So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[12AX7]

No. They aren't. A clean CR was ready to roll and be voted on. It would have passed the house, the senate, and Obama would have signed it. It was only blocked by a tiny core minority of the Republican party who are extremists who feel that negotiation of any sort is a failure. Thank your local tea party extremist.

I bet the saner members of the GOP rues the day the party got in bed with the Tea Party.

It's analogies like this which are going to result in the GOP/Tea Party getting kicked in the teeth over this whole mess.

I hope so. I hope it damages the GOP brand (in its current whacko/nutter form, at least) beyond repair.

 

[12AX7]

As it stands it's got serious fraud and security issues, and the device make tax seems ill-advised. The waivers and exemptions look illegal to me.

Ah, good. An attorney is here. Please explain the illegalities.

 

[12AX7]

Alright, let's talk about the obvious here. Travis loves the ACA. Why? Well, basically because he sees it as a game that is rigged in his favor. He will put a relatively small amount in and get a relatively large amount out.

No, maybe he (and millions of other Americans) sees it as an opportunity to get affordable health care for a pre-existing condition he couldn't get before. I'm pretty sure he explained that upthread.

But hey, stick to the conservative/GOP mantra: "I got mine, **** you!"

I don't mind admitting that I feel the opposite. I feel like someone who's being forced to take a bad bet. The roulette wheel has 38 possible spots and I'm being told that I should accept a .005-1 payoff because, hey, there's another guy over here who's getting 1000-1.

Insurance to me has been a terrible racket; I have paid out a huge amount compared to the claims I have submitted. Car insurance? I have probably paid somewhere around $30,000 so far in my life. Claims? Well, I did have my convertible top broken into twice, so say $900. Couple of minor fender benders might add $1000 to the total; but I didn't see any of that.

Home insurance I have easily spent $30,000 on. Zero payouts so far.

Health insurance is harder to quantify since much of what I had was when I was "employed" by a big company. I can say that in the last 30 uninsured years I have spent a tiny amount on traditional health care. Maybe I'm lucky that way and maybe my luck is about to change (given family history that is unlikely).

Boo hoo. See below; Bob001 explains it for you.

You fail to grasp the basic principle of insurance: It is not a consumer product, like a TV or a car. It is a mechanism to share the consequences of unpredictable risks among a large pool of potential victims. Do you feel cheated when your house doesn't burn down and you don't get to make a claim on your fire insurance? Do you feel swindled every day that you don't get diagnosed with cancer, or collapse in the street from a heart attack? Unless your personal wealth runs into the eight-figure territory, you could be ruined by events entirely out of your control: a severe illness, getting hit by a drunk driver, a flood or forest fire consuming your property and more. To deny someone else insurance because you have been fortunate enough not to make a claim is a rejection of modern society itself. And if you do get sick or hurt and can't pay your bills, who do you think will be on the hook for your (uninsured) tab?

 

[Ziggurat]

Your analogy is nonsense. ACA is the law. You already bought the car and now you are refusing to pay for it.

Analogies are irrelevant. It is constitutionally impossible for Congress to bind itself. No Congress is ever permitted to enact laws (including budget items) which a later Congress cannot change. The obligation you imply exists simply doesn't, and never did, because it cannot exist. It's a profound misunderstanding of our constitution to imagine otherwise. And it would be catastrophic folly to change that, too.

 

[A'isha]

Analogies are irrelevant. It is constitutionally impossible for Congress to bind itself. No Congress is ever permitted to enact laws (including budget items) which a later Congress cannot change.

Which the Republicans have so far failed to do. 43 times.

And until they manage to do so, the ACA is and will remain the law of the land, paid for by mandatory spending.

 

[DavidJames]

Analogies are irrelevant. It is constitutionally impossible for Congress to bind itself. No Congress is ever permitted to enact laws (including budget items) which a later Congress cannot change. The obligation you imply exists simply doesn't, and never did, because it cannot exist. It's a profound misunderstanding of our constitution to imagine otherwise. And it would be catastrophic folly to change that, too.

non sequitur and straw man. But you did increase your post count by 1 so it wasn't a total failure.

 

[marplots]

MSNBC just ran a series of "man (and woman) in the street" interviews in which passersby were asked "Given a choice, would you prefer Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act?" Everyone chose the ACA, some even holding forth at length about how much better the ACA is than crappy old Obamacare. The power of propaganda....

But the ACA is better than Obamacare. For one thing, it's more popular.

 

[Upchurch]

Some context: The Democrats' 2010 Health Reform Plan Evokes 1993 Republican Bill

In 1993, at the height of President Bill Clinton's health care reform initiative, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., along with 19 other Republicans and two Democrats, put forth a bill which was considered the major GOP proposal. One of the co-sponsors was then-Sen. Dave Durenberger, R-Minn. The bill, just like the Democratic version, never passed. But in a sense, it's been revived this year.

In fact, the key provisions in the Chafee bill may seem familiar, as they bear a strong resemblance to those in the current Democratic Senate bill, and now in President Barack Obama's proposal. A mandate that individuals buy insurance, subsidies for the poor to buy insurance and the requirement that insurers offer a standard benefits package and refrain from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions were all in the 1993 GOP bill.

 

[stevea]

Fraud? Seems you're drinking deep from the GOP propaganda kool-aid. Sorry, it's not going to fly here.

You seem to have your head deeply in the partisan sand and yes my point flies high. Next time try supplying some evidence for you kook claims of rebuttal, or at least reading the news (rather than MSNBC Kool-ade).

Two aspects to fraud - 1/ inadequate info security & 2/ lack of eligibility checks. These are both well documented from earlier tests.

1/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ecurity-testing-is-months-behind-report-says/
http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor...-how-secure-is-the-obamacare-data-service-hub

The IEEE article states ....

Government Executive magazine ran a story this week that reported that “due to limited means, Health and Human Services Department internal watchdogs do not intend to examine key security designs they did not have a chance to assess during [their] recent audit.” Apparently, while security risks posed by the exchanges are an important concern, it was only one among many needing assessment that was competing for HHS “limited resources.” The higher priority risks—technical and political—were that the exchanges weren’t going to be officially “open for business" on 1 October, the HHS implied.

IOW data security is being sacrificed for political ends of a rushed roll-out.

2/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5472970959370.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

Less than two weeks before the launch of insurance marketplaces created by the federal health overhaul, the government's software can't reliably determine how much people need to pay for coverage, according to insurance executives and people familiar with the program.

EACH issues is a formula for fraud, but the linked databases from IRS & HHS & 5 other agencies and major lack of data security w/ the personal information of millions at stake is vastly, fundamentally incompetent.

And yes, the shutdown will damage the economy more than the ACA, which will not damage the economy.

I hear your partisan emotionalism but see ZERO evidence for this claim. I suggest you examine the per capita costs of private vs public med insurance or basic supply/demand economics, or the fraud levels in gov vs private systems and try again. It will be less efficient and thus damage the economy. The device makers tax will damage the med device industry; it's lunacy to claim that taxes don't impact economic behavior.

And the Republicans aren't interested in reworking or revising the ACA.

I totally agree - Reps prefer to kill ACA, esp since they have zero skin in this plan It's exactly why a one-party massive social program is a bad idea. At some point the other party will have power and no allegiance, plus a lot of animosity to the program. How is Johnson's "Great Society" program doing these days ? Too bad that Johnson and Obama both have tried to ram a one-party POV bill down the throat of a large minority. A smarter politician like Reaganb or Clinton would have gotten some bi-partian support.

So we agree that revision/rework of ACA Is a compromise for Reps. Where is the Dem's comparable alternative compromise ?

They have had three years to do so if they had cared to. They are only interested in repealing it, which they have tried over 40 times.

They obviously did "care" since in 2.75 yrs of a Rep controlled House they've tried the legislative approach ~41 times. So now they are bringing out the bigger gun of the "power of the purse" approach. BOTH parties have tried it with some regularity in the past. So yes they tried repeal, but now they are trying de-funding - so what ? How is this not a legitimate means of governance ? Read Federalist #58 & article I of the Constitution and try again. Get over your childish petulance abt the tactic it is valid and has been used.

The Dem position here is similar to the US view of warfare - that battlefield success leads to victory. It's simply not true beyond the short run. There are two means to defeat an enemy - extermination or changing of hearts and minds. Obama cannot exterminate (politically disenfranchise) his opponents, and instead of trying to persuade, Obama constant insults and antagonizes. It's hardly surprising that his polarizing tactics result in vigorous opposition. Just look at Obamas hyperbolic language in his Oct1 speech ....

They've shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans. In other words, they demanded ransom just for doing their job.
....
I know it's strange that one party would make keeping people uninsured the centerpiece of their agenda, but that apparently is what it is.
...
What's weighing on the economy is not the Affordable Care Act, but the constant series of crises and the unwillingness to pass a reasonable budget by a faction of the Republican Party.
....
But as long as I am president, I will not give in to reckless demands by some in the Republican Party to deny affordable health insurance to millions of hardworking Americans.
...
Now, let me make one closing point. This Republican shutdown threatens our economy at a time when millions of Americans are still looking for work and businesses are starting to get some traction. So the timing is not good. Of course, a lot of the Republicans in the House ran for office two years ago promising to shut down the government, and so apparently they've now gotten their wish....
Think about that. If you buy a car and you've got a car note, you do not save money by not paying your car note. You're just a deadbeat. If you buy a house, you don't save money by not authorizing yourself to pay the mortgage. You're just going to be foreclosed on your home. That's what this is about.

It is routine. It is what they're supposed to do. This is not a concession to me. It is not some demand that's unreasonable that I'm making. This is what Congress is supposed to do as a routine matter. And they shouldn't wait until the last minute to do it.

So there in repeated form the President refuses to acknowledge that the bills opponents have any legitimacy. Those opponents are supposedly ideological crusaders, interested only in harming Americans and the economy and doing evil. If these Republicans follow the interests of their constituents then they are trying to harm the economy and failing to do what he (wrongly) deems they are "supposed to do". (He ignores the Reid violates an actual law by not passing a budget). This is pure demagogic demonization.

He constantly imputes ill motives rather than acknowledge than not everyone agrees, and as a result he creates the polarization that causes these deadlock problems.

The main issue - a LOT of ppl don't like the bill and therefore it needs revision or ultimately will be repealed.

 

[fuelair]

So far this thread has not provided me with a reason to not be angry.
Now for the moment I'm not losing my healthcare. But....I have yet to see any good argument for why I should not be pissed that they are trying to make it so I will.

Hey, I would help if I could but they eat dookie and everyone should have an angry on for them!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

Well two that I actually voted for, Fienstein and Boxer, are very much for passing a budget that still allows me to keep my health insurance. Someone I voted against, Denhem, is living up to his reputation as an ass.

A partial or a whole ass? Seems likelier he's an entire ass, a whole ass indeed - nay, we might even refer to him as an ass.............oh........well, he is..........oh yeah, that rule....*******!!!!!!!

 

[DavidJames]

You sure wrote a lot of words but continue to ignore the point. ACA is the law. It was passed by The Congress. It's the law, read that again. It's the law

Now, if you want to change the law, be a man, be a citizen, not a pouting spoiled brat and work through the system. Don't play childish games, politically stamping your feet and holding your breath till you get your way.

Get over your childish petulance

Indeed. Physician heal thyself.

Shutting down the government because you didn't get your way? Grow the **** up.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

He constantly imputes ill motives rather than acknowledge than not everyone agrees, and as a result he creates the polarization that causes these deadlock problems.

A number of Republicans have "imputed" ill motives about those who are causing the shutdown. But, of course, no Republican has "imputed" an ill motive for Obama.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

You sure wrote a lot of words but continue to ignore the point. ACA is the law. It was passed by The Congress. It's the law, read that again. It's the law

And it's the law because it was passed by BOTH houses of Congress and signed by the President. But the Republicans are trying to create a paradigm in which any law or program can effectively be repealed by a single house of Congress despite the opposition of the other house and the President.

 

[uke2se]

words

Debate is over. ACA is law. Get over it.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I totally agree - Reps prefer to kill ACA, esp since they have zero skin in this plan It's exactly why a one-party massive social program is a bad idea. At some point the other party will have power and no allegiance, plus a lot of animosity to the program. How is Johnson's "Great Society" program doing these days ? Too bad that Johnson and Obama both have tried to ram a one-party POV bill down the throat of a large minority. A smarter politician like Reaganb or Clinton would have gotten some bi-partian support.

Bolding mine. See below.

So we agree that revision/rework of ACA Is a compromise for Reps. Where is the Dem's comparable alternative compromise ?

As Upchurch so succinctly wrote elsewhere on this issue, "ACA is the compromise."

The main issue - a LOT of ppl don't like the bill and therefore it needs revision or ultimately will be repealed.

A lot of people don't like things that a lot of people like. But participants in a civilized society cooperate and compromise on their stances for the greater good. Then they move on.

 

[Polaris]

And it's the law because it was passed by BOTH houses of Congress and signed by the President. But the Republicans are trying to create a paradigm in which any law or program can effectively be repealed by a single house of Congress despite the opposition of the other house and the President.

Not even a single house of Congress - a minority of the minority in a single house of Congress.

 

[Mike!]

Debate is over. ACA is law. Get over it.

No exceptions or exemptions, everyone, no matter who, what or where in the United States, must follow the law exactly as written then?
No wait, that's not what's happened...

 

[uke2se]

No exceptions or exemptions, everyone, no matter who, what or where in the United States, must follow the law exactly as written then?
No wait, that's not what's happened...

Not the point I was making. The point was, the GOP crazy wing has tried to repeal the ACA 41 times. They have failed. It's time to own up to that failure, and realize that the ACA is here to stay. Instead, they hold the country's economy hostage.

Debate over the ACA is over. It's here. It's popular. It might be repealed, but it will only be repealed by the legislative process, and not by terrorist methods.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No exceptions or exemptions, everyone, no matter who, what or where in the United States, must follow the law exactly as written then?
No wait, that's not what's happened...

You do know that a Republican placed exemptions in there, right?