Obamacare delayed- To help elect democrats

[Jhhnn]

how did I get what I wanted?


And how is this NOT Obamas fault?

Its his bill. And he is the one making the call to delay his masterpiece.


Are you on the left this delusional.

So, uhh, you'd have preferred that they not push back the deadline, or what?

 

[Double Trouble]

Yup. Obamacare requiring businesses to provide health insurance is an outrage! because it harms business. But when they decide to give it another year to minimize any harm and disruption it may cause, it's still an outrage! Ah, the wonderful world of right wing doublethink.

It would not be an outrage if the delay was to give another year to minimize harm and disruption, but it's abundantly clear the delay is political tool to reduce negative fallout for Democrats. If healthcare reform was so absolutely critical as we were told when it was being shoved down our throats, then there is no justification for now delaying it by another year for political expedience.

 

[Double Trouble]

So, uhh, you'd have preferred that they not push back the deadline, or what?

Personally I would prefer no Obamacare at all, but that's water under the bridge. I don't object to a delay if needed to avoid serious negative impact to the populace, but I am disgusted by a delay that looks to be a purely political ploy.

 

[woolfe9998]

It would not be an outrage if the delay was to give another year to minimize harm and disruption, but it's abundantly clear the delay is political tool to reduce negative fallout for Democrats. If healthcare reform was so absolutely critical as we were told when it was being shoved down our throats, then there is no justification for now delaying it by another year for political expedience.

Actually, technically you do not know the true motive. It might be purely political or could be some of both. Either way, the motive is irrelevant. If you in fact believe it is disruptive to business, you should be happy about the delay, regardless of why they're doing it. Does it matter that politicians may sometimes do the right thing for the wrong reasons? I don't see why it should, unless you yourself are only concerned about electoral politics and not the issues themselves, which would mean you are no different than you claim they are.

Elected officials do things people want because they want to be re-elected. This isn't news. It's the exact premise of democracy.

 

[Double Trouble]

Actually, technically you do not know the true motive. It might be purely political or could be some of both. Either way, the motive is irrelevant. If you in fact believe it is disruptive to business, you should be happy about the delay, regardless of why they're doing it. Does it matter that politicians may sometimes do the right thing for the wrong reasons? I don't see why it should, unless you yourself are only concerned about electoral politics and not the issues themselves, which would mean you are no different than you claim they are.

I might not have 100% absolute certainty on the motive, but I have enough information to conclude that it is very likely a political ploy. The implementation date was not a surprise to anyone.

The motive is relevant. Delaying the negative impact helps shield us from Obamacare for another year, but it prevents the public from realizing the negative impact is has and taking appropriate action through elections. I'd rather have earlier impact so the voters can express their satisfaction at the poll rather than a year of delay followed by negative impact without an election for the public to take appropriate action. Short term pain, long term gain.

 

[Double Trouble]

Elected officials do things people want because they want to be re-elected. This isn't news. It's the exact premise of democracy.

In this case the elected officials are trying to protect themselves from the judgement of the voters by changing the implementation date such that the damage doesn't occur to close to the election. This is politics at its worst.

 

[buckshot24]

Jhnnn and eskimopy, do you think it is at least possible that this is being pushed back so the Dems don't get destroyed in the 2014 elections?

 

[woolfe9998]

I might not have 100% absolute certainty on the motive, but I have enough information to conclude that it is very likely a political ploy. The implementation date was not a surprise to anyone.

The motive is relevant. Delaying the negative impact helps shield us from Obamacare for another year, but it prevents the public from realizing the negative impact is has and taking appropriate action through elections. I'd rather have earlier impact so the voters can express their satisfaction at the poll rather than a year of delay followed by negative impact without an election for the public to take appropriate action. Short term pain, long term gain.

Perhaps, but it's reasonable to assume that there will be early problems with implementation of anything this complex, and the benefits will not be fully appreciated until it has been in place for a few years. It sounds like you want voters to rush to an early judgment because you want democrats to be voted out of office. There isn't a better explanation since you don't actually know how it will function over time, but there are reasons to assume there will be problems in the initial implementation.

Moreover, assuming it will cause some disruption for business, giving it another year to simplify the process will help to ease the transition. Even if it is done for political reasons, this still ought to be a good thing. I mean, you don't actually want it to cause the maximum amount of problems for these businesses, or do you?

I think your motives are at least as political as there's. Welcome to politics. You're neck deep in it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I know that to libs, facts = trolling.
__________________

ok...facts....I don`t see any fact to back up your diatribe that Obamacare was delayed to elect democrats.....

You still have a hard on for Obama??

 

[DominionSeraph]

It would not be an outrage if the delay was to give another year to minimize harm and disruption, but it's abundantly clear the delay is political tool to reduce negative fallout for Democrats.

The bill had policies that were enacted all through 2010 and 2011. 24/7 campaigning against it by conservative talk and congressional Republicans didn't stop Obama from being reelected.

If a billion-dollar professional FUD machine can't do it, what makes you think that Democrats would have issues with the real implementation of this if there were no real concerns?
Face it, the only reason to delay is if there are real concerns.

 

[nextJin]

I think DCal is probably a better example, but I digress. DailyMail is at best a tabloid and at worst a pathetic excuse for journalism.

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”George Orwell

I'm not saying, I'm just saying

 

[Double Trouble]

The bill had policies that were enacted all through 2010 and 2011. 24/7 campaigning against it by conservative talk and congressional Republicans didn't stop Obama from being reelected.

If a billion-dollar professional FUD machine can't do it, what makes you think that Democrats would have issues with the real implementation of this if there were no real concerns?

No amount of advertising or campaigning against or for something is going to have even a fraction of the effect that people having personal experiences with something will have. Most people won't really care about things until it affects them personally.

Face it, the only reason to delay is if there are real concerns.

If you believe that, I have a bridge available for sale

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perhaps, but it's reasonable to assume that there will be early problems with implementation of anything this complex, and the benefits will not be fully appreciated until it has been in place for a few years. It sounds like you want voters to rush to an early judgment because you want democrats to be voted out of office. There isn't a better explanation since you don't actually know how it will function over time, but there are reasons to assume there will be problems in the initial implementation.

Moreover, assuming it will cause some disruption for business, giving it another year to simplify the process will help to ease the transition. Even if it is done for political reasons, this still ought to be a good thing. I mean, you don't actually want it to cause the maximum amount of problems for these businesses, or do you?

I think your motives are at least as political as there's. Welcome to politics. You're neck deep in it.

It was fairly obvious that this bill WAS politics. Instead of a rational systematic approach to real reform we got this... thing. I'm sorry but lawyers are no more able to tackle the real problems any more than I could win an argument before the SCOTUS.

I'm assuming this is not political. I'm figuring this is a regulatory cluster.

 

[Double Trouble]

Perhaps, but it's reasonable to assume that there will be early problems with implementation of anything this complex, and the benefits will not be fully appreciated until it has been in place for a few years. It sounds like you want voters to rush to an early judgment because you want democrats to be voted out of office. There isn't a better explanation since you don't actually know how it will function over time, but there are reasons to assume there will be problems in the initial implementation.

We each have our personal view on the overall long term impact of Obamacare. I think it's a disaster, others think it's great, and still others think it will be the needed stepping stone towards single payer. Given my view that it's a long term disaster, the sooner the public can realize the mistake and start taking steps to correct it, the better.

If it was such a great monumental act, then the Democrats should not be running and hiding from it or delaying it's implementation to avoid negative election fallout.

Moreover, assuming it will cause some disruption for business, giving it another year to simplify the process will help to ease the transition. Even if it is done for political reasons, this still ought to be a good thing. I mean, you don't actually want it to cause the maximum amount of problems for these businesses, or do you?

No, that would fall under the legitimate reasons to delay category, as opposed to the delay for political expediency.

I think your motives are at least as political as there's. Welcome to politics. You're neck deep in it.

No, my motives are not political at all. I dislike Obamacare, but if you (meaning the democracts in Congress) were such strong champions for it and told us it was critical, then stand by it and own it. Don't try to hide from it now.

 

[nextJin]

On a related note, Moses Cone Health System in NC where I grew up is having to undergo some serious changes that are forcing them to retire folks early, cut pay and contract out other services like maintenance, landscaping, food services, etc.

Most everyone is pissed off but my old man doesn't really care he got lucky and is just being forced to retire 3 months early.

The RNs and Mother Baby Unit at Womens got especially fucked over.

I can see the need to push it off a year if they are intent on passing the regulations not that I agree with them.

 

[michal1980]

Ok Ok libs. Its not poltical.

Obama is just a failure that couldn't get his number one 'success' bill implemented when given 4 years to do so. And with only months left in the year punts for a year.

It just so happens that he punts in an election year.

 

[michal1980]

On a related note, Moses Cone Health System in NC where I grew up is having to undergo some serious changes that are forcing them to retire folks early, cut pay and contract out other services like maintenance, landscaping, food services, etc.

Most everyone is pissed off but my old man doesn't really care he got lucky and is just being forced to retire 3 months early.

The RNs and Mother Baby Unit at Womens got especially fucked over.

I can see the need to push it off a year if they are intent on passing the regulations not that I agree with them.

Why haven't they figured the regulations out yet? Is Obama that incompetent that he cant even get his biggest achievement going? Did he not know when the regulations were needed? Just another failure of leadership.

 

[nextJin]

Why haven't they figured the regulations out yet? Is Obama that incompetent that he cant even get his biggest achievement going? Did he not know when the regulations were needed? Just another failure of leadership.

They have been undergoing this change for the last 2 years but the pay cuts and forced retirement didn't start happening until about 5 months ago.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

On a related note, Moses Cone Health System in NC where I grew up is having to undergo some serious changes that are forcing them to retire folks early, cut pay and contract out other services like maintenance, landscaping, food services, etc.

Most everyone is pissed off but my old man doesn't really care he got lucky and is just being forced to retire 3 months early.

The RNs and Mother Baby Unit at Womens got especially fucked over.

I can see the need to push it off a year if they are intent on passing the regulations not that I agree with them.

Yeah we see it coming too. We've been trying to get a sick kid his meds for a couple weeks now because some genius decided it's cheaper to go with a 20mg dose than a 10. The problem is 20 is too much and 10 is not enough so he takes 1&1/2 tabs. Well no because he isn't allowed to take more than 1 pill per day per some asinine reason. So many hours of provider time to get a prior authorization through have resulted in who knows how much money spent so a kid can't have his meds because no one can get around a bureaucratic stumbling block. This is to avoid waste and contain costs. An ever increasing proportion of provider time is spent on such snipe hunts and every time "reform" comes about more time and money is wasted on poorer care. This is progress. Go figure.

Pressure on wages is down and workload is up and this is good. The advantage down the road will be fewer who will tolerate such conditions and therefore labor shortages. Hopefully I'll be out if health care when the wonder which is regulatory wisdom kicks in. Do not be surprised if an informal health care system between providers comes about. The test of those who want this can go to McDonald's for a burger and chemo as far as I'm concerned.

 

[buckshot24]

Why haven't they figured the regulations out yet? Is Obama that incompetent that he cant even get his biggest achievement going? Did he not know when the regulations were needed? Just another failure of leadership.

Since health care is such an urgent need in this country Obama should be ashamed of himself for denying the nation the greatness of Obamacare for one year. How many women are going to die because they couldn't get screenings? How many men will perish because they couldn't get prostate exams? This is an absolute outrage.

 

[Matt1970]

Says the guy who thinks Obama is allowing Russian troops to patrol the US, that Obama is funding a proxy war on Christians, and that Obama is looking to force churches to marry gay people.

You off your meds or something?

Typical for you, the way to dispute the message is to just attack the messenger.

 

[CLite]

people impacted by Obamacare right during a midterm election vs impact when there are no elections going on.

the timing is 100% political. This deadline has been known for how long now? Obama couldn't get anyone to get the rules figured out until the last minute?

or its an acknowledgment by Obama that Obamacare is a disaster.

Portray it any way you want, I agree that the ACA implemented in 2014 would be an unmitigated disaster based on the current lack of solid rules/interpretations.

The fact is the delay is good, it helps businesses and it will help the administration establish more solid ground rules. If you want to take this gift of a decision that is beneficial to almost everyone and twist it into some political negative then go have fun with that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Personally I would prefer no Obamacare at all, but that's water under the bridge. I don't object to a delay if needed to avoid serious negative impact to the populace, but I am disgusted by a delay that looks to be a purely political ploy.

In other words, you're willing to let the usual right wing mouthpieces define the motivation, rather than deciding if the effect will match the stated goals.

 

[episodic]

How can they still force the individual mandate when the businesses are not required to offer health insurance? Paradox?

 

[werepossum]

The fact is the delay is badly needed as rules and interpretations are still being published monthly and it was going to be a nightmare trying to get all the businesses to comply with ever changing rules.

I don't see how delaying implementation helps congress people get re-elected, because having it implemented in 2014 will not entail any new votes. By having it implemented 2015 it will still be a hot-ticket item to discuss during debates, people could say that if THEY get elected they will pass new laws to counter implementation.

I think the OP article is a slanted piece of shit political piece and that the real reason for delay is because our incompetent government established too aggressive of a schedule for such drastic changes.

I suspect the bolded is the honest problem, and it will continue to be a problem. The true greatness of this bill from the proggie point of view is that it empowers an unelected bureaucracy to make health care law as it wishes, without any need for legislation. Want an entitlement? Enact it! "Free" contraception has already provided ample evidence of this in action. This is also the true horribleness of the bill from business' point of view. Unless an employer discontinues providing health insurance altogether, the employer cannot reasonably predict her expenses even for the year, much less for the long view we like to say we want business to take.

If one considers that causing small businesses (and by extension their employees) major headaches from forcing businesses to comply with ever changing rules as you point out makes health care a negative for Democrats, then there is no conflict between real and political concerns. Putting off the implementation helps businesses, obviously, and that helps Democrats by not making the problems associated with Obamacare a political issue. I really have no problem with that; if politicians are doing what is good and right and by doing so achieve political benefits, I see no real point in trying to determine which is their true motivation. We should just be glad government isn't making things worse.

I normally don't buy into a lot of these Obama hate threads, and while this can't be directly tied back to Obama since he doesn't even know what's in it....

but the timing on this one is just too coincidental with the election cycle and all the bad press that the ACA's been getting recently... it's part of the game and yes it does help the democrats postpone some of the self-inflicted pain of this bill. Similar to how Reid wouldn't take up any gun-control bills . . . it'd be political sucide with the elections looming. . .

Sounds about right, but as CLite points out it is needed. If something is undeniably needed, why should we waste our energy trying to decide if they are doing it for the "right" reasons?