Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: ACA: Employer mandate DELAYED, Caps on Costs DELAYED. Should Individual Mandate be delayed? [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
131 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
ACA: Employer mandate DELAYED, Caps on Costs DELAYED. Should Individual Mandate be delayed? [View all]
leftstreet
Sep 2013
OP
That's not the point! The point is that the GOP is demanding a change in a law
The Velveteen Ocelot
Sep 2013
#66
Yes. Which seems to be why most people supporting the delay here are conservative leaning
CreekDog
Sep 2013
#81
Real ordinary people need real meaningful relief now, not in 1 or 2 or X years.
Denninmi
Sep 2013
#3
Not if you can't afford the coverage to begin with. It won't make one bit of difference
duffyduff
Sep 2013
#10
Exactly. If you have to buy it, but companies don't have to control costs, or implement it ...
Myrina
Sep 2013
#44
I didn't know the out of pocket costs limit has been delayed. That's not good.
northoftheborder
Sep 2013
#6
No, a Democrat. Only Republicans and their allies want to delay/repeal the ACA at this point.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#16
Democrats opposed Mandated Insurance. Including this President. It was Republicans
sabrina 1
Sep 2013
#100
Voting for the Mandate WAS voting for Republicans. McCain was for it, Obama against it.
sabrina 1
Sep 2013
#105
Quit dodging the question: do you support the Republicans or Democrats in this
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#107
So you voted against Obama then? Why are you continuing to dodge what is a very
sabrina 1
Oct 2013
#129
Obama didn't win the nomination because of the mandate issue. He had to play
geek tragedy
Oct 2013
#130
Thanks for Rush Limbaugh's talking points. Try to be more subtle next time. nt
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#12
I don't know why you're supporting Michelle Bachmann and Louie Gohmert on this issue.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#22
Those wanting to delay or derail the ACA are allies of the GOP. Zero exceptions, regardless
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#23
No, I'm saying that those who want the same thing as the GOP are aligned with the GOP.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#35
Yes it is. Because the mandate means more people joining the pools, which will make them
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#47
Only someone completely ignorant of the exchanges would ask that kind of question.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#65
Only a rightwing troll would suggest Obama needs to negotiate with the Republicans over the ACA
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#86
Obama has said he's not negotiating on this. So has Harry Reid. So has every Democratic Senator
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#92
ACA is patterned after what the Massachusetts legislature (85% Democratic) passed and romney vetoed.
pampango
Sep 2013
#28
It is not a coincidence that this poll was posted contemporaneously with the House
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#25
So they're going to force people into the market but delaying many of the consumer protections?
hughee99
Sep 2013
#31
"They want to spike the ball so hard they don't care. We must ask, what's the hurry?"
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#39
Don't expect an honest answer from the person who claims to be a Medicaid case worker
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#57
Do you think forcing consumers into a market, but delaying measures to protect them
hughee99
Sep 2013
#122
No, it's because you smeared everyone who opposes the Republican delay efforts as being
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#55
I would support that if either party was interested in doing that. Unfortunately I don't see the
liberal_at_heart
Sep 2013
#98
The mandate guarantees insurance profits...it CANNOT BE DELAYED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HereSince1628
Sep 2013
#87
Wait! Is it the tea party lobbying for the delay that will cost insurance companies such profits?
pampango
Sep 2013
#94
IMO, they want delay in employer mandates, not delay in payments from individuals.
HereSince1628
Sep 2013
#95
Would not delay it over something that impacts only 1% of companies with more than 50 employees, and
Hoyt
Sep 2013
#88
This whole thing is so confusing. I heard on the local news that you can only shop the exchanges if
liberal_at_heart
Sep 2013
#90
Well yes, but that was before the GOP opposed Obamacare, so now we love it. It's complicated. nt
Demo_Chris
Sep 2013
#106
I am of course against the mandate. I am also against TeaPubliKlan appeasement
TheKentuckian
Oct 2013
#124
Passing a law mandating insurance and consumer protections and then delaying those protections
Skeeter Barnes
Oct 2013
#127
As long as the employer mandate and cap on out of pocket cost is delayed, the indivdual mandate
Skeeter Barnes
Oct 2013
#126