What? No government shutdown threads?

Page 52 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
K

kia75

Senior member
Oct 30, 2005
468
0
71
eskimospy said:
No, this is basic logic. The only way that Republicans are offering concessions to the Democrats by keeping the government functioning and the debt ceiling un-breached is if you believe their preferences are for debt breach and a non-functional government.

As in, absent all other considerations, Republicans would prefer those two things to happen. Do you believe this to be the case? If you don't, they aren't a concession. If you do, holy shit.
Click to expand...

In his defense I do believe the Tea Party does think they are offering concessions and I do believe that is the Tea Party's preference. Not the Republican Party's preference, but the Tea Party's.

And yes, Holy shit.

Just look at all the posts in this thread about Shutting it down, look at the thread about Bachman being gleeful regarding the shutdown, look and see how many pro-shutdown posts there are here and realize that those people are the Tea Party. And there's roughly 30-40 congressmen that truly believe what's being posted here, and about 50-60 congressmen who are afraid of being primaried by someone who truly does believe the Tea Party creed.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
TerryMathews said:
They can't delay the individual mandate because costs will skyrocket without all those young healthy people to offset the added risk of the unhealthy people insurance companies started picking up yesterday.

Of course they think we are too stupid to realize that.
Click to expand...

You're apparently too stupid to realize that this isn't just about *right now*, but rather for decades to come. Young healthy people get old, all too many end up with conditions where they get dropped by insurors in the modern version of job security, constant churn.

Theoretically, if young people pay it forward now, they'll be able to get decent rates when they too grow older. Obviously, the propagandists of the Right would prefer that nobody notice.
 
T

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Jhhnn said:
Then the House gutted the bill again, substituted their own version of the ACA, sent it back to the Senate for the final vote, where it was approved & sent to Obama.

All of which tells us about Repubs' desire to "compromise", then and now.
Click to expand...

Revisionist much? The democrats held the house then.
 
T

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Jhhnn said:
You're apparently too stupid to realize that this isn't just about *right now*, but rather for decades to come. Young healthy people get old, all too many end up with conditions where they get dropped by insurors in the modern version of job security, constant churn.

Theoretically, if young people pay it forward now, they'll be able to get decent rates when they too grow older. Obviously, the propagandists of the Right would prefer that nobody notice.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Thank God you're here to educate me! I never knew what a pyramid scheme was before you!
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
eskimospy said:
Just to once again fight the blatant dishonesty here, the individual mandate and the employer mandate are two entirely different things.

The individual mandate exists because it is required if insurance companies cannot discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. As everyone well knows, having one without the other would lead to bankrupting the insurance industry.

The employer mandate is a requirement for employers of a certain size or larger to provide health care for their employees. If the employer mandate is delayed or removed, all individuals are still subject to the individual mandate, therefore there is no death spiral for the insurance industry.

With that in mind it is quite easy for any individual familiar with the law to see why delaying one would be a big problem for the law as a whole and delaying the other would not. Unfortunately some dishonest individuals on this board attempt to tie the two together because they are mandates.

Go figure.
Click to expand...
<sigh> The blatant dishonesty lies in pretending that the Republicans are demanding to end Obamacare. And yes, the employer mandate and the individual mandate are different things, but both impose onerous burdens on an entity. Obama has decided to delay imposing that onerous burden on one group (not coincidentally the one that can given the Dems massive campaign donations) even though their are no legal provisions to do so. And I can accept his reason for doing so. The Republicans want to delay imposing that onerous burden, together with the fine and the legal requirement to purchase insurance, on the other group, individuals.

As you've managed 26,000 posts without accidentally strangling yourself to death with your keyboard cord, I'll assume you know all that and are just being dishonest, as always.
 
werepossum

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
TerryMathews said:
They can't delay the individual mandate because costs will skyrocket without all those young healthy people to offset the added risk of the unhealthy people insurance companies started picking up yesterday.

Of course they think we are too stupid to realize that.
Click to expand...
You may be right, although the crush of people trying to register argues that these young people very much want to buy insurance at an affordable price. You don't go online to buy something the minute it is offered, even though there is a three month window, just to avoid an end-of-year tax.

I know people on both sides of this equation. I know some who are wait staff or otherwise not provided insurance who very much want to purchase insurance, but before it's been far too expensive to be practical. I also know a guy who does not have health insurance because it is "too expensive", but although I don't know what he earns I do know he bought (last year or the one before) a brand new Harley with a sticker of almost $30K. I don't see him running out to buy health insurance.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,953
55,323
136
werepossum said:
<sigh> The blatant dishonesty lies in pretending that the Republicans are demanding to end Obamacare. And yes, the employer mandate and the individual mandate are different things, but both impose onerous burdens on an entity. Obama has decided to delay imposing that onerous burden on one group (not coincidentally the one that can given the Dems massive campaign donations) even though their are no legal provisions to do so. And I can accept his reason for doing so. The Republicans want to delay imposing that onerous burden, together with the fine and the legal requirement to purchase insurance, on the other group, individuals.

As you've managed 26,000 posts without accidentally strangling yourself to death with your keyboard cord, I'll assume you know all that and are just being dishonest, as always.
Click to expand...

One is necessary for the law to operate, one is not. That's why delaying one is a larger deal than the other.

Your attempts to convince people that they are somehow equivalent is just piling more lies on top of the ones you already told. My only question is if you are simply genuinely trying to deceive others or if you're trying to convince yourself in order to justify your world view. Either way, it's been quite the blizzard of lies out of you recently.
 
T

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
werepossum said:
You may be right, although the crush of people trying to register argues that these young people very much want to buy insurance at an affordable price. You don't go online to buy something the minute it is offered, even though there is a three month window, just to avoid an end-of-year tax.

I know people on both sides of this equation. I know some who are wait staff or otherwise not provided insurance who very much want to purchase insurance, but before it's been far too expensive to be practical. I also know a guy who does not have health insurance because it is "too expensive", but although I don't know what he earns I do know he bought (last year or the one before) a brand new Harley with a sticker of almost $30K. I don't see him running out to buy health insurance.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how many people actually sign up vs window shopping.
 
Lithium381

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
kia75 said:
In his defense I do believe the Tea Party does think they are offering concessions and I do believe that is the Tea Party's preference. Not the Republican Party's preference, but the Tea Party's.

And yes, Holy shit.

Just look at all the posts in this thread about Shutting it down, look at the thread about Bachman being gleeful regarding the shutdown, look and see how many pro-shutdown posts there are here and realize that those people are the Tea Party. And there's roughly 30-40 congressmen that truly believe what's being posted here, and about 50-60 congressmen who are afraid of being primaried by someone who truly does believe the Tea Party creed.
Click to expand...

So anyone who believes that the government is too big and should be cut is a teahadist?
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
as seen on my friend's FB...

9e8ddfbc-a2b0-47a7-b8bd-599b77cc8d75_zps6f7b357d.jpg
 
T

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
eskimospy said:
No they can't, and he linked to an alex jones site.
Click to expand...

If they don't track the insured, how will they be able to verify whether or not the penalty is due?

You know your W2 contains a box concerning the amount your employer paid of your health insurance right?


To be clear, I didn't read his link. I'm working of my understanding of PPACA.
 
T

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
dank69 said:
There is a specific limit on the ACA mandate that prevents the IRS garnishing wages to collect the penalty for not carrying insurance.
Click to expand...

Link? I've not seen that.

ETA: found it. Sec 1501(b)

I'm concerned that 6601 allows the penalties to accumulate. This might be a case of "can't collect yet" instead of can't collect but you are right this particular penalty is currently exempt from regular IRS collective actions.
 
Last edited:
dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,345
32,970
136
TerryMathews said:
Link? I've not seen that.
Click to expand...
You don't say? Probably because you are horribly uninformed/misinformed on just about everything today.

Link
...

If there's no tax refund, where else can the IRS get its $95? Typically, the IRS does have a number of steps by which to recoup unpaid taxes. It can garnish your wages, for example, or, in rare cases, seize property. But with the health mandate, the law's drafters specifically barred the agency from any of those more aggressive tactics.

...
Click to expand...
 
T

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
dank69 said:
You don't say? Probably because you are horribly uninformed/misinformed on just about everything today.

Link
Click to expand...

Don't be a douche, read my edit.

What is it with you, you just have to go nuclear over everything. There's no point even having a conversation with you.
 
Doc Savage Fan

Doc Savage Fan

Lifer
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
dank69 said:
You don't say? Probably because you are horribly uninformed/misinformed on just about everything today.

Link
Click to expand...
A detail of the law that's not commonly known. Yeah I guess that equates to "horribly uninformed/misinformed" in your world. :rolleyes:

It's interesting that you fail to mention that it's still tax owed and will be taken from any refunds that might otherwise be due. I can't remember whether or not interest penalties apply...so I guess I'm "horribly uninformed" as well.

BTW...is this by chance 'National Hyperbole Day' on nobody told me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom