• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

...[see his post above]

FWIW marplots, I think you are making a logical distinction that doesn't exist in the language. Words mean what people mean them to mean when they speak and write them and I suspect almost nobody is making the distinction between the two terms that you do.

Of course, I stand to be corrected. If you could produce a few usage examples where the two terms are used with the distinction that you explained above then I might be persuaded that I am wrong about this.
 
FWIW marplots, I think you are making a logical distinction that doesn't exist in the language. Words mean what people mean them to mean when they speak and write them and I suspect almost nobody is making the distinction between the two terms that you do.

Of course, I stand to be corrected. If you could produce a few usage examples where the two terms are used with the distinction that you explained above then I might be persuaded that I am wrong about this.

I gave it a try and couldn't find any. So I'll grant it isn't in common usage. I did think of a clearer difference though. The ACA does not include the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Obamacare does.

Plainly, in everyday parlance, the two are different. At least, when you poll the public they are: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/healthcare-obamacare-affordable-care-act

And, recently, a Jimmy Kimmel bit where he talked to people on the street: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...difference-between-obamacare-and-the-aca.html - they apparently see a difference, although not the one I was advocating for.
 
And what is your explanation or hypothesis for that perceived difference?

They don't like Obama. Or, contrariwise, they do. In either case, Obama's name in the mix generates a different answer than not having it in there. I think that's what the link from the Guardian was all about.
 
You aren't providing an example of Obama changing or overriding the law that was passed by the legislative branch. If someone believes the law is not being followed that's a matter for the courts.

If a law designates an administrator, usually a department, that's because it's what the law says, not because the administrating agency is doing what they feel like despite the law.
 
Obamacare is mandatory (fines--"taxes" to Justice Roberts if people don't participate) and government mandates on insurers that coverage include, for example, abortion services.

As previously pointed out, you're wrong about "abortion services". The Hyde Amendment prohibits spending any federal funds on abortions. A substantial portion of the population will still satisfy the individual mandate under the ACA by having coverage paid for by federal funds (Medicare and the VA, for examples).

I would further argue that you're equivocating. The term "Obamacare" has come to be ambiguous, referring either to the whole of the ACA or only to the health insurance exchanges. (Maybe there's even a third usage where it refers to any coverage that satisfies "minimum essential coverage" under the ACA.)

It sounds like you're using it to refer to the entire ACA, but if you're arguing with someone suggesting "Obamacare" isn't mandatory, I suspect that usage is referring only to the exchanges. That's how we end up with people making the absurd assertion that if members of Congress don't have to buy plans that are offered on the exchanges they are refusing to accept "Obamacare" for themselves while making it mandatory for everyone else.
 
You aren't providing an example of Obama changing or overriding the law that was passed by the legislative branch. If someone believes the law is not being followed that's a matter for the courts.

If a law designates an administrator, usually a department, that's because it's what the law says, not because the administrating agency is doing what they feel like despite the law.

That's correct. I didn't mean to imply that Obama (or his administration) was doing anything other than following the ACA. In order to do so, they have to make decisions and establish rules and procedures. I don't see how this is different than implementing any other act of Congress.

For example, some benefits depend on the federal poverty guidelines, published by the Department of Health and Human Services, based on data from the Census Bureau. The numbers generated have a great deal of influence on how the ACA plays out, but the numbers themselves cannot appear in the Act, since they change periodically. None of this goes beyond the authority Congress hands out and not doing so would gum up the gears, since every change would require another act of Congress.

I don't see how any of this is controversial.
 
Please find these people that got screwed over. And then let us see if their new predicament in any way matches those that faced the prospect of death.
Like I said, some win, some lose. You got yours, screw those that didn't and are worse off. You are totally justified in being ticked off with the GOP trying to delay or take yours away. Those that got screwed because of Obamacare feel different.
 
Like I said, some win, some lose. You got yours, screw those that didn't and are worse off. You are totally justified in being ticked off with the GOP trying to delay or take yours away. Those that got screwed because of Obamacare feel different.

How about responding to these numbers? I'm about to start saving lots of money. Why does your Manhattan Institute source say Oregon is seeing high premiums when it isn't?

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files...remiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf
 
Like I said, some win, some lose. You got yours, screw those that didn't and are worse off. You are totally justified in being ticked off with the GOP trying to delay or take yours away. Those that got screwed because of Obamacare feel different.

Not dead. That's the 'better off' Travis was talking about.

I don't think you could have shown off the greedy, selfish, craveness of the entire Republican opposition better if you tried. Your reduction to 'screw those who lost' as equal to dead is just...wow.
 
How about responding to these numbers? I'm about to start saving lots of money. Why does your Manhattan Institute source say Oregon is seeing high premiums when it isn't?

http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files...remiums-and-participation-in-marketplaces.pdf
Media Matters addressed the Manhattan Institute fraud.

Also, the MI is funded by Exxon and the Koch brothers.

Manhattan Institute Is Funded By ExxonMobil. According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Manhattan Institute has received $385,000 from Exxon since 1998, including $50,000 in 2010. [Exxonsecrets.org, accessed 9/13/11]

Manhattan Institute Has Received Funding From The Koch Family Foundations. The Manhattan Institute has received over $1.3 million total from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation and the David H. Koch Foundation over the years, both of which are associated with Koch Industries, an oil, gas and chemical corporation. From 2001 to 2009 (the most recent year for which data is available), the Lambe Foundation gave The Manhattan Institute $200,000 annually. The Lambe Foundation's board of directors is "comprised entirely of Koch family members, senior Koch executives, and staff who serve Koch foundations," including the CEO of Koch Industries Charles G. Koch, according to Greenpeace. [Greenpeace, accessed 10/7/11]

Manhattan Institute Obscures The Science Supporting Manmade Climate Change. In a 2007 report, the Manhattan Institute stated: ...
Nuff said.
 
Last edited:
Democrats have been hoping for a shutdown for a while now.

From Politico, 8/22/13: The great Democratic hope: Government shutdown
They’d never say it publicly. But catch many Democrats in an honest moment and they would admit that a Republican-led government shut down this fall might be the best thing — perhaps the only thing — that could revive their fading hopes of capturing the House next year.

...

Nothing short of a powerful jolt — a moment that grabs casual voters by the lapels and makes them take notice — is likely to alter the landscape in a dramatic way. A shutdown could be it, Democrats argue, putting in play GOP-leaning districts now thought to be all but out of reach.

“There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It would be a boon to us,” said Andrew Myers, a national Democratic pollster. “How could it not be?”

...

Some Democrats argue that it would provide huge motivation for their party’s voters, who historically have been less likely to turn out for midterm elections than presidential ones. A shutdown, they say, would fire up liberals across the country who might check out without President Barack Obama on the ballot.

They note that there’s reason to believe that a shutdown would have a real impact on people’s lives. When Republicans forced consecutive government closures in late 1995 and early 1996, some museums and national parks closed, services for veterans took a hit, the National Institutes of Health stopped taking new patients and the Centers for Disease Control halted disease surveillance.

But more than that, it was a genuine media earthquake, with nightly newscasts and headlines dominated by damaging stories about then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his GOP foot soldiers.

A repeat of that, say Democrats, would give their candidates potent ammunition to attack Republicans as uncompromising and dysfunctional. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has sent out a batch of press releases labeling a possible fiscal crisis “Tom Cotton’s government shutdown,” in reference to the freshman Republican House member who just announced he is running for Senate next year.

From The Hill, 8/23/13: Democrats hope GOP chaos in fall will help them win back House
Democrats are banking that a chaotic autumn will convince voters the GOP is damaging the economy and help their party pick up House seats in 2014.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has been pushing the chaos theme, arguing House Republicans are willing to shut down the government and injure the nation’s credit in order to win ideological battles in Washington.

From The Hill, 7/27/13: Shutdown odds rising as Obama, Congress entrench on spending
Moreover, The Washington Post reported Friday that senior White House officials were weighing a strategy by which President Obama would threaten a veto of any bill that did not roll back the sequester. Administration officials have also signaled that the president would definitively veto any legislation that provided deeper cuts than those already in place with the sequester.

From The Hill, 9/14/13: Confident Democrats want separate showdowns on shutdown and debt limit
The Senate Democratic strategy over the next several weeks will be to stand pat and refuse to make any significant concessions in exchange for funding the government or raising the debt ceiling.

“If push comes to shove on debt ceiling, I’m virtually certain they’ll blink,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership. “They know they shouldn’t be playing havoc with the markets.”

Schumer said Republicans are on stronger political ground if there’s a government shutdown, but warned “even on that one, they’re on weak ground because the public sort of is finally smelling that these guys are for obstructing.”

Which is why they will not compromise or negotiate at all.

From the NYT, 9/29/13 Senate Action on Health Law Moves to Brink of Shutdown
Mr. Durbin said Mr. Reid’s resolve not to compromise has been helped by the shenanigans in the House, what he views as game-playing in the Senate by hard-liners like Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, and a sense that now is the time to break the power of Tea Party Republicans.

“This is what he believes,” Mr. Durbin said of Mr. Reid. “He’s sick and tired of the Tea Party caucus.”

Obama tells congressional leaders he won't negotiate on shutdown, debt.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama stressed to congressional leaders on Wednesday that he will not negotiate with Republicans over a government shutdown or raising the U.S. debt limit, the White House said.

Representative Pat Tiberi, an Ohio Republican and close ally of Mr. Boehner, said House Republicans believed that they had already compromised by backing away from their demand that the health care law be defunded. Members of the large bloc of conservatives that often dictate the House agenda said they would not vote for any further government spending unless the health care law was gutted. The speaker talked them back this weekend to a one-year delay.

“Harry Reid likes to excoriate the Tea Party members of our conference for not compromising, when he’s doing the exact same thing,” Mr. Tiberi said.

Mr. Durbin said Mr. Reid’s resolve not to compromise has been helped by the shenanigans in the House, what he views as game-playing in the Senate by hard-liners like Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican, and a sense that now is the time to break the power of Tea Party Republicans.

White House's Hard Line on Shutdown, Debt Ceiling Has Risks Attached
President Barack Obama is sticking to his stance that he won't negotiate with Republicans over the government shutdown or the higher-stakes fight over the federal debt ceiling.

The question, for Republicans and White House allies alike: How long will that resolve last?

Mr. Obama spoke Thursday at a construction company just outside Washington and held fast to his view that Republicans must not attach conditions to bills that underpin the functioning of government.

"There is one way out," he said: Republicans must relent and reopen the government.

...

Said a senior administration official: "We are winning...It doesn't really matter to us" how long the shutdown lasts "because what matters is the end result."


Boehner asks for Obama to negotiate
Boehner’s comments at a press conference reflect the lack of action on either ending the shutdown or raising the debt ceiling, which may be hit by Oct. 17 if Treasury Department estimates prove correct.

“I was at the White House the other night and listened to the president some 20 times explain to me why he wasn’t going to negotiate. I sat there and listened to the majority leader in the United States Senate describe to me that he’s not going to talk until we surrender,” the Ohio Republican said.

“And then this morning, I get The Wall Street Journal out and it says, well, we don’t care how long this lasts, because we’re winning. This isn’t some damn game. The American people don’t want their government shut down and neither do I,” he said.

From USNews: Obama 'exasperated' over government shutdown, warns we're 'in trouble'
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he is “exasperated” by the government shutdown but won’t negotiate with the Republicans until they pass an extension of funding to reopen it.

Obama hammers Boehner on shutdown, debt ceiling
Even as Boehner showed signs of flexibility on a debt limit vote, House Republicans continued to pursue a piecemeal shutdown strategy to pass targeted funding bills for popular government services.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., wrote to rank-and-file Republicans in a memo Thursday that he was confident Obama and congressional Democrats would eventually bow to negotiations if Republicans hold the line.

The Republicans have to hold to their guns just to get the Democrats to negotiate? And the Republicans are the ones that are recalcitrant, apparently.

The Republicans attempted to pass measures to continue funding to those areas where there was widespread agreement, but the Democrats held firm.

Latest GOP shutdown proposal fails; no separate funding for vets, parks
As the federal government shutdown neared the end of its first business day, the House failed to pass a series of separate bills to restart funding for national parks, veterans' services and the city of Washington, D.C.

The measures, designed to eliminate some of the most unpopular consequences of the ongoing shutdown, required a two-thirds majority vote under the House's rules.

Democrats remained mostly united against the funding bills, which they argued amounted to the GOP's "cherry-picking" of politically palatable federal spending while ignoring the problems of the larger government funding lapse.

The vote on restoring funding for the Veterans Affairs Department was 264-164, with 33 Democrats voting in support. A measure to fund the city of D.C. failed by a similar margin. And a bill to keep national parks and museums open also failed to get the two-thirds majority needed.

Even if passed, the piecemeal continuing resolutions -- dubbed "mini-CRs"-- would have faced a quick demise.

Democratic leaders immediately rejected the plan earlier Tuesday, holding to their demand that Republicans relent and pass the six-week extension of government spending sent to them by the Senate.
 
Actually, they won't compromise again, you mean. Reid and Boehner had a deal. Reid was to cut the budget by a certain amount. He agreed and did. In return, Boehner was to provide a clean CR. This was months ago. Reid kept his end of the bargain. Boehner welched.

This law has been confirmed by vote more than forty times. It's passed the test again and again. It is probably the most reconfirmed law in history. Everyone knows this is a battle that the Republicans cannot win.

The problem is the Tea Party wingnuts don't think that matters. They have no idea how to govern. They are driven by religious zealotry and believe that compromise or agreeing to negotiate in some way denotes failure. The fading Republican party pandered to these nitwits on the hopes of firming up a shaky base. Now they are paying for it.

They cannot recover if they remain on this path. The Democrats know it, and are cheering on their self destruction. To quote Obama, "Please proceed..."
 
Democrats have been hoping for a shutdown for a while now.

From Politico, 8/22/13: The great Democratic hope: Government shutdown


From The Hill, 8/23/13: Democrats hope GOP chaos in fall will help them win back House


From The Hill, 7/27/13: Shutdown odds rising as Obama, Congress entrench on spending


From The Hill, 9/14/13: Confident Democrats want separate showdowns on shutdown and debt limit


Which is why they will not compromise or negotiate at all.

From the NYT, 9/29/13 Senate Action on Health Law Moves to Brink of Shutdown


Obama tells congressional leaders he won't negotiate on shutdown, debt.




White House's Hard Line on Shutdown, Debt Ceiling Has Risks Attached



Boehner asks for Obama to negotiate


From USNews: Obama 'exasperated' over government shutdown, warns we're 'in trouble'


Obama hammers Boehner on shutdown, debt ceiling


The Republicans have to hold to their guns just to get the Democrats to negotiate? And the Republicans are the ones that are recalcitrant, apparently.

The Republicans attempted to pass measures to continue funding to those areas where there was widespread agreement, but the Democrats held firm.

Latest GOP shutdown proposal fails; no separate funding for vets, parks

Wrong.
 
What?

Since the legislators write laws and Presidents don't, how do you figure this?

How old fashioned!
UPDATED: Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition
Obama waives ban on aiding regimes that use child soldiers
President Obama should reconsider, reverse immigration executive order

Normally, yes. Congress passes laws and the President enforces them. But that's only when our country isn't blessed with a light-bringer as President.

Obama Administration Delays Employer Health-Care Mandate for One Year

Is there anywhere in the law where it states that the President can decide to delay implementation of part of the law? No, there isn't. But that didn't stop him from "waiving" the employer mandate.

As far as what marplots is talking about, the key part is the phrase "The Secretary shall".

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...werful-woman-as-the-overseer-of-obamacare.htm
She's the most powerful woman in the country, exercising enormous control over the life of every American.

Not First Lady Michelle Obama or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, though they have a lot of power. No, I'm referring to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Ms. Sebelius was handed one of the biggest jobs in Washington when she left the Kansas governor's office to run HHS. She oversees about 70,000 employees (full-time equivalents), manages a budget of about $860 billion (for 2010) and runs the largest health insurance programs in the world, Medicare and Medicaid.

And now Congress has handed Ms. Sebelius the authority to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka, ObamaCare).

A quick search of the legislation reveals that the word "Secretary" appears nearly 3,000 times in the 2,700-page legislation. And the vast majority of those references are to the secretary of HHS.

Over and over again we see: "the Secretary shall establish"; "the Secretary shall promulgate regulations"; "the Secretary shall develop standards"; "the Secretary shall periodically review"; "as the Secretary deems are important"; "the Secretary may develop and impose appropriate penalties"; "the Secretary may adjust the rates"; "if the Secretary determines necessary"; and "the Secretary has the authority."

Democrats gave this former head of the Kansas trial lawyers association the statutory power to remake the U.S. health care system. And within a few years virtually every health-related decision individuals make — with regard to insurance, premiums and co-pays, picking a doctor (if you can find one), treatment and drug options, etc. — will have her stamp on it.
 
Actually, they won't compromise again, you mean. Reid and Boehner had a deal. Reid was to cut the budget by a certain amount. He agreed and did. In return, Boehner was to provide a clean CR. This was months ago. Reid kept his end of the bargain. Boehner welched.

This law has been confirmed by vote more than forty times. It's passed the test again and again. It is probably the most reconfirmed law in history. Everyone knows this is a battle that the Republicans cannot win.

The problem is the Tea Party wingnuts don't think that matters. They have no idea how to govern. They are driven by religious zealotry and believe that compromise or agreeing to negotiate in some way denotes failure. The fading Republican party pandered to these nitwits on the hopes of firming up a shaky base. Now they are paying for it.

They cannot recover if they remain on this path. The Democrats know it, and are cheering on their self destruction. To quote Obama, "Please proceed..."

Link please.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom