TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

Vol Texan wrote: I don't care even if it did reduce our costs - it is a BAD THING that the government is taking over. Remember, a government that is strong enough to give you everything is also strong enough to take it away.

That is a point of view that I can understand.

The alternative is "do nothing". The course of doing nothing leaves the vast majority of Americans on a track that would mean they can't afford to be old or sick, unless they're substantially wealthy. There would be mass migration to Canada... :-)

cb1000rider,

From reading a number of your postings, it appears that you are supportive of (or at least tolerant of) Obamacare. As I'm sure that you're aware, the one thing that a great number of this board's contributors agree on (other than our love of the 2nd Amendment) is our utter disgust for the poorly named 'Affordable Care Act'. As this abomination nears (and passes) the date of implementation, our tempers will rise exponentially, and our tolerance for Obamacare (and supporters of Obamacare) will likely grow thin.

I'm reminded of a quote from our own TAM on another thread:

The Annoyed Man wrote:That said, I would not likely knowingly advance someone whose political activities I knew to be contrary to the best interests of my business, regardless of how unfair that might be to some. If I had knowledge of someone's personal political choices being destructive to my business, I could not in good conscience promote such a person, no matter how well they performed their duties while at work, because their ultimate interests are destructive of my own..........which is why it is best for employees to not talk about politics at work. I'm not saying that I would forbid employees to talk about politics on their own time....lunch breaks, etc.......I'm just saying that I would incorporate the things they say into my opinion about their intelligence, reliability, and dedication; and that might have a negative impact on whether or not I would consider them for advancement.

While this forum is not a workplace, some of his conclusions still apply. I do hope that this board remains civil, as it's one of the best-run forums out on the web (I run one for our HOA, and it's a challenge keeping it sane even when we're neighbors in the same subdivision). But civility and acceptance may be hard to come by as the weeks and months progress. I hope you'll be understanding if others on the board become less civil (or less conversational) with you on this topic. I, for one, will adopt the latter of those two, in part due to the reasons expressed by TAM above.

I relish a good debate as well as anyone, but there are some discussions I won't undertake. For instance, I love to compare / contrast my own Roman Catholic faith with my friends who are Buddhist, etc., but I won't even enter the conversation with someone who thinks all Christians need to die immediately. I enjoy discussing guns with friends who are unsure of their stance, but I won't waste my breath on anyone who insists that all guns are bad, and full gun confiscation is the only answer. Likewise, I won't waste my time discussing Obamacare (which I personally believe to be the equivalent of stage 4 pancreatic cancer on our country's - and my personal - fiscal health) with anyone who continually finds the 'good things' about it.

Why so harsh? I believe any good debate has the potential for us to reach a common ground - some sort of compromise, can be reached. However, in each example above, the gap in our beliefs is just too far, and I'm not willing to take even one step to try to bridge it. Therefore, there is no need to even enter the conversation.

Thanks for taking the time to read to the bottom of this.

cb1000rider wrote:This "exempt" thing seems to be a common not-so-truth.. My die hard Republican mother-in-law said the same thing to me "They're exempt".

Turns out, they're not exempt. We all believe it on face value.
Congress isn't any more exempt than anyone else is with employer sponsored health care... See the CNN fact check:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... obamacare/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not required to purchase on the exchanges.. Neither is congress.

They may not be fully exempt, but they don't have to eat the bitter pill that ALL of the rest of us have to. Their employer has unlimited funds (our tax money) and will gladly pay to cover a significant amount of their costs.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... -john-fund

In 2009, Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) decided that the principle deserved to be embedded in Obamacare, and he was able to insert a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staffs to get insurance through the Obamacare health exchanges. “The more that Congress experiences the laws it passes, the better,” said Grassley. Although his amendment was watered down before final passage to exclude committee staff, it still applies to members of Congress and their personal staffs. Most employment lawyers interpreted that to mean that the taxpayer-funded federal health-insurance subsidies dispensed to those on Congress’s payroll — which now range from $5,000 to $11,000 a year — would have to end.

Democratic and Republican staffers alike were furious, warning that Congress faced a “brain drain” if the provision stuck. Under behind-the-scenes pressure from members of Congress in both parties, President Obama used the quiet of the August recess to personally order the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises federal employment issues, to interpret the law so as to retain the generous congressional benefits.

OPM had previously balked at issuing such a ruling. Even without OPM, Congress could have voted to restore the subsidies or ordered a salary raise to compensate for the loss of benefits, but that would have been a messy, public process, which everyone wanted to avoid.

Senator Vitter says the OPM ruling has removed “the sting of Obamacare” from Congress.

cb1000rider wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:...while the net effect for people like me is that we get to support the system through our fines, without being able to afford the system's "benefits."

The system is setup to help those who live on government subsidies at the expense of all of the rest of us.. It punishes (fines) those that "can" afford the premiums, but "choose" not to. Notice the quotes, because if the premiums aren't public, no way to tell who can / can't afford them.

I assume you're indicating that there was a big miscalculation...

I can't look back. Prior to Obamacare wasn't sustainable either. I'm just looking for a way forward. Obamacare happens to tax the "producers" to pay for the "parasites" and "moochers" (to use Ayn Rand's words). That's socialist. It's also ethical and perhaps not very American.

There, I fixed it for you.. There is nothing but evil in this law. I don't care even if it did reduce our costs - it is a BAD THING that the government is taking over. Remember, a government that is strong enough to give you everything is also strong enough to take it away.

gthaustex wrote:Everyone is talking about their premiums going up. That is just the insurance side of it. Wait until we all get hit with higher federal taxes as well to help fund the inevitable shortfalls I see in the future...medicaid, medicare, social security....ring any bells. Higher taxes, higher premiums and lower benefits is the only way to balance out all the costs it seems to me.

Somewhere, Jimmy Carter is smiling, knowing that soon he'll be known as the '2nd worst'...

mojo84 wrote:In the short term, some will benefit, especially those that are older and/or with serious chronic health conditions. Long term, all will pay the price. Most of those that pushed for Obamacare and supported it the most vigorously are the ones that will feel the sting the worst.

mojo,

I appreciate and respect the fact that you try to find a silver lining, but I guess I'm just not that gracious. I refuse to believe that there is anything but contempt for the American people in the entirety of this travesty of a law, and believe that it fully demonstrates the evil that exists in the left wing of American politics.

The sooner that obamacare is gone, the better. Until then, it will be a pestilence upon our land.

You were right - in the long term, all will pay the price.