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

[Upchurch]

I think this will help some Republicans with a small swath of hard core Tea Partiers and pretty much piss-off everyone else, including other Republicans from the association, from what I've heard.

Case in point.

When I think of the Republican Party, I don’t think of principled conservative legislators who are men and women of vision strategy. I think of ideologues who are prepared to wreck things to get their way. They have confused prudence — the queen of virtues, and the cardinal virtue of conservative politics — with weakness.

...

What are the probable long-run consequences of shutting the US Government down over Obamacare? Do the Congressional Republicans care? Do they care what kind of damage they are doing to the ability of Congress to legislate effectively on all kinds of matters? The damage they are doing to the economic stability of the United States? This kind of brinksmanship might — might — have been defensible during the Obamacare fight, but today? I can’t see it. I can’t see any good coming out of this, at least any good that stands to outweigh the bad.

...

Still, there’s no doubt in my mind who is responsible for the government shutting down: the GOP.

 

[A'isha]

No - all deals are a quid pro quo. An offer defines both sides of the potential exchange (I give this and you give that). This is fundamental to all negotiations. We can't have a reasonable conversation so long as you fail to understand basics.

Again, what are the Republicans offering to give to the Democrats in return for getting their way on the ACA? It's not the avoidance of a shutdown, since both sides wanted that.

So what are they offering?

A) It is an offer. YOU get an increase in the debt ceiling and in exchange ACA gets a delay and no device tax and ... Quid pro quo.

A) The debt ceiling is not even being discussed here, and B) if the Republicans actually want the US to default on its debt then they're even more dangerously insane than I thought.

B) You shouldn't make up "facts". There have been no Senate votes since Sept 30, and that was to table a motion for a CR. No markup was sent back to the House.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm

Your link shows exactly what I said: the House sent a poisoned CR to the Senate, which passed an amended version which yanked out the poison bits. The crazy-wing of the House Republicans refused to pass that amended version, and killed the attempt of the sane House Republicans to pass a new CR that didn't have those poison bits, and instead passed a new poisoned CR.

The Senate responded by effectively telling the House Republicans to stop screwing around.

You are guilty of exactly the same polarizing ad hominem and demonization as Obama.

If you say so.

If you are so intolerant of opposing positions that your opponent are "the crazy wing" then you cannot participate in a reasonable negotiation.

There is no negotiation here. I'm all for opposing positions, and have said numerous times that the Republicans are welcome to propose a bill containing everything they want and put it up for a vote.

Instead, they've held the economy hostage and demanded that the legislative process be bypassed so they can get their way.

If your position is that people who oppose the ACA are 'ideological crusaders attempting to harm the ill and ruin the economy', then you are the problem. Stop imputing bad motives to others.

It stops being "imputing" and starts being blatantly obvious that they have bad motives when they shut down the government because they couldn't get their way.

From the "effective negotiations" class i took long ago - it looks like this impasse is b/c this has come down to one issue (ACA). That's very bad for progress. Normally you want several factors that the two parties value distinctly. If the Dems wanted a good compromise they should counter with an additional factor (like delay ACA for 6 months AND we cut oil subsidies by 50%). That's not a serious example, but they should put the Reps goodies on the table for chopping too.

No, they shouldn't, because that will legitimize the Republican's attempt at bypassing the legislative process, effectively wrecking the way our government works.

You don't get your own "facts",
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/01/cnn-poll-will-obamacare-help-you/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/healthcare-obamacare-affordable-care-act
40% or 52.2% is not a "small segment vastly outnumbered".

60 to 40 is a comfortable supermajority.

And did you see the part of your second link where it talks about how the overwhelming majority of Americans favor the things the ACA actually does (The headline is even "The US healthcare paradox: we like the Affordable Care Act but fear Obamacare"!)? Or where it notes that a lot of the people polled have been fooled by Republican lies about the ACA, such as the "Death Panels" nonsense?

Apparently Tom Cruz and others were not soundly defeated.

The Republicans campaigned strongly on the repeal of the ACA, and still lost Senate seats, House seats, the Presidential election, and the overall vote total.

Their agenda regarding the ACA was rejected by America.

We've been over this ;and so should your HS civics teacher. The Senate + WH can & have rejected changes (Harry Reid said he won't bring any mod bills to the floor) so now the House is trying to use the "power of the purse" tactic - right ? What's wrong with that ?

See the part of Federalist # 58 you left out of your quote for an answer to that. You know, the part that reads:

But will not the house of representatives be as much interested as the senate in maintaining the government in its proper functions, and will they not therefore be unwilling to stake its existence of its reputation on the pliancy of the senate? Or if such a trial of firmness between the two branches were hazarded, would not the one be as likely first to yield as the other? These questions will create no difficulty with those who reflect, that in all cases the smaller the number and the more permanent and conspicuous the station of men in power, the stronger must be the interest which they will individually feel in whatever concerns the government. Those who represent the dignity of their country in the eyes of other nations, will be particularly sensible to every prospect of public danger, or of a dishonorable stagnation in public affairs.

Madison was okay with the House having "the power of the purse" because he didn't believe that they would be stupid or crazy enough to seriously risk, much less force, a government shutdown.

Unfortunately for us, Madison was wrong about that, and it turns out that the Tea Partiers in the House are, in fact, that stupid and crazy.

Did you imagine that everything passed by Dem Congress would last once they lost some control ?

I expected it to be subject to the proper legislative process for modification and/or repeal.

That's a failed analogy in several important ways. Your roomates changed in 2012, and your old DemHouse roomate was replaced by a RepHouse roomate. It isn't just rent - but you both pay for all expenses from a joint account. You and your new roomate disagree on several topics of expense & policy that your old roomate agreed on. You both want to stay in this joint account agreement but not w/o some compromise on the issues of disagreement. Your assumption that you get things 100% as they were with the old roomate is living in the past.

Actually, it's more like a house with, say, seven roommates. Periodically, you all have meetings to vote on what expenses to share and pay from a joint account. A few years ago, one of the roommates suggested signing up for a satellite TV subscription. It was voted down, but now another one of the roommates proposes the same thing. This time, it passes by a vote of 5 to 2 (bizarrely, one of the "no" votes is the same roommate who proposed it years ago), so the house is signed up for a subscription to Direct TV.

A year later, one of the roommates who voted for the satellite TV moves out, and is replaced by a new roommate. This roommate doesn't like the idea of TV in general, and tells everyone she doesn't want the house to have the satellite TV subscription. At the next meeting, there's a vote to see if the subscription should be canceled, and the vote is 4 to 3 in favor of keeping it. At the next meeting, the same thing happens, with the same vote. And at the next meeting. And the next. And the next. This happens forty-three times, and each time the majority of the roommates vote to keep the satellite TV subscription.

One day, everyone sits down to pay the monthly bills from the joint account that everyone has to sign off on. The roommate who doesn't want to have satellite TV, though, refuses to sign to pay anything: no rent, no electricity, no water, no gas, no nothing, unless everyone agrees to cancel the satellite TV subscription.

Not paying all the bills is bad for everyone in the house, including that truculent roommate, because it will hurt their credit rating, there are late fee penalties, and if it goes on long enough they could all be sent to collections or even evicted. So, the roommate modifies her demand - instead of canceling entirely, she says that the subscription should be changed from the Deluxe package to the Basic package, and unless everyone agrees to that, she still won't allow any of the household bills to be paid.

"No," the others say. "We've already voted as a household over 40 times to keep the Satellite TV subscription as-is, and we really need to pay our bills because otherwise everyone will be hurt by nonpayment. Including you!"

"Well, if that happens," she replies, "it'll be all your fault for not even making a counteroffer to negotiate with me!"

"There's nothing to negotiate!" they say. "We voted, we re-voted, and we re-re-voted. And we really need to pay all our bills before bad consequences start happening!"

"Well, then you'd better hurry up and call DirectTV and tell them about the changes we're making to the subscription before that happens," she says smugly. "And then at the next meeting, we can talk about what else I want in return for my agreement on the household bills. So much for your voting, huh?"

New roomate is not asking for some added TV/laptop expense, but demanding that you both slow down and reconsider the current policy as they can result in common expenses that neither should want (I am not suggesting that Reps have always been so reasonable). The new roomate would prefer that you eliminate certain expenses altogether.

They're still not reasonable. The Republicans aren't doing this because they have real concerns about a law that they hope to improve, they want to get rid of the ACA whether or not it works. In fact, they want to get rid of it before it has a chance to work because they're afraid that it will work!

]SCOTUS ruled on one small aspect of ACA (personal mandate). They did NOT give some blanket approval as you imply.

So? The part that was tested, the single most contentious part no less, passed Constitutional muster by the highest court in the land.

Yes ACA passed, but apparently they did not (and could not) pass perpetually continuing budget allocation.

Which is entirely unrelated to the passage of the ACA, since the ACA is right now being funded despite the Republican tantrum and the government shutdown.

For than matter Harry Reid has prevented any omnibus budget for ~4 years. The power of the purse was used to shutdown the Vietnam War in 1974, to put a timeline on Iraq ....

Neither of which were specific pieces of legislation passed by proper vote and declared Constitutional by SCOTUS.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

That's the whole point, though: "mandatory" spending doesn't actually mean it's required that Congress spend it. Congress can fund or not fund whatever it chooses to, and no Congress can obligate another Congress to fund anything, ever.

 

[uke2se]

That's the whole point, though: "mandatory" spending doesn't actually mean it's required that Congress spend it. Congress can fund or not fund whatever it chooses to, and no Congress can obligate another Congress to fund anything, ever.

Is that the whole point? I thought the point was that the Goopers are holding the economy hostage in order to defund the ACA. Yes, I'm pretty sure that was the point under discussion.

We all know they can do it. We're discussing what level of stupidity it takes to actually do it. Turns out, it's a lot.

 

[A'isha]

That's the whole point, though: "mandatory" spending doesn't actually mean it's required that Congress spend it. Congress can fund or not fund whatever it chooses to, and no Congress can obligate another Congress to fund anything, ever.

Actually, that was to point out the foot-shooting farce that is the Republican shutdown, leaving the ACA entirely untouched because the ACA is funded by mandatory spending which is not affected by the spending set by the CR.

 

[stevea]

They aren't repealing the ACA, they are withholding money from it. The law will still remain in place. And yes, the House is empowered to decide where and how money will be spent - it is their job to do so. The Senate gets to approve or decline, and that's their job.

The Senate gets more that approve/decline power. The Pres should submit a plan in February. Then The house creates a detailed budget tha tcan use that and the CBBO anaysis as a guide (or not). Then it goes to the Senate for approval or else mark-up and modification. If the latter is sent back to the House. Eventually a reconciliation committee between House&Senate is formed to hash our the differences. The after both the full House & Senate pass it it has to be signed (or vetoed) by the Pres.

We have a form of government where contention and in-fighting, power struggles and deal-making all hold sway. I'm surprised the public isn't more aware of this. Do they believe that all these folks just want to get along with each other? Hardly. It's back-stabbing and hostage taking right down the line.

Well said - it was meant to be contentious and should be since the various factions disagree. Some some of the demagogues on both sides like to demean and mischaracterize the opposition, thus polarizing the process making progress much less possible. I've never seen this level of insult an presumptions of bad motives than under Obama. You can't negotiate w/ someone in good faith after you've announced their intention is evil and to do harm. It seems to be coming mostly from Dems tho'.

It's a sort of fundamentalist intolerance (any policy but mine is wrong/evil and deserves no consideration) that prevents compromise. "We're right and you are wrong" is not a negotiating stance.

 

[Travis]

*Checks watch*

Yep. Still pissed off. And no one has explained why I shouldn't be yet.

The old 2nd Amendment solution, aye?

Well, I would have to get over my fear of guns for that.

Why now? Why have you not done this already (considering the state you live in)?

Massachusetts did it.

Why have I not done what? Get angry? I've been angry about the healthcare situation for years.

Well, before going straight to hellbent militia, it might be worth trying something more along the lines of lawful assembly. Have you even called your Congressional Representative yet?

Umm, well back in July of 2012 I sort of wrote some letters to him when I found out he didn't like high speed trains that were pretty much long, hate filled rants on how the world really, really needed him to not ever be a politician in any capacity ever again.

I kind of doubt my voice would be well received there again.

Why not start at the state level? CA has one of the highest un-insured rates in the country. They fund high speed rail though.

High speed rail is not funded by a tax increase though. So it is a totally different thing. It also happens to be about the only good thing the government of California has done in the past thirty years.

 

[Spindrift]

It's a sort of fundamentalist intolerance (any policy but mine is wrong/evil and deserves no consideration) that prevents compromise. "We're right and you are wrong" is not a negotiating stance.

And that is EXACTLY what the Republicans are doing.

 

[Biscuit]

Well I have a new reason to be ticked off. My Rep, Democrat Ron Barber, voted WITH the republicans to remove the individual mandate and he did so with the same wrong comparison to the employer mandate. I wrote him an email this morning that started with,

"I don't know if you have lost your mind but you have lost my vote."

I apologize to the nation but I think we are going to have to send tea bagger Martha McSally in Barbers place for one term while we find an actual democrat to represent us.

 

[stevea]

Again, what are the Republicans offering to give to the Democrats in return for getting their way on the ACA? It's not the avoidance of a shutdown, since both sides wanted that.

So what are they offering?

It's in the bill - go read it.

A) The debt ceiling is not even being discussed here, and B) if the Republicans actually want the US to default on its debt then they're even more dangerously insane than I thought.

A) They are two distinct and related things, and B) you're back onto demonnization mode.

Your link shows exactly what I said: the House sent a poisoned CR to the Senate, which passed an amended version ....

They passed nothing but a motion to table. You're provably wrong.

The Senate responded by effectively telling the House Republicans to stop screwing around.

Based on their authority in the "stop screwing around" provision of your imaginary version of the Constitution ?

There is no negotiation here. I'm all for opposing positions, and have said numerous times that the Republicans are welcome to propose a bill containing everything they want and put it up for a vote.

They don't have to legislate; they originate the budget. You fail to understand this basic point repeatedly.

Instead, they've held the economy hostage and demanded that the legislative process be bypassed so they can get their way.

FAIL - no one is "hostage" and they are following the correct procedure for budget bills. Nothing is being "bypassed".

It stops being "imputing" and starts being blatantly obvious that they have bad motives when they shut down the government because they couldn't get their way.

FAIL - the Gov has been shutdown 17 times before since the 1976 - both parties have done it. This is not some new extraordinary device as you imagine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States

No, they shouldn't, because that will legitimize the Republican's attempt at bypassing the legislative process, effectively wrecking the way our government works.

You obviously don't understand how our government works.

And did you see the part of your second link where it talks about how the overwhelming majority of Americans favor the things the ACA actually does ...

That's a ridiculous position. Everyone prefers great medical care for everyone, but no one want to pay for it. So a big free buffet and then a big bill at the end has somethiing everyone agrees with too. All bills must be considered in their entirety and in context - we don't get to pick & choose which parts of this "law of the land" we follow (unless you get a waiver or exemption).

Their agenda regarding the ACA was rejected by America.

By their select districts.

See the part of Federalist # 58 you left out of your quote for an answer to that. You know, the part that reads:

Your reading of Madison is different from mine. He expects they won't use it except, for good reason and that the Senate would yield. I doubt the latter.

Unfortunately for us, Madison was wrong about that, and it turns out that the Tea Partiers in the House are, in fact, that stupid and crazy.

I think it's been used more by Dems that Reps, but no - your dehumanization and denigration of others as "crazy" is the core of the problem.

I expected it to be subject to the proper legislative process for modification and/or repeal.

Civics 101 is not your strong suite.

Actually, it's more like a house with, say, seven roommates.

As I was going to St Ives ....
That analogy is totally failed. My only anaqlogy was used to describe whow an OFFER may not meet an expectation and still be valid. Now you are writing a script for a sit-com.

They're still not reasonable. The Republicans aren't doing this because they have real concerns about a law that they hope to improve, they want to get rid of the ACA whether or not it works. In fact, they want to get rid of it before it has a chance to work because they're afraid that it will work!

But that offered some not-unreaonable looking changes - so your claim is proven false.

So? The part that was tested, the single most contentious part no less, passed Constitutional muster by the highest court in the land.

So 1 page of 2000 passed SCOTUS ? What of it ? There will clearly by more and more subtle cases as we get into implementation.


bye.

 

[uke2se]

It's in the bill - go read it.

Tell us or drop the argument.

 

[stevea]

I'm still not clear on why you don't like the Republican Healthcare Plan (aka ACA or Obamacare).

Do you mean the Democratic ACA ? I believe the ACA got zero Rep votes when it was passed.

The reasons why I don't like (esp parts) of the ACA are not relevant to the issue of whether the GOPs are being unreasonable and the common view here that they should have no consideration, and should not use the budget as a tactic.

I am neither a Republican nor a Dem so I can't speak to their positions beyond their public claims. My personal consideration is that is seems that it will be inefficient in an economic sense and cedes too much control to committees and agencies. Not a proper role for a limite government.

If Dems weren't interested in compromise they would have held out for Universal Health Care instead of adopting the Republican plan.

That was 3 years ago, and apparently the Dem House+Senate couldn't get a Dems consensus to agree in UHC. I'm speaking abt compromise w/ a Rep House in the past year. It seems clear that ACA is intended to evolve into UHC.

 

[Dorian Gray]

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.

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).

I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but...

Are you actually complaining about not suffering a debilitating injury, life-threatening illness or disease, or entering any condition that renders you mentally or physically handicapped, bedridden, or dismembered/blinded?

BTW, in case you weren't aware, all insurance is socialism! All of it. The healthy subsidize the health care of the sick, and the careful/responsible subsidize the auto insurance of the reckless/irresponsible. It's always been like that. It's too late to complain about it now. Hell, next time you get your car insurance bill, look for an entry called "uninsured motorist" or the like. You pay around $20-25 per year for that. You directly subsidize people who are too malicious, lazy, unwilling or indigent to pay for their own car.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Do you mean the Democratic ACA ? I believe the ACA got zero Rep votes when it was passed.

The reasons why I don't like (esp parts) of the ACA are not relevant to the issue of whether the GOPs are being unreasonable and the common view here that they should have no consideration, and should not use the budget as a tactic.

I am neither a Republican nor a Dem so I can't speak to their positions beyond their public claims. My personal consideration is that is seems that it will be inefficient in an economic sense and cedes too much control to committees and agencies. Not a proper role for a limite government.



That was 3 years ago, and apparently the Dem House+Senate couldn't get a Dems consensus to agree in UHC. I'm speaking abt compromise w/ a Rep House in the past year. It seems clear that ACA is intended to evolve into UHC.

He called it Republican, I believe, because the law was modeled on the so-called Romneycare of Massachusetts. Romney is a Republican. It was all wonderful for him to do that, and it worked pretty well.

As for the votes, the required numbers of votes were cast in favor of the law, and that's why it is a law. It was also upheld by the SCOTUS, making it a Constitutional law. Why do you hate America?

 

[A'isha]

It's in the bill

Then you should have no problem pointing it out.

A) They are two distinct and related things,

They're only related insofar as the Republicans are using them to demand things they cannot get legislatively.

They passed nothing but a motion to table. You're provably wrong.

"0209 27-Sep H.J.Res. 59 On the Joint Resolution Passed H.J.Res. 59 As Amended; A joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes."

Based on their authority in the "stop screwing around" provision of your imaginary version of the Constitution ?

Based on the "you're acting like children throwing a temper tantrum" provision of the "don't wreck the entire economy because you keep getting outvoted" method of stable government.

They don't have to legislate; they originate the budget. You fail to understand this basic point repeatedly.

What you keep ignoring is that the Republicans holding the functioning of government hostage because they can't get enough votes to defund or modify the ACA properly is the entire *********** problem here.

FAIL - no one is "hostage" and they are following the correct procedure for budget bills. Nothing is being "bypassed".

What part of the "budget" does demanding a delay in the implementation of the individual mandate of the ACA fall under? Remember, the actual funding of the ACA is unaffected by the CR, meaning the Republicans are trying to make non-budget legislative changes by abusing the procedure for budget bills.

And as for correct budget procedures, look who is actually causing the problem:

Mr. Reid has been trying for two weeks to get a conference committee going so that the House and Senate can start working out their differences on the budget. But the House, which badgered the Senate for years to pass a budget, suddenly doesn’t want to negotiate over the one from March, because then it would become clear that what’s holding up a deal is the right’s refusal to consider tax increases on the rich.

On Monday evening, Mr. Reid again asked the Senate to agree to appoint conference members, but Mr. Cruz stood up to object. He said he would only consent if the conference agreed in advance not to raise taxes, and not to raise the debt ceiling.

You obviously don't understand how our government works.

Okay.

That's a ridiculous position. Everyone prefers great medical care for everyone, but no one want to pay for it. So a big free buffet and then a big bill at the end has somethiing everyone agrees with too. All bills must be considered in their entirety and in context - we don't get to pick & choose which parts of this "law of the land" we follow (unless you get a waiver or exemption).

Nevertheless, it shows that most Americans are, in fact, supportive of what the ACA does, and apparently only opposite it thanks to Republican lies about it (such as the "death panel" garbage).

By their select districts.

More districts and states rejected the Republican goals than accepted them, as well as the majority of overall voters. That's why the Republicans keep failing to pass a bill repealing or changing the ACA, and why they're now turning to extortion.

Your reading of Madison is different from mine. He expects they won't use it except, for good reason and that the Senate would yield.

No, he explicitly says that he expects the House to yield to the Senate just as readily as he expects the Senate to yield to the House, because neither side would be craxy or stupid enough to risk a shutdown.

He didn't reckon on Teabaggers.

I think it's been used more by Dems that Reps, but no - your dehumanization and denigration of others as "crazy" is the core of the problem.

Crazy is as crazy does.

Civics 101 is not your strong suite.

Suit, not suite.

My only anaqlogy was used to describe whow an OFFER may not meet an expectation and still be valid.

Something which it failed to do.

But that offered some not-unreaonable looking changes - so your claim is proven false.

The Republicans had plenty of opportunity, and even some success, at making some changes when the ACA was being put together, and even more opportunities during each of the 43 times they called for a vote on repealing it.

So 1 page of 2000 passed SCOTUS ? What of it ? There will clearly by more and more subtle cases as we get into implementation.

If the individual mandate is Constitutional, the likelihood of the less-controversial pieces being otherwise is rather slim.

bye.

Okay.

 

[Spindrift]

Do you mean the Democratic ACA ?

No I mean Republican. It was a Republican plan that somehow when the Democrats called the Republicans bluff and decided to give the Republicans everything they asked for compromise and accept the Republican plan, suddenly the Republicans hated it.

 

[Neally]

*Checks watch*

Yep. Still pissed off. And no one has explained why I shouldn't be yet.

Of course, because the problems from Obamacare that thousands of other people are going through, aren't your problem. The important thing is that you got yours.

Things like the people without health insurance that have had their hours reduced because of the employer required Obamacare coverage. Now they still have no insurance AND lower income.

Oh and the thousands of people that have higher insurance costs due to Obamacare required additional coverage added to their policy. Stuff they don't want or need.

But hey, don't you worry your little self about them. You got yours.

 

[uke2se]

Of course, because the problems from Obamacare that thousands of other people are going through, aren't your problem. The important thing is that you got yours.

Things like the people without health insurance that have had their hours reduced because of the employer required Obamacare coverage. Now they still have no insurance AND lower income.

Oh and the thousands of people that have higher insurance costs due to Obamacare required additional coverage added to their policy. Stuff they don't want or need.

But hey, don't you worry your little self about them. You got yours.

But he hasn't got his yet - and by "his", we're talking about basic health insurance, you know, the kind he needs to pay medical bills - and he won't be getting "his" if the Reps get away with their "we got ours, **** you".

 

[Upchurch]

Of course, because the problems from Obamacare that thousands of other people are going through, aren't your problem. The important thing is that you got yours.

Things like the people without health insurance that have had their hours reduced because of the employer required Obamacare coverage. Now they still have no insurance AND lower income.

Oh and the thousands of people that have higher insurance costs due to Obamacare required additional coverage added to their policy. Stuff they don't want or need.

But hey, don't you worry your little self about them. You got yours.

Given that this went into effect yesterday, I'd like to see your source on these. That seems like might quick turn around to have any sort of hard data.

 

[Neally]

Given that this went into effect yesterday, I'd like to see your source on these. That seems like might quick turn around to have any sort of hard data.

So if I can provide evidence to support my previous statements, you'll admit that there are serious downsides as a result of Obamacare?