Who do you support for Governor in Pe...
ACA

West Mifflin, PA

#50583 Jul 2, 2013
In a policy debate, it can be helpful to clarify what each side's claims are. Doing so makes it easier to see whose predictions are ultimately borne out by reality, or at least which parts of divergent expectations prove most accurate. It also makes it harder for people to conveniently claim after the fact that what is occurring was what they were predicting all along.

We're seeing that already from supporters of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. At first, their assertion was that the law would make health care, well, as the name implies, more affordable. Insurance premiums were supposed to come down, and overall expenditures on medical treatment were supposed to decline as people gained access to "preventive" services.

Over time, as rubber has met road and more evidence has pointed toward an increase rather than a decrease in health care costs, Obamacare proponents have quietly begun a major bait and switch. Once certain the law would lead to across-the-board reductions in insurance premiums ("We estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year," quoth then Senator Barack Obama), today they argue that the purpose of the law was never to make health insurance cheaper for everyone.

Instead, they say, the ACA was meant to broaden the swath of Americans who could access health care by prohibiting insurance companies from turning away or charging more to people who are sick. And if some people have to pay more than they otherwise would, it's OK, because they'll also be getting more in the form of benefits they don't want!

Needless to say, ACA opponents' concerns have not been assuaged by this seventh-inning copout. Yet there's still plenty of time for either side to be proven wrong. Many key pieces of the legislation won't go into effect until the beginning of 2014, and even then, prices could take time to settle into their new equilibria. A fair assessment will be the one we can only make two or three or four years down the road, after the policies enacted have had the chance to bring about– or not– the outcomes promised by their supporters.

Until then, I think it worth stating plainly what Obamacare opponents like myself actually see coming. This establishes a fair yard stick for measuring the correctness of our predictions and makes it harder for the other side to decide on our behalves what we "really thought would happen." (It also gives them a petard with which to hoist us if we turn out to be wrong.)

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50584 Jul 2, 2013
ACA wrote:
In a policy debate, it can be helpful to clarify what each side's claims are. Doing so makes it easier to see whose predictions are ultimately borne out by reality, or at least which parts of divergent expectations prove most accurate. It also makes it harder for people to conveniently claim after the fact that what is occurring was what they were predicting all along.
We're seeing that already from supporters of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. At first, their assertion was that the law would make health care, well, as the name implies, more affordable. Insurance premiums were supposed to come down, and overall expenditures on medical treatment were supposed to decline as people gained access to "preventive" services.
Over time, as rubber has met road and more evidence has pointed toward an increase rather than a decrease in health care costs, Obamacare proponents have quietly begun a major bait and switch. Once certain the law would lead to across-the-board reductions in insurance premiums ("We estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year," quoth then Senator Barack Obama), today they argue that the purpose of the law was never to make health insurance cheaper for everyone.
Instead, they say, the ACA was meant to broaden the swath of Americans who could access health care by prohibiting insurance companies from turning away or charging more to people who are sick. And if some people have to pay more than they otherwise would, it's OK, because they'll also be getting more in the form of benefits they don't want!
Needless to say, ACA opponents' concerns have not been assuaged by this seventh-inning copout. Yet there's still plenty of time for either side to be proven wrong. Many key pieces of the legislation won't go into effect until the beginning of 2014, and even then, prices could take time to settle into their new equilibria. A fair assessment will be the one we can only make two or three or four years down the road, after the policies enacted have had the chance to bring about– or not– the outcomes promised by their supporters.
Until then, I think it worth stating plainly what Obamacare opponents like myself actually see coming. This establishes a fair yard stick for measuring the correctness of our predictions and makes it harder for the other side to decide on our behalves what we "really thought would happen." (It also gives them a petard with which to hoist us if we turn out to be wrong.)
Of course as Republicans attempt to undermine the ACA a thousand different ways (denying funding to key components, refusing to implement Medicare initiatives, undermine enforcement efforts, spreading objectively false propaganda about the law, etc.) the outcomes become more and more compromised.

When the law was passed, Democrats acknowledged that there were lots of flaws in the law as a result of attempts to compromise with opponents. A reasonable Congress would address those individual flaws to make the law a good as possible. But, since we don't have a reasonable Congress, what has happened instead is that the GOP has exploited and exacerbated those flaws to undermine the law.

As a result, whatever attempts at measuring the law's success will be compromised by GOP sabotage. Several years down the road, every failure will be pointed to as proof opponents were right all along, when in fact they were the ones who caused those failures.

Since: Jun 08

Not Waynesboro or Hagerstown

#50585 Jul 2, 2013
How could they admit flaws on a bill that they never read?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50586 Jul 2, 2013
GenPatton wrote:
How could they admit flaws on a bill that they never read?
It was actually Justice Scalia who said he couldn't be bothered to read the law, not Democrats.

----------

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?(Laughter.) And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
ACA

West Mifflin, PA

#50588 Jul 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
It was actually Justice Scalia who said he couldn't be bothered to read the law, not Democrats.
----------
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?(Laughter.) And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
And he voted against it..whats your point? Was he speaking for everyone or just making a general statement? It's the same in congress when BIG bills are put to vote some thousands of pages long, each and everyone doesnt read all the crap. They have lawyers and accountants and people working before them that are suppose to read through all the garbage. The Supreme court judges are no different. Dont blame one judge ,blame the system on both sides.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50589 Jul 2, 2013
ACA wrote:
<quoted text>And he voted against it..whats your point? Was he speaking for everyone or just making a general statement? It's the same in congress when BIG bills are put to vote some thousands of pages long, each and everyone doesnt read all the crap. They have lawyers and accountants and people working before them that are suppose to read through all the garbage. The Supreme court judges are no different. Dont blame one judge ,blame the system on both sides.
So you agree that the whole "they didn't read it" charge is nonsense. Of course the bill was read, just maybe by staff and not the congressmen themselves.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#50590 Jul 2, 2013
GenPatton wrote:
<quoted text>
Cradle to grave?
Does that come with a free cellphone, car and kool cigarettes?
I was in the mood for a joke, but then I lost it - you're implying healthcare isn't a human right. I think it is. I'll never understand how Christians, of all groups, are the biggest opponents of healthcare to millions of Americans who don't have it - and die, daily, because of it.

But denying healthcare to those who need it most isn't a Christian ideology - it's a right-wing ideology. But I guess you can't be one and not the other these days, right?
Ted

Johnstown, PA

#50591 Jul 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree that the whole "they didn't read it" charge is nonsense. Of course the bill was read, just maybe by staff and not the congressmen themselves.
!LOL!: "So you agree that the whole "they didn't read it" charge is nonsense."

Is there ANYthing you WON'T lie about, Lil danny BOY?

How typically dishonest of you to obfuscate the understandable embarrassment of legislators voting on bills they've not read. Who had time to read that 1000 page cobbled mess in three days? LOL

"Senator Max Baucus, one author of Obamacare and one of its biggest proponents, admitted in 2010 that he never read the bill. He said that reading the bill would be a waste of his time. Now, Baucus, "a key architect of the healthcare reform law," warns that implementing Obamacare will cause a huge train wreck."

Of course there's also Pelosi's infamous remark, "But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”

Still the same Lil danny BOY: plagiarist, racist, pathological liar.
bobby6464

Portland, OR

#50592 Jul 2, 2013
BEAVERTON OR.. REALLY? At least you know Oregon will never buy tea bag dreams

Since: Jun 08

Not Waynesboro or Hagerstown

#50593 Jul 2, 2013
Effington wrote:
<quoted text>
I was in the mood for a joke, but then I lost it - you're implying healthcare isn't a human right. I think it is. I'll never understand how Christians, of all groups, are the biggest opponents of healthcare to millions of Americans who don't have it - and die, daily, because of it.
But denying healthcare to those who need it most isn't a Christian ideology - it's a right-wing ideology. But I guess you can't be one and not the other these days, right?
It is a human right, a right of every human to take care of themselves and do the right thing, not uncle sugar. I'll get you a box so you can come down off your high horse.
bobby6464

Portland, OR

#50594 Jul 2, 2013
General, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black? Your the one trying to mandate every one live according to your version of the bible. Go vote to take a woman's rights away
Ted

Johnstown, PA

#50595 Jul 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Rates will go up for SOME people. Overall the ACA will cost Americans less and reduce the deficit.
And you are ALREADY supporting those who pay nothing. People who don't take responsibility and buy health insurance cost the rest of us about $50 billion a year.
!LOL!

danny BOY, do you never tire of being a liar?

Servile Obama chumps are saying that "Overall the ACA will cost Americans less and reduce the deficit." Honest Americans know better.

Eight years of presidency and Obama's signature piece of legislation unfortunately will result in the dismantling and degradation of America's formerly great health care system. How soon before it's Bush's fault?

Lil danny BOY: minion, racist, pathological liar.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50596 Jul 2, 2013
GenPatton wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a human right, a right of every human to take care of themselves and do the right thing, not uncle sugar. I'll get you a box so you can come down off your high horse.
It is the Constitutional role of the government to protect our unalienable human rights. It's not about "uncle sugar." It's about justice.

But obviously you're unfamiliar with those concepts since your guiding principle is personal selfishness, self-righteous, and judgmental condemnation of those you judge to be inferior.

What was that verse you quoted from Jesus? You know, the one where he harshly criticized your fellow Pharisees? He was talking to YOU.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50598 Jul 2, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
Obama allows armed foreign troops in America
As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide “security at mass events” in the United States, a scenario that won’t sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil.
According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations.
In addition to agreeing with FEMA to “exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters,” the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing “security at mass events” in the United States.
This suggests that events designated as “National Special Security Events” by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security.
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS...
You missed these two paragraphs...

"Concerns about foreign troops being used on US soil have lingered ever since the release of State Department Publication 7277, which is a blueprint for the harmonization of US and Russian forces under a framework of United Nations-led global government.

Back in 2008 it was also reported that US and Canadian authorities had signed an agreement that would pave the way to using each other’s militaries on both sides of the border “during an emergency”."

When was "State Department Publication 7277 released? 1961. Is Obama to blame for that?

Who was President in 2008 when the agreement was signed with Canada? Is Obama responsible for that too?

This article is so packed full of nationalistic paranoia and hysterical fearmongering, it's impossible to tell what the truth actually is. There's no reason for rational, intelligent people to take it seriously.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50599 Jul 2, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
Obama allows armed foreign troops in America
As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide “security at mass events” in the United States, a scenario that won’t sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil.
According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations.
In addition to agreeing with FEMA to “exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters,” the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing “security at mass events” in the United States.
This suggests that events designated as “National Special Security Events” by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security.
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS...
Interesting.

If you read the actual Russian press release, it doesn't say ANYTHING about foreign troops on American soil.

----------

Several documents signed during joint work of Russian Emergency Ministry and FEMA

he Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June.

The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices.

In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events.

At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters.

----------

It requires a fearful and paranoid imagination to draw the conclusions your rightwing extremist site.
America deserves to fail

Lehighton, PA

#50600 Jul 2, 2013
LOL
xfactor

Mars, PA

#50601 Jul 2, 2013
income tax is a penalty for working

ACA is a power grab using left cover by the multinational megabank owned and operated corporations, cronies will get rich -> just like all the 'GREEN' scams

sovereign nations and rugged individualism are a threat to the elite, the Federal Reserve banking system has hijacked this country under the disguise of a two headed one controlled party left/right paradigm

things which were 'conspiracy' are now main stream - NSA government spying - more will follow

people are waking up - yes they are

and the left paradigm low grade morons are still worshiping their false idol
xfactor

Mars, PA

#50602 Jul 2, 2013
‘Not One Dime’: Health Care Law Projected to Add $6.2 Trillion to U.S. Deficit

http://www.american.com/archive/2013/march/no...
Lou Tullio

Mansfield, OH

#50603 Jul 2, 2013
Hello Crosby.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50604 Jul 2, 2013
xfactor wrote:
‘Not One Dime’: Health Care Law Projected to Add $6.2 Trillion to U.S. Deficit
http://www.american.com/archive/2013/march/no...
LOL! You didn't read the report, did you?

The only way the ACA adds to the deficit is under the so-called “alternative fiscal scenario" where all the cost containment measures withing the ACA are eliminated.

If the ACA is implemented AS IS under current law it will REDUCE the deficit.

In other words - the only way to arrive at the number you're reporting is for the GOP to gut the ACA. So if that happens, it's because Republicans MADE it happen.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Morgantown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Puppy Mill?? Aug 25 Lovaldgs 5
Vandalism in Elverson 7/2/15 Jul '15 dogwalker 5
Dunkin Donuts in Morgantown (Aug '11) Jul '15 Common Sense 21
Walmart! Jun '15 bikerchick 1
News 'Puppy Mill' Crackdown with Arrest Made (Jan '07) Jun '15 Lovaldgs 276
Puppy Mill??? Jun '15 Lovaldgs 2
Puppy mill?? (Feb '13) Mar '15 Lovaldgs 15
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Morgantown Mortgages