Shut Down Optics

[ThreePointTakedown]

Republicans do not like the ACA. Have not proposed a replacement for health care if the ACA goes away. Have systematically weakened the ACA at every opportunity. Have voted to claw back money from appropriations they do not agree with. Have indicated they will not vote to extend ACA subsidies. 

 

Why should the Dems trust the conservatives to actually come to the table and pass extensions to the ACA subsidies after voting to pass a, currently, clean CR?
 

Where am I wrong?

[Viratas]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

Republicans do not like the ACA. Have not proposed a replacement for health care if the ACA goes away. Have systematically weakened the ACA at every opportunity. Have voted to claw back money from appropriations they do not agree with. Have indicated they will not vote to extend ACA subsidies. 

 

Why should the Dems trust the conservatives to actually come to the table and pass extensions to the ACA subsidies after voting to pass a, currently, clean CR?
 

Where am I wrong?

Should they trust them? Probably not; overall, you make a good point, IMO. I do not think the other side trusts the Dems to come to the table and discuss real reform. Hell, whatever side I was on, no way I would trust the other at this point, thus the problem we have.

Its getting to the point that both sides IMO look bad. Sure, I am being wishy-washy, but on this topic, I really believe both sides have dirty hands.

[mspart]

To TPTD:  Because the Ds voted to let the subsidies run out in 10 years, 10 years ago, it was part of the obamacare bill.   Lookie, we are here now.   And ACA is nowhere near doing what it was meant to do, which was make care affordable.   It's in the name.   It is a bad program that has been part of the cause of increased health costs and insurance costs.  Why should it be extended is the better question.   It is no longer affordable.   

It was a lie all around.   You probably couldn't keep your Dr.   You probably couldn't save money? You probably spent more each year by a lot to keep the obamacare coverage.   It was a lie and a house of cards.   Just bad all around.   This is what happens when government tries to take charge of private business.   It ruins things for  most people it was supposedly trying to help.   Now they need more of our money to prop it up.   No thanks.   

To V:   Yes, it would be unthinkable for either side to trust the other.   And yes both sides look bad right now and have for many years.   No matter who runs the House or Senate, the poll numbers are in the tank. 

mspart

Edited October 27, 2025 by mspart

[Scouts Honor]

"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"

Sowell

[Paul158]

15 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

Republicans do not like the ACA. Have not proposed a replacement for health care if the ACA goes away. Have systematically weakened the ACA at every opportunity. Have voted to claw back money from appropriations they do not agree with. Have indicated they will not vote to extend ACA subsidies. 

 

Why should the Dems trust the conservatives to actually come to the table and pass extensions to the ACA subsidies after voting to pass a, currently, clean CR?
 

Where am I wrong?

The democrats want to extend the (enhanced) temporary extensions that were supposed to be temporary. Obama care or ACA made many promises. In fairness ACA has failed miserably. Sure more individuals have health care coverage but at what cost. It was supposed save each family 2500 dollars a year. It did just the opposite. It made health insurance very expensive. I believe it was supposed to stand on its own after a short period of time with no subsidies. So please explain to me why ACA has failed to deliver on all the promises miserably. In addition to its failure, it has made health care insurance for the average American family very expensive. It has driven health care premiums through the roof. 

Edited October 28, 2025 by Paul158
missed a word

[fishbane]

A continuing resolution would not be necessary if congress had been able to pass a budget on time.  How much negotiating had taken place before the end of the fiscal year?  Not much as taken place between the start of the shutdown and now.  The original CR only would have lasted through 11/21.  If the Republican's plan was to pass the CR and then negotiate between 10/1 and 11/21 they have allowed most of the time to pass with little to no progress.

11 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"

Sowell

I don't really get the under where this metaphor is going.  Typically after putting out a fire the structure is either repaired or razed and something built in its place.  If the insinuation is that nothing should replace it that isn't always applicable.  Many times legislation is passed to solve an existing problem or meet a need.  If you repeal the legislation you are left with the original problem.  In this case high healthcare costs and millions of uninsured Americans who cannot get health insurance.

[Paul158]

15 minutes ago, fishbane said:

A continuing resolution would not be necessary if congress had been able to pass a budget on time.  How much negotiating had taken place before the end of the fiscal year?  Not much as taken place between the start of the shutdown and now.  The original CR only would have lasted through 11/21.  If the Republican's plan was to pass the CR and then negotiate between 10/1 and 11/21 they have allowed most of the time to pass with little to no progress.

I don't really get the under where this metaphor is going.  Typically after putting out a fire the structure is either repaired or razed and something built in its place.  If the insinuation is that nothing should replace it that isn't always applicable.  Many times legislation is passed to solve an existing problem or meet a need.  If you repeal the legislation you are left with the original problem.  In this case high healthcare costs and millions of uninsured Americans who cannot get health insurance.

The only portion of the ACA that expires is the temporary enhanced (PTC) portion of the ACA. Is that correct. The original ACA does not expire. Correct.

Edited October 28, 2025 by Paul158
missed a word

[ThreePointTakedown]

12 hours ago, Scouts Honor said:

"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"

Sowell

Should healthcare be a for-profit industry?

[ThreePointTakedown]

16 hours ago, Viratas said:

Should they trust them? Probably not; overall, you make a good point, IMO. I do not think the other side trusts the Dems to come to the table and discuss real reform. Hell, whatever side I was on, no way I would trust the other at this point, thus the problem we have.

Its getting to the point that both sides IMO look bad. Sure, I am being wishy-washy, but on this topic, I really believe both sides have dirty hands.

What reform? Has anything been suggested? The ACA open the door to expand Medicare and Medicaid to the poorest people in the country. Governors in Republican states refused to enact it for years out of spite. So they literally allowed their citizens to die rather than accept free money to help them get healthcare. How can you negotiate with somebody who’s willing to do that? 

[ThreePointTakedown]

16 hours ago, mspart said:

To TPTD:  Because the Ds voted to let the subsidies run out in 10 years, 10 years ago, it was part of the obamacare bill.   Lookie, we are here now.   And ACA is nowhere near doing what it was meant to do, which was make care affordable.   It's in the name.   It is a bad program that has been part of the cause of increased health costs and insurance costs.  Why should it be extended is the better question.   It is no longer affordable.   

It was a lie all around.   You probably couldn't keep your Dr.   You probably couldn't save money? You probably spent more each year by a lot to keep the obamacare coverage.   It was a lie and a house of cards.   Just bad all around.   This is what happens when government tries to take charge of private business.   It ruins things for  most people it was supposedly trying to help.   Now they need more of our money to prop it up.   No thanks.   

To V:   Yes, it would be unthinkable for either side to trust the other.   And yes both sides look bad right now and have for many years.   No matter who runs the House or Senate, the poll numbers are in the tank. 

mspart

I believe the 10 years agreement with a compromise. Not realizing that 10 years later, the Republican Party would be so extreme that they would want their own poorest constituents to pay 75% more for Health healthcare. Then using that as leverage to take down the whole thing. 
To what extent do you mean it has not done what it was meant to do by saving money? What data sets have you seen that proves this point? Please provide.
Private business in this instance denied people healthcare coverage due to pre-existing condition conditions, and lifetime money caps. Both are immoral. I hope you could agree on that. 
 

[ThreePointTakedown]

58 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

The democrats want to extend the (enhanced) temporary extensions that were supposed to be temporary. Obama care or ACA made many promises. In fairness ACA has failed miserably. Sure more individuals have health care coverage but at what cost. It was supposed save each family 2500 dollars a year. It did just the opposite. It made health insurance very expensive. I believe it was supposed to stand on its own after a short period of time with no subsidies. So please explain to me why ACA has failed to deliver on all the promises miserably. In addition to its failure, it has made health care insurance for the average American family very expensive. It has driven health care premiums through the roof. 

That may be true. What challenges to the ACA have happened since it’s inception that may have kept it from its intended purpose?

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

The democrats want to extend the (enhanced) temporary extensions that were supposed to be temporary. Obama care or ACA made many promises. In fairness ACA has failed miserably. Sure more individuals have health care coverage but at what cost. It was supposed save each family 2500 dollars a year. It did just the opposite. It made health insurance very expensive. I believe it was supposed to stand on its own after a short period of time with no subsidies. So please explain to me why ACA has failed to deliver on all the promises miserably. In addition to its failure, it has made health care insurance for the average American family very expensive. It has driven health care premiums through the roof. 

Wasn’t it predicted to make shit more expensive ?   Right before they voted on it in the middle of the night without reading it?

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, fishbane said:

In this case high healthcare costs

Given health care costs are higher now.  Isn’t this backward.   Go back to cheaper health care costs.   That would be cool 

[Paul158]

21 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

That may be true. What challenges to the ACA have happened since it’s inception that may have kept it from its intended purpose?

I will give one of its many problems. Oct. 1st 2013. Initial roll out. It was plagued with crashes. glitches and user experience problems. It was so bad it had to be completely overhauled. The original budget was 93.7 million. It ballooned to 1.7 billion dollars for the necessary repairs and improvement. That was just to get it up and running. That was not a good start but par for the course. 

Edited October 28, 2025 by Paul158
missed a word

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I will give one of its many problems. Oct. 1st 2013. Initial roll out. It was plagued with crashes. glitches and user experience problems. It was so bad it had to be completely overhauled. The original budget was 93.7 million. It ballooned to 1.7 billion dollars for the necessary repairs and improvement. That was just to get it up and running. That was not a good start but par for the course. 

I used to work at a software company (big one) that was part of that.   I knew people on the account team.  I cannot imagine the pressure of working on an account like that.   

[Paul158]

8 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I used to work at a software company (big one) that was part of that.   I knew people on the account team.  I cannot imagine the pressure of working on an account like that.   

You should have helped them. Where they part of the fix.

[Caveira]

10 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

You should have helped them. Where they part of the fix.

They were the software backbone to the sign up process.  If I remember correctly the gov / state didn’t have to pay $$$ until it worked.     That would mean no commission or quota relief or revenue for Wall Street until it works. 
 

That’s the pressure part.  Making shit software work before $$$$$.  When the software is shit.   I wouldn’t want to be that account team for any reason.  The pressure to get infinity $$$$ from leadership in a very very public fashion seems like a hell I have not encountered 

Edited October 28, 2025 by Caveira

[Paul158]

11 minutes ago, Caveira said:

They were the software backbone to the sign up process.  If I remember correctly the gov / state didn’t have to pay $$$ until it worked.     That would mean no commission or quota relief or revenue for Wall Street until it works. 
 

That’s the pressure part.  Making shit software work before $$$$$.  When the software is shit.   I wouldn’t want to be that account team for any reason.  The pressure to get infinity $$$$ from leadership in a very very public fashion seems like a hell I have not encountered 

Or a hell you would want to encounter. Most people do not understand that this whole mess is about wanting to extend the temporary enhanced (PTC) extension that expires January 1st. The media isn't even explaining very well. 

[fishbane]

2 hours ago, Paul158 said:

The only portion of the ACA that expires is the temporary enhanced (PTC) portion of the ACA. Is that correct. The original ACA does not expire. Correct.

I think that is correct.  The ACA would remain in the form it currently exists with Premium Tax Credits (PTC), but without the enhanced PTCs that existed 2021-2025.  The Democrats don't want to agree to 0 enhanced PTCs and the Republicans don't want to negotiate with the government closed.   They should have reached an agreement before the end of the fiscal year.  I think it was smart of the Republicans to offer a clean CR, but I don't get why they are refusing to negotiate with the government closed.  They have to reach an agreement at some point.  Why waste this time?  Keeping the government closed wastes money.

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

Given health care costs are higher now.  Isn’t this backward.   Go back to cheaper health care costs.   That would be cool 

A lot of things are more expensive than 2013.  Unfortunately very few will be that price again. 

The ACA changed during Trump's 1st term where the penalty for not having insurance was removed.  If coverage is not compulsory and there is no disincentive to opting out then healthy individuals wills opt out and those that use healthcare will opt in making it expensive.

[Caveira]

15 minutes ago, fishbane said:

A lot of things are more expensive than 2013.  Unfortunately very few will be that price again. 

The ACA changed during Trump's 1st term where the penalty for not having insurance was removed.  If coverage is not compulsory and there is no disincentive to opting out then healthy individuals wills opt out and those that use healthcare will opt in making it expensive.

Health care cost increases were noticed in 2014 dude.   

[fishbane]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

Health care cost increases were noticed in 2014 dude.   

Of course.  If you make insurance companies insure millions of previously uninsurable people with say preexisting conditions the premium will increase for others.  Out of pocket costs decreased for those that couldn't get coverage.

[Caveira]

23 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Of course.  If you make insurance companies insure millions of previously uninsurable people with say preexisting conditions the premium will increase for others.  Out of pocket costs decreased for those that couldn't get coverage.

Ok so it was predicted to make it more expensive….. on the promise of making it cheaper. 
 

is this the twilight zone or do politics and politicians suck ?

also wasn’t it supposed that the super poor are super unhealthy because of no health care.  That I I pay it for them via awesomeness then they would be super healthy and less of a burden on the health care system in the long run.  Over time that would make it super awesome and cheaper for everyone.
 

But.  Like everything the government touches.   That was all a lie.  They knew that.  We knew that but we keep on truckin.  
 

What a long strange trip it’s been boss.  

Edited October 28, 2025 by Caveira

[mspart]

3 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Should healthcare be a for-profit industry?

Yes.   Doctors and surgeons go to insane amounts of school and training.   They should be rewarded for that effort.   Things cost money.   MRI, CT, Xray, electro shock machines, and all other equipment are expensive.   The people that make these should make money to incentivize more innovation.   Research costs money.   What about healthcare should be non profit?  

mspart

[fishbane]

4 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Ok so it was predicted to make it more expense on the promise of making it cheaper. 
 

is this the twilight zone or do politics and politicians suck ?

I dunno.  Cheaper for some more expensive for others. That's what I expected.  It was only more expensive for me.

The original ACA wasn't easy to get passed despite a majority in both houses.  Obama needed 60 votes in the senate to get it through.  This required getting the vote of a couple independents and Arlen Specter to switch back to a Democrat and support the bill.  The republicans don't have 60 votes to pass a budget and allow the enhanced credits to expire entirely.  Congress should be working towards an agreement that will pass.  It doesn't make sense for the Republicans to not negotiate during the shutdown.  Shutdown or not an agreement has to be made.  Extend the enhanced PTCs either at their current level or a less enhanced level that will still get the votes for a year or two and get something you want in exchange.  Then if republicans crush it in the midterms and get the votes to eliminate them completely they can do it.