Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

Random question: what do you tell someone who says you shouldn't whine about spending cuts considering nearly every department in the federal government has increased their budgets for the past decade?

You know who was the publisher was don't you and what imprint the book was going to be published under?

Its pretty obvious what this story was.

Oh yeah, which makes it all the more surprising these guys decided to take that down.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Random question: what do you tell someone who says you shouldn't whine about spending cuts considering nearly every department in the federal government has increased their budgets for the past decade?

Real dollars. Unemployment rate. Slowdown in private investment


Edit:
Lol GOP, all your complaining about the law just makes it better.

WASHINGTON –- The Obama administration is considering a fix to the president’s health care law that would expand the universe of individuals who receive tax subsidies to help buy insurance, an administration source told The Huffington Post.

President Barack Obama on Thursday apologized to people who were being "disadvantaged" because of the Affordable Care Act's stricter regulations and requirements. In doing so, he told NBC News’ Chuck Todd he was exploring ways to ease hardships that have included dropped plans and higher premiums.

“We've got to work hard to make sure that -- they know -- we hear 'em and that we're going to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a consequence of this,” the president said. He said the White House was “looking at a range of options” in response to the law's problematic rollout.

The most popular idea for a fix on the Hill is legislation that would entitle someone who purchases health insurance coverage through the end of this year to keep that coverage. Other legislative responses may include extending the health exchange enrollment deadline or or delaying the penalty for not purchasing coverage.

Obama is also considering a different approach.

According to the administration source, the White House is “looking at an administrative fix for the population of people in the individual market who may have an increase in premiums, but don’t get subsidies.”

Such a fix would address the issue of “sticker shock” that has been popping up across the country, as individuals are losing their coverage and finding only higher-cost alternatives. Under the ACA, there are tax subsidies to help individuals and families with income between 133 percent and 400 percent above the poverty level purchase insurance. Those with incomes higher than 400 percent above poverty get no such assistance. The proposed administrative fix would address this group.

How receptive Congress would be to such a fix depends on the details, mainly how much it would cost and where the money would come from. But it certainly isn’t likely to quiet Republican criticisms that the law forces some individuals to adopt new plans that may limit the universe of health care providers.

One thing the Obama administration hasn't done a good job combating is the health insurance FUD. Lots of these stories only highlight the cost of the plan the insurance companies mention in the letter. They have an incentive to push these people to more expensive plans and not really explain that there are options that very well might be cheaper.

 

[Piecake]

Random question: what do you tell someone who says you shouldn't whine about spending cuts considering nearly every department in the federal government has increased their budgets for the past decade?



Oh yeah, which makes it all the more surprising these guys decided to take that down.

Tell him about something magical called inflation and ask him why he thinks that spending cuts are a good thing when we have high unemployment, suppressed demand, low borrowing costs, and huge problems with our infrastructure and education system.

 

[Mario]

Lol GOP, all your complaining about the law just makes it better.

The GOP has had the chance to improve the law all along and participate in taking credit when it finally rolls out and is successful.

Instead, they continue to dig a deeper and deeper hole.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The GOP has had the chance to improve the law all along and participate in taking credit when it finally rolls out and is successful.

Instead, they continue to dig a deeper and deeper hole.

Its because they don't want to govern.

As much as I dislike christie and think he'd be a horrible president I am refreshed he doesn't speak of government and governing as some evil thing.

 

[Oblivion]

Real dollars. Unemployment rate. Slowdown in private investment

.

Tell him about something magical called inflation and ask him why he thinks that spending cuts are a good thing when we have high unemployment, suppressed demand, low borrowing costs, and huge problems with our infrastructure and education system.

Argh, inflation. What a noob mistake I've made. D:

Its because they don't want to govern.

As much as I dislike christie and think he'd be a horrible president I am refreshed he doesn't speak of government and governing as some evil thing.

It helps that Christie also has a cooperative legislature as well.

 

[Mario]

Its because they don't want to govern.

I think its because they don't want Obama to "win", to have any kind of legacy. Not governing is merely a symptom of their obstructionism against "anything Obama does".

Unfortunately for them, Obama has been somewhat successful despite their obstructionism and neglect for their duties.

Of course, had they not acted like such sore losers since November 2008 and exercised bipartisanship to the level that Obama has offered (to his detriment), the US would be in a much better place.

 

[Piecake]

Its because they don't want to govern.

As much as I dislike christie and think he'd be a horrible president I am refreshed he doesn't speak of government and governing as some evil thing.

Well, If I had to pick between a republican front runner to be president, it would probably be him. Kinda depressing that the thing that puts him apart is that he actually works with people to get shit done.

 

[The Librarian]

During ENDA’s passage through the Senate, I heard the Heritage Foundation was scoring the vote and urging members to vote no. Curious, I tried to find Heritage’s reasoning in opposing the bill. Well, “reasoning.” I found what I was looking for.

The highlights:

The bill defines “gender identity” as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms . . . of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” In other words, it creates special rights for transgendered individuals — males who dress and act as females, and females who dress and act as males — and forbids employers from considering the consequences of such behavior in the workplace.

…

ENDA would further weaken the marriage culture and the ability of civil society to affirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that maleness and femaleness are not arbitrary constructs but objective ways of being human. The proposed law would treat these convictions as if they were bigotry.

…

Still, while it isn’t clear which religious organizations would be exempted from ENDA, it is clear that the bill would not exempt those who wish to run their businesses and other organizations in keeping with their moral or religious values.

…

Some defenders of the bill reply by saying that sexual orientation and gender identity are just like race, and thus deserve similar federal protections. But this analogy is false. Jim Crow laws represented pervasive, onerous, and legally enshrined obstacles to employment based on race. America has no similar history of society-wide legal prohibitions on employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

…

What’s more, while race is usually readily apparent, the groups seeking special status in ENDA aren’t defined by objective characteristics. Sexual orientation and gender identity are commonly understood to be subjective, self-disclosed, and self-defined. And unlike race, sexual orientation and gender identity are usually understood to include behaviors. An employer’s decisions reasonably taking into account the behavior of employees are core personnel decisions, best left to businesses themselves — not the federal government.

…

Moreover, whatever the significance of gender identity, we can’t deny the relevance of biological sex in many contexts. An employer would be negligent to ignore the concerns of female employees about having to share bathrooms with a biological male who says he identifies as female. Failing to consider these repercussions raises a host of concerns about privacy rights. But ENDA would prevent taking these concerns into account.​

Apparently this guy doesn’t know that women pee in stalls; I’d be surprised if this guy’s ever met/been friends with a gay or transgender person.

I didn’t see this posted, but every senator should have voted aye.

Will ENDA receive the necessary votes? If senators listened to their constituents, the bill would pass overwhelmingly. Nearly all recent opinion polls indicate that a large majority of the American public — more than 70 percent — supports efforts to make employment discrimination against gay men and and lesbians illegal. Of course, these national numbers are not what the senators are likely to care about. However, when we use national polls to estimate opinion by state, we find that majorities in all 50 states support ENDA-like legislation (note that in 1996, majorities in only 36 states supported ENDA). Today, public support ranges from a low of 63 percent in Mississippi to a high of 81 percent in Massachusetts. Here’s the graph of the approximate numbers based on our estimates from survey responses:

The next big fight on the Hill is gonna be a filibuster brawl in the Senate. Reid has scheduled cloture votes on two more DC circuit court nominees for next week I think.

It’s good to be back.

 

[Sibylus]

Wb Dax!

 

[B-Dubs]

Welcome back Dax.

That's one hell of a survey, I can't say I am surprised after that Daily Show bit though.

 

[Piecake]

...

We seriously need primary reform. Holy fucking hell.

After the Minneapolis Mayor elections I am not a fan of ranked choice voting. The election was actually pleasant! They didnt insult each other and talked about the issues since its a bad strategy with ranked choice voting to piss people off and/or take crazy nutso positions on issues.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think its because they don't want Obama to "win", to have any kind of legacy. Not governing is merely a symptom of their obstructionism against "anything Obama does".

Unfortunately for them, Obama has been somewhat successful despite their obstructionism and neglect for their duties.

Of course, had they not acted like such sore losers since November 2008 and exercised bipartisanship to the level that Obama has offered (to his detriment), the US would be in a much better place.

I think it goes deeper than that. I think obstructionism is a thing but even on the state level your seeing this governmental nihilism, everything is being outsourced to private corporations. They don't have a problem passing laws but that have a problem passing anything that is a part of the public sector.

This has been going on since the civil rights movement, the decline of public goods and public (meaning not private interests) governance.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well, If I had to pick between a republican front runner to be president, it would probably be him. Kinda depressing that the thing that puts him apart is that he actually works with people to get shit done.

I have no hesitation to pick him out of other choices. Jeb Bush wasn't that bad of a gov either

I think Rubio and Romney in their heart of hearts isn't that bad but they sold their soul to the tea party.

 

[Chichikov]

Not sure if people are following this but the socialist alternative candidate in Seattle is catching up to the democrat while they're counting up the remaining votes.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/polit...could-still-beat-conlin-in-city-council-race/

If she requires 53-54% then I doubt she'll win unfortunately but it's great she's gotten that close.

She's a lock for the next election, she'll be much better funded and running in the communist gayscape which is the newly form cap hill district is going to be much easier than winning a seat in the city at large.

 

[bananas]

How'd you get out of the binder?!

 

[Piecake]

She's a lock for the next election, she'll be much better funded and running in the communist gayscape which is the newly form cap hill district is going to be much easier than winning a seat in the city at large.

I dont know anything about her, but is she actually a command economy socialist or more of the Bernie Sanders socialist?

 

[The Librarian]

Wb Dax!

Welcome back Dax.

That's one hell of a survey, I can't say I am surprised after that Daily Show bit though.

tanks

How'd you get out of the binder?!

The outcome came down to crucial Waukesha County and I got enough votes.

 

[Chichikov]

I dont know anything about her, but is she actually a command economy socialist or more of the Bernie Sanders socialist?

Judging by her positions on the issues she seem to be more of progressive/social democrat that a straight up socialist, but she's running for city council, so I don't think it's terrible to focus on things that are achievable from that position.

Either way, I think her candidacy is very important for two reasons -
1. it shows that it's possible in Seattle to run as a socialist.
2. she's very focused on the poor and labor, something that the Democrats pretty much stop doing.

 

[Karakand]

Not sure if people are following this but the socialist alternative candidate in Seattle is catching up to the democrat while they're counting up the remaining votes.

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/polit...could-still-beat-conlin-in-city-council-race/

If she requires 53-54% then I doubt she'll win unfortunately but it's great she's gotten that close.

Scoped out her website. I do enjoy seeing Trots calling for the creation of a mass workers' party.

Spoiler

No one probably gets this quip.

Wish her the best of luck in doing something long-term with this impressive showing.

 

[Piecake]

Judging by her positions on the issues she seem to be more of progressive/social democrat that a straight up socialist, but she's running for city council, so I don't think it's terrible to focus on things that are achievable from that position.

Either way, I think her candidacy is very important for two reasons -
1. it shows that it's possible in Seattle to run as a socialist.
2. she's very focused on the poor and labor, something that the Democrats pretty much stop doing.

I was pleasantly surprised with Minneapolis' mayor election, so I imagine that a focus on the poor is still happening in some of the cities.

For example, A lot of was focused on the achievement gap and income inequality. Betsy Hodges' (the new mayor) signature proposal is cradle to K. What I like about it is that its simply not just pre-k (which is only half the issue), but also focuses on the infant and mother's health, and making sure that they are properly educated and prepared to take care of the child. You gotta focus on school and home if you want to really do some good in education.

Jobs and housing are the other obvious part. One thing that democrats need to mention more is just how much of an economic boom getting rid of the achievement gap would be. Ive read some estimates that is something ridiculous like 3-5% increase in gdp. We'd be stupid not to go all in to solve it. Pander to everyone's basic selfishness! Thats the way to do it

One thing that I do wish was talked about more in elections is prison reform. I think one of the problems is that this needs to happen at the state and national level, not the city level, which makes things more difficult

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/opinion/lessons-from-european-prisons.html

Upon release, European inmates do not face the punitive consequences that American ex-prisoners do — from voting bans to restrictions on employment, housing and public assistance, all of which increase the likelihood of re-offending.

Pure idiocy that we treat ex-convicts like this, and makes sure that more minorities are kept in poverty because we all know for drug arrests and stop and frisk that blacks and hispanics are targeted by police a lot more.

 

[Sibylus]

Reminds me of this story, apocryphal or no:

 

[Chichikov]

Pure idiocy that we treat ex-convicts like this, and makes sure that more minorities are kept in poverty because we all know for drug arrests and stop and frisk that blacks and hispanics are targeted by police a lot more.

Felony disenfranchisement is a fucking travesty.

Edit -
Sawant Surges in Latest Ballot Drop, SeaTac Prop 1 Bleeding Slows

Socialist Alternative challenger Kshama Sawant won a dominating 58.44 percent of the 8,591 ballots added in tonight's 8:30 p.m. drop, more than halving four-term incumbent Seattle City Council member Richard Conlin's earlier 2,691 vote lead. Conlin now leads by a mere 1,237 votes and a 50.31 to 49.49 percent margin, a stunning reversal from his 6,136 vote, 7.5 point election night margin.

According to King County Elections, 216,226 ballots have been received in Seattle, and 176,836 have already been counted (151,399 in this race); only 84.08 percent of the ballots counted in tonight's drop included votes in the Conlin/Sawant race. Figuring that 1.5 percent of ballots will not be counted due to signature and other problems, I figure that ((216,226-176,836)*.985)*.8408 equals 32,622 ballots left to count in the race. Give or take. Sawant would now need slightly more than 51.9 percent of the remaining vote take the lead. Considering that she has cumulatively won 53.5 percent of the ballots counted since post-election night, it is hard not to project Sawant ultimately winning.

Thanks to the three-day holiday weekend, these are the last results we'll see until 4:30 p.m. Tuesday. But if I were a Conlin staffer, I'd take advantage of the break to start spiffing up my resumé.

Goldy and the slog can get carried away at time, so take it with a grain of salt, but -

 

[Piecake]

Felony disenfranchisement is a fucking travesty.

I honestly think that employers being allowed to ask you if you have been convicted of a felony is far worse. In this economy there is no way in hell that an ex-convict is getting hired, no matter what the felony was or how long ago. It will keep them perpetually poor, dependent on the government (possibly not since apparently ex-convicts don't qualify for everything), and much more likely to re-offend since they have fare less options.

I am fine keeping it for jobs that require security clearance and maybe some others, but a job at fucking Wal-mart or some regular business? Come on... I wonder if that can be challenged on discriminatory grounds some day?

We have way too many mechanisms to keep punishing ex-convicts after they serve their time, and its disgusting. Its especially disgusting when the majority of those are minorities thanks to police presence and targeting.

 

[B-Dubs]

Felony disenfranchisement is a fucking travesty.

Edit -
Sawant Surges in Latest Ballot Drop, SeaTac Prop 1 Bleeding Slows

Goldy and the slog can get carried away at time, so take it with a grain of salt, but -

That new itshappening.gif is amazing. Bravo sir.

On topic I agree completely with you on how we keep ex-felons down. I remember a while back when I was working at a SEARS they had to do a background check. The entire job consisted of me folding clothes for minimum wage, we were criminally underpaid by the by, it made no sense. How are we supposed to rehabilitate criminals if we don't actually let them hold jobs? When they realize they can't find a job it'll just lead them back to crime to survive.

 

[Zen]

During ENDA’s passage through the Senate, I heard the Heritage Foundation was scoring the vote and urging members to vote no. Curious, I tried to find Heritage’s reasoning in opposing the bill. Well, “reasoning.” I found what I was looking for.
-snip-

I rarely if ever post, but glad to see that you're back Dax.

 

[Angry Fork]

Felony disenfranchisement is a fucking travesty.

Edit -
Sawant Surges in Latest Ballot Drop, SeaTac Prop 1 Bleeding Slows

Goldy and the slog can get carried away at time, so take it with a grain of salt, but -

I don't get why they said the democrat was projected to win when they only counted 1/3 of the votes on election night? At least count 75% first. And the stalin gif is awesome.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

DC is full of horrible people

 

[Oblivion]

Bill Maher had an awesome New Rules segment tonight calling out Christian hypocrisy:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-mah...rom-‘love-thy-neighbor’-to-‘fck-off-and-die’/

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Disenfranchisement of felons really should be overturned by a court decision. Don't see how it's constitutional with the 15th and whatever number the 18 year old amendment is.

I can see while in prision, but preventing people from deciding on the laws that affect them after serving time seems to run contrary to the democratic ideal. They served their time let them rejoin society

 

[delirium]

http://arstechnica.com/security/201...vice-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/

People are really DDoSing healthcare.gov? Wow, talk about taking things a little too far.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

http://arstechnica.com/security/201...vice-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/

People are really DDoSing healthcare.gov? Wow, talk about taking things a little too far.

We are legion.

Give me a fucking break.

 

[TacticalFox88]

So, apparently, there's an ongoing investigation of two flag officers in the Navy who've been secretly selling intelligence of ship routes, navigation, etc, to some business men in the South Pacific. Naturally, they got caught and now ONI and various intelligence agencies are now trying to see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Now, ever since, I've got people in my camp blaming good ol' Barry for this, saying Obama is trying to weaken our military, "clean house", "Why all of a sudden is our Flag officers being stepped down or forced retired under this administration?"

Here's the implication: They are saying that Obama is secretly trying to replace 3000+ Flag Officers who are "loyal" to him in the same vein of the purge that Stalin did 75+ years ago to the Red Army.

Never mind the fact that Obama will be out of the White House on January 20th, 2017, thus him replacing them all is utterly pointless from a logical standpoint or unless you asinine believe that he'll have a third term

Nevermind the fact two flag officers this high up the food chain don't get pinched JUST BECAUSE the C.I.C. wants them to.

Nevermind the ton of proceedings and caution used to not unnecessarily embarrass 2 flag officers of this much status.

Nevermind the fact that POTUS has much bigger fish to fry than to deal with some lowly rear admirals. (If these were Four-Stars, that'd be a different story.)

Obama doesn't decide their fate, JAG (Judge Advocate General) does. They will be tried in military court, and considering all of the proceedings for it to get to that level, it's highly unlikely they won't be found guilty and possibly sent to jail for treason.

This shit annoys the fuck out of me. People who think Obama is somehow trying to gain absolute power and try to weaken America (which doesn't go hand in hand at all, but what the fuck ever). We have two idiot Admirals leaking sensitive info to foreign merchants and traders and they want to blame Obama simply because its convenient and not try and think rationally (not that I believe they could in the first place, but its whatever)

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hawaii is #16

Felony disenfranchisement is a fucking travesty.

Edit -
Sawant Surges in Latest Ballot Drop, SeaTac Prop 1 Bleeding Slows

Goldy and the slog can get carried away at time, so take it with a grain of salt, but -

Let the great experiment begin

 

[FyreWulff]

Moreover, whatever the significance of gender identity, we can’t deny the relevance of biological sex in many contexts. An employer would be negligent to ignore the concerns of female employees about having to share bathrooms with a biological male who says he identifies as female. Failing to consider these repercussions raises a host of concerns about privacy rights. But ENDA would prevent taking these concerns into account.[/indent]

Wow, they went straight to the bathroom justification. That's always a red flag for 'this person is not worth listening to"

 

[B-Dubs]

http://arstechnica.com/security/201...vice-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/

People are really DDoSing healthcare.gov? Wow, talk about taking things a little too far.

Wow, talk about a dick move.

 

[Oblivion]

Was watching Maddow, and was surprised to learn that the top 12 biggest cities in the U.S. are run by Democratic mayors.

http://arstechnica.com/security/201...vice-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/

People are really DDoSing healthcare.gov? Wow, talk about taking things a little too far.

This is potentially a pretty big deal, isn't it?

 

[The Librarian]

I rarely if ever post, but glad to see that you're back Dax.

wb Dax.

Also, agreed to everything being said about early education and felon rehabilitation. Not gonna quote a whole page

Thanks!

Brian Beutler had a very good article about ENDA's chances in the House yesterday. The reason why ENDA won't pass is the same reason immigration won't pass, is the same reason equal pay won't pass, is the same reason voting rights won't pass: it's the GOP's inability to cut ties with a base it knows it can win with (at least for now) and its unwillingness to expand its appeal. If ENDA were to pass, or if any one of those items were to pass, the argument would become "Well, if X passed, why not Y?" Thus opening the chance for a flood of progressive legislation to become law.

 

[Shao Kahn on the Lawn]

http://arstechnica.com/security/201...vice-attack-aimed-directly-at-healthcare-gov/

People are really DDoSing healthcare.gov? Wow, talk about taking things a little too far.

This is the digital equivalent of setting a tornado-ravaged trailer park on fire.

If anything, they're doing the government a failure by giving them a week or so to blame the site's inherent problems on this attack.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Was watching Maddow, and was surprised to learn that the top 12 biggest cities in the U.S. are run by Democratic mayors.

Why is that surprising?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Real dollars. Unemployment rate. Slowdown in private investment


Edit:
Lol GOP, all your complaining about the law just makes it better.

One thing the Obama administration hasn't done a good job combating is the health insurance FUD. Lots of these stories only highlight the cost of the plan the insurance companies mention in the letter. They have an incentive to push these people to more expensive plans and not really explain that there are options that very well might be cheaper.

There is no benefit for the GOP to fix the law. At this point the ACA is moving from failure to failure, media wise, and republicans are just watching it burn. I don't see why they'd want to change anything, especially the expansion of subsidies which is something they're completely opposed to.

Some plans are cheaper or slightly more expensive (for better coverage), but there are a lot of people who are stuck in a donut hole right now. Too much income for subsidies or Medicaid, stuck with higher cost options. I don't see how that can be fixed unless democrats take the house, which isn't happening.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

There is no benefit for the GOP to fix the law. At this point the ACA is moving from failure to failure, media wise, and republicans are just watching it burn. I don't see why they'd want to change anything, especially the expansion of subsidies which is something they're completely opposed to.

Some plans are cheaper or slightly more expensive (for better coverage), but there are a lot of people who are stuck in a donut hole right now. Too much income for subsidies or Medicaid, stuck with higher cost options. I don't see how that can be fixed unless democrats take the house, which isn't happening.

My understanding is that it was and administrative fix and doesn't need Congress.

And the law isn't failing the website is. The only doughnut hole in my understanding is in states that didn't expand Medicare. Otherwise they should be able to get subsidies. Nobody should be paying more than 9% of their income in premiums.

 

[Y2Kev]

Weiner on Bill Maher last night made me majorly sad he's not around anymore. Ugh. He didn't even do anything THAT wrong. Nothing Tom Ford hasn't done!

 

[bonercop]

There is no benefit for the GOP to fix the law. At this point the ACA is moving from failure to failure, media wise, and republicans are just watching it burn. I don't see why they'd want to change anything, especially the expansion of subsidies which is something they're completely opposed to.

And yet approval for the ACA has been ticking up.

My understanding is that it was and administrative fix and doesn't need Congress.

And the law isn't failing the website is. The only doughnut hole in my understanding is in states that didn't expand Medicare. Otherwise they should be able to get subsidies. Nobody should be paying more than 9% of their income in premiums.

There is a donut hole. People who can't afford(and don't want) insurance, yet aren't poor enough to be eligible for the Medicaid expansion.

On the other hand, this is a rather small group of people in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of the population will benefit from the ACA.

 

[The Librarian]

My understanding is that it was and administrative fix and doesn't need Congress.

And the law isn't failing the website is. The only doughnut hole in my understanding is in states that didn't expand Medicare. Otherwise they should be able to get subsidies. Nobody should be paying more than 9% of their income in premiums.

Exactly. The website is getting better by the day, too. By this time next year I imagine it won't be an issue. The Medicaid expansion is going wonderfully in the states that are choosing to participate, and what's not being discussed for the people who are seeing their plans cancelled and their premiums getting raised is the 80/20 rule. If the insurers over-bill customers, they'll get a refund. Besides, what's getting lost in this whole scandal of the website not working is the following: the parts of the law that work and the parts of the law that have a much harder time working. What's being hard to incorporate and make function smoothly? Using private insurers as a medium through which to achieve universal healthcare. What's being rolled out that hasn't encountered any major bumps and is seeing an effortless expansion? The single-payer, government-run program that covers the poor.

Even *if* the law fails in that it doesn't succeed in getting enough people to sign up in the exchanges (and I highly doubt that will happen), conservative propositions to fixing our healthcare system will go down with it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And yet approval for the ACA has been ticking up.



There is a donut hole. People who can't afford(and don't want) insurance, yet aren't poor enough to be eligible for the Medicaid expansion.

On the other hand, this is a rather small group of people in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of the population will benefit from the ACA.

Those people are the ones that should be getting subsidies making their care affordable. The people I'm seeing on the news as the poster childs for failure are those to rich for subsidies

 

[Piecake]

Be nice if we could simply expand medicaid to people who don't have employer offered insurance. We all know what the end result would be (single payer), but that is probably the best way to sell it.

 

[bonercop]

Those people are the ones that should be getting subsidies making their care affordable. The people I'm seeing on the news as the poster childs for failure are those to rich for subsidies

From the reports I've seen, the subsidies reduce the cost of insurance significantly, but we're still talking about at least a 100-150 bucks a month in best-case scenarios. Someone can be outside of the 137% limit and still be unwilling or unable to pay that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

From the reports I've seen, the subsidies reduce the cost of insurance significantly, but we're still talking about at least a 100-150 bucks a month in best-case scenarios. Someone can be outside of the 137% limit and still be unwilling or unable to pay that.

The subsidies reduce costs to a max 9% of your income. And if its above that you don't get penalized.

 

[The Librarian]

The subsidies reduce costs to a max 9% of your income. And if its above that you don't get penalized.

8%

There is one escape valve: The health-care law has a hardship exemption from the individual mandate for those who do not find coverage that costs less than 8 percent of their income. For someone earning $45,000, hypothetically, that would mean that, if there were no available plans for less than $300, he could decide not to purchase coverage and still not pay a tax penalty.