American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=BayBoy;442190]-- No caps on benefits.

-- Seniors don't have a donut hole to worry about on their prescription drugs (Pres. Bush's great idea).

-- No preexisting conditions can stop people from getting insurance.

-- Young people can ride their parents insurance until age 26.[/QUOTE]You could have had all that without Obamacare, and quite probably with lots of GOP support.

But let us not forget that the purpose of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth. Everything else was just the camouflage necessary to hide that reality.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=BayBoy;442190]Whats not to like.[/QUOTE]The Individual Mandate, multiple additional taxes, private sector job losses, a huge new bureaucracy, government intervention into citizen's private lives, a drogue chute on the economy, unaddressed Health Justice reforms, escalating medical costs in general, and higher premiums for everyone who actually pays for their own insurance, to name just a few.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442201]You could have had all that without Obamacare, and quite probably with lots of GOP support.

[/QUOTE]I haven't heard of any Republicans supporting all these tenants of the ACA. Maybe Ted Cruz, NOT.

Thanks,

Bboy.

I'll tell you one part of the ACA I don't agree with is that bullshit about letting "children" stay on the parents' policy until age 26. Come on. No wonder these past couple of generations have so much boomerang. I thought an adult was 18. Or 21. But not fucking 26.

I tell you what, I hope this Republican congress cuts higher education funding. I really do. There are so many bullshit colleges out there with bullshit programs it's ridiculous. And no, 80% of the population does not need a college degree. I have four and look how worthless I am. You could close half the colleges and kick out half the students and nothing would suffer. K-12 funding, we keep increasing it but students keep getting dumber. I don't know what's up with that. I guess it's just the long-term effect of the inverse relationship between intelligence and fecundity and I don't see much chance of reversing that. Put these dumb ass kids to work at 15 or 16 if they can't read or do math. Don't send them to college to take a bunch of non-credit 098 level "academic preparation and remediation." I taught at five colleges and I can tell you that "academic preparation" for college is [B]supposed to be fucking high school for Christ's sake[/B]. So if you don't know what six times seven is by the time you are sixteen, here is a fucking shovel, now bend over.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442200]On the same day another and equal federal court found the exact opposite, and only as they pertained to the federal website. The states' websites were not covered by the ruling although they receive their subsidies from the feds. But just go ahead and cherry pick whatever supports your point of view.[/QUOTE]The case has been accepted by the Supreme Court so how is it cherry picking?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;442205]The case has been accepted by the Supreme Court so how is it cherry picking?[/QUOTE]There were two Circuit Court cases. One went one way and one went the other way. You talked about the one and not the other. So that is cherry picking. I'm still sorting through SCOTUS's decision to grant [I]certiorari[/I] but I guess they are reviewing not the one they were expected to maybe review but the other one? The one that went against your position? Anyway it sounds like there is some interesting maneuvering going on. One article I read said the conservatives granted [I]cert[/I] to force Roberts to vote in favor of the ACA again. And SCOTUS proactively decided to review without either of the Circuit Court cases' parties requesting it? I don't think they "accepted" it; I think they went out and grabbed it. I might not have all that straight as I am still digesting it. Should be a fun decision. Sounds like one of those "definition of what 'is' is" kind of cases (in this case, what "state" is) and it seems the main issue will be legislative intent versus a literal reading.

But my state has an exchange anyway so nyaah.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442201]You could have had all that without Obamacare, and quite probably with lots of GOP support.[/QUOTE]Do you believe in unicorns too ?

The protections and benefits of the ACA would not have been possible without providing the revenue to support them. Romney learned that in MA and the ACA is based on Romney's template. It's ridiculous to think the party that said "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president" and that made Waterloo analogies would have cooperated with Obama on any healthcare reform. GOP support, LOL !

Republicans had it in for Obama before Day 1
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/republicans-had-it-in-for-obama-before-day-1/2012/08/10/0c96c7c8-e31f-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_blog.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]But let us not forget that the purpose of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth. Everything else was just the camouflage necessary to hide that reality.[/QUOTE]Wrong again. The purpose of the Affordable Care Act was reform of the healthcare system to achieve multiple objectives:
(i) Ban denials of insurance for pre-existing conditions.
(ii) Ban coverage cancellations when people get sick.
(iii) Ban lifetime limits on medical care.
(iv) Expand access to affordable healthcare insurance.
(v) Extend the life of Medicare.
(vi) Reduce the prescription drug coverage gap (donut hole) in Medicare Part D.
(vii) Require insurance companies to spend the majority of health insurance premiums on medical care, not on profits and overhead.
... and others.

Redistribution was a [I]means[/I] to help accomplish some of these objectives. As it should have been.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442204]I'll tell you one part of the ACA I don't agree with is that bullshit about letting "children" stay on the parents' policy until age 26. Come on. No wonder these past couple of generations have so much boomerang. I thought an adult was 18. Or 21. But not fucking 26.[/QUOTE]But look at the math. Without this provision, millions of young adults would have to get insurance policies on their own (or be subject to the tax penalty). And their typically low incomes would make them eligible for subsidies. That would be a big increase in required subsidies, making the entire system more expensive. Letting them stay on their parent's policies avoids this and keeps costs down. It also eases the financial burden for those seeking higher education or starting their careers. College students have enough to worry about with student debt. Making the path to higher education a little easier is a good thing, because for most people a college degree is the ticket to a high paying job.

I'm all for cutting wasteful spending which you cited examples of. But this provision of the ACA is good policy for a number of reasons.

[QUOTE=Esten;442208]It's ridiculous to think the party that said "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president" and...[/QUOTE]Your statement is completely disenginious given that you know that it is the goal of [U]EVERY[/U] party out of power to make the sitting president "a one-term president". That's why they run opponents against them at every election, to make them "a one-term president". Get it?

[QUOTE=Esten;442208]...that made Waterloo analogies would have cooperated with Obama on any healthcare reform. GOP support, LOL ![/QUOTE]I guess we'll never know because the Dems never gave the Republicans an opportunity to coouperate, instead choosing to ram Obamacare up the country's ass all by themselves.

[QUOTE=Esten;442222]Without this provision, millions of young adults would have to get insurance policies on their own[/QUOTE]Right, that's my point. They need to be kicked out of the nest much sooner than has been happening in the last generation or so. It's a waste. Anybody who is still in school at age 26 is either screwing the pooch or already has an advanced degree they can make money with and so they can afford to pay for their own insurance. It ain't even that expensive at that age.

Also, they are being subsidized either way. One way the parents' employers and the other people in the parents' pool subsidize them and the other way the government does. And at least the second way they have to grow up and figure out how to navigate the system, and pay their share of the bill, and so forth. The way it is now, they just think it's the Health Insurance Fairy or something like that.

So saying that millions of young adults will have to get policies on their own is like saying that millions of young adults will have to renew their own driver's licenses and mow their own lawns and shit.

[QUOTE=Dickhead;442237]Right, that's my point. They need to be kicked out of the nest much sooner than has been happening in the last generation or so. It's a waste. Anybody who is still in school at age 26 is either screwing the pooch or already has an advanced degree they can make money with and so they can afford to pay for their own insurance. It ain't even that expensive at that age.

[/QUOTE]I disagree with the blanket age 26 rule of thumb totally.

I went back to school at 26 and have made my living off the degrees I earned.

My girlfriend's son is a veteran and is at UCI currently working his ass off. Although his benefit package is jaw dropping. California gives him scholarship money along with the GI Bill money.

One size does not fit all.

[QUOTE=Esten;442222]College students have enough to worry about with student debt.[/QUOTE]Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.

In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.

Thanks,

Jax.

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;442243]I disagree with the blanket age 26 rule of thumb totally. I went back to school at 26 and have made my living off the degrees I earned.[/QUOTE]Right, and before you were 26 and went to school, you were working and either covered by your employer's plan or paying for it yourself or just plain were not covered. I went back to school at age 31 but before that I wasn't sucking on mommy and daddy's tit until I was 26. That's what [B]I'm[/B] referring to.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442245]Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.

In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]Please note that your hero Reagan majored in sociology.

It's hard to believe but Jackson is actually 100% on point with this one.

[QUOTE=Jackson;442245]Here, let me fix that for you: No more student loans for liberal arts degrees.

In one motion we can reduce the federal budget deficit, reinvigorate academia by introducing them to the concept of competition, AND save millions of potential "Educated Idiots" from the angst of paying off student loans acquired in the pursuit of worthless degrees.

Thanks,

Jax.[/QUOTE]

I was a liberal arts or more precisely social science major but I also took a lot of business classes. The result was that I did not need loans but took them anyway and invested them in the stock market. After graduation I refinanced them all at 2.9% (and the interest was tax deductible "above the line"). That all worked out really well. Eventually I paid them all off just because I got tired of looking at them, but I probably should have stretched them out longer.

So part of the deal on that is that there [B]is[/B] means testing for student loans. But, they don't count the equity in your house or the balances in your retirement accounts as "means." That means 1) the student loan system is tilted in favor of homeowners and 2) assholes like me who had quite a bit in retirement accounts could still get subsidized loans. #2 is somewhat less of a factor now because the subsidies and deferral periods have been tightened, but #1 is still way true and is not right. Money is money. Just because little Johnny's dad has his money in a taxable brokerage account and little Suzy's dad has his money in an IRA, does not mean little Suzy should get more financial aid. But it does. Similarly if Johnny's dad rents and Suzy's dad owns, Suzy will get more aid even if both live in identical houses.

Not only did I get federal subsidies for these unneeded loans that I used to gamble in the stock market, but all but the first semester of my worthless liberal arts education, which I stretched out for seven years, was 100% paid for by my state's taxpayers. Fortunately in the process of getting the worthless liberal arts degree, the tax classes taught me exactly how to fuck the system.

So I would say I got more for my money out of the business classes than I did out of the liberal arts classes, but that wouldn't be true because none of it was my money!

The means testing for federal programs is all over the place and it should be coordinated. You see silly things like strict income limits to take the savings bond interest exclusion (for tuition), which is chump change, and then they turn around and give away the farm in the federal financial aid system.

I would like to see a minimum SAT or ACT score for financial aid eligibility. We should help poor people go to college, not stupid ones.