Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Flagrant example of Network cowardice

Charlie Rose, no less. At least Norah tried.

"This has never been about delaying or defunding Obamacare."

The central principle they are fighting for has always been equal protection under the law. Obama has exempted large corporations from the Act and the Republicans think fairness requires that all individuals should be exempt too. All they ever wanted was to talk to Obama about this issue and he would not talk so they had to shut down the government and risk default.

All Obama has to do is say "We are not going to default" and the risk of default vanishes regardless of the debt ceiling. Obama has told his friends in New York about this. Why won't he tell the American people?

Moody's said "We are not going to default" so we can refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

by Anonymousreply 2010/20/2013

Equal protection you say? FREEPER ALERT. What fucking unmitigated bull shit. They KEPT their own perks and benefits and Cadillac health care for themselves while getting jacked off by the towel boys the tax payers paid for.

by Anonymousreply 110/16/2013

Such complete bullshit!!

by Anonymousreply 210/16/2013

Charlie Rose? That fucker.

Take him off PBS immediately.

by Anonymousreply 410/16/2013

He also has to pay the principal on maturing bills, notes and bonds. Sending all revenues toward meeting bond payments is a pretty disastrous outcome since it leaves nothing for the military, air traffic control, social security, etc.

Besides, bonds provide that a failure to meet ANY obligations is a default under the bond. This is so the bondholder can demand immediate payment from a borrower that is insolvent rather than waiting until the borrower goes bankrupt and then standing in line with all other debtors. A failure to pay social security is a default

The Constitution can't pull money out of a rock.

Why are the Tea Partiers so convinced that they know more about government finance and fixed income markets than the people who run the system? Belieivng they know better is a whole new level of stupid.

by Anonymousreply 510/16/2013

Equal protection? Like Gay Marriage? Yeah, the creepers are really down with equal protection. And, also (as your Queen Bee Dipshit Sarah Palin would say): Corporations are not people, my friend.

by Anonymousreply 610/16/2013

[quote]This is so the bondholder can demand immediate payment from a borrower that is insolvent rather than waiting until the borrower goes bankrupt and then standing in line with all other debtors.

The correct word at the end of that sentence is "creditors" (those to whom money is owed), not "debtors" (those who owe money).

by Anonymousreply 810/16/2013

I'm not at all sure what R3 is claiming.

I think the Republicans are just using the extension given to the business community which was not extended to individuals as a smoke screen.

Unfortunate it doesn't make the point any less valid. As Jon Stewart and others have asked and never received an answer? Why them and not us?

by Anonymousreply 910/16/2013

Correct, R8.

by Anonymousreply 1010/16/2013

[quote]Unfortunate it doesn't make the point any less valid. As Jon Stewart and others have asked and never received an answer? Why them and not us?

The extension was not an act of grace. It was because of operational problems. All we have to do is buy insurance or pay a tax. Not much preparation time needed.

by Anonymousreply 1110/16/2013

R11 - not really true. I don't think you can call not doing anything operational problems.

The extension was granted because the businesses sit applied to had not done the necessary work. Didn't even try to get it done on time.

A simple "We should have been watching what they were doing, and didn't. Now we have no choice but to give them an extensions. It may not seem fair, but going forward with the individual mandate is best for the country." from the administration would have been nice. Or maybe closer to the truth - "We let them get by with this because we fear their political clout and ability to grab headlines."

by Anonymousreply 1210/16/2013

[quote]The extension was granted because the businesses sit applied to had not done the necessary work. Didn't even try to get it done on time.

In any case the issue does not apply to individuals.

The Republicans are not concerned with fairness. They want to delay Obamacre until they can kill it. They know once it starts it cannot be taken away.

by Anonymousreply 1310/16/2013

[quote] In any case the issue does not apply to individuals.

Really, you can't just admit it sucks?

Of course it applies to individuals. Even the administration has gone over this thousands of times. The plan works because it requires some individuals to join the insurance pools who will be paying in far more than they will be receiving.

There is a large demographic who over the entire group would have a substantial net savings but not enrolling for a year. Just like the businesses are getting.

by Anonymousreply 1410/16/2013

[quote]Of course it applies to individuals.

That is not my point. The issues in having to provide health care to employees are a lot more complex than the individual's obligations. The individual does not need more time to comply

[quote]Really, you can't just admit it sucks?

It sucks compared to what? To medicare for all? Yes, it sucks. To the mess that left millions uninsured and the sick unable to buy coverage? It does not suck

Obamacare is a plan that was hobbled together to give powerful lobbies enough so that they would not block it. It is essentially the Republican alternative to a single payer system even if they now disown it.

Republicans insisted on a market-based solution. Mandates were their idea.

by Anonymousreply 1510/16/2013

[quote] That is not my point. The issues in having to provide health care to employees are a lot more complex than the individual's obligations. The individual does not need more time to comply

Just not true. They had three years. You can't honestly be trying to make the point that state and national insurance exchanges with new guidelines for coverage, multiple vendors, and geographic areas could be set-up and a business couldn't do the same on a much smaller scale with just one vendor?

You're missing my point. When I said admit it sucks - I was referring to the administration giving an extension to a business they would not give to an individual.

by Anonymousreply 1610/16/2013

R5 Not exactly correct. They simply issue a new bond or note for any redeemed. We've been rolling over the debt since we figured out how to do it around 1850.

That's why I said what I did in R3. All we pay is interest, and current tax payments and withholding cover that easily. No crisis.

by Anonymousreply 1710/19/2013

Massive conflation of issues here...

First, the delay in the employer mandate is for a year, and it is simply delaying the fine assessed to companies with more than 50 employees. Since 95% of businesses with more than 50 employees already have health insurance options, this fine and delay impacts only 5% of businesses that would have been subject to either providing insurance or being penalized a specific amount per employee (iirc, about $65 each). The reason for the delay is because those 5% of businesses that don't offer insurance are concentrated in low wage and low profit margin areas, like fast food and cleaning contractors.

The real issue is that health insurance should not be part of employment, period. You'd think that business would have been overjoyed with single payer, and divesting themselves of this burden would have been every business owner's wet dream. That said, the individual mandate is critical to the overall success of the ACA because of the benefits that we're all getting, like no pre-existing conditions and removal of lifetime caps.

To suggest that the employer mandate delay is unconstitutional because of equal protection is a red herring. And since when have Pubbies been worried about equal protection? The entire argument has been rather suspect, and I think most people see it as the contradiction that it is.

Second,saying that Pubbies "just wanted to talk" to Obama about it is like saying they just want to talk about gay marriage. They don't want to talk about it; they want to kill it. And since when do politicians get the opportunity to "talk" about implementation of duly passed laws? Or, should the democrats have said they wanted to delay the Bush tax cuts to "talk" about them? The point is that Pubbies and teatards thought that Obama would cave (just as he did in 2011 and again in 2012) if they held the CR and debt ceiling hostage, and they thought they could extract additional concessions. It was a purely political move.

I'd like to point out once again that Obamacare is controversial and difficult because it is the first step in realigning 20% of our economy. It isn't going to be easy, quick, and painless. There will be winners and losers. Pubbies just want to control who wins and loses, so that they can see that wealthy people win and the rest of us lose.

Back on point, the delay of the employer mandate isn't going to mean the difference between Obamacare working and not. This is an example of one of the tweaks that Congress needs to address, but can't due to Pubbie intransigence. So long as Pubbies and teatards have any power, Congress will not be able to make the adjustments necessary for the ACA to run smoothly. Therefor, it will be a bit rocky to start out, but we will get the problems solved over time. But this is what Pubbies fear, because once it fully kicks in, people are going to like it. And then, Pubbies won't have any wiggle room to tilt the balance towards the wealthy.

by Anonymousreply 1810/19/2013

R18 'Pubbies" and "teatards" makes your argument irrelevant. All that tying for nothing.

by Anonymousreply 1910/20/2013

And yet, R19, you were unable to find a single lie or address a single point that R18 raised.

In short, you lose.

by Anonymousreply 2010/20/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.