People are still fighting Obamacare?

Obama stands up for Pokemon! WOO!

sheared wrote:

I've not seen it discussed here, but I am curious to get other's opinions on the question of whether Obama even has the power to grant this one year grace period. Is this a non-issue, or is it something that will throw another wrench into the works?

Apparently yes

It seems he can. It’s not that he’s changed anything in the law. It’s more a case of saying his government won’t enforce it, kind of like what his administration did when it gave employers an extra year to provide health insurance for workers last July.

What Obama's decision does do is kick the cancellation decision back to state insurance commissioners and the insurance companies themselves. “It was a blame-shifting exercise,” says Dr. Scott Gottleib, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute

http://t.nbcnews.com/health/obamacar...

So on a lark the other day I named my pokemon rival Obama. The results have been... unsettlingly salient

spoilered for unintended huge, I fail at imgur

Spoiler:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/4hVQtf2.jpg)

spoilered for unintended huge, I fail at imgur

Spoiler tags don't work for images... as you probably noticed now.

OG_slinger wrote:

Year delay: Totally a political move to placate the "Obama's a lying liar" crowd. Only affects some of the self-insured, which are only a fraction of the total pool of people impacted by Obamacare.

This is something that has always bugged me about Obama. He has done this kind of attempt to placate people before and it is stupid. There are people who will hate Obama no matter what he does. Norman is a case in point (not to be mean but he is). No matter what Obama does they will find a way to spin it as evil and bad. Now I assume they would argue that Obama is evil and bad so it really isn't spin but the simple fact is they will not like anything, any policy, any law, any speech, anything that Obama does so why does he keep trying to make them happy! It is like he was in an abusive relationship where he had to keep working to make the person "love" him and never saw the lie.

I much prefer the "won't back down" Obama we saw during the government shutdown instead of this one.

He's not implementing the delay to make his opponents happy. He's doing it to shift blame to the insurance companies as this mess continues, and to hopefully mitigate the effect of Obamacare on the 2014 elections. Neither of which is likely to work, but he's running out of options that his ego will permit.

Demosthenes wrote:
spoilered for unintended huge, I fail at imgur

Spoiler tags don't work for images... as you probably noticed now. :D

I refuse to touch it again *shakes cane*

MyBrainHz wrote:

he's running out of options that his ego will permit.

...?

Be...cause he's obsessively, obviously concerned about his legacy? Like that grasping Clinton was? Is that the narrative?

Because god damn them for trying to puff themselves up by doing Big Things in a transparent, pathetic attempt to become as infamous as the perpetrators of the Great Society and the New Deal.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
spoilered for unintended huge, I fail at imgur

Spoiler tags don't work for images... as you probably noticed now. :D

I refuse to touch it again *shakes cane*

Can I at least step on your lawn?

1. The fact that you made Obama your pokemon rival makes it hard for me to take your dislike of Obama's political decisions seriously.

2. The irony of you making Obama your rival in a game where your entire quest, and indeed the entire industry that your quest it's a part of, and indeed the entire economy of the entire world that that industry is located in, is subsidized by completely free pokemon healthcare, is so sweet that it gave me a cavity. A cavity that I will actually have to pay to have filled with my own money because Merica.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Sarcasm

I can't quite parse your pseudo-outrage, but to clarify what I said: yeah, I think Obama has a big head. Also, he's not as bright as he thinks he is, which is evident from listening to his bloviating press conference yesterday.

Yonder wrote:

1. The fact that you made Obama your pokemon rival makes it hard for me to take your dislike of Obama's political decisions seriously.

2. The irony of you making Obama your rival in a game where your entire quest, and indeed the entire industry that your quest it's a part of, and indeed the entire economy of the entire world that that industry is located in, is subsidized by completely free pokemon healthcare, is so sweet that it gave me a cavity. A cavity that I will actually have to pay to have filled with my own money because Merica.

You just can't have fun with some people.

Tenebrous wrote:

You just can't have fun with some people.

Especially not Obama.

He's crushing you and your new plans.

Sidenote: I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the last president we had who didn't feed the American public at least one fairly big lie was Jimmy Carter.

Re: Norman's Pokemon screencap - I laughed. Out loud. Quite unintentionally hilarious.

Farscry wrote:

Sidenote: I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the last president we had who didn't feed the American public at least one fairly big lie was Jimmy Carter.

Yeah and look at what that got him! Last time I saw him wasn't he building houses?

farley3k wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Sidenote: I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the last president we had who didn't feed the American public at least one fairly big lie was Jimmy Carter.

Yeah and look at what that got him! Last time I saw him wasn't he building houses?

For free! SOCIALISM!

Bloo Driver wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

You just can't have fun with some people.

Especially not Obama.

He's crushing you and your new plans.

Obama stole my coconut cream pie!

Tenebrous wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

You just can't have fun with some people.

Especially not Obama.

He's crushing you and your new plans.

Obama stole my coconut cream pie!

He totally took the Pokemon that would counter mine just to be a jerk. The nerve.

farley3k wrote:

There are people who will hate Obama no matter what he does. Norman is a case in point (not to be mean but he is). No matter what Obama does they will find a way to spin it as evil and bad.

Well, that's a fair characterization based on my posts here, but I don't "hate" Obama or think he's a force for evil or anything. From an economic standpoint, I got what I wanted from his administration (I wasn't in the Bush tax cut repeal, can still deduct my mortgage interest, still take advantage of the SSI cap every year) and I think he does a pretty good job on the security front. I do have zero respect for the hopey/changey affectation, he clearly just says whatever to make people feel good and then takes the path of least resistance/political gain - that's been a pattern since he refused to take public funding back in 2008. I think he's intellectually lazy and has told lie after lie since taking office - this is making him flail around because it's the first lie he's been well and truly called out on, he doesn't have the backstop of Republicans to blame and it's making him somewhat radioactive.

Just contaminating all the incumbents with his

Spoiler:

"liesotopes"

you might say.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

he clearly just says whatever to make people feel good and then takes the path of least resistance/political gain .

I dislike him for that except rather than see it as the path of least resistance/political gain I think he actually believes he should work with the other side and I find that just silly.

I think Ds would like him more and Rs might respect him more if he wasn't always so "compromise", "work together" etc.

farley3k wrote:

.... Rs might respect him more if he wasn't always so "compromise", "work together" etc.

YOU ARE ADORABLE.

I want to pinch his little cheeks

farley3k wrote:

This is something that has always bugged me about Obama. He has done this kind of attempt to placate people before and it is stupid. There are people who will hate Obama no matter what he does. Norman is a case in point (not to be mean but he is). No matter what Obama does they will find a way to spin it as evil and bad. Now I assume they would argue that Obama is evil and bad so it really isn't spin but the simple fact is they will not like anything, any policy, any law, any speech, anything that Obama does so why does he keep trying to make them happy! It is like he was in an abusive relationship where he had to keep working to make the person "love" him and never saw the lie.

I much prefer the "won't back down" Obama we saw during the government shutdown instead of this one.

In the PR biz we have a saying: perception is reality. The current perception is that Obama personally booted a few million Americans off of their perfectly good health insurance and was trying to force them to buy his much more expensive Obamacare-brand insurance after swearing to each of them individually on a stack of bibles that would never do such a thing. That is "reality" now.

It doesn't matter if this was known years ago. It doesn't matter that perhaps 30% of those self-insured actually keep their policies for more than a year. It doesn't matter that those policies are effectively insurance in name only.

So Obama is dealing with the perceived reality.

And, most importantly, he's eliminating the one thing that Republicans might have used as leverage come the oh so predictable budget/debt ceiling showdown we're going to have in January and February. And that showdown is going to be the very last time Republicans can attempt to delay/derail/defund Obamacare before it goes into effect completely so I expect it to be a doozy.

Had he not done something then Republicans would have simply hammered this story non-stop (not that they aren't going to).

That would have put vulnerable Democrats in a position where they either had to side with the president and vote for a budget deal that tossed old people and hard-working entrepreneurs off their insurance policies (and then face angry voters in the fall) or vote with the Republicans for a budget deal that defunded or delayed large chunks of Obamacare (and then tell those same voters that they fought bravely to protect old people and small businesses owners).

His decision sucks. It makes no sense from a policy perspective. It will cause insurance companies to raise their rates in 2015, impacting tens of millions of people. And there's most definitely going to be few thousand of those self-insured who are going to get injured or really sick next year and they're going to find out just how sh*tty their old insurance policies actually are.

But such is politics.

MyBrainHz wrote:

He's not implementing the delay to make his opponents happy. He's doing it to shift blame to the insurance companies as this mess continues, and to hopefully mitigate the effect of Obamacare on the 2014 elections. Neither of which is likely to work, but he's running out of options that his ego will permit.

I can buy the mitigating the impact on Obamacare for the 2014 elections, but I don't understand your claim that this somehow shifts the blame to the insurance companies and that Obama wants that to happen.

Politically, the best thing for Obama would for the law to go into effect for everyone as soon as possible. Right now his opponents are having a field day because they can sow so much FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) and there's no effective counters. Heck, there's no counters at all.

We can easily get stories about small business owners who claim Obamacare made them close their business or fire people or how Obamacare took away their awesome $75 a month insurance.

But there's no counterstories from the person who's never had health insurance going to their doctor for the first time or the single mother saying how much a relief it is to finally not have to worry about an accident or illness or a story from any one of the two million Americans that would have gone bankrupt because of medical bills that weren't covered by their insurance. Those stories will only come out after January 1st.

MyBrainHz wrote:
H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Sarcasm

I can't quite parse your pseudo-outrage, but to clarify what I said: yeah, I think Obama has a big head. Also, he's not as bright as he thinks he is, which is evident from listening to his bloviating press conference yesterday.

Ah, see, that's what I honestly did not get, and so I projected on you the psychological co-morbidity that often follows assertions of Obama's personal failings. Like how being "arrogant" is actually code for "is an uppity nigra."

I guess since they're beliefs, I can't challenge the ego/not as bright as he thinks he is statements. I just can't see them myself, thus my incredulity that others can.

I mean, Lindsey Graham Cracker could be pulling obstructionist sh*t over Benghazi because he's really, really curious to know what happened. But, y'know, hoofbeats, horses/zebras.

I think you can call someone arrogant without having racist overtones in it. It seems the blanket racist statements exist to shut people up honestly. Can no one point out that Obama has failings or is that out of line?

Reading about Obama's management style, especially the Washington Post article or Politico's Locked in the Cabinet, it is hard not to think something is wrong at the top in how Obama manages things.

Does that make me or the writers of those articles racists, unabashed partisans, or Obama haters? No. It makes me concerned because I actually want America (including Obamacare BTW) to succeed and to do that we need an extremely competent manager at the helm.

And we need both parties to cooperate in order to have good governance. Obama is having trouble in large part because a tremendous amount of trouble has been generated for him by his opponents. This did not used to happen; it's unusual in modern American history. It's well worth remembering that moving forward, because if the Republicans don't play ball, and then win in 2016, the Democrats will take the same tactics to heart and shut down anything the Republicans try to do.

The whole obstructionist ideal is a two-way street. We just have not changed lanes lately. When we do, the Republicans will be moaning the loss of cooperation, and it'll be their own damn fault.

That's... one way of looking at it. It seems to me that legislation passed under a Democratic House and Senate and signed by Obama doesn't really have all that much to do with Republican cooperation one way or the other.

Robear wrote:

Obama is having trouble in large part because a tremendous amount of trouble has been generated for him by his opponents.

Well, that and his own dishonesty and ineptitude. Did you listen to the press conference the other day? How embarrassing For him. Just laughably awful.

The whole bit about this being unusual in modern American history... I mean, I get that you're trying to paint the Rs as big meanies here, but come on. Recent polls really have the left feeling cranky, eh? Especially post-shutdown.

It's unfair to say that we're characterizing the R's as big meanies.

It would be much more accurate to say that I characterize them as being mustache-twirling villains carrying out blatant and egregious wrongdoings, both as sinister plans to get their own way, and as confused and desperate lashing outs, not unlike a spoiled toddler having a nightmare.

Yeah, not sure "taken over by a junta whose ideological nihilism and ignorance of the Constitution often steps over the boundaries of treason" is properly encapsulated by "big meanies."

Yonder wrote:

It's unfair to say that we're characterizing the R's as big meanies.

It would be much more accurate to say that I characterize them as being mustache-twirling villains carrying out blatant and egregious wrongdoings, both as sinister plans to get their own way, and as confused and desperate lashing outs, not unlike a spoiled toddler having a nightmare.

To be fair we could probably set up a website though