, and Reid still doesn't let them in.
If you want up or down votes on bills, give the same consideration to amendments. Neither side is right in this. Again, you may think one is worse than the other for the country, but all it adds up to is pointing fingers. You saying "Ok fine Democrats aren't doing everything perfect either but Republicans are worse!" doesn't solve anything.
People can bitch and moan all they want, but it doesn't change anything. Don't like it? Get involved in the midterms and help get your guy elected.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you want up or down votes on bills, give the same consideration to amendments.
Why?
quote:Get involved in the midterms and help get your guy elected.
My guy won in the House. Sadly, my guy was defeated in the Senate by an out-of-state influx of Koch money and the idiotic bobblehead they picked to sit on it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I just got a shiny new cell phone! It's so pretty and I can play lots of Facebook games on it! America is great! The system works!
Can someone remind me to pick up a loaf of bread on my way home from the circus?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Can someone remind me to pick up a loaf of bread on my way home from the circus?
There's an app for that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:My point is assigning a percentage of blame is useless. Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
Bolding mine. I want you to sit back and really think about this statement. It's completely deluded.
It is also the easiest thing for the party primarily at fault to use as a hollow distraction. It's your old equivalence rhetoric given a new veneer.
It's completely invalid. Completely. I just have no idea how to de-habituate you from it. You're too reliant on it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary is always on a crusade
Simper quieter there, bud
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:Can someone remind me to pick up a loaf of bread on my way home from the circus?
There's an app for that.
If there was an app for bread and circuses, dictatorships would be handing out smartphones on every corner.
Though I suppose Candy Crush works well enough.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
candy crush is such the latest thing I cannot wait to be dead and/or on fire, as a collective entity
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Samprimary is always on a crusade
Simper quieter there, bud
You mad bro? If you're going to be a crusader at least pretend to be more thick-skinned.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
The 'u man br0' totally 1337s 4channer garbage speak doesn't work on him fyi.
The GOP and Republicans are quite literally heartless monsters who would literally hold the country hostage and let the poor starve to death; I have a hard time even figuring out which circle of hell would be appropriate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Is it cynical that I think that instead of Congress fixing the holes in Obamacare that they themselves inserted into it when it was being passed, thus getting us all the same high quality care that only Congress was used to getting, that instead they will just find a way to exempt themselves again?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I think it was sort of a stupid gesture in the first place. They had perfectly good health insurance going into this. The last thing Obamacare was about was people who already had good insurance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: You mad bro? If you're going to be a crusader at least pretend to be more thick-skinned.
ssh, ssh, I said quieter. louder simpering makes you seem like you're overcompensating for having to hide from our last tiff!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:My point is assigning a percentage of blame is useless. Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
Bolding mine. I want you to sit back and really think about this statement. It's completely deluded.
It is also the easiest thing for the party primarily at fault to use as a hollow distraction. It's your old equivalence rhetoric given a new veneer.
It's completely invalid. Completely. I just have no idea how to de-habituate you from it. You're too reliant on it.
Well, I give up. You don't even address the issues with the Democratic party. I get it, you think they are not to blame at all for their actions. Instead you just resort to personal attacks.
Oh well, I tried. I suspect you will just respond with another personal attack instead of addressing the actual topic at hand. You just call it deflection and say I'm using some false equivalence argument. You may want to take a look at your last few posts and determine if perhaps you are projecting.
I've made no attempt to defend Republican actions, and have only pointed out that the democrats are part of the problem. You have attempted to bait me into saying the republicans are more to blame, and when I refuse to do so you act as though I am just being delusional. Excuse me for not playing right into your hands the way you were (presumably) expecting me to.
I urge you to go back and read that NYT article I linked earlier.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I've made no attempt to defend Republican actions, and have only pointed out that the democrats are part of the problem.
Do you agree that the Republicans are in fact more of the problem?
I'm genuinely curious whether you will do so or not. Because if you're going to refuse to do so, you're at least as guilty as Sam of partisanship -- and he has the advantage of being correct.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Geraine, out of curiosity do you believe the Affordable Care Act to be an improvement over the previous status quo, a step in the right direction, prefer Single Payer/Universal Healthcare?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:My point is assigning a percentage of blame is useless. Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
Bolding mine. I want you to sit back and really think about this statement. It's completely deluded.
It is also the easiest thing for the party primarily at fault to use as a hollow distraction. It's your old equivalence rhetoric given a new veneer.
It's completely invalid. Completely. I just have no idea how to de-habituate you from it. You're too reliant on it.
Well, I give up. You don't even address the issues with the Democratic party. I get it, you think they are not to blame at all for their actions. Instead you just resort to personal attacks.
Oh well, I tried. I suspect you will just respond with another personal attack instead of addressing the actual topic at hand. You just call it deflection and say I'm using some false equivalence argument. You may want to take a look at your last few posts and determine if perhaps you are projecting.
I've made no attempt to defend Republican actions, and have only pointed out that the democrats are part of the problem. You have attempted to bait me into saying the republicans are more to blame, and when I refuse to do so you act as though I am just being delusional. Excuse me for not playing right into your hands the way you were (presumably) expecting me to.
I urge you to go back and read that NYT article I linked earlier.
There are multiple problems here I need to address.
First: You are saying "you think they [the Democratic party] are not to blame at all for their actions" — this is an invented supposition. You're cramming things into my mouth wholesale at this point. It's a very complete misapprehension of my position. The issue is not that the democrats 'are not to blame for their actions' (which could be true regardless in terms of if we are deciding that their actions warrant blame in terms of criticism), it's that the republicans are principally and primarily responsible for the deadlock and degradation of congress, and you are attempting to assert, literally, that "whether one party is to blame for it more makes no difference" — the idea is absurd. My word for it is delusional. Of course it makes a difference, especially in terms of deconstructing the problem, assigning culpability, or talking about what problem elements have to be confronted if the country wants to reverse the profound problem that a deadlocked legislature represents. You can call that a personal attack all you want, but it's not an ad hom. You are presenting absurd logic. I can deconstruct it for you entirely, but you have to be willing to learn. One way or another, you have to abandon your persistent reliance on dismissing the greater culpability of republicans, in one way or another, following the same persistent routine.
Second: Do you understand what 'projection' is? What am I projecting on to you, a false equivalence argument? How can I be projecting a false equivalence argument from me onto you when my position manifestly asserts no equivalence in the culpability of republicans and democrats? Do I secretly think and suggest that they are equally to blame or that there's "no point in saying who's more to blame" and I'm thrusting that onto you?
Third: You have absolutely made attempts to defend republican actions. You are even suggesting that the continued record use of filibusters is in any way prompted or continued or kept at its current levels by the democrats unfairly blocking minority amendments. To post here that you've "made no attempts to defend Republican actions" is silly.
Fourth: you say I'm just resorting to personal attacks "instead of addressing the actual topic at hand." In what universe am I not addressing the actual topic at hand. What is the "actual topic at hand" that excludes what I'm saying from having any involvement on the topic at hand? This is important.
Fifth: you say "Excuse me for not playing right into your hands the way you were (presumably) expecting me to." Thank you for presuming what my Sinister Plot was, but it doesn't go further than picking apart the weakness of your position and, as tom said, calling you out. You haven't 'avoided' any plots by revealing that you mire yourself in an attitude which pathologically assumes there's no point in saying or trying to determine which party is more responsible for the current state of congress.
There's more, but I'll leave it on that until you've answered Tom's question.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I've made no attempt to defend Republican actions, and have only pointed out that the democrats are part of the problem.
Do you agree that the Republicans are in fact more of the problem?
I'm genuinely curious whether you will do so or not. Because if you're going to refuse to do so, you're at least as guilty as Sam of partisanship -- and he has the advantage of being correct.
It isn't a simple answer.
Do I think on paper it looks like they are more to blame? Absolutely, if you just look at the numbers.
Do I think that the majority of filibustering they are doing likely has nothing to do with whether or not they agree with the bill or not? Yep, more than likely.
Do I think the filibuster has helped in some ways? I do, simply because of some of the atrocious legslislation that has been proposed.
Do I think Democrats are keeping the filibuster instead of changing the rules because they find it more politically advantageous to them? Yes.
My argument has nothing to do with Republican / Democrat. You can say I am defending one side or the other, but that isn't my intention. I'm pointing out that both sides are taking advantage over the situation and the gridlock is not solely the responsibility of one party. While I am sure BOTH sides intentions are to help the country in the way they think best, there is still a sense of self preservation that keeps them doing what they do. Republicans think that by filibustering they will appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to let them do it and blame them for the gridlock.
And Sam, calm down and relax. I'll do the same.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Geraine, out of curiosity do you believe the Affordable Care Act to be an improvement over the previous status quo, a step in the right direction, prefer Single Payer/Universal Healthcare?
The answer is complex. There are numerous things in the ACA that are wonderful like no lifetime maximums, preventative care, deductible caps, etc. From 2010-2013, this was a massive step up over the status quo. From 2014 going forward however, I would (and I can't believe I am going to say this) prefer a Single Payer / Universal Healthcare system as opposed to the Affordable Care Act.
I argued against it quite a bit back when it was passed simply because it was backed by Democrats. Yeah, I know. Now however that we have had some time to digest it a bit more, I am torn. I think there are some VERY positive things in the bill that will genuinely help people. On the other hand, there are numerous parts of this bill that are downright horrible for job growth.
I work primarily with small businesses with 25-100 employees. What I have seen so far, at least here in Nevada, are that rates are skyrocketing. We are seeing increases as high as 70% from Aetna and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. Many of my clients that have less than 50 employees are thinking about dropping their plans entirely and having their employees go through the exchanges, as it is becoming too cost prohibitive. Those employers teetering on 50 employees are cutting hours and changing employees to part time due to the Full Time Equivalency rule. Even if you have 60 employees, cutting 40 of them to 20 hours a week will keep you under 50, and you won't have to provide health insurance.
Employers now have to pay at least 50% of the employer only coverage of health insurance. If a plan was $400 a month, your employer had to pay $200. I just saw a client whose premiums jumped to over $650 a month, for an increase of about $175 a month to the employer. They currently have 40 full time employees, which means an increase of $84,000 in 2014 over 2013.
One of my clients has over 100 employees, and they are cutting 70 positions to part time. Even though they do have provide health insurance to their full time employees, you don't have to provide it to part time employees. The part time employees can still go to the exchange, and the company does not get penalized.
This is one of the reasons 90% of the new jobs that have been created over the past few years have been part time. Employers see these massive increases and are cutting wherever they can.
My brother worked for a pizza chain as an assistant manager, and the franchise owner cut every single person on his payroll, including managers, to 28 hours a week and classified them as part time. Yes, he has to provide health insurance since he has over 50 FTE employees, but since all of his employees are part time they don't qualify. Essentially he has a plan with nobody on it. Luckily he just got a full time job at Amazon. (Good thing too, he is getting married next month!)
Currently that loophole is there, and employers are taking advantage of it. The problem is there really isn't a good way to fix it.
I think part of the down trend in support for the bill is due in part to these cuts in full time positions.
Here is what I predict will happen:
1) Employers will continue to cut full time positions in favor of part time
2) The part time employees will go through the exchanges for their coverage.
3) The part time people in the exchanges will not be able to afford the premiums, resulting in their premiums being subsidized.
4) Legislation to ammend the bill to either raise taxes to fund the subsidies or force employers to hire more full time employees will be introduced. The tax bill will probably pass.
5) The exchanges will continue to grow and more and more people will be subsidized until it becomes too expensive to maintain again.
6) At this point, a Single Payer System will be introduced in order to "fix" everything. Republicans will argue that we should keep portions of the ACA but get rid fo the rest, which will give an incentive to employers to hire more full time employees. Democrats will argue that if we did that it will cause people to lose their insurance. Gridlock will commence but eventually we will get Single Payer.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:My argument has nothing to do with Republican / Democrat. You can say I am defending one side or the other, but that isn't my intention. I'm pointing out that both sides are taking advantage over the situation and the gridlock is not solely the responsibility of one party. While I am sure BOTH sides intentions are to help the country in the way they think best, there is still a sense of self preservation that keeps them doing what they do. Republicans think that by filibustering they will appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to let them do it and blame them for the gridlock.
Well from within my own lens of bias-lifetime registered independent, don't much believe either party is primarily motivated by what is best for the country*, but is lately more frustrated and upset with Republicans than Democrats-it does sound very much like you're aiming to defend one side. That said though, I think you've gone a bit further than to simply reject that gridlock is the sole responsibility of either party-a proposition no one has made, by the way.
But here's the thing. In this paragraph what you've essentially said is that 'Republicans are willing to cause gridlock to appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to 'let' them do it and blame them for the gridlock, therefore there is plenty of fault on both sides. I'm not sure how it can be made any more clear that that isn't actually an equivalent or even close to equivalent distribution of blame-and in this case, those are your words. Furthermore it's been plain to anyone listening for at least four years now that the GOP has as a policy causing government to do as little as possible and make the Obama Administration look as bad as possible as an end of itself. Factor in how much more built in to the GOP the notion of a gridlocked government being better than an active government is versus that same idea in their opposition and, well, on this particular issue it's a lost cause to argue that there's really much equivalence.
I'm not talking about which is worse or less moral or whatever. I'm talking only about gridlock and hamstringing government.
*I say this because while I think it's often the party line 'win the next election so x, y, & z may be accomplished for the good of the country' is often touted-or even believed-I think that it's important to note which comes first and how often that element is willing to be sacrificed versus the rest of it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Geraine,
quote:My argument has nothing to do with Republican / Democrat. You can say I am defending one side or the other, but that isn't my intention. I'm pointing out that both sides are taking advantage over the situation and the gridlock is not solely the responsibility of one party. While I am sure BOTH sides intentions are to help the country in the way they think best, there is still a sense of self preservation that keeps them doing what they do. Republicans think that by filibustering they will appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to let them do it and blame them for the gridlock.
Well from within my own lens of bias-lifetime registered independent, don't much believe either party is primarily motivated by what is best for the country*, but is lately more frustrated and upset with Republicans than Democrats-it does sound very much like you're aiming to defend one side. That said though, I think you've gone a bit further than to simply reject that gridlock is the sole responsibility of either party-a proposition no one has made, by the way.
But here's the thing. In this paragraph what you've essentially said is that 'Republicans are willing to cause gridlock to appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to 'let' them do it and blame them for the gridlock, therefore there is plenty of fault on both sides. I'm not sure how it can be made any more clear that that isn't actually an equivalent or even close to equivalent distribution of blame-and in this case, those are your words. Furthermore it's been plain to anyone listening for at least four years now that the GOP has as a policy causing government to do as little as possible and make the Obama Administration look as bad as possible as an end of itself. Factor in how much more built in to the GOP the notion of a gridlocked government being better than an active government is versus that same idea in their opposition and, well, on this particular issue it's a lost cause to argue that there's really much equivalence.
I'm not talking about which is worse or less moral or whatever. I'm talking only about gridlock and hamstringing government.
*I say this because while I think it's often the party line 'win the next election so x, y, & z may be accomplished for the good of the country' is often touted-or even believed-I think that it's important to note which comes first and how often that element is willing to be sacrificed versus the rest of it.
I can see where you are coming from. There is a culture in the Republican party that the more gridlock that is caused the better off the country will be. In their eyes, the less legislation passed the less money the government spends.
If the only issue at hand was Democrats letting Republicans filibuster for their own gain, I would concede that there would be no equivalence. The problem isn't just that though. I don't know if you read my previous posts about Democrats blocking amendments or not. I completely understand Reid not wanting to allow bad Amendments in, but some consideration should be given to those amendments that would be of benefit, especially since he has the power to determine whether or not an amendment makes it to the floor.
If that means slowing down the passage of a bill in order to get it passed, do you feel it would be worth it?
Good points though Rakeesh. Gives me something to think about. I'm still trying to look at things from a different viewpoint, but it is still difficult sometimes. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote:I can see where you are coming from. There is a culture in the Republican party that the more gridlock that is caused the better off the country will be. In their eyes, the less legislation passed the less money the government spends.
I'm afraid I'd have to go further than describing this as just a culture. It's an openly stated goal of a very significant portion of the Republican party right now and it's not just a culture, it's a policy.
quote:If the only issue at hand was Democrats letting Republicans filibuster for their own gain, I would concede that there would be no equivalence. The problem isn't just that though. I don't know if you read my previous posts about Democrats blocking amendments or not. I completely understand Reid not wanting to allow bad Amendments in, but some consideration should be given to those amendments that would be of benefit, especially since he has the power to determine whether or not an amendment makes it to the floor.
Here's the thing: 'both sides have done bad things' doesn't equal equivalence. I'm really not sure why you're using that word in that way. I read your past posts about Congressional Reid shenanigans, and without a doubt that contributes to government gridlock. But let's think about this for a moment and consider which is more likely to be more responsible for gridlock: an open policy committment to gridlock for its own sake, or a committment to short-term politically advantageous tricks that slow things down?
Personally I think that's a no-brainer and that's why I (and I suspect many others) reject your argument of actual equivalence, but I'm happy to listen to why this might not be the case.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Rakeesh, I am of the opinion that Democrats WANT the obstruction. They will never come out and say it, but they want it just as much as Republicans do. It isn't only about short-term politically advantageous tricks, nor about legislation.
It is about cementing a win for the democrats in the mid-terms and the 2016 election. They could honestly care less what happens in Congress right now. There are 21 Democrats up for re-election in the senate next year as opposed to 13 republican seats. Seven of those seats are in states that went for Romney, and only one GOP seat is up in a state that went for Obama.
The more the democrats can blame the republicans for the gridlock in Congress, the more chance they have of keeping the senate. While it is predicted the democrats may pick up a few seats in the house, it won't be enough to regain the majority.
Republicans honestly look like they have no strategy. If they put up candidates that are un-electable like they did in 2012 (Todd Akin.... I mean come on) the democrats don't have to worry. If the Republicans put up more candidates like Ted Cruz though, the Democrats should start to worry.
I don't think the Republicans have a prayer to win the 2016 election no matter who they put up. If the democrats put up Hillary, which I am sure they will, it is over. The only hope Republicans would have would be a gimmick nomination like Condie. Other than that polling is showing that Christie would be their best bet against Clinton, and I'll tell you right now that if he is the nomination, they might as save their money.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm still not sure how one party finding and exploiting the weaknesses of another party's avowed policy means that the former is just as to blame for the latter.
Democrats wouldn't be able to exploit gridlock if it weren't a Republican policy-they would have to create it themselves and try then to pin it on the GOP. At this point it even sounds like you're tacitly agreeing on this question of equivalence.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Although I'm in full agreement that deadlock on some of the budgetary issues is bad news, it's not like this is all "undemocratic." If anything, the slow response of government and general indecision is a common feature of democracies.
People get angry at the Republicans because they won't pass the Democratic Party's legislation... think about that for a minute? Arguably they were elected on a platform that didn't include agreeing with the Democratic Party's platform. I wouldn't blame Republicans so much as voters across the country. Most Republican candidates were stumping on the premise that they would try and stop the Obama Administration's policies at every turn. Guess what? They have been! If you want to be pissed than be angry at the Democratic Party for not putting up candidates and a party platform that can win a majority in the House.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
there must just be some kind of general Stockholm Syndrome thing i just don't understand with this. the republicans get to earnestly destroy Congress' functionality and cause power to naturally abrogate to the executive, as part of their commitment to prevent government from working whenever a working government system would be a credit to democrats, and there's this pathological seeming "blame anyone but the republicans" or "don't point fingers!!" defense of firmly republican problems
seriously, "you should be angry at the democrats!" from that last post, and geraine's "the democrats wanted this anyway" -
just wow. there's so much wrong here that it amazes me
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
How come other democracies like Britain, Germany and France can get shit down in a fraction of the time?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
because our left wing is roughly equivalent to their right wing, leaving nationalist* parties like the BNP as an unrelated portion of the equation
* 'we don't like darkies' parties, basically
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: because our left wing is roughly equivalent to their right wing, leaving nationalist* parties like the BNP as an unrelated portion of the equation
* 'we don't like darkies' parties, basically
Yep!
There is really only one person left in Parliment that would be considered "conservative" by US standards. Most of the members of Parliament would be considered center-left by US standards.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: there must just be some kind of general Stockholm Syndrome thing i just don't understand with this. the republicans get to earnestly destroy Congress' functionality and cause power to naturally abrogate to the executive, as part of their commitment to prevent government from working whenever a working government system would be a credit to democrats, and there's this pathological seeming "blame anyone but the republicans" or "don't point fingers!!" defense of firmly republican problems
seriously, "you should be angry at the democrats!" from that last post, and geraine's "the democrats wanted this anyway" -
just wow. there's so much wrong here that it amazes me
So are you advocating the "Blame only republicans!" thing?
I'm not saying "The democrats wanted this anyways!" I'm saying that since it started happening, democrats see this as a political goldmine and don't want it to end.
Think about the make up in Congress, and then think about the filibuster and what it actually accomplishes. If the senate takes up a bill and it is not filibustered, it then goes to the House. Republicans in the House aren't going to vote for the bill, meaning it will most likely die.
If the rules were changed or if the republicans did not filibuster a liberal bill and it goes to the house where it is voted down, what would the consequences be for the democratic party?
Effectively this would put some of the more moderate Democrats such as Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan in tough spots for the 2014 election, and for not a lot of political gain. They would face immense criticism in their states by the Republicans, and would have to defend their records. Mary Landrieu in particular looks like she is going to have a tough campaign ahead of her in Louisiana already.
The question I have is why Republicans are stupid enough to filibuster anything if they know the House will vote it down. I think by now they have to know they will get blamed for the obstruction no matter what their intentions are. They can't think it is beneficial politically.
Out of curiosity, if Republicans stopped filibustering Senate bills and they all eventually died in the House, would you still complain?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So are you advocating the "Blame only republicans!" thing?
No. I'm advocating that "there's no sense/point in saying which party is more to blame!" is utterly ridiculous, especially in a situation in which one party is manifestly and profoundly more responsible for something. Again.
quote:The question I have is why Republicans are stupid enough to filibuster anything if they know the House will vote it down.
They don't want the ideas brought up for debate. They don't want the country receiving news that the Republicans directly voted against bills A, B, C. Because the bills that the Republicans would be forced to kill in the house if they were not filibustered would create news that would be of significant consequence to republicans nationwide, because it would show that much more clearly what things they are trying to obstruct.
Oh, and then the house wouldn't be able to waste everyone's time voting against the Obamacare that terrifies them, pointlessly and grandstandingly, for the 50th time.
If they use the filibuster, they can keep a bunch of smoke around their obstruction. Or, I guess, sell ideals like "well the democrats are obstructing things too! Look at this procedural thing they are doing to the party that is breaking government to save themselves!" or "Oh you know that the democrats want this anyway, they're just as complicit in it!"
quote:Out of curiosity, if Republicans stopped filibustering Senate bills and they all eventually died in the House, would you still complain?
If all the same bills that died in Congress that would have died in an up and down vote in the Senate went on to be blocked by Republicans in the House acting as a monolithic agency, then yes. But that wouldn't happen. Some would get through. There would be actual debate in both houses of congress on bills the republicans really, really don't want to debate any more beyond having someone stand up and say "60 votes or sit on it and spin, plox"
The Republican majority in the house is still problematic because it only exists because of how conservatives have gamed the system to create an unrepresentative majority (when in reality liberals received fully the majority of votes for house candidates nationwide). Without tricks, conservatives don't have the senate, the house, or the presidency anymore.
Anyway, where we were last I had posed several questions to you relating to important considerations for this discussion. I would prefer they be answered.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I just read your questions Sam, but I don't see how answering them contributes to the conversation or discussion. The questions you asked have nothing to do with the topic, but rather with beef you have with me. That's all well and good, but I'm not going to respond to them so you can try to get some smug sense of satisfaction or further a conversation that is neither healthy or productive on this board.
I will say after reading your last post that I agree with you that Republicans should take more responsibility. I do not believe they should filibuster and should let bills be voted on in the House.
As far as obstruction, I seriously wish you would look at history. There are numerous times in our nations history that this exact thing has happened with both parties. It IS happening now at a greater level than ever before, but we are also looking at just one time period. I could go on about how corrupt Democrats are right now due to the Weiner / Filner issues going on right now, but I would be doing the conversation a disservice, as I would only be looking at one time period.
And I don't really want to hear your "unrepresentative majority" argument. There have been studies on the 2012 election that show even without redistricting, Republicans would have still held onto the House, with only a few seats possibly going in favor of Democrats. Highly populated areas with narrow Republican victories combined with uncontested incumbents caused this. It isn't that hard to find this information.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I could go on about how corrupt Democrats are right now due to the Weiner / Filner issues going on right now, but I would be doing the conversation a disservice, as I would only be looking at one time period.
And you would be confusing sexual immorality with corruption, of course.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I just read your questions Sam, but I don't see how answering them contributes to the conversation or discussion. The questions you asked have nothing to do with the topic, but rather with beef you have with me. That's all well and good, but I'm not going to respond to them so you can try to get some smug sense of satisfaction or further a conversation that is neither healthy or productive on this board.
So I can, in a discussion with you, have you say things to me, about my arguments or my statements, which aren't true, and when I ask you to clarify or reconsider them, you'll just tell me that you "don't see how answering them contributes to the conversation or discussion.
Like (seriously, now) you will tell me that I'm 'projecting,' I'll present why that doesn't make sense and ask you how in any sense you are using the word projection and how it applies, and this has "nothing to do with the topic" and could only be about me trying to get some "smug sense of satisfaction." You will tell me you have not defended republican actions, when in any sense of the idea you actually had, and bringing this up is somehow some completely unrelated thing unconnected to the topic — but you won't explain how it's not connected. Yes, that was one of the questions. Yes, it's still as important as befire.
I'll tell you this much: what I'm feeling sure isn't a smug sense of satisfaction. But I don't think justified annoyance helps you either.
quote: There are numerous times in our nations history that this exact thing has happened with both parties. It IS happening now at a greater level than ever before
You are directly contradicting yourself for me.
quote:And I don't really want to hear your "unrepresentative majority" argument.
Evidently.
quote:. There have been studies on the 2012 election that show even without redistricting, Republicans would have still held onto the House, with only a few seats possibly going in favor of Democrats.
And, as usual, I have to ask for the source. Please show me these studies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Geraine -
More people in this country voted for Democrats in Congress than Republicans. No matter how you draw the lines, you can't get away from that fact, which makes the current Congress unrepresentative.
I've seen studies that say that if the entire country was run by non-partisan committees, the House could have gone either way, it's difficult to guess exactly. But regardless, the system the Republicans created is ridiculously unrepresentative, instead of just a little unrepresentative. There's really no way to explain that away.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: And I don't really want to hear your "unrepresentative majority" argument. There have been studies on the 2012 election that show even without redistricting, Republicans would have still held onto the House, with only a few seats possibly going in favor of Democrats. Highly populated areas with narrow Republican victories combined with uncontested incumbents caused this. It isn't that hard to find this information.
Only maybe being generous, if you stuck to FPTP voting, if you had mixed-member proportional, bam, democrat majority.
quote: As far as obstruction, I seriously wish you would look at history. There are numerous times in our nations history that this exact thing has happened with both parties. It IS happening now at a greater level than ever before, but we are also looking at just one time period.
The "it's always been like this" fallacy, there's "always" been slavery, doesn't mean its okay or nothing should be done. Also "both parties" as we understand them now didn't exist before say the 1970's, whenever Nixon decided appealing to white racists is when the parties have changed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Geraine -
More people in this country voted for Democrats in Congress than Republicans. No matter how you draw the lines, you can't get away from that fact, which makes the current Congress unrepresentative.
I've seen studies that say that if the entire country was run by non-partisan committees, the House could have gone either way, it's difficult to guess exactly. But regardless, the system the Republicans created is ridiculously unrepresentative, instead of just a little unrepresentative. There's really no way to explain that away.
"Yeah but still."
The current brand of sina quo non arguments boil down to the idea that the current representation in congress is fair *because* it's unfair. Like this: disproportionate Republican congressional representation is the *purpose* of the congress- and so preserving that level of representation somehow "balances" the nation, rather than retarding the growth of healthier, more reactive and more relevant offshoots of the democratic party, which at this point so overwhelms the Republican party in membership as to be bursting at the seems with would-be derivatives.
Funny that this is all very much contrary to the purpose of the congress, which is to give effective representation to a larger number of factions, not a smaller one. Right now the presence of the Republicans in such large numbers (and such generally stupid ones to boot), forces the democrats into coalitions with each other that they themselves are less than comfortable with. Meanwhile, the Republican message becomes so dumb and anachronistic, and so increasingly dependent on a shrinking and more extreme base, as to grind the congress's gears down into near total immobility. Nice work folks.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Reminds me of some idiots who felt it would be a good idea that the US constitution should be changed so passing laws took 3/4 majority but repealing only took 1/3.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well I guess while we're all waiting we can play an entertaining little puzzle game about gerrymandering!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)