I’m guessing you smell like Old Spice and stripper glitter.
Eat your heart out.
The penalty escalates and pretty quickly at that. Sure, the first year is 1% or $95, but in 2015 it’s 2% or $325 and in 2016 it’s 2.5% or $695. And remember, it’s the larger of those numbers.
A little late in the game, but I’m moving this to Elections from Great Debates.
I could ask – is $95 worth shutting down the government over? I would have thought that Affordable Care opponents would want to emphasize how high it is.
Of course, $95 is for 2014. It goes up in 2015 and then again in 2016.
As for the serious answer to your question – the exchange premiums charged by the insurance companies came in a little lower than expected. So it seems that objective actuaries are thinking that a lot people, and not just those with pre-existing conditions, will indeed sign up.
My question is: Why should I have to pay, through higher Blue Cross premiums, for the uninsured motorcyclist with a million dollar head injury? If this happens in 2020, and he has paid a tax penalty of several thousand of dollars over the past five years, society will have recouped at least some of the costs. True conservatives dislike freeloaders, which is why the Affordable Care Act is so similar to GOP health care plans prior to the point where Democrats embraced them.
Sovereign debt is as old as time. Which countries in the world have no debt and are prevented from taking any on? Do they have any sort of social safety nets? How do they balance a budget in recession? If tax revenues don’t meet the budgeted amount, do they just stop paying bills until the end of the fiscal year?
There is nothing wrong with carrying debt, or even accumulating additional debt, as long as, in the long term, the debt service remains manageable. We have a long-term deficit issue that is closely tied to demographics. We do not have a short or medium term problem with current debt. If we default, we will have a huge debt problem in the short term, because interest rates on government debt will likely rise to cover the risk premium of Congress allowing (desiring?) this to happen repeatedly.
Arguably, they already have. They authorized a budget with a deficit. A deficit which is lower than predicted this year, I might add. They should not be allowed to authorize a budget that includes deficits, then refuse to allow the Executive branch to borrow to cover that deficit spending. Stupid.
Remember, the Republican bill would delay it by 1 year.
Apparently Democrats think that it is worth it.
And Republican bill would delay it for one year. Not two or three.
And I’m sure Republicans next year totally won’t ask for another year-long delay if not more. :dubious:
No, no more. The Democrats have compromised enough, its about time they drew a line in the stand. Let this be our Verdun, our Stalingrad, our Berlin.
Wait, I thought liberals reject the “slippery slope” arguments. Guess I was mistaken.
Great. IMO, the longer the government is shut down, the better.
A slippery slope argument is “today event X, tomorrow much worse !!!1”. This is “today event X, tomorrow exactly the same event X”. Which seems reasonable : can you think of any reason for the Republicans *not *to reiterate their little shtick next year, if this year’s circus act got them a one year reprieve ?
Nah, the Democrats would never get rid of the Dane.
Really? That changes everything, hell, that’s not so bad, pretty reasonable. Waited this long, whats a year except maybe for a few thousand people who might very well have died anyway.
So, the Republicans promise that if they get their year, they won’t make any more trouble about it? If they get lucky in the elections, they won’t suddenly change their minds? Is that a “cross their hearts and hope to turn gay” promise or just a “pinky promise”?
Its that slinky temptress, once again, offering gool ol’ Charlie Brown a chance to kick the football. Never can remember her name…
Postponing the $95 fine will kill a few thousand people? Explain how.
Let me get this straight. They think they will need X amount of money to make this thing work.
Your plan is “Hey! Why don’t you take this much less, then try it and see if you were right about how that isn’t enough! And if its not enough, the plan is a failure and you guys lose.”
Brilliant. What could possibly go right?
Yet postponing employer mandate apparently is ok. Doesn’t the same logic apply there too?
It IS complicated, actually.
A) The Democrats “WANT” to repeal the tax on medical devices.
B) The Republicans WANT to repeal the tax on medical devices.
B) (i) The Republicans DO NOT want the Democrats to get anything that they want.
(This sets up a cognitive dissonance in the Republicans’ heads, such that they can’t take it for themselves until the Democrats stop wanting it.)
C) The Republicans “concede” to the Democrats by taking it anyway, even though the Democrats still “want” it.
It’s like the husband and wife who hate each other but neither will seek a divorce because they’d have to share it. :rolleyes:
“…but you’re 97, she’s 93, you been married for 71 years, why a divorce* now*?”
“We wanted to wait until the kids were all dead.”
Is Qin Shi Huangdi a liberal now?
Thanks for at least finally saying what you really feel.
I know, right ? But then again, he (Qin) did write “let this be our…”, which caused something of a spit take this side of the screen.
I… I think y’all might have flipped him, guys 
Are the nominations for most ignorant thing said in the thread still open?