American Politics during the Obama Presidency

It is funny to watch the insurance companies and large hospital corporations who supported ObamaCare when it was first being proposed now becoming very nervous as they see their projected profits from ObamaCare slipping away due the beast the Democrats created.

When Obama was first proposing this boondoggle he got the insurance carriers and hospital corporations on board with the tantalizing vision of:

For the insurance companies, everyone would have to buy insurance, increasing their revenue from premiums while offering more expensive policies which conformed to the new ObamaCare coverage requirements. Those in lower income brackets would receive subsidies which would be paid to the insurance companies to make up for reduced premiums they received, much like Section 8 housing.

The hospital corporations would now be able to stop cost shifting from those who could pay for services either personally, via insurance or a combination of both to subsidized indigent care they were forced to provide. Now everyone would have healthcare insurance and the cost for treating the indigent would nearly disappear as their profits would increase due to being reimbursed for all care delivered.

Now as the reality is sinking in the insurance companies are seeing a significant reduction in the projected number of policies they thought they would be selling, the insured mix is very heavily weighted toward older / sicker enrollees and the subsidies are not coming in anytime soon because the "back end" of the ObamaCare website is not only not working, it has not even been built yet. It's anybody's guess as to who has coverage, if they have paid, if they actually qualified for a subsidy or were shifted to Medicaid and qualified. Can anyone say "Death Spiral".

The hospital corporations are seeing they are not going to receive payment in a timely manner due to the insurance problems listed above and are now finding out there are still going to be more than 10 million people who are still not going to have coverage they still must treat, so the indigent costs are not going away but may well go up due to the new scope of services required under ObamaCare.

November 2014 is getting closer every day. The Democrats don't have a hope in hell of retaking the House and may well lose the Senate. Have you noticed many of the architects of ObamaCare are retiring so as not to face a possible re-election defeat in 2014?

Just my humble opinion.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438206]November 2014 is getting closer every day. The Democrats don't have a hope in hell of retaking the House and may well lose the Senate. Have you noticed many of the architects of ObamaCare are retiring so as not to face a possible re-election defeat in 2014?

Just my humble opinion.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/14/rand-paul-gop-will-not-win-again-my-lifetime-presi/[/URL]

Rand Paul think otherwise.

Rev, either you did not read my post or the article you cited or you did not understand either.

I addressed the up coming 2014 mid-term elections. Paul was talking about the 2016 presidential elections.

I think Senator Paul is wrong, but we are way to far away to even be thinking about 2016 and need to concentrate on the 2014 mid-term election.

As I recall the Democrats were crowing about the "Death of Conservatism" after the 2008 elections only to take a similar beating in 2010. Too bad it was not a presidential year, Obama would have been gone, but alas it was not and we are still stuck with him.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438209]Rev, either you did not read my post or the article you cited or you did not understand either.

I addressed the up coming 2014 mid-term elections. Paul was talking about the 2016 presidential elections.

I think Senator Paul is wrong, but we are way to far away to even be thinking about 2016 and need to concentrate on the 2014 mid-term election.

As I recall the Democrats were crowing about the "Death of Conservatism" after the 2008 elections only to take a similar beating in 2010. Too bad it was not a presidential year, Obama would have been gone, but alas it was not and we are still stuck with him.[/QUOTE]Yes, I did confuse the two different campaigns.

I would add that Americans have traditionally voted in favor of separating the powers between the presidency and congress. It's part of the American DNA.

[QUOTE=RevBS;438215]Yes, I did confuse the two different campaigns.

I would add that Americans have traditionally voted in favor of separating the powers between the presidency and congress. It's part of the American DNA.[/QUOTE]It helps to keep them honest. The problem is they need even more help then that!

[URL]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371699/fcc-throws-towel-explosive-content-study-tim-cavanaugh[/URL]

I mean I could have come up with a better acronym for this boondoggle..something like Censorship Interdiction Manipulation While Spying...or CIMWS...now THAT has a ring to it.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;438209]Rev, either you did not read my post or the article you cited or you did not understand either.

I addressed the up coming 2014 mid-term elections. Paul was talking about the 2016 presidential elections.

I think Senator Paul is wrong, but we are way to far away to even be thinking about 2016 and need to concentrate on the 2014 mid-term election.

As I recall the Democrats were crowing about the "Death of Conservatism" after the 2008 elections only to take a similar beating in 2010. Too bad it was not a presidential year, Obama would have been gone, but alas it was not and we are still stuck with him.[/QUOTE]Too bad that the IRS and other groups had an additional 2 years to suppress the conservative vote. The truth, whether we want to admit it or not is that the 2012 US presidential election was corrupted and compromised. There were hundreds of groups (that 'coincidentally' didn't support the president) that were denied tax-free status and therefore effectively removed from the election cycle and their first amendment rights were stifled.

Could they have swayed 200 k votes in various districts across the country? Quite possibly. However, we'll never know and the truth will never come out. Just like all the other impeachable offenses over which this Marxist, want to-be dictator has presided. In theory, it isn't "if" the requisite number of votes could have been swayed. It is "if" this political targeting of political opponents took place (which it did). The IRS debacle (or Fast and Furious or Benghazi) would have been an impeachable offense for a white president (please think about both this statement and the facts before calling me a racist in some sadly, malformed knee-jerk diatribe). If it happened, then the responsible parties should have been held accountable. The high degree of visitation between the IRS and the POTUS (said to be about Obamacare when he didn't meet with Sebelius for three years) make it possible for only the most gullible, the mentally impaired and true believers to dismiss out of hand the likelihood that the POTUS was both aware of and complicit in the IRS targeting. Therefore, he should have had his day in court (Senate) which would have either changed the outcome of the presidential election or resulted in another corrupt POTUS being impeached.

Did you miss me?

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-durchslag/why-we-should-listen-to-m_b_2583484.html[/URL]

For those of you who were not around in 1938 we are now having a rerun.

Don B.

That the USA fell right back into the depression.

Nice to see you posting again, but please hit the other parts of the forum. There is a whole group of of formerly active members from AP, who discuss politics on the NY Times and WSJ forums.

Welcome back.

[QUOTE=MiamiBob;438416]Nice to see you posting again, but please hit the other parts of the forum. [/QUOTE]It's so good to be back at the Desta Lake Club...

[QUOTE==]There is a whole group of of formerly active members from AP, who discuss politics on the NY Times and WSJ.

Forums.

Welcome back.[/QUOTE]You're in luck, I can't read!


Check the times of my posts. Out of respect for you, I made sure not to make my initial, returning posts in this forum.

[QUOTE=WildWalleye;438321]Too bad that the IRS and other groups had an additional 2 years to suppress the conservative vote. The truth, whether we want to admit it or not is that the 2012 US presidential election was corrupted and compromised. There were hundreds of groups (that 'coincidentally' didn't support the president) that were denied tax-free status and therefore effectively removed from the election cycle and their first amendment rights were stifled.

Did you miss me?[/QUOTE]Yes but could not the groups just have paid the taxes and gotten their first amendment rights freed? Sometimes pragmatic men are more successful than ideologues.

On his deathbed, my dad who fought the IRS for 15 years told me, if he could do it all over again he would have just paid the fuckin taxes and moved on. Too much of his life was wasted fighting the IRS.

Welcome back.

There's a bit of one sidedness here. The ACLU, of which I used to be a member, is just as pissed off as "conservative" 504 (c)(4)'s about having having to close shop or alternately disclose their membership and have it subjected to the wrath of those in the federal government who would persecute them. Rachel Durschslag is probably a left wing Democrat, not a conservative. And Don B's comment about 1938 most likely related to the annexation of Crimea by Russia, not how much money the federal government spends on trying to stimulate the economy, or sway elections, depending on how you look at it.

The IRS shouldn't be involved in politics or encharged with suppressing free speech.

Comparison of Crimea to Sudetenland, 1938: [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-charles-g-cogan/crimea-sudetenland_b_4892893.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;438435]The IRS shouldn't be involved in politics or encharged with suppressing free speech.[/QUOTE]They're not. They are involved in ensuring applications for tax-exempt status are legitimate.

If you don't want to risk scrutiny, don't apply for tax-exempt status.