the teaparty is using extortion and refusing to obey the law of the land

[Dori]

They aren't filibustering the law you moron.

They are filibustering the funding of the law and that is something that's been done for generations in D.C..

The congress has shut down the government 17 times.  15 of those times by Democrats.

But IMO, this shut down over Obamacare is playing right into the Administration's hands.  They aren't stupid about how unpopular this law is, the party that lives by the polls. But I fear that Republicans have once again played into their hands.  Democrats are worried about the 2014 election and there is no skin off their backs if the government shuts down, they are probably thrilled by it.  Look how they used the sequester unnecessarily to hurt the most obvious and use it to blame Republicans.  

[AllosaursRus]

The congress has shut down the government 17 times.  15 of those times by Democrats.

But IMO, this shut down over Obamacare is playing right into the Administration's hands.  They aren't stupid about how unpopular this law is, the party that lives by the polls. But I fear that Republicans have once again played into their hands.  Democrats are worried about the 2014 election and there is no skin off their backs if the government shuts down, they are probably thrilled by it.  Look how they used the sequester unnecessarily to hurt the most obvious and use it to blame Republicans.   

It only counts when they disagree with the person or party is doing it.

Just like Clinton lying to a Grand Jury. Just ask "Scooter" Libby.

Still pisses me off "W" threw him to the wolves, even after the truth was out there.

[wasp69]

The congress has shut down the government 17 times.  15 of those times by Democrats.

But IMO, this shut down over Obamacare is playing right into the Administration's hands.  They aren't stupid about how unpopular this law is, the party that lives by the polls. But I fear that Republicans have once again played into their hands.  Democrats are worried about the 2014 election and there is no skin off their backs if the government shuts down, they are probably thrilled by it.  Look how they used the sequester unnecessarily to hurt the most obvious and use it to blame Republicans.  

I would agree if:  1.  Anyone even remembers the sequester since the net effect was "meh".  2.  If the obamacare rollout today had been anything other than a massive failure.

My thought is that we will soon hear of a "brilliantly negotiated" one year delay in the individual mandate to make the necessary fixes.

[diesel driver]

I would agree if:  1.  Anyone even remembers the sequester since the net effect was "meh".  2.  If the obamacare rollout today had been anything other than a massive failure.

My thought is that we will soon hear of a "brilliantly negotiated" one year delay in the individual mandate to make the necessary fixes.

A perfect scenario would be for the House to send the FIRST bill (that strips funding for Zerocare) BACK to the Senate, the adjourn until Dingy Harry decides to pass it. 

Also, make it CLEAR to the Senate that UNTIL they pass the bill, NO VOTES ON THE DEBT LIMIT!!! 

IF it passes the Senate and Barry vetoes it, oh, well.  No government funding (outside of what is being funded now).  Let Zero own it!

HELLS BELLS!  The Republicans are going to be blamed for this anyway, may as well go ahead and do it!  For once, the lameass media would be reporting a TRUE story!

[miskie]

I would agree if:  1.  Anyone even remembers the sequester since the net effect was "meh".  2. If the obamacare rollout today had been anything other than a massive failure.

My thought is that we will soon hear of a "brilliantly negotiated" one year delay in the individual mandate to make the necessary fixes.

The failure is yet to come

Many Obamites are just thrilled to death with the ACA, and their subsidy for monthly costs. But once they learn that the deductable is high enough that they will get billed for everything else, and that copays are going to cut deeply into their pot and cheeto funds, they will be unhappy to say the least.

They are currently jacking off to this story - Signing up for Obamacare: ‘It will save me over $6,000. For that, I would have waited all day.’ on this thread - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023762729

..and both the story and the primitives gloss over the deductible...  - I haven't.

 http://www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/silver-health-plans#.UktQ6IZDuSY

This chart compares Silver plans from three states, including California, where this dude is from.

The table below illustrates how out-of-pocket costs can differ among three insurance companies that offer a Silver Plan.

 

Code: [Select]

California

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan - DHMO 2000/45 CA

Deductible     $2,000

Doctor Visit Fee    $45

Coinsurance Fee 20% of cost

Annual Limit on Out-of-Pocket Expenses $6,350

Anyone who thinks this is a good single-user plan has rocks in their head.  I suspect the 'freelance' person interviewed for the article chose this option because these so-called 'Silver' plans are the only ones eligible for 'Cost Sharing' reductions. -And I would say 'freelance' in California parlance probably means 'unemployed hippie'. Since the IRS will be handling the affairs of the Californian who opted for this plan, it would behoove him to be certain he reports his income properly - else he will be in for a nasty surprise when the Obama Tax-Man cometh.



Edited to add -

Notice the title of the story - Signing up for Obamacare: ‘It will save me over $6,000. For that, I would have waited all day.' - this guy really thinks that his healthcare is going to be almost free. He is currently paying $7200 a year, so if he is going to save $6,000, he is expecting to pay about $100 a month.  

[Dori]

I suspect the 'freelance' person interviewed for the article chose this option because these so-called 'Silver' plans are the only ones eligible for 'Cost Sharing' reductions.

I think there are narrow income limits on this plan.  You have to have some income, above the Medical ceiling, but it can't exceed a certain percentage of the poverty rate for a single person.