The birthplace of the Constitution is going to save the day!

[FuriousXGeorge]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...,5062005.story

In February 1860, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at New York's Cooper Union that many historians believe catapulted him onto the national stage and into the presidency. It may even be more pertinent today for what he said about intransigent political blocs.

A few excerpts:

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. [...]

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action?

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" [...]

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper.

[Eagle Road]

[QUOTE=Maniac;1721305]Actuarially, it doesn't work at an affordable level if everyone isn't buying coverage. And no matter how young or healthy you are, you never when you going to break your leg. For a single twenty-something, it's not all that much more than car insurance.


EXACTLY MY POINT, so why are some people, organizations and corporations exempt? ESP. since the people that pushed for this, "UNIONS" are now exempt, it makes NO SENSE.

So just like tjl88 said,

The republicans offered to pass everything as long as special exemptions were taken out. Why didn't that pass? Why are there any waivers?

THIS is why I said BOTH sides are at fault.

The bigger picture that some here are refusing to recognize because of party affiliation, that this is the beginning of an elite ruling society structure, it goes against every principal this country was founded on.

[necrandall]

PLEASE

Everyone! The government is a shambles and a joke. No real compromise has happened for years and the two parties are completely polarized. As is our nation. I am a tried and true republican and I am sick over ALL of the politicians and how they are conducting business. Deceptive liars... the whole lot... more worried about re-election than what is best for our country. Each party pulls a power play whenever they can to try and sway public opinion... it's all about elections... PERIOD. Dispicable...

[TerpEagle]

OK, I'll try this one last time, so you believe that it is perfectly fine for possibly as few as one person, alone, could make a change to a law that would affect huge numbers of the general pop. without due process?

So if tom, the WH said, also exempt from ACA is everyone born on a wed. or a rainy day or Aug. 4th is exempt?


That is a pretty damn slippery slope, personally, I really don't have a problem with a national health care system, I don't like someone telling me I HAVE to.

I'll go one further, IF EVERYONE was included in the SAME plan, I would not be nearly so belligerent about it, but as it is now, I feel as though I am being portrayed as a lesser person, at least when compared to exempted parties.

Hopefully that will help you understand my viewpoint, I'm not unreasonable, I just want a LEVEL playing field.

Had Romney won instead of Obama and Congress had been unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act - how would you feel if he took it upon himself to manipulate the law as he saw fit - for the good of the American people.

[Eagle Road]

Had Romney won instead of Obama and Congress had been unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act - how would you feel if he took it upon himself to manipulate the law as he saw fit - for the good of the American people.

First of all, think about what you just wrote, "change the law for the good of the American people" says who? that is your opinion only, not everyone feels that way.

I would feel the same way, what is wrong, is wrong, I don't care if it was the Pope changing things in midstream.

Just so you know, you should refrain from painting me with such a wide brush, I was not a Romney supporter.

Now, back to the question at hand, WHY should anyone be exempt? Why if that was the only thing the R's said they wanted to make an agreement wouldn't the Senate agree?

[Maniac]

The republicans offered to pass everything as long as special exemptions were taken out. Why didn't that pass? Why are there any waivers?[/B]

I think you have a lot of mangled information but in any case you don't shut down the government to change a law you don't like. That's a path to anarchy. We could all make up a list of laws we don't like.

By the way, Congress is not getting an exemption from Obamacare. They must go into the exchange. The issue is a premium subsidy which many large employers provide. Also large groups of 100+ like the federal government aren't allowed to join the exchange till 2017 which muddles the situation more. It's basically a deep weeds issue the Republicans are using as disinformation by implying Congress gets an exemption - when actually Congress passed an amendment specifically requiring they join the exchange.

[Eagle Road]

[QUOTE=Maniac;1721336]I think you have a lot of mangled information but in any case you don't shut down the government to change a law you don't like. That's a path to anarchy. We could all make up a list of laws we don't like.

Do you guys read what is typed? I didn't say what was bolded, that was a qoute from tjl88, I realize it may not be total correct, but it does address the jist of the issue, I included it "as written" as I wasn't going to change someone else's quote.

So, let me get what you are saying straight, it's OK for one side to change the law, (as in we make it up as we go) but it's not OK for the other side to change it? (as in this is what was promised, it's not happening like that)

As far as being muddled, who's fault is that, who wrote the damn thing, AND made it, HOW MANY PAGES?

Some of you are missing the real point behind this, mark my words, within 5 years ACA will be shown to be failing, at which point the American people will be pushed into a single payer health care system.

So in other words, you, me, and everyone else that is not exempted will have to pay a "fee" directly to the government, which will take private insurance out of the equation, the Government will then decide who gets what when.

How many completely successful Gov. programs that are self sustaining can you name?

[Maniac]

It does not address the gist of the issue and it is fallacious. Congress voted to amend the law to ADD themselves to Obamacare not exempt themselves. As a large group employer, they would not have normally been eligible until 2017.

It's okay for anyone to amend the law if they have the votes to clear Congress and a veto if necessary. The tea partiers don't have them.

The premium subsidy - which most large employers have always offered - goes to the insurance companies not the government.

The law didn't muddle this. Someone lied and called a premium contribution an exemption.

Governments are not intended to be self-sustaining enterprises. That question doesn't make sense.

I dont see any path to a single payer system in our lifetime unless all the heath insurance companies merge. ACA is a framework not an insurance program.

[Eagle Road]

It does not address the gist of the issue and it is fallacious. Congress voted to amend the law to ADD themselves to Obamacare not exempt themselves. As a large group employer, they would not have normally been eligible until 2017.

It's okay for anyone to amend the law if they have the votes to clear Congress and a veto if necessary. The tea partiers don't have them.

The premium subsidy - which most large employers have always offered - goes to the insurance companies not the government.

The law didn't muddle this. Someone lied and called a premium contribution an exemption.

Governments are not intended to be self-sustaining enterprises. That question doesn't make sense.

I dont see any path to a single payer system in our lifetime unless all the heath insurance companies merge. ACA is a framework not an insurance program.

Please show me, anywhere in this ENTIRE thread, where I specifically said Congress was exempt, or exempted themselves, from the exchanges, I listed, unions, corporations and other individuals.

Furthermore, the ACA law states that single persons OVER 40K a year and couples OVER 96K are not eligible for subsidies.

Congress is paid 174,000 per year, and are getting a subsidy for 75% of the cost of insurance, last I knew, 174,000k was greater than 40k.

[TerpEagle]

Please show me, anywhere in this ENTIRE thread, where I specifically said Congress was exempt, or exempted themselves, from the exchanges, I listed, unions, corporations and other individuals.

Furthermore, the ACA law states that single persons OVER 40K a year and couples OVER 96K are not eligible for subsidies.

Congress is paid 174,000 per year, and are getting a subsidy for 75% of the cost of insurance, last I knew, 174,000k was greater than 40k.

Most of the arguments for these subsidies is not directed at elected members of Congress but rather their staff who are paid significantly less.

[Eagle Road]

Most of the arguments for these subsidies is not directed at elected members of Congress but rather their staff who are paid significantly less.

True, but I'm sure they are still over 40,000

[T.D-Bag]

The republicans offered to pass everything as long as special exemptions were taken out. Why didn't that pass? Why are there any waivers?

THIS is why I said BOTH sides are at fault.

..... and You don't see that as hostage taking??
Overturn the law through the legislative process if you can, doing it otherwise is borderline Seditious. Blaming both sides here is ludicrous

[Maniac]

Please show me, anywhere in this ENTIRE thread, where I specifically said Congress was exempt, or exempted themselves, from the exchanges, I listed, unions, corporations and other individuals.

Furthermore, the ACA law states that single persons OVER 40K a year and couples OVER 96K are not eligible for subsidies.

Congress is paid 174,000 per year, and are getting a subsidy for 75% of the cost of insurance, last I knew, 174,000k was greater than 40k.

You also listed Congress and the White House. You can read back yourself.

Congress is not getting a government subsidy based on low income. They are getting an employer contribution just like many others in the private sector over the subsidy threshold. Apples and oranges.

The White House also rejected the unions request for premium subsidies on their Taft-Hartley plan. The AFL-CIO was not pleased.

I think your case against ACA is weak and based on a lot of misinformation but the unacceptable issue for me is using government shutdown and default as a negotiating strategy.

[Eagle Road]

You also listed Congress and the White House. You can read back yourself.

In bold is what I said,

While were at it, one more, WHY, should not everyone, unions, large corps, the Congress and the WH have to abide by the same "law"? Who is Congress to decide who pays this TAX and who doesn't.

Congress is not getting a government subsidy based on low income. They are getting an employer contribution just like many others in the private sector over the subsidy threshold. Apples and oranges.

The White House also rejected the unions request for premium subsidies on their Taft-Hartley plan. The AFL-CIO was not pleased.

I think your case against ACA is weak and based on a lot of misinformation but the unacceptable issue for me is using government shutdown and default as a negotiating strategy.

My case against ACA is this, I have always been self-employed, (35 years anyway) and I have always paid my own way.

For as long as I can remember we have had the same BC/BS premium policy, it was expensive, but I thought worth it.

A couple of years ago, my wife was diagnosed with early stage MS, the drugs she takes to keep this at bay, are to say the least, crazy expensive, probably more than most people on here take home a month.

Now I get a letter telling me that because of some changes and the ACA program, that BC/BS will no longer offer this type of protection.

I have a friend who is in a similar situation, their LI has MORE than doubled, show me where ACA, and the coming changes are going to be a good thing for me?

[Eagle Road]

..... and You don't see that as hostage taking??
Overturn the law through the legislative process if you can, doing it otherwise is borderline Seditious. Blaming both sides here is ludicrous

I see that for what it is, a negotiation.