ACA: Employer mandate DELAYED, Caps on Costs DELAYED. Should Individual Mandate be delayed?

[leftstreet]

White House delays employer mandate requirement until 2015

By Sarah Kliff, Published: July 2 at 5:51 pmE-mail the writer

The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday.

Instead, it will delay enforcement of a major Affordable Care Act requirement that all employers with more than 50 employees provide coverage to their workers until 2015.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/white-house-delays-employer-mandate-requirement-until-2015/

A Limit on Consumer Costs Is Delayed in Health Care Law
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: August 12, 2013 980 Comments

WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.

The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

31 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes - delay it until 2015 also
	4 (13%)
	No
	27 (87%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The poll didn't include the option "ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?"

Never negotiate with terrorists.

[leftstreet]

2. Is the GOP asking to delay the individual mandate?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. That's their latest hostage.

Delay the individual mandate so we can campaign on the awfulness of Obamacare for the next year, or we'll shut down the government.

Never negotiate with terrorists.

[dkf]

9. If you look at it logically delaying the mandate will save us grief.

It takes the most unpleasant part and keeps people unsuspecting til after the elections while it keeps the perks.

Honestly this would be a boost for favorability if anyone had half a brain about it.

[geek tragedy]

20. You're aligning with the House GOP against the entire Democratic party

on this one.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/house-senate-government-shutdown-97557.html


There will be those who are not surprised at this.

[dkf]

26. That's because people are moving into "team" and "tribe" mode vs logic.

[geek tragedy]

27. So, the GOP are the ones being reasonable now, in your opinion. nt

[jberryhill]

67. I am Bob's complete lack of surprise

[geek tragedy]

76. And I am Jack's complete lack of surprise

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3753247

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Are you fucking kidding me?

This is the part that has to go into effect for all the rest of it to work. Furthermore, giving into any GOP demand in exchange for their agreeing not to shut down the government is not negotiating; it's caving. And when you agree to any demand of a terrorist organization, that is just encouraging them to keep making more demands. Remember: the ACA was enacted by Congress, signed by the president and upheld by the Supreme Court. They have tried without success to repeal it 43 times. It's the law. There's nothing to negotiate. Agreeing to change the terms of a duly enacted law because some political terrorists don't like it and can't get it repealed through the normal legislative process is not democracy. And it will only get worse if they get what they want this time.

[dkf]

60. $93 bucks isn't going to do much vs $100/month.

It's not til the penalties hit $600+ or so that it will make a difference.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

66. That's not the point! The point is that the GOP is demanding a change in a law

that they couldn't accomplish through the established legislative process, and they are trying to do it by holding the government budget hostage. I don't care what it is they want; I don't care if they are demanding a free lollipop with every doctor visit or an extra bottle of Jim Beam for John Boehner every time he makes another stupid demand. The point is that they already lost this battle. The ACA is the law and if they can't change it through the normal process they don't get to shut down the government to make it happen. There's nothing to negotiate.

[dkf]

69. So Obama changed the law unilaterally by delaying the employer mandate one year?

Really?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

72. He shouldn't have done it and I sure hope he doesn't cave again.

[dkf]

77. That wasn't a cave, that was his idea!!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

78. It was a cave. He was trying to make the ACA more palatable

to big business in order to try to forestall something like what's happening now. A preemptive cave, as it were. He's done that sort of thing way too often and I hope he's finally figured out that it does no good at all to "negotiate" with people who want everything their way.

[littlewolf]

79. more palatable to the ones who haven't gotten

an exemption.

[dkf]

80. The employer exchanges are behind the individual ones

Which aren't ready either.

Do you think it's good policy to mandate impossible tasks?

[questionseverything]

71. why the "unsuspecting" part

other than that i agree with you...it is in fact what candidate obama promised.....an option for health ins not a mandate

he said,"i trust the american people to do the right thing"

and most americans would if they could afford it,i have been playing with the calculators and for the over 50 crowd costs are gonna be 25- 30% of income (and that was before i knew there is no out of pocket cap for 2014)

i kind of think in this punch and judy show we call congress the repubs just asked for the personal mandate delay to keep older liberal dems for begging for it

[geek tragedy]

8. Yes,

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/house-senate-government-shutdown-97557.html

[CreekDog]

81. Yes. Which seems to be why most people supporting the delay here are conservative leaning

[CreekDog]

102. is this like when you demanded Obama respond to the birther nonsense

then a month later criticized him for talking about the subject? (when he released the long form birth certificate)

you've played games with us before on issues.

leftstreet
Tue Mar-01-11 03:12 PM

10. Why did Obama never put a stop to this nonsense?

He's had the world as his stage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=535161&mesg_id=535210

leftstreet
Tue Mar-01-11 03:17 PM
19. Sure he could have. Could have made fun of them on tv early on

This has been floating around long enough that some people actually believe it's true

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=535161&mesg_id=535252

leftstreet
Wed Apr-27-11 03:22 PM

I'm sorry, but this whole episode makes him seem clueless

And I don't like to say that.

People can't find work, they're losing their homes, they can't afford to see a doctor

but THIS "crisis" Obama responds to?

People are worried about gas and grocery prices !!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=972931&mesg_id=972980

[Denninmi]

3. Real ordinary people need real meaningful relief now, not in 1 or 2 or X years.

I know I do, I can't afford my healthcare the way it is. It sucks. At the current rate, I'll be medically bankrupt by the time I hit 55.

[duffyduff]

10. Not if you can't afford the coverage to begin with. It won't make one bit of difference

if you can't use the insurance because of outrageous premiums and high deductibles for lousy coverage, or you are forced onto Medicaid and can't use it anyway because few doctors will treat you.

Until we have a system in this country that is better than employer-paid coverage in the largest companies, health care will not be good for most and unaffordable.

[Myrina]

44. Exactly. If you have to buy it, but companies don't have to control costs, or implement it ...

.... it's free license for them to gouge the hell out of us for 1-2 years.

[geek tragedy]

5. No, that's a GOP talking point, nothing more, nt

[northoftheborder]

6. I didn't know the out of pocket costs limit has been delayed. That's not good.

[duffyduff]

7. This thing needs to be totally revamped.

The sticker shock facing people is going to be horrendous if something isn't done to fix it.

[Puzzledtraveller]

11. They will remember it in 2016 too.

We are so short sighted here.

[geek tragedy]

13. Spare us the pro-GOP concern trolling.

Yes, we should delay it just like the Republicans want us too.

[Puzzledtraveller]

15. You must be an insurance agent.

[geek tragedy]

16. No, a Democrat. Only Republicans and their allies want to delay/repeal the ACA at this point.

It's a bright line.

[leftstreet]

37. Obama delayed ACA provisions. Is he a Republican?

[geek tragedy]

40. He's implementing it, you and they are trying to sabotage it. nt

[leftstreet]

42. He derailed 2 provisions. You're saying GOP allies derail

[geek tragedy]

46. You repeating the Republicans' talking points only proves my point.

http://www.gop.com/news/research/past-is-prologue-another-broken-promise-and-obamacare-delay/

In case you thought you weren't being completely obvious by arguing that the GOP's position has merit.

[leftstreet]

63. Maybe the GOPers are repeating our talking points

Democrats have long been against mandated for-profit insurance payments

Just ask Hillary what happened when Obama slammed her on mandates during the primary

[enlightenment]

74. Three, actually.

Don't forget about the part where the states running their own exchanges don't have to verify eligibility until 2015.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-insurance-marketplaces-will-not-be-required-to-verify-consumer-claims/2013/07/05/d2a171f4-e5ab-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

[leftstreet]

83. Oh that's right

I forgot all about that

[enlightenment]

111. Understandable.

It's hard to keep up with the delays of key provisions.

[sabrina 1]

100. Democrats opposed Mandated Insurance. Including this President. It was Republicans

who were pushing to force those 'no-good Lieberals' to have to pay for HC. As Obama himself said and one of the reasons why many of us Liberal Democrats supported him over Hillary (who supported Mandates) 'if forcing people to buy homes would solve homelessness, we could do that' when he explained why he OPPOSED Mandated Insurance.

What's fun to see is how the Republicans have changed their positions on this and equally fun to see how some Democrats have switched theirs.

We should not force people to buy HC. We should have a National HC system which is the cheapest way to cover the country's HC needs. Not great for the middlemen (Health Insurance Corps who take at least 20% maybe more, in profits which should be going directly into actual HC).

I am amazed to watch the switching of positions though and the amnesia as to what a controversial subject this was with Republicans always supporting it, now suddenly opposed to it.

People are so sick of these political games while people are struggling to survive in this country.

[geek tragedy]

103. How would you vote, with the Republicans or with the Democrats?

Simple question.

P.S. Paul Krugman has argued consistently for the mandate to be included. Please let me know what you and Louie Gohmert know that he doesn't.

[sabrina 1]

105. Voting for the Mandate WAS voting for Republicans. McCain was for it, Obama against it.

What did YOU vote for? McCain or Obama?

[geek tragedy]

107. Quit dodging the question: do you support the Republicans or Democrats in this

current stand-off?

P.S. McCain and every Republican voted against it. Paul Krugman was for it. Bernie Sanders voted for it. So please stop lying and claiming that something that Krugman advocated and Bernie Sanders voted for and that every Republican voted against is a partisan Republican idea.

[sabrina 1]

108. So you voted against it then?

The irony of telling someone else not to dodge a question while in the process of doing so yourself must have escaped you. Thanks for the answer.

[geek tragedy]

110. That's twice you've dodged the question.

Do you support Speaker Boehner or President Obama in this dispute?


I voted for Barack Obama in the primaries, but I thought Clinton had the better of the argument in terms of the mandate.

Paul Krugman is and was right.

[sabrina 1]

129. So you voted against Obama then? Why are you continuing to dodge what is a very

simple question? As I said, Mandated Ins. always was a Republican idea. Democrats like Obama were opposed to forcing people to pay for something they could not afford. That may have lost Hillary the nomination in fact. There wasn't much difference between them in the end, but Obama''s position on Mandated Insurance was the Democratic position. He won.

[geek tragedy]

130. Obama didn't win the nomination because of the mandate issue. He had to play

defense on it--Clinton and Krugman etc attacked his no-mandate position as not feasible, and they were right.

I stand by the Democrats in their fight with the Republicans. Too bad you can't find the words to say likewise.

[sabrina 1]

131. Being that I have stood by the Democrats' fight against Republicans

for a lifetime of political involvement, especially on issues like HC and have stood up against Republican ideas on what is good for this country, can you explain your last sentence please, as it is completely irrelevant to me?

Perhaps it was meant for someone else?

Many Democrats ended up choosing the candidate who was standing up against Republican ideas, such as the Mandate, as I did which made the difference in the end. You appear to be quite uninformed on this issue.

Just fyi, I am very experienced with the kind of game of you are trying to play. It's not very clever especially when attempted with those who have been in the trenches, fighting the Right Wing, for as long as I have.

[geek tragedy]

12. Thanks for Rush Limbaugh's talking points. Try to be more subtle next time. nt

[leftstreet]

34. +1

[geek tragedy]

14. Those voting yes are aligned with the House GOP.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/house-senate-government-shutdown-97557.html

In other words, they're on the same side as Michelle Bachmann on the ACA now.

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. I'm scared.

Why am I social worker? I must be sick right?

[geek tragedy]

22. I don't know why you're supporting Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gohmert on this issue.

You've chosen your side.

[leftstreet]

21. The ACA is a GOP plan. Are you calling Obama a teabagger?

[geek tragedy]

23. Those wanting to delay or derail the ACA are allies of the GOP. Zero exceptions, regardless

of what dishonest rhetoric they employ.

You are standing with Rand, with Ted Cruz, with the Republican party, with the Tea Party.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/house-senate-government-shutdown-97557.html

[leftstreet]

32. Obama 'derailed' the ACA twice

Read the links above

Employer mandate
Caps on Costs

Are you saying he's allied with the GOP?

[geek tragedy]

35. No, I'm saying that those who want the same thing as the GOP are aligned with the GOP.

Amazing coincidence that you posted a poll pushing for an Obamacare delay within minutes of the House GOP deciding to go that direction, with the talking points being emailed out.

Just amazing.

[leftstreet]

38. So what?

What's wrong with generating an opinion poll?

I've seen lots of them here lately

[geek tragedy]

41. You and your fellow travelers here are arguing for a delay.

One obvious troll has suggested the only reason that Democrats oppose a delay in Obamacare is "ego."

[leftstreet]

43. Yes. Delay the mandate

Obama delayed the mandate for employers and the caps-on-costs for insurers

Asking for a delay of the individual mandate is not unreasonable

[geek tragedy]

47. Yes it is. Because the mandate means more people joining the pools, which will make them

successful.

The Republicans want to delay it because they want to kill it.

And that is your reasoning as well, since you favor repealing Obamacare and going back to the system under Bush.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3198554

The healthcare system WAS better under Bush

You are obvious.

[leftstreet]

62. If employers don't join, will it be successful?

Why are they being left out of the 'pools' until 2015?

[geek tragedy]

65. Only someone completely ignorant of the exchanges would ask that kind of question.

(The answer, btw, is that the exchanges are for people who don't get employer healthcare)

[leftstreet]

68. LOL so this is like Phase 1 or something?

[geek tragedy]

70. Let's see, you repeat Republican talking points and then you reveal

yourself to have zero knowledge about how the ACA actually works, yet you adamantly oppose it and align yourself with the Tea Party on the #1 issue separating the parties.

Not suspicious at all.

[leftstreet]

85. Stop insinuating members are trolls

Jeez, calm down

Stop claiming people are 'repeating Republican talking points' and 'aligning themselves with the Tea Party' when they're only voicing the same concerns Obama once had. He himself was against the mandate - ask Hillary

If Obama needs to negotiate and compromise with the GOP you should have his back!

[geek tragedy]

86. Only a rightwing troll would suggest Obama needs to negotiate with the Republicans over the ACA

at this point.

[leftstreet]

89. Really? Obama negotiates all the time

Are you calling him a troll?

Obama has asked repeatedly for five years that his supporters have his back and avoid political gridlock, learn to reach across the aisle, and rethink some of their most cherished ideas

Are you saying if he needs to give up the ACA individual mandate to maintain the funding, you wouldn't have his back on that? I certainly would

[geek tragedy]

92. Obama has said he's not negotiating on this. So has Harry Reid. So has every Democratic Senator

and all but two DINO's in the House.

No negotiating with terrorists. Period.

Those who would seek to appease the terrorists can go sit with them.

[leftstreet]

93. Oh, okay n/t

[pampango]

28. ACA is patterned after what the Massachusetts legislature (85% Democratic) passed and romney vetoed.

Massachusetts Democrats (not known for their conservatism) revamped romney's proposed bill to such a great extent that he vetoed the result. Democrats the overrode his veto and "romneycare" became law.

The irony - romney vetoed Romneycare. I wonder if the ACA would still be called Obamacare, if Obama had vetoed it and congress had overridden his veto. Not that would have happened.

[zipplewrath]

24. Nice smear

Several months ago I would have said yes, it should be delayed. Right now, I wouldn't agree to such legislation over the budget or debt limit. There's not enough time to negotiate all the changes that should be made to the ACA. But once the fight is over, as part of a larger package "fixing" things even the president would like to see changed, I can see delaying the individual mandate. Even more so if that is what it took to get the GOP to agree to some changes.

[geek tragedy]

25. It is not a coincidence that this poll was posted contemporaneously with the House

GOP making that precise demand.

The only Senate Democrat to agree?

Joe Manchin.

Nice company they keep.

[Turbineguy]

17. This Congress can still make several hundred more attempts to repeal it.

but it's easier if nobody knows how well it works.

[RandiFan1290]

19. lol at the Boehner Brigade

[Andy823]

29. Hell no!

Why play into the republicans hands? No way in hell should the president, or the democrats in congress give into such insane demands by the right wing. Why do you even post crap like this?

[hughee99]

31. So they're going to force people into the market but delaying many of the consumer protections?

I'm unclear why people think mandating coverage under such circumstances is going to help anyone. You want to give the ACA a bad name from the start? Spend a year forcing people into a market where the insurance companies can charge high rates for little or no coverage and a high deductible, and I don't think it's going to make the rest of the ACA any easier to get implemented.

[leftstreet]

33. Correct n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

36. Ego, plain and simple

They want to spike the ball so hard they don't care. We must ask, what's the hurry? Why would'nt the president and democrats want to correct these things. Preempt the stupid republicans and say, we are going to fix it, try and hold that up?

[geek tragedy]

39. "They want to spike the ball so hard they don't care. We must ask, what's the hurry?"

You know who says shit like this these days about people who oppose the GOP's efforts to sabotage the ACA?

Republicans.

You know who else says it?

No one.

[bunnies]

49. Why?

Because people need health care!! Thats fucking why. Not you though, right?

[Puzzledtraveller]

51. You do not know me do you?

No, I didn't think so.

[bunnies]

53. You didnt answer the question, did you?

No, I didnt think so.

[geek tragedy]

57. Don't expect an honest answer from the person who claims to be a Medicaid case worker

and then argues for the Medicaid expansion to help millions, plus the exchanges, to get delayed and possibly killed.

[bunnies]

59. Heh.

Well then I guess they ALREADY have their gov't funded insurance if, in fact, they're a Medicaid case worker.

[questionseverything]

82. i dont have insurance any more

i was hopeful right up to when i saw what is considered "affordable''...26% of our income is not ''affordable"

no one is saying to delay the parts that are good and if it helps you i am glad but for older folks whose premiums are 3 times a young persons something needs adjusted

on a side note medicaid is 2nd class healthcare (at least here in illinois),i have a problem with making the 2 tier system legit but that is whole different discussion

please do not puke on me,i have a weak tummy

[bunnies]

84. I dont have insurance either.

And Obamacare wont help me. I fall into the medicaid bracket that my state has yet to expand. For me to purchase through the exchange I would have to pay 100% of the premium because I make too little to qualify for subsidies. And currently, I need a joint replaced. Not a day goes by that healthcare isnt on my mind. Obamacare premiums arent supposed to be over 9.5% of your income, but those in my position fall through the cracks. Personally, I'd be doing a happy dance if I got a medicaid card.

Its all relative, I guess.

[questionseverything]

97. so delaying the mandate would keep you from owing the penalty

people should not be further penalized for being poor

in our house i have to figure in the out of pocket because my spouse takes expensive meds each month...that is how i get the 26% of income number...without a cap insurance is useless....we are firmly clinging to middle class but i can not seem to find a way to free up 26% of our income

my beef with medicaid is personal as my daughter has a bad situation that they will not treat ...she could actually die of tooth infections because illinois medicaid only covers one tooth being surgically removed a year and the worst part is i am sure the er costs more than her surgery would

[bunnies]

101. I wont owe the penalty anyway.

I dont even make enough to be required to file taxes.

Re: your daughter... is there assistance available from her local hospital? Ours offers a community dental office for people who qualify for aid. The co-pays range from $0.00 to $40.00 per visit depending on income level. I think the co-pay doubles for extraction but it would still be a hell of a lot cheaper than full price. Almost every hospital that I looked into (in my state) has a program like that. It cant hurt to check, hopefully you will find something.

[questionseverything]

112. she had cancer

on and off for 9 years,had to have a hysterectomy at young age,zapped her calcium so her teeth started breaking off at gum line so she needs oral surgery...if it was just getting teeth pulled it would be different

i am glad you do not have to pay penalty,i will have to but i will be ok first few years and maybe something good will happen in between....i am more worried that when the average middle class person realizes the gov't wants 26-30% more of their pay for insurance costs dems will be blamed,we will lose senate too and nothing will ever be fixed

anyway ty for the pleasant discussion and i hope for the best for you

[bunnies]

114. oh man. Im really sorry to hear that.

Must have been horrible for both of you to go through. Damn.

Im totally with you on hoping something will happen rather quickly. They need to address those in our situations right away. For my boyfriend, it will only cost him 6.7% of his income. So it will definitely work well for some in the middle class.

I dont understand how you wont be exempt if the premium is that high. From healthcare.gov:

Exemptions from the payment

Under certain circumstances, you won’t have to make the individual responsibility payment. This is called an “exemption.”

You may qualify for an exemption if:

You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year
The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income
You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low (Learn about the filing limit.)
You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider
You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry
You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare
You’re incarcerated, and not awaiting the disposition of charges against you
You’re not lawfully present in the U.S.

I hope it works out well for you and your Daughter too. It sucks to need care you cant get.

[questionseverything]

116. you are talking premiums

i am talking premiums plus out of pocket costs because we have ongoing medical problems in our house so i already know we will hit the out of pocket cap(which does not kick in now til 2015)

i have not looked at the bronze plans because it says those out of pockets are higher and even if i am exempt from the penalty that does not get me healthcare

[bunnies]

118. Ooooh. Now I understand.

That really, really sucks. They should never have delayed the out of pocket cap. I dont even understand the logic behind such nonsense. So you'll either pay through the nose or go without. Same as me just different scenarios.

[questionseverything]

119. yea they should send you and me

to congress,,i bet we could fix it all

just to be clear tho even when the out of pocket cap kicks in 26% is too high

isnt medicare tax only like 3.5%?

[bunnies]

120. 26% is unacceptably high.

its completely ridiculous. I plugged in figures for making $5k a year and the cost was 66%!!! Of course, you dont have to buy it. Unless of course you want healthcare. The Supreme Court really screwed us by allowing states to not expand medicaid.

Damn right we could fix it. Single payer for everyone. It shouldnt be so damn difficult. Its such a debacle because one party doesnt care if we live or die. I could scream.

[Puzzledtraveller]

61. Let's see

I have been a Medicaid and SNAP caseworker since 2009. I handed out several informational packets about or HBE today to both Medicaid and SNAP clients. I know more about what the ACA will do and not do for people than most here. I will be signing individuals and families up for it when we begin in office enrollment in December. I still oppose the individual mandate. Especially while businesses get a pass, an entire year to dump people from their insurance rolls not to mention any delay on cost saving measures. My premium is going up. I will probably select a lesser option to keep my paycheck as close to what it is now. I am barely getting by myself. But I am not worried about me. I'm worried about my clients. There will be families who will not be eligible for the subsidy and as such not be eligible for expanded medicaid if their state chose it yet they will still be responosible for having it. Most of my families, especially those who receive SNAP do not have any income left to spare. In the event they are not eligible for subsidies or expanded medicaid they will have to add an additional expense. I understand it is better than not having it but many families can least afford it and we have not given them any relief.

[bunnies]

64. So yes. You have insurance. I thought so.

"There will be families who will not be eligible for the subsidy and as such not be eligible for expanded medicaid if their state chose it". I myself am one of those people. I cant get insurance now and I cant get insurance tomorrow either. For people like me, the law changes nothing. But I DO know that I will help many, many people and I dont think they should have to suffer another year from lack of care.

[Myrina]

45. ^^ THIS THIS THIS THIS ^^

n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

117. I don't think you've thought this through. oh well.

you'll just have to see how it works. and it will work.

[hughee99]

122. Do you think forcing consumers into a market, but delaying measures to protect them

will work out well? I guess if I thought insurance companies will treat people fairly, this could work out okay, but I don't believe most will.

[1000words]

48. This is a fair question

It's unfortunate it's being met with reflexive vitriol from the usual suspects. Not surprising, but unfortunate.

[Puzzledtraveller]

50. I've devoted all my working years to helping others

but since I oppose mandated for profit health insurance I'm derided for being in league with the likes of Boehner and company.

[1000words]

54. Consider the source

Continue your good works with aplomb.

[geek tragedy]

55. No, it's because you smeared everyone who opposes the Republican delay efforts as being

driven by ego and wanting to "spike the ball."

You accused Bernie Sanders of being driven by Ego on the ACA.

You accused Barbara Lee of being driven by Ego on the ACA.

Elizabeth Warren, etc etc.

You accused everywone who isn't a Republican asswipe of being driven by Ego as the sole reason for opposing the GOP efforts at delay.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3752898

Ego, plain and simple

They want to spike the ball so hard they don't care. We must ask, what's the hurry? Why would'nt the president and democrats want to correct these things. Preempt the stupid republicans and say, we are going to fix it, try and hold that up?

The reason you get perceived as Republican troll is because you post exactly like a Republican troll would.

[bunnies]

52. Youve been here less than TWO WEEKS and your blaming "the usual suspects"?

Well, welcome back. I guess.

[1000words]

56. Lurked for many, many years

Posted way back in the day. The evolution of this site has been fascinating.

[HereSince1628]

58. Exploit us! Hey! We are vulnerable to WH decision making

that pushes money into the hands of corporations.

The upside and downside of the ACA are really a fucking morass that is being plumbed for advantage by corporations and the fucking third way suck ups in Washington.

We are democrats because we like to be treated this way???

You've got to be pulling my pud.

[quinnox]

73. Delay it and fix it

Put in a public option so there is a decent alternative for those who don't want to pay greedy for profit insurance companies.

[geek tragedy]

75. Another non-surprising call for caving to the GOP. nt

[AtomicKitten]

91. Yes, not surprising.

Silly Wabbit, it's the name of the law that's the problem with this poster. If it were called "Hillarycare" he'd create 15 faux accounts just so he could vote 15 times FOR the Dems sticking to their guns. He's not similarly motivated for a law called "Obamacare" so he advocates caving like a spineless douchenozzle.

[liberal_at_heart]

98. I would support that if either party was interested in doing that. Unfortunately I don't see the

democrats trying to resolve the issues within the law. They got the law passed and now they will be content to sit on the status quo. And we know what the republicans will work towards.

[HereSince1628]

87. The mandate guarantees insurance profits...it CANNOT BE DELAYED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Get with the program.

[pampango]

94. Wait! Is it the tea party lobbying for the delay that will cost insurance companies such profits?

Do we support them when they are 'right' even if that emboldens them to do more 'wrong' things in the future? Or do we support the folks doing the 'wrong' thing for the right reason in the hopes they will do more 'right' things in the future?

[HereSince1628]

95. IMO, they want delay in employer mandates, not delay in payments from individuals.

[Hoyt]

88. Would not delay it over something that impacts only 1% of companies with more than 50 employees, and

sets a cap of $6350 for docs/hospitals and another $6350 for drug for ONE year. There are a few group health plans that have no cap now on drugs -- but I bet it ain't many -- that could set higher limits on out-of-pocket costs. And those are not exchange policies, so none of us will be offered those on the exchanges.

Sorry, I don't care what Rush Limbough and Michelle Malkin says -- it's not enough to cancel something that will help millions of people.

[liberal_at_heart]

90. This whole thing is so confusing. I heard on the local news that you can only shop the exchanges if

you don't already have insurance. So, if I already have private insurance do I at least still get tax deductions on my premiums? My premiums are $925/month. I really need help paying these premiums.

[bunnies]

96. Im pretty sure that if your premiums are over 9.5% of your income...

You can buy on the exchange.

[questionseverything]

113. if you have

employer insurance you can not use the exchanges...if you bought ur plan as an individual you should get help(depending on ur income)

[joshcryer]

99. thought du was against mandate

[Demo_Chris]

106. Well yes, but that was before the GOP opposed Obamacare, so now we love it. It's complicated. nt

[joshcryer]

109. they were never for it

[Demo_Chris]

104. The mandate should be delayed permanently. nt

[Skeeter Barnes]

128. Healthcare should have been mandated, not insurance.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

115. enlightening list of people who voted "Delay it" in this goofy poll.

[geek tragedy]

121. But not surprising.

All the usual trolls are out today pimping the 'delay' angle. Or acting like a majority want it delayed/repealed.

[leftstreet]

123. Please stop calling DU members 'trolls'

It's embarrassing

[TheKentuckian]

124. I am of course against the mandate. I am also against TeaPubliKlan appeasement

and am "shocked" that a certain segment finally (and I'm sure temporarily and on only this issue) gets it.

"Deals" with these villains will only get worse and worse as they go on. Now, the preemptive fold on max out of pockets for a year makes the mandate even worse and if you won't admit to the risk of the ridiculous and totally voluntary precedent and clear negotiation bone then I think you are a fool but I am willing to support not folding to the fascist fucks because doing so will only make bad even worse as it always does.

I can only wish the suddenly emboldened warriors on the wall will see some broader turning of a leaf in dealing with these fucking yahoos and will also be more vigilant of what is coming and going beyond the official shiny spin.

[Wounded Bear]

125. Not only NO, but FUCK NO!!!!!!

It's already been three years since it passed. Get it up, get it going. Now.

Tell the Repubs to pound sand and get out of the fucking way. This really has nothing to do with the budget debate or the debt ceiling debate/debacle coming up. This is about a small minority of the Repub party trying to force their will on the American people.

There's things I don't like about the law, but it is the law of the land, voted on by both houses of Congress, signed into law by the president, and OK'd (mostly) by the Supreme Court. Not implementing it would be a criminal act, not to mention flat out immoral.

Do it.

[Skeeter Barnes]

127. Passing a law mandating insurance and consumer protections and then delaying those protections

is what's criminal here. If the insurance companies get to delay meeting their responsibilities in this deal so should the citizens.

[Skeeter Barnes]

126. As long as the employer mandate and cap on out of pocket cost is delayed, the indivdual mandate

should be as well. I notice over 100 people voted "no" but I wonder if they knew what they were actually voting on. Why should there be an individual mandate while these two important consumer protections are delayed? And how would delaying the individual mandate keep anyone from getting insurance on the exchanges or prohibit any of the consumer protections that are not being delayed?