The first year of it - definitely.
Democrats certainly seem to think so.
NelsonHaha.gif
Wrong.
It is $95 per person ($47.50 per child) up to a family maximum of $285, or 1 percent of family income, whichever is greater.
Last chance: take this to another thread.
I thought you said you wanted to talk about the best case scenario. Refusing to raise the debt limit does not automatically result in defaulting on our debt (cite).
Here is why the question is so difficult to answer. There is no maximum for insuring your family and so worst case scenerio is that you cannot afford coverage for your family and then you pay the fines and still do not have coverage. As it is now, to cover my whole family would take up about 1/5 of my takehome pay AND it’s not 100% coverage so I have to pay $140 on top of that when Cad Jnr. had an infected toe and needed an HPV vaccination.
So it’s not so different from what it was before except for the fact that Mrs. Cad has a problem that for the last 10 years we have been from doctor to doctor to see and not only do we pay out of pocket for insurance AND portions of the medical bills. Now she found a doctor that may help but he doesn’t take insurance so under Obamacare she’ll have to pay for insurance and this doctor and we have no choice in the matter. To which the natural question is: who pays when she goes to the hospital after a car accident. To which the natural answer is: the same people who would pay for the 11+ million illegal aliens that are specifically exempt from ACA.
So to answer the OP: $3600 / year is what Obamacare is going to cost me above what I pay now and based on my situation at work (my individual insurance is $5/mo) it is not close to worst case.
May as well quote Rep. Ted Yoho who thinks it’s a great idea! Those are minority views, however.
Just the hint that we might default in 2011 cost taxpayers at least $1.3b dollars because of the slight increase in borrowing costs to the United States.
So, even in this theoretical world where not coming to a resolution on the debt ceiling doesn’t cause a default, it won’t be any better than what happened just a couple years ago in reality, right?
The other big consequence one way or the other is that if the Democrats give in, then this will become a legitimate and accepted tactic, and every future budget negotation will involve some group making a similar demand, etc., which could certainly have negative consequences on the US as a whole.
I didn’t suggest it was a great idea. I didn’t suggest there wouldn’t be consequences, just that defaulting on the debt doesn’t have to be one of them, unless Obama really wants it to be. I think it’s wildly irresponsible to threaten or suggest the possibility we wouldn’t pay the interest on our national debt (and rather disingenuous to suggest that seniors won’t get SS checks) but I can’t control what Obama or the Democrats say, even if it will cause fear in investment circles that increase our borrowing costs.
I understand it would be bad politics to be honest about the situation and say, “hey, look, this debt ceiling thing will be a real pain for a lot of people, but we really will pay the interest we owe our creditors, so you needn’t worry about that”, but it would be good policy.
NelsonHaha.gif
John_Stamos’_Left_Ear, as you may have figured out by now, you can’t post images here. In any case the haw-haw thing is kind of obnoxious, so cut it out.
That is your FIRST mistake 
Yeah, he lied. He is in fact, blocking a vote. Hence the move for a Discharge, to get around his obstruction.
Even this article from ABC News, entitled Republicans Reject Debt Limit Doomsday Predictions, is telling:
And we have tried ObamaCare? (Actually we have; it’s RomneyCare in one state and it seems to have been an imperfect success.)
This argument rings to me like the arguments of Creationists who say “Dinosaurs? Were you there?” Just as scientists can weigh in about events that happened long ago, economists can weigh in on what might happen in the future.
So we can default on some things, but not the important things, right? That’s what he is saying here. I am loathe to compare global economics with household finances because the analogies are almost always wrong, but how is this tactic any different than when it is bill time in a cash-strapped house and they decide that they have to pay the rent and utilities, credit cards will be paid the minimum (meaning interest is accrued) and of something has to go unpaid, it is something like the cable bill.
This is fine for a house to live on, but the cable will eventually be shut off. What things will the government decide is a priority and what will get shut off? And who makes that decision?
Yep. And that was just a near miss.
So all of those people - including one of our creditors! - point out the dire consequences of this. But we are to believe those who say we should just “prioritize” or who claim that since it didn’t happen before, they have no idea what will occur.
Oh, so the deadline is not really a deadline. It’s all a sham. Well, we didn’t even pass the last deadline last time and it cost us almost 1.5 billion dollars.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. “In finance, default occurs when a debtor has not met his or her legal obligations according to the debt contract, e.g. has not made a scheduled payment, or has violated a loan covenant (condition) of the debt contract. A default is the failure to pay back a loan”
In other words, we can default on paying the interest on the national debt. I could see someone making the argument that failing to pay SS would be a default of some sort or another, and maybe that argument could be stretched to other entitlements. It’s not a “default” if we decide to stop issuing NEA grants, or lay off the NPS goon squads, or stop giving out Obamaphones, or shutter the ATF.
If Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling then Obama / Congress / whoever will have to prioritize critical spending vs non-critical spending, just like Obama’s doing now with the whole essential vs non-essential .gov “shutdown”. I hope and believe they’ll have the sense to realize that interest on the national debt should be a high priority.
I’ve never shoved bees up my ass. I’m pretty sure I won’t like the results.
Just to supply some numbers to this:
Interest on national debt 2013: ~$248B
Federal Income tax revenue 2013: ~1,700B
SS + Medicare payments 2013: ~$1,660B
SS + Medicare tax revenue 2013: ~$960B
Which means that without borrowing, US can cover interest on national debt, SS and Medicare, and have $752B left over. Add to that about $230B in other revenues, and that’s $982B left over.
Your link of September 30 cites an unnamed individual in the Speaker’s office stating that there would be a “new continuing resolution with amendments attached to it that will delay Obamacare’s individual mandate for one year.” But, as of today, I can find no evidence that a bill allowing the Affordable Care Act to be implemented as of January 1, without the mandate, has been passed. Here’s where to look:
What you may be missing is that the premiums private insurance companies are offering in the exchanges are based on expectations concerning what type of people will sign up for the plans. Without the mandate, people who have a history of not using a lot of health care will be less likely to take out the insurance, and the companies will find that their rates were set too low.
So: Taking away the $95/one percent of income tax fine would cheat insurers out of a lot of money. There is therefore no way it could pass, and that person in the speaker’s office was obviously in error as to what would happen.
The only GOP one year proposal is to tell all the people who are counting on being insured, at rates they can afford, starting January, to wait a year. And the obvious intent is to extend that so they wait forever. They when they get seriously ill, they will not pay their bills, and go bankrupt, with the cost of their care socialized.
Not paying all of our obligations other than the debt would be nearly as bad as not paying the debt.
We, as a society, have made a decision to spend money, and suddenly changing our minds about the whole thing amounts to a major shift in the social contract.
This will result in people getting angry. It is not a good thing.
It is not one percent of income tax fine. It is $95 per individual, capped at one percent. And no, I don’t think a fine of $95 per year will induce people to buy insurance that costs $100-$200-$300 a month.