First Day w/ the ACA... ClusterFuck

[Deadbolt]

Why are conservatives tasked to fix this horseshit piece if legislation they had no part in passing? What are the people that actually wrote and rammed this bill doing to fix it?

Pardon me for expecting leaders to actually lead. For some reason I got this crazy idea in my head that if you think something is broken, you should try to fix it.

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

Pardon me for expecting leaders to actually lead. For some reason I got this crazy idea in my head that if you think something is broken, you should try to fix it.

You are not that naive. When, in the history of this country has a party come to the rescue of the opposing party even if it is best for the nation? You are as likely to get a republican fix to the ACA as you were to get a Dem fix to the Iraq war.

 

[Deacon923]

You are not that naive. When, in the history of this country has a party come to the rescue of the opposing party even if it is best for the nation? You are as likely to get a republican fix to the ACA as you were to get a Dem fix to the Iraq war.

Um, a Dem did fix the Iraq war.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[beatrix]

Which sort of brings me to a horrifying thought...if the conservative strategy of making no effort to fix the law and instead have 40 symbolic repeal votes and then hanging that disaster on the dems actually works, how in the world can we ever expect anything but opposition politics from either side for the foreseeable future?

Fixed. And to your question, ideally opposition (from left and right) will continue well past the foreseeable future...

 

[DeacMan]

You are not that naive. When, in the history of this country has a party come to the rescue of the opposing party even if it is best for the nation? You are as likely to get a republican fix to the ACA as you were to get a Dem fix to the Iraq war.

I think that get's down to how you define "fix". In this instance it may not be the "fix" many people here like. But said "fix" could still be the best thing to do for the country.

 

[DeacMan]

Why are conservatives tasked to fix this horseshit piece if legislation they had no part in passing? What are the people that actually wrote and rammed this bill doing to fix it?

To answer this question, increasingly they are trying to destroy it from within. Because if we let young folks keep the insurance they have it will pretty much ruin the entire bill.

 

[jhmd2000]

Um, a Dem did fix the Iraq war.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Dave Petraeus is a Dem?

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

Um, a Dem did fix the Iraq war.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

How do you figure? By pulling the troops out? That schedule was in place by the time President Obama took office. I am talking about the mess that Iraq became in Bush's 2nd term. Make no mistake, the mess was the administration's fault (much like ACA is on the current administration) but it was "fixed" (use that term very lightly because I don't think it is fixed yet) before Bush left office. No way Obama pulls troops out if the situation was the same as it was pre surge.

But I guess this is an old and beat up topic.

 

[DeacMan]

If you really sit back and think about ways to "fix" this mess, it all stays ugly. At this stage any fix you make to the law will come with its own set of unintended consequences. As woefully unprepared as the government was with this roll out, the insurance companies all somehow managed to get ready. And if you course correct it will cause a whole lot of additional disruption. There will be more broken glass. The idea we'll find easy paths to agreement seem unlikely.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Which sort of brings me to a horrifying thought...if the conservative strategy of making no effort to fix the law and instead have 40 symbolic repeal votes and then hanging that disaster on the dems actually works, how in the world can we ever expect anything but obstructionist politics from either side for the foreseeable future?

A good start would be to propose legislation that is not complete garbage, opposed by most citizens, and doomed to fail from the outset.

 

[jhmd2000]

A good start would be to propose legislation that is not complete garbage, opposed by most citizens, and doomed to fail from the outset.

Some might say, I'm a dreamer...

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Coverage doesn't start until at least January, right? Why pay earlier than you have to?

I mean, the alleged point of the legislation is supposedly to allow people to buy affordable health insurance. So, presumably one would pay "early" so that they could have said health insurance at the time of payment. The fact that this is viewed as a "have to" purchase really says all there is to say about the whole clusterfuck.

 

[ConnorEl]

What?

People signing up presumably want the coverage and will pay for it. But not until they have to. If you don't have to make a first payment until closer to when coverage actually begins, why not wait? There are real problems with the roll out of this law. But I don't see counting folks who've signed up but not yet made a payment as one of them.

 

[Lectro]

What?

People signing up presumably want the coverage and will pay for it. But not until they have to. If you don't have to make a first payment until closer to when coverage actually begins, why not wait? There are real problems with the roll out of this law. But I don't see counting folks who've signed up but not yet made a payment as one of them.

The road to the poor house is paved with "be-backs"...

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

What?

People signing up presumably want the coverage and will pay for it. But not until they have to. If you don't have to make a first payment until closer to when coverage actually begins, why not wait? There are real problems with the roll out of this law. But I don't see counting folks who've signed up but not yet made a payment as one of them.

Huh? Wouldn't the coverage begin now for someone who paid for it now? If not, why not?

 

[DeacMan]

Huh? Wouldn't the coverage begin now for someone who paid for it now? If not, why not?

Do either of you even know for certain when you have to pay for the coverage you've agreed to buy. Just because you sign up doesn't mean you necessarily have to write the check or charge the card immediately. Isn't it called a "monthly" premium for a reason?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Do either of you even know for certain when you have to pay for the coverage you've agreed to buy. Just because you sign up doesn't mean you necessarily have to write the check or charge the card immediately. Isn't it called a "monthly" premium for a reason?

I have no idea. But I would assume that, if this was actually the godsend it was made out to be, that someone would want to pay for it as soon as possible to get the coverage as soon as possible. If that is not happening, it is just more evidence that nobody wants this thing.

 

[bmoneydeac]

Does coverage begin as soon as you sign up? I was under the impression you wouldn't actually be covered until January 1 but I could be way off base.

 

[SkinsNDeacs]

What?

People signing up presumably want the coverage and will pay for it. But not until they have to. If you don't have to make a first payment until closer to when coverage actually begins, why not wait? There are real problems with the roll out of this law. But I don't see counting folks who've signed up but not yet made a payment as one of them.

You don't get a card and the insurance company does not start paying your bills until you pay. If you are signing up you presumably do not have insurance, correct? If that is the case why would you not pay right then and there...why wait?

 

[ConnorEl]

Does coverage begin as soon as you sign up? I was under the impression you wouldn't actually be covered until January 1 but I could be way off base.

Pretty sure coverage doesn't begin until Jan.

One of many sources to indicate this: link.