Shut 'em Down!

They shouldn't be allowed to purge less profitable consumers while reporting record profits, if that's what you're asking. The insurance companies are now forced to compete for business on a level playing field and they can't deny or drop coverage based on pre-existing conditions. That's a very capitalist approach. Standardizing packages and presentation means that the price they offer is normalized.

Do you have something against "capitalism"?

you're no fun. how else are we supposed to make trillions of dollars!?
stealing wheelchairs from cripples!?

No... we send cripples in wheelchairs to steel from others... noone would ever convict them it's the perfect crime!!!!!

Tea party amendment? C'mon.... Slate's all wrong on this one (as usual).

Vitter’s amendment would do two things. First, the President, Vice President, Cabinet secretaries, and all political appointees—the policymaking agents of the executive branch—would be enrolled in the health insurance exchanges, just like millions of other Americans. Second, Members of Congress and their staffs—including all committee and leadership office staff—would also be enrolled in the health insurance exchanges under the same terms and conditions as other Americans. In other words, Congress and its staff would not get any special subsidies at taxpayer expense for their health insurance.

If congressional staffers get a special subsidy to pay for their premium plan on the exchanges by law and the rest of us don't, they are being treated differently. Where's MY special subsidy? Just because I work in the private sector doesn't mean my employer can just absorb the massive rate hikes that are coming. If they dump coverage for us, there's no guarantee I'll get any "compensation" from him while I search the exchanges for an alternative. I'll be subject to the regulations put forth by law that determine if I am eligible.

Shouldn't congress be subject to the same restrictions the rest of the public would go through, instead of being insulated from it? Why should congress be treated better than the rest of us? Furthermore, why would Democrats choose to shut down the government over it?

The burden has already been shifted to the public in the cost of medical bills or however else they make up for the billions they write off or attempt to collect from the government for people they treat that don't have insurance and have no way to pay for it... I had a buddy that was out of work and lacked insurance living at home and not collecting a government check who got a nasty case of kidney stones... to get treatment for this and spend one night in the hospital it cost about $10,000... How ridiculous is that in the first place lol... as he could not pay it and he owned nothing they could put a lien on well he just walks off lol...

As another example... my pops had a heart problem for a bit... he had gone on a hiking trip and he had an issue with an irregular heartbeat hich cause him distress to the point that he could no longer progress so he was transported to a French hospital... for treatment and a couple of days in the hosptal plus face time with a cardiac surgeon it was about $3,000... It costs more than that to spend the night in most hospitals here lol... and there are doctors across the globe that are just as good or better...

not to mention if you DO have insurance and DO get to stay in the hospital over night its like 50 dollars for bandages,500 dollars for IV's, and if you had a MRI/catscan(I know i just misspelled that...but i digress)/xray its 3000ish dollars each and insurance doesnt pay for all of that so you're left paying 300+ dollars out of pocket for one night and more for anything beyond that. Surgeries are worse, because you have the co-pay+ meds +bandages + IV's + pre-surgery + the surgery itself then the recovery room (depending on the surgery). For someone (me) that has Chronic migraines that sometimes requires hospitalization and being a male 20-something an insurance company prolly wont even come at me with a telephone pole on the preexisting condition alone, then tack on another mile for the social stereotype.

It's a good thing, and the insurance companies didnt like it so they ran to their *** in congress. Thats all. No forced government insurance jumping, no death panels, no economical apocotaco. ***, even the government shutdown nonsense hasnt made the market flinch one bit.Now, if they hold the debt ceiling hostage for Obamacare...THEN we are *** economically. Anyway, if the wage analyst people on all the news outlets are right 800 million people layed off for more than a week will lose us ~1 billion dollars:person:week...so was it really worth the supposed losses of Obamacare?...nevermind itll be over before weeks end so they can say OBamacare cost more to the US economy than the government shutdown.

No negotiations while the gov't is shutdown. Until Boehner passes the clean budget, which he has the votes to do, he is just choosing to shut it all down, just move forward with Obamacare as it is. Continue losing Boehner.

there's a pill for that!

:D

Anytime an industry with insane profit margins hates new legislation, I take it as a sign they're on the right track. Not because I'm a dirty communist, but because historically industry pushback has resulted in more balanced policy that benefits public interest.

You are entitled to a subsidy if your employer does not provide insurance coverage for you. It's kinda how the system works >.> It is not special treatment because congresspeople and staffers would get a subsidy (the same subsidy that is available to other uninsured Americans) since their employer (the federal government) wouldn't be extending them coverage.

The Tea Party is owning this shutdown. No point in spreading this particular brand of dishonesty.

I think this does a good job of explaining a few things about our healthcare and why it's so expensive compared to other places.

CT scans actually run more around 7-10 thousand dollars... here at least... My doctor recomended getting one a few years back and once I scheduled it the hospital clerks called and were all like... "are you sure your insurance carrier covers this? make sure they do because if they don't this procedure is this expensive and such" luckily mine did and covered all but the small $15 deductible...

Despite the fact that the Tea Party is claiming responsibility for the shutdown, their constituents will still blame the Dems for shutting it down. They have to, in order to maintain the track record of always being wrong.

Even if your characterization were accurate, that would only be one small part of what the GOP actually wants wrt the ACA (a year's delay of everything), which is itself only one small part of what the GOP wants in return for passing the budget/debt ceiling. Here's a list (hat tip to Steve Benen)!

-Delayed ACA implementation
-Keystone pipeline
-cut-friendly tax reform
-Medicare means testing
-Medical liability tort reform
-Fed employee pension cuts
-"Changes" to Dodd-Frank
-Removal of some EPA restrictions
-Increased oil drilling
-Eliminating the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
-Eliminating Net Neutrality

Now, a GOP voter might have found himself nodding sagely at the wisdom of each of these demands. But the thing is, this is Mitt Romney's platform, a platform that the American people rejected whether or not the GOP voter thinks they were right to do so.

So, if nothing else, how can you possibly blame the Democrats for the shutdown when the terms by which the GOP will allow it to end amount to a complete repudiation of the last election's results, a reelection the Democrats won handily?

The really hilarious and infuriating thing is that the GOP tax warriors claim they're trying to put more money in the pocket of wage-earning, thrifty bros like myself, but this *** brinksmanship has already cost my investments waaaaaaay more than they'd ever be able to save me in taxes.

The only possible way they could be sincere is if they'd never actually asked a rich person how he got that way.

Boehner's latest plan: Fund parts of gov't then quit working. /decline

Just another example that ACA isn't the solution to lower healthcare costs, just another added cost to the whole medical system.

If you want to lower medical costs for everyone, then don't add additional government mandated fees and taxes to the companies that will just pass the cost to the consumer!

Must've been a while since ive done a scan then :( LAst time i looked with BCBS: F the bill was like 3K :< then again...it was done in Tennessee...so i prolly had a minor dose of radiation poisoning from the 1950's xray machine...

eh, depends on what theyre bitchin about really :<

Why is it a government problem when they pass fees on to the businesses, but it is not a business problem to pass those fees on to the consumer? If the businesses absorbed the costs themselves, how much would it actually hurt them? Drop their profits by 50%? More? Less? Would they ever be willing to have this quarters profits the same as last, or does it always have to keep going up.

If the only companies affected are major corporations, but unfortunately, there are smaller corporations and partnerships out there that these fees will hit also, and don't forget, all levels will be hit with this.

So, ACA is killing smaller businesses in favor of additional revenue. What would happen if this is allowed and the next thing the government must take control of comes to an industry you work for? Are you willing to allow this to happen for the illusion of lower costs?

Plus, the government doesn't have a good track record when it comes to regulations and "preventing certain actions on people's behavior"

In short, assessing fees on certain products to help pay for a flawed system will just create more fees for an even bigger flawed system.

1st if you think you're always entitled to a subsidy, you don't know how it works. You aren't always entitled to a subsidy if your employer cannot provide insurance for you. There is a process which requires "qualification".

2nd, if you get the same subsidy weather you're a congressperson or not, then why do they need there own special subsidy?

3rd, if they get the same thing as the rest of us regardless, then why did the senate reject that proposal? Wouldn't it be meaningless?

4th, the tea party claims responsibility for not funding the ACA, sure. The senate (led by democrats) is the one which is refusing to fund the rest of the government without the ACA as well.

They are refusing to negotiate an act that has been passed and ruled constitutional more than 3 dozen times as a condition for upholding the full faith and credit of the US Government. That's a HUGE distinction from that pile of crap you just posted.

The senate has passed the budget twice, its sitting on Boehner's desk, he has the votes to pass it, whats he waiting on?

Edit - Oh wait nevermind, Boehner tried to pass something, but it failed. Boehner can't even pass his own legislation, talk about incompetence. Just pass the clean budget Boehner, thats your only option.

Refusing to negotiate is not the way you govern in a Republic. It definitely isn't leadership, but why would anyone expect leadership from President Obama?

There is nothing to negotiate, fund the government. The Senate bill is ready to go, and will pass if put to a vote. Nice try tho.

Except Obama himself already unilaterally delayed part of it first when he delayed the employer mandate till after the 2014 midterms.

The current ACA is the result of negotiation.

The full faith and credit of the US government is NOT a bargaining chip, and anyone who is actively seeking a path leading to the US defaulting on it's loans is seeking to do harm to the US and should be considered a traitor, period.

I'm honestly surprised there aren't people with torches and pitchforks marching on the mall.

Which is within his power and discretion to do and it has nothing to do with your participation award view of public policy.

How is it in his power to change the law unilaterally? And why are you OK with that part anyway and not also delaying the individual mandate? You are beyond confused.


And as for not negotiating. If he had the power and he does to pass individual budget items with the Congress and keep the government running then why wouldn't he take that deal if shut down is so horrible? They all agree on funding the government. Why won't they break up the items? Answer: because President Obama and Harry Reid want the government shut down.

Resume partying, looks like Boehner is content to let the gov't stay closed for a while. Despite having enough votes to pass the budget, he is waiting until tomorrow to pass certain parts of gov't funding then quit working. That will last for about one second since the Senate won't even take it up. Try again Boehner. Pass the clean budget, or keep the gov't closed. Its all on you.