Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The process to Repeal The Affordable Care Act is officially underway
It was officially marked as under way when the CBO (Congressional Budget Office)
will NOT be allowed to review the costs of repealing Obama Care

Yes that's right:
The new Republican rules package specifically excludes the CBO from examining the repeal process
Essentially requesting that the CBO distort the Federal Budget Reporting system to HIDE the costs

Republican New Rules Package here:
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/201 ... -FINAL.pdf

We have to pass it before we find out what's in it. What Pelosi said.

Ivytalk wrote:We have to pass it before we find out what's in it. What Pelosi said.

Indeed. We're well past the point where we expect politicians to be anything other than politicians.

GannonFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:We have to pass it before we find out what's in it. What Pelosi said.

Indeed. We're well past the point where we expect politicians to be anything other than politicians.

What an enticing intellectual position you've selected as your "default"

Chizzang wrote:The process to Repeal The Affordable Care Act is officially underway
It was officially marked as under way when the CBO (Congressional Budget Office)
will NOT be allowed to review the costs of repealing Obama Care

Yes that's right:
The new Republican rules package specifically excludes the CBO from examining the repeal process
Essentially requesting that the CBO distort the Federal Budget Reporting system to HIDE the costs

Republican New Rules Package here:
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/201 ... -FINAL.pdf

Well, the GOP DID say we can't afford the ACA

CID1990 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:The process to Repeal The Affordable Care Act is officially underway
It was officially marked as under way when the CBO (Congressional Budget Office)
will NOT be allowed to review the costs of repealing Obama Care

Yes that's right:
The new Republican rules package specifically excludes the CBO from examining the repeal process
Essentially requesting that the CBO distort the Federal Budget Reporting system to HIDE the costs

Republican New Rules Package here:
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/201 ... -FINAL.pdf

Well, the GOP DID say we can't afford the ACA

This really isn't a thread until Baldy does some advanced apologetics

Politifact flagged this one as false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -obamacar/

I found myself at a bit of a loss talking my wife about ACA last night.

Wife: If more people are paying into the program, why are the costs rising?
Me:

ASUG8 wrote:I found myself at a bit of a loss talking my wife about ACA last night.

Wife: If more people are paying into the program, why are the costs rising?
Me:

Because more things are being covered?

Pwns wrote:Politifact flagged this one as false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -obamacar/

Read page 25 of the link I provide
They are not allowed to report on the costs of repeal
it's in print

Grizalltheway wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I found myself at a bit of a loss talking my wife about ACA last night.

Wife: If more people are paying into the program, why are the costs rising?
Me:

Because more things are being covered?

I don't buy that. If I were to truly guess, I'd go with the following:

* the ACA is similar to Social Security in that it requires younger (presumably healthier) people to contribute in order to finance those boomers who are aging and requiring more care.
* Similarly, some folks now required to kick in for insurance had untreated prexisting conditions that they either left untreated or paid for out of pocket. Insurance companies lost money on those customers with ACA, which led to:
* Insurers pulling out of the exchanges in many cases, stifling competition and nearing state monopolies and able to charge what they want.

Grizalltheway wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:I found myself at a bit of a loss talking my wife about ACA last night.

Wife: If more people are paying into the program, why are the costs rising?
Me:

Because more things are being covered?

Not only that, but people with conditions that use to preclude them from having insurance are driving up the costs. PLUS the government has its hand in it.

I'll bet that once the ACA is repealed, insurance companies will roll back their premiums.

ASUG8 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Because more things are being covered?

I don't buy that. If I were to truly guess, I'd go with the following:

* the ACA is similar to Social Security in that it requires younger (presumably healthier) people to contribute in order to finance those boomers who are aging and requiring more care.
* Similarly, some folks now required to kick in for insurance had untreated prexisting conditions that they either left untreated or paid for out of pocket. Insurance companies lost money on those customers with ACA, which led to:
* Insurers pulling out of the exchanges in many cases, stifling competition and nearing state monopolies and able to charge what they want.

One addition to your younger people comment - the plan allows young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parent's family plan. So instead of making a 23 year old college graduate purchase his own insurance he can stay on mom and dad's plan. So we need young, healthy people to pay in but we give them a way out of paying.

Btw, our premiums are still way less than they were before the ACA, purchased privately on the open market and for a solid plan. None of us had to switch doctors although we did have to change pharmacies when we switched from Premera to Grouphealth this month. Wonder why we're the outlier?

kalm wrote:Btw, our premiums are still way less than they were before the ACA, purchased privately on the open market and for a solid plan. None of us had to switch doctors although we did have to change pharmacies when we switched from Premera to Grouphealth this month. Wonder why we're the outlier?

Because you only have one outlier?

HI54UNI wrote: One addition to your younger people comment - the plan allows young adults up to age 26 to stay on their parent's family plan. So instead of making a 23 year old college graduate purchase his own insurance he can stay on mom and dad's plan. So we need young, healthy people to pay in but we give them a way out of paying.

Why does Obama hate orphans?

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote:Politifact flagged this one as false.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -obamacar/

Read page 25 of the link I provide
They are not allowed to report on the costs of repeal
it's in print

Ummm...no it's not.

It simply states, "This subsection shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon—"

That simply means the CBO is not required to make an 50 year analysis. That is a million miles different than "not allowed" (your words) or prohibited from making an analysis.

Besides, the Congressional Budget Act has a requirement that all legislation considered by Congress must have a 10 year cost estimate. An Act is a Law and a Law > Rules.

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Read page 25 of the link I provide
They are not allowed to report on the costs of repeal
it's in print

Ummm...no it's not.

It simply states, "This subsection shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon—"

That simply means the CBO is not required to make an 50 year analysis. That is a million miles different than "not allowed" (your words) or prohibited from making an analysis.

Besides, the Congressional Budget Act has a requirement that all legislation considered by Congress must have a 10 year cost estimate. An Act is a Law and a Law > Rules.

Yup...
I got snookered by the fake news people again (rotten fuckers)

I read it because it seemed stunning
and it indeed read like there was some shenanigans
But after sending it to my brother he agrees with you



Fake News is a real problem
Especially because I'm already a cynical old fart from the get-go

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: Ummm...no it's not.

It simply states, "This subsection shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon—"

That simply means the CBO is not required to make an 50 year analysis. That is a million miles different than "not allowed" (your words) or prohibited from making an analysis.

Besides, the Congressional Budget Act has a requirement that all legislation considered by Congress must have a 10 year cost estimate. An Act is a Law and a Law > Rules.

Yup...
I got snookered by the fake news people again (rotten fuckers)

I read it because it seemed stunning
and it indeed read like there was some shenanigans
But after sending it to my brother he agrees with you



Fake News is a real problem
Especially because I'm already a cynical old fart from the get-go

Fake news isn't the problem. You simply read things as you want to read them.

Even worse, when you get told the truth, you insist others are wrong and double down on your ignorance.

You aren't cynical...you are arrogant.

Cluck U wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Yup...
I got snookered by the fake news people again (rotten fuckers)

I read it because it seemed stunning
and it indeed read like there was some shenanigans
But after sending it to my brother he agrees with you



Fake News is a real problem
Especially because I'm already a cynical old fart from the get-go

Fake news isn't the problem. You simply read things as you want to read them.

Even worse, when you get told the truth, you insist others are wrong and double down on your ignorance.

You aren't cynical...you are arrogant.

Yes,
That must be it



Thank goodness I have you to help me along

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: Ummm...no it's not.

It simply states, "This subsection shall not apply to any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report thereon—"

That simply means the CBO is not required to make an 50 year analysis. That is a million miles different than "not allowed" (your words) or prohibited from making an analysis.

Besides, the Congressional Budget Act has a requirement that all legislation considered by Congress must have a 10 year cost estimate. An Act is a Law and a Law > Rules.

Yup...
I got snookered by the fake news people again (rotten fuckers)

I read it because it seemed stunning
and it indeed read like there was some shenanigans
But after sending it to my brother he agrees with you



Fake News is a real problem
Especially because I'm already a cynical old fart from the get-go

Stay off FoxNews and CNN and you'll avoid the fake news.

Ibanez wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Yup...
I got snookered by the fake news people again (rotten ****)

I read it because it seemed stunning
and it indeed read like there was some shenanigans
But after sending it to my brother he agrees with you



Fake News is a real problem
Especially because I'm already a cynical old fart from the get-go

Stay off FoxNews and CNN and you'll avoid the fake news.

And MSNBC, and NBC, and ABC, and CBS, and the Wa Po, and the NYT, and the.....

BDKJMU wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
Stay off FoxNews and CNN and you'll avoid the fake news.

And MSNBC, and NBC, and ABC, and CBS, and the Wa Po, and the NYT, and the.....

Yep! Breitbart and the Daily Caller are the only ones you can really trust these days.

Grizalltheway wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
And MSNBC, and NBC, and ABC, and CBS, and the Wa Po, and the NYT, and the.....

Yep! Breitbart and the Daily Caller are the only ones you can really trust these days.

Don't forget about Buzzfeed.