How badly has the "Shutdown" hurt you

[Guest123018-4]

I am still receiving approvals for jobs at a government building.
Business as usual.

[i'va biggen]

He is writing for Dear Abby now. Important stuff.

[Shellcracker]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

It isn't hurting the Federal employees that are being furloughed anymore - congress voted 417-0 to grant back pay for days missed! So, they probably want it to continue now!!

The folks that should not get paid are the ones in the Senate and House of Reprentatives, in my humble opinion.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I gave it a three because it is preventing us from talking about important stuff.

Yeah, like Benghazi, socialism and birth certificate conspiracies.

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by CJ7

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-aca-19-times/





Timothy Jost at the Washington and Lee School of Law, pointed to three:

• A one-year delay in requiring firms with over 50 workers to provide insurance
• Scrapping a long-term care insurance program (for nursing home care, for example) called the CLASS Act
• Lifting the requirement on businesses to file a form called a 1099 for a variety of business expenses

The administration acted on its own to delay the employer mandate, explaining that the systems were not in place to implement it. The other two changes came through votes in Congress


you're an idiot

Did you read your own link?? A change is a change, right. Well, your own link says O’BlunderCare has been changed 19 times. Granted, O’Blunder himself may not have made all the changes, but they happened under his administration. And you can bet that any substantive changes were vetted through his minions before allowing them through. Your side seems to be all too willing to give your man a pass when something happens below him. Conversely, Bush had nothing to do with “Mission Accomplished”, for example, but your side continues to put that on him. Good for the goose, etc., etc.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tom Graves says Obama has changed the Affordable Care Act 19 times

The Republican effort to defund Obamacare President threatens a government shutdown at the end of the month. U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., is one lawmaker who believes the dangers of the health care law justify extreme measures.

Over the summer, Graves called the Affordable Care Act "destructive" and a "job killer."
"We need to make every effort to ensure Obamacare is never implemented," he said.

Graves said President Barack Obama’s actions highlight the law’s terminal flaws.

"Something very important has happened since the president did win the election," Graves said on ABC’s This Week. "He himself has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own law. So if it's so good for America, then why he is delaying it for his friends in big business?"

We wondered if in fact, Obama has made that many changes in the law.

Graves’ office pointed us to a letter from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan think tank for Congress. The Congressional Research Service review listed 19 times the Affordable Care Act changed since it was passed in 2010. The report counted 14 public laws and five administrative actions that made a variety of modifications to the law. (14+5=19)

For the record, we note that a dozen of those adjustments took place before the 2012 election, and not after as Graves said. The timing seems less important than the substance of what was done.

Changes to the Affordable Care Act



Some items on the list qualify as significant in the eyes of the health policy experts we contacted. One of the country’s leading authorities on health care law, Timothy Jost at the Washington and Lee School of Law, pointed to three:

• A one-year delay in requiring firms with over 50 workers to provide insurance

Arguably the single most important piece of the funding provisions of O’BlunderCare, O’Blunder delayed this unilaterally. The latest estimate (May, ’13) from the CBO says O’BlunderCare will cost $1.4 trillion, roughly 40% higher than O’Blunder promised initially. That estimate came out prior to the employer mandate being delayed, so presumably that cost number will change dramatically absent the revenues anticipated from employers.

• Scrapping a long-term care insurance program (for nursing home care, for example) called the CLASS Act
• Lifting the requirement on businesses to file a form called a 1099 for a variety of business expenses

The administration acted on its own to delay the employer mandate, explaining that the systems were not in place to implement it. (And the systems are obviously still not in place. The administration refuses to publish numbers on how many people signed up for the coverage, instead focusing on their assertion that the website got 7 million hits over 4 days. That’s 2% in a nation of 300 million people. Hits don’t mean shit, thousands, if not millions, of websites get that many hits every day…how many signed up??) The other two changes came through votes in Congress.


"Congress couldn’t find a way to make the CLASS Act actuarially sound," Jost said, "so they repealed it and put the money elsewhere."

As for the business reporting rule, "businesses said this was a huge burden and Congress responded," Jost said. "There was strong bipartisan support, (This statement destroys any credibility Jost may have. Bipartisan support?? Bullshit. If so, why didn’t O’Blunder put it through Congress for a vote, instead of making the announcement in a news release?? It’s because he knew that if the Republicans had the chance, they would have asked for a delay in the individual mandate then as part of the vote. He wanted the fight we’re in now, revolving around the CR and the debt limit, rather than in the middle of his amateurish bungling of the Syria situation) and you could find the votes to make those sorts of changes."

In addition to those three, a program to create consumer health insurance cooperatives was retained but lost $2.2 billion in funding.

Most of the items on the Congressional Research Service list, however, are less dramatic. Several clarified that certain government health insurance programs would count as coverage under the individual mandate. This included Tricare, which covers the military, and insurance through Veterans Affairs.

Other adjustments extended tax breaks, such as a tax credit for families that adopt a child. There were changes in the Medicaid federal matching formula (to keep money flowing to Louisiana after Katrina), and a tweak to the calculation of income that determines the level of premium subsidies in the insurance exchanges.

Such changes are common in Congress, according to our experts. (So why not allow Congress to work its will on other provisions, like delaying the individual mandate??) "Legislators aren't perfect," said Jost. "They don't get everything right the first time. That’s the nature of the legislative process."

It is also clear that Obama did not drive the majority of the changes. They emerged as Congress worked on various elements of a multi-faceted law. Still, Obama signed off on those changes as part of larger pieces of legislation. (Why didn’t he hold those up?? I’ll tell you why…no political advantage.)

We’ve been here before

Graves’ comments suggest that so many changes to the health care law means it's fundamentally flawed. Actually, major pieces of legislation rarely remain the same as the day the president signs them into law.

The Medicare prescription drug benefit, passed under President George W. Bush, was changed several times after its initial passage. (How many of these changes did Bush stand in the way of?? To the point of shutting down the government…)

Both that law and the recent health care law lay a government program on top of a complex private market system, said Ted Marmor, a professor of health policy at Yale University.

"Patches on a patchwork mean making a coherent quilt very difficult," Marmor said.

Even though the country had about two years to get ready for the Medicare drug program, about the same as with Obamacare, some pieces were not in place when the program launched, said Jack Hoadley, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University.

"States were worried that bunches of people would show up on Jan. 1, 2005, and not be able to get their prescription drugs," Hoadley said. "So some of them started picking up the tab."

Later, Hoadley said, the Bush administration pulled money from another fund to reimburse the states.

The law required insurance plans to set up systems to keep an eye on people who took many different medications. The goal was to make sure the drugs were compatible. The purpose was sensible but as of 2005, the technology wasn’t ready.

"The decision was made that while that requirement was still there, there would be no enforcement until they had time to get things up and running,"(Why won’t O’Blunder agree to the same thing for the individual mandate??) Hoadley said. "It took several years of saying ‘Let’s not focus on this; it’s not the most important thing’."

Our ruling

Graves said Obama "himself has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own law." Based on the analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Graves has the right number. However, he simplifies the way that many of those 19 changes came about, and by doing that, makes it seem as though the president were more directly involved.

Graves cited these changes as evidence that the law is fatally flawed but he glossed over the differences among them. Some of the changes were significant and some were technical or tangential to the health care law itself.

The basic number is right but there are lot of details of details missing from Graves' assertion.
We rate the claim Half True.(I would say mostly true…)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++

Since you’re a fan of Politifact, here’s a link for you to chew on:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/oct/02/10-things-obamacare-supporters-say-arent-entirely-/


What say you??

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Did you read your own link?? A change is a change, right. Well, your own link says O’BlunderCare has been changed 19 times. Granted, O’Blunder himself may not have made all the changes, but they happened under his administration. And you can bet that any substantive changes were vetted through his minions before allowing them through. Your side seems to be all too willing to give your man a pass when something happens below him. Conversely, Bush had nothing to do with “Mission Accomplished”, for example, but your side continues to put that on him. Good for the goose, etc., etc.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom Graves says Obama has changed the Affordable Care Act 19 times
The Republican effort to defund Obamacare President threatens a government shutdown at the end of the month. U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., is one lawmaker who believes the dangers of the health care law justify extreme measures.
Over the summer, Graves called the Affordable Care Act "destructive" and a "job killer."
"We need to make every effort to ensure Obamacare is never implemented," he said.
Graves said President Barack Obama’s actions highlight the law’s terminal flaws.
"Something very important has happened since the president did win the election," Graves said on ABC’s This Week. "He himself has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own law. So if it's so good for America, then why he is delaying it for his friends in big business?"
We wondered if in fact, Obama has made that many changes in the law.
Graves’ office pointed us to a letter from the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan think tank for Congress. The Congressional Research Service review listed 19 times the Affordable Care Act changed since it was passed in 2010. The report counted 14 public laws and five administrative actions that made a variety of modifications to the law. (14+5=19)
For the record, we note that a dozen of those adjustments took place before the 2012 election, and not after as Graves said. The timing seems less important than the substance of what was done.
Changes to the Affordable Care Act


Some items on the list qualify as significant in the eyes of the health policy experts we contacted. One of the country’s leading authorities on health care law, Timothy Jost at the Washington and Lee School of Law, pointed to three:

• A one-year delay in requiring firms with over 50 workers to provide insurance

Arguably the single most important piece of the funding provisions of O’BlunderCare, O’Blunder delayed this unilaterally. The latest estimate (May, ’13) from the CBO says O’BlunderCare will cost $1.4 trillion, roughly 40% higher than O’Blunder promised initially. That estimate came out prior to the employer mandate being delayed, so presumably that cost number will change dramatically absent the revenues anticipated from employers.

• Scrapping a long-term care insurance program (for nursing home care, for example) called the CLASS Act
• Lifting the requirement on businesses to file a form called a 1099 for a variety of business expenses

The administration acted on its own to delay the employer mandate, explaining that the systems were not in place to implement it. (And the systems are obviously still not in place. The administration refuses to publish numbers on how many people signed up for the coverage, instead focusing on their assertion that the website got 7 million hits over 4 days. That’s 2% in a nation of 300 million people. Hits don’t mean shit, thousands, if not millions, of websites get that many hits every day…how many signed up??) The other two changes came through votes in Congress.
"Congress couldn’t find a way to make the CLASS Act actuarially sound," Jost said, "so they repealed it and put the money elsewhere."
As for the business reporting rule, "businesses said this was a huge burden and Congress responded," Jost said. "There was strong bipartisan support, (This statement destroys any credibility Jost may have. Bipartisan support?? Bullshit. If so, why didn’t O’Blunder put it through Congress for a vote, instead of making the announcement in a news release?? It’s because he knew that if the Republicans had the chance, they would have asked for a delay in the individual mandate then as part of the vote. He wanted the fight we’re in now, revolving around the CR and the debt limit, rather than in the middle of his amateurish bungling of the Syria situation) and you could find the votes to make those sorts of changes."
In addition to those three, a program to create consumer health insurance cooperatives was retained but lost $2.2 billion in funding.
Most of the items on the Congressional Research Service list, however, are less dramatic. Several clarified that certain government health insurance programs would count as coverage under the individual mandate. This included Tricare, which covers the military, and insurance through Veterans Affairs.
Other adjustments extended tax breaks, such as a tax credit for families that adopt a child. There were changes in the Medicaid federal matching formula (to keep money flowing to Louisiana after Katrina), and a tweak to the calculation of income that determines the level of premium subsidies in the insurance exchanges.
Such changes are common in Congress, according to our experts. (So why not allow Congress to work its will on other provisions, like delaying the individual mandate??)
"Legislators aren't perfect," said Jost. "They don't get everything right the first time. That’s the nature of the legislative process."
It is also clear that Obama did not drive the majority of the changes. They emerged as Congress worked on various elements of a multi-faceted law. Still, Obama signed off on those changes as part of larger pieces of legislation. (Why didn’t he hold those up?? I’ll tell you why…no political advantage.)
We’ve been here before
Graves’ comments suggest that so many changes to the health care law means it's fundamentally flawed. Actually, major pieces of legislation rarely remain the same as the day the president signs them into law.
The Medicare prescription drug benefit, passed under President George W. Bush, was changed several times after its initial passage. (How many of these changes did Bush stand in the way of?? To the point of shutting down the government…)
Both that law and the recent health care law lay a government program on top of a complex private market system, said Ted Marmor, a professor of health policy at Yale University.
"Patches on a patchwork mean making a coherent quilt very difficult," Marmor said.
Even though the country had about two years to get ready for the Medicare drug program, about the same as with Obamacare, some pieces were not in place when the program launched, said Jack Hoadley, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University.
"States were worried that bunches of people would show up on Jan. 1, 2005, and not be able to get their prescription drugs," Hoadley said. "So some of them started picking up the tab."
Later, Hoadley said, the Bush administration pulled money from another fund to reimburse the states.
The law required insurance plans to set up systems to keep an eye on people who took many different medications. The goal was to make sure the drugs were compatible. The purpose was sensible but as of 2005, the technology wasn’t ready.
"The decision was made that while that requirement was still there, there would be no enforcement until they had time to get things up and running,"(Why won’t O’Blunder agree to the same thing for the individual mandate??)Hoadley said. "It took several years of saying ‘Let’s not focus on this; it’s not the most important thing’."
Our ruling
Graves said Obama "himself has amended, delayed, or repealed 19 components of his very own law." Based on the analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Graves has the right number. However, he simplifies the way that many of those 19 changes came about, and by doing that, makes it seem as though the president were more directly involved.
Graves cited these changes as evidence that the law is fatally flawed but he glossed over the differences among them. Some of the changes were significant and some were technical or tangential to the health care law itself.
The basic number is right but there are lot of details of details missing from Graves' assertion.
We rate the claim Half True.(I would say mostly true…)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since you’re a fan of Politifact, here’s a link for you to chew on:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/oct/02/10-things-obamacare-supporters-say-arent-entirely-/
What say you??

sure I read it, I posted it ... did you read the part about your LIE ?,





Big Sandy Boy

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

I answered what the stupidly worded poll asked.

It has not effected me personally.

But your question is like me asking you a yes/no question to : gnadfly, have you stopped beating your wife?

Questions like yours are meant for political hacks, not to foster real debate. You are not a very smart man if you think this shutdown could do harm if it drug on for months. That is why you do not want discussion , it would bust your premise that the shutdown is not hurting anybody. Maybe we can get some 92 year old vets answer the question. Call up Dear Abby and see if she will do that for JD, her loyal long time reader.

Gawd, more demonstration of a lack of reading comprehension and ability to draw conclusions. Then you throw in mis-characterized bullshit scenarios to protect your fragile ego. Priceless.

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by CJ7

sure I read it, I posted it ... did you read the part about your LIE ?,


Big Sandy Boy

No rebuttal, just more name-calling...typical.

FYI, I have actually been out to Big Sandy. Little town in East Texas in the Tyler/Longview area. Had a re-entry well there about 10 years ago. Fine folks out there. Thanks!!

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by WTF

Let us read it in context. So in context do you believe that the shutdown is not hurting some folks? If so you are ignorant of the facts.

You do understand EXTEXOILMAN that there are many things that you are ignorant of , just as I am . So for one to call someone ignorant without context is just ignorant. Why you might ask? Because the person you called ignorant is more versed than you in any number of things. In our case, clearly you are not versed in factual politics. You are very ignorant in the political process.

Okay, so you're contextually ignorant. I can go with that. Thanks for the clarification.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

No rebuttal, just more name-calling...typical.

FYI, I have actually been out to Big Sandy. Little town in East Texas in the Tyler/Longview area. Had a re-entry well there about 10 years ago. Fine folks out there. Thanks!!

the rebuttal is in the politifact article that said half true... you claim Obama changed the law , but ... the article states

It is also clear that Obama did not drive the majority of the changes. They emerged as Congress worked on various elements of a multi-faceted law. Still, as part of larger pieces of legislation.

then you deem the article as mostly true ... so which is it?

[EXTXOILMAN]

Originally Posted by CJ7

the rebuttal is in the politifact article that said half true... you claim Obama changed the law , but ... the article states

It is also clear that Obama did not drive the majority of the changes. They emerged as Congress worked on various elements of a multi-faceted law. Still, Obama signed off on those changes as part of larger pieces of legislation. Fixed that for you. Nice cherry-picking. Interesting how you skipped right over that part of the sentence. But I won't ascribe any ill intent to it, I'll let others do that.


then you deem the article as mostly true ... so which is it? Nope, I deemed Rep. Graves' claim as mostly true, not the article, which called his claim half true.

Alright, I'm all done with this one. I'm going to continue fighting for what's best for the country, and you'll keep worshiping at the feet of O'Blunder. Those two positions are diametrically opposed. But thanks for not calling me a name this last time, very refreshing...feel better now??

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Alright, I'm all done with this one. I'm going to continue fighting for what's best for the country, and you'll keep worshiping at the feet of O'Blunder. Those two positions are diametrically opposed. But thanks for not calling me a name this last time, very refreshing...feel better now??

laying the blame on Obie for everything that goes on in the world isn't doing what's best for the country , just because I point out your blind partisanship, and hate for the guy doesn't mean I worship at his feet. I worship at no mans feet ... actually, I feel a little worse just knowing how many people there are just like you in this country .. Big Sandy, notwithstanding

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Gawd, more demonstration of a lack of reading comprehension and ability to draw conclusions. Then you throw in mis-characterized bullshit scenarios to protect your fragile ego. Priceless.

If you would pull that dick outta your ass maybe you could think straight.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Okay, so you're contextually ignorant. I can go with that. Thanks for the clarification.

Contextually....
When did you quit being gay?

[IIFFOFRDB]

20 votes for "what shut down"...74%...LOL