Government Shutdown

MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum

Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Lynn- I'm not sure at all where you have received your information for the above comments. And I'm not sure what point at all you are trying to make in some of your ramblings. For example, your remark---- "OK, which is it that you are arguing -- did the President "alleviate their pain", or did "Congress join the exchanges as a way of showing that they are willing to live under the same laws that they are forcing myself and others to live under", and the subsequent, "You simply can't have it both ways". It is Congress that is trying to have it both ways, not myself. I'm not sure how you could have interpreted it any differently.

In this law, Congress and their staff are forced to participate in the health care exchanges in the same manner in which millions of other Americans are being required to do, and many others will be doing when their employers start dropping coverage. This 'joining in the exchanges' was proposed by a republican, however, the republicans did not build into this law anything about receiving special subsidies, as you stated above. When Congress realized that many of them receive an income higher than the exchanges allow for subsidies, they started whining (including some republicans I might add). To fix this, the president had the law interpreted to allow them once again to receive special subsidies, that are not available to others in the same income situation. This is like Congress saying we'll gladly walk into the fire along with others, but we're going to wear these fire retardant suits that you can't have.

Obama didn't issue an executive order for Congress to receive the subsidy exemption. He instead pressured the Office of Personnel Management to read the law as allowing them to still receive their very generous subsidies. Had he done so by executive order, I think he knew of the risk of a political blowout by doing so, even if an executive order is legal in such situations, which I believe it might not be. Again, on the delayed employer mandate, it was the Treasury Department, which officially took responsibility for the delay of the employer mandate, and they have never given a sound legal basis for doing so. But they did so under pressure of the administration and not by any executive order that the president had issued. If you can provide any links showing that these changes were done by 'executive order' please let me know.
 
Heard something interesting and wonder if anyone else has heard the same.

Apparently Boehner will not allow a "straight" up - down vote (no strings attached) on the CR in the House. Seems that if he did, the CR would pass.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

GG
 
Kevin, if I recall correctly, it was republican senator Grassley who originally argued that if the health insurance exchanges were good enough for ordinary Americans, they should be good enough for members of Congress and their staff members. Democrats went along with his argument, and it was included in the law. Now, with the Vitter amendment, the subsidy (government/employer's contribution) would be removed for not only congressmen, but for their subordinates, who make substantially less than the congressmen. Even Grassley has said that eliminating the employer's contribution was not what he had in mind. Personally, I don't see the need for the employer contributions for the congressmen, president or anyone else that makes $175K or more. However, that does not mean that the republicans have the right to shut down the government, cause 800,000 people to become unemployed and lead us toward a possible default in payments, because they don't like the law and want to change it. It all boils down to the extreme right (tea party) wagging the dog. Hopefully, the republican will return to its centrist, reasoned ways and our government can begin to operate again.
 
Lynn- Mediamatters? Really?? I could post some links to some right wing organizations, but should you be persuaded by those? I don't think you should be.

Steve- You're correct. The law provided for both Congress and their staff to be placed on the exchanges. I'm pretty sure I mentioned the staff in an earlier post, but have since shortened it to just say Congress. Remember, the staff would still qualify for the subsidies that the exchanges provide if their salary is below the threshold for receiving them, just like for everyone else on the exchanges. I really didn't know, so I just googled it, but the average staffer makes $60,000 a year. The highest paid staffers make more than twice that, and the lowest about half. I'm sure Grassley didn't mean to eliminate the subsidy, but if the purpose of joining them is to show that you're no better than ordinary Americans yourselves, then doesn't that come with the territory as part of the exchanges?

I'm a measure 3 or more times, cut once type person. I have always been that way, and it isn't always a good thing, sometimes I'm slow on doing projects and such, but at least I rarely regret what I have done or have to redo things because it wasn't done properly the first time. In my opinion, this bill wasn't thought out very well when it was written, and was rushed out without anyone thinking two steps ahead. You have to imagine, 'if we do this', what could be the consequences, and then how do we manage those consequences. Couldn't they see that businesses would start hiring more part time workers to work around providing health care to their employees? Does that really take that much imagination? Couldn't they foresee that a business with 54 employees might drop 5 to get below the magic number of 50, or that a company with 48 employees might make do with those even though they maybe could use a couple more? These things aren't helpful at all in an economy that is still struggling to regain its feet, and they are only a very partial list of the unintended consequences of this law.

As I said at first, I think the republicans should let this thing just roll on out. Even the unions, some of the democrats most loyal voters and supporters are up in arms about it. I personally think that it will flop under it's own terms, and that would be very good for the republicans, given that they didn't vote for it and have fought against it. But to what damage to the country? If the whole premise of getting people cheaper care is requiring younger, healthy adults to join into the insurance market, then how do you make that happen with just a $95 fine for not signing up? Even though the fine gets larger with each passing year, it never does grow so large as paying a health care premium.

So now you have young adults staying covered under the family plan until 26, so they won't be paying for the higher coverage. You'll have many people enrolling that will get a good portion, in some cases almost all, of their coverage paid for by subsidies. You'll have people paying the fine, waiting until they need major medical service, and then joining up for the insurance. The insurance companies are being required to cover more things within their plans. All this tells me that the price 'has' to go up on someone, and I don't know why that someone wouldn't include me. My family has a good driving record, so we pay good auto insurance rates. However, if the government should tell my auto insurance co. that they must cover anyone regardless of their tickets and/or accidents, you can't charge a higher premium due to their driving record, you must pay for preexisting damage to any of the vehicles, you must start covering mechanical breakdown, and should the insured make little income, we'll subsidize their payments. I'm just not gullible enough to believe that my rates don't stand a chance at increasing...... perhaps significantly. How can they not?

So given all the uncertainty, the glitches, and the unintended consequences, of a bill that will greatly influence not only our health care but perhaps even our economy, am I upset that the republicans are pushing for a delay of this thing. Not really.
 
Our country was founded on democratic rule. If we start letting small factions affect what the congress has made into law by threats of national destruction , the country will not stand .

In the past the way to change laws was to elect a majority to both houses of congress and then enact the change. This has worked well since the US was founded

We truly live on perilous times.


Joel
 
Last edited:
Kevin, I agree with your comment about just letting this thing roll out. I fully expect lots of "teething pains" as it progresses, but I would hope something could be learned from them and modifications made to keep it going. To me, it's not just about the money, it's about caring for those less fortunate. In our country, why should children of uninsured families die at such a higher rate than children of families with insurance? The simple human act of charity is what is missing from the arguments on the right. I am not convinced that, if the right would work with the left, the problems you raised couldn't be dealt with, but sadly, with the only effort from the right seems to be "kill obamacare", I see us all dragged through years and years of wastes that could be prevented. Luckily, not all is gloom and doom, as millions are in the process of getting health insurance that couldn't before.
 
I think the republicans are doing themselves more harm than good, so I wouldn't be proceeding in the manner that they are taking. I would just make a case over the 'subsidy exemption' and leave it at that. But despite the method of doing so, at least they are trying to make changes to the law through Congress. The way Obama has changed the law most certainly expands the reach of executive authority, and we'll see what happens with the legal challenges that are currently pending as a result.

What would you think if a future president, perhaps one that doesn't fit with your ideology, decides to delay, make changes, or issue waivers to a law to help his political stance and/or preferred supporters? The president has delayed the large business mandate so it doesn't take effect until after the next election cycle. There are many who think this mandate will hurt jobs numbers, and there already is evidence that more companies are going to part time employees to skirt around the laws requirements. Is this something you would support a republican president doing? Obama has now set precedence for a future president to be able to do exactly that.
 
I don't want to get into a bunch of discussions on everything going on in politics. I've never said Obama was a perfect president and I don't agree with everything he has done. If we want to throw mud at each other's side, it is not difficult to share wrongdoings by the previous republican president. His wrongdoings make Obama appear saint-like in comparison. My purpose for this thread was to share my repugnance of the way the right is dealing with obamacare and their disregard for the best interests of our government. To me, the way this is going down is almost treasonous behavior. It is one thing to argue and then to compromise and something totally different when actions cause deliberate and real harm to our nation, knowing full well that those actions cause that harm.
 
Steve,

Watched a very interesting interview last night on CNN. Guest was a "moderate" Republic House member. Don't recall his name.

He indicated that this current TP strategy was discussed back in January and was pretty much set in stone in meetings that followed despite rational arguments regarding chances for success. He also admitted that his party is being held captive (hostage) by this ill-advised strategy and he was and is not in favor of it.

Reinforces my belief about the unwillingness of Boehner to call for an up - down vote, no strings attached on the CR in the House. If it occurred, it would likely pass and reveal the deep fractions and dissent within the GOP.

I guess this is an example of "taking one for the team".

GG
 
Last edited:
I certainly don't want harm done to our nation, my job depends upon a thriving economy. But don't you think those republicans, trying to make these changes, would tell you that they are trying to do this because they believe this law will do "real harm to our nation"? I'm not a lawmaker, but I think due to the complexity of the law, with it's 2,700 pages, makes it much better and/or easier to repeal and replace instead of small fixes, but I don't know about that for certain, just a guess.

Concerning uninsured children and their death rate compared to those insured. You can't just make a straight line deduction and say they die more often due to lack of insurance coverage. More uninsured children tend to be in poor families, so what other factors might exists? Obesity rate, lifestyle, being more sedentary, perhaps poor behavior of the parents, different types of medical problems being more common in the poor...etc. For years now, I've been listening to talk of how republicans either don't like or want to hurt women, children, poor people, and others. That is BS. I wouldn't say that Harry Reid doesn't want to help kids with cancer because of his recent gaffe to a question about helping kids with cancer. That sort of stuff doesn't help, and yes, it is done by both sides. We weigh the cost of lives, even those of children, with the effect on money and even convenience everyday. Couldn't we save a really large number of children by lowering the speed limit? Is it heartless of anyone who wouldn't want to do so?

I hope those on here understand that my goal isn't to change minds (I'm not stupid) or even to create arguments, but rather, to say simply, well look at it from this different angle. The fella from Australia spoke of their affordable healthcare versus the US. OK. But I bet when the Aussies go into the hospital and get tested by equipment and have surgical procedures done on them, they do so with much more USA invented medical equipment and learned procedures. How much do those innovations, education, and research add to the cost of our care? How many poor people are illegally crossing the Australian outback, and then using their health services? Not everything follows a straight line.

Now I really need to get to work myself.:)
 
Kevin, this guy's kidding, right? Back then, it forced the congress and the president to work together. The difference this time and it is huge, is that all the compromising on the health deal was done by the president. Every time the president wanted to meet with the republican led congress he met a body that would not compromise, period. It was always their way or the highway. Remember the republican mantra his first term? It was "defeat Obama at all costs". Nothing else mattered. Time after time he tried to negotiate with the congress and was stonewalled. So now, he's playing hardball. Who can blame him?
 
Kevin said:
I usually read the Washington Post when I eat my lunch. Here is an interesting opinion piece that was in it just today about when Tip O'Neill would shutdown the government during the Reagan years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...314936-2ae5-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html
Click to expand...

The author of this very slanted article, Joseph Morris, is a quite interesting fellow:

http://www.policyexperts.org/cv/MorrisJoseph.pdf

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-M...Officer-in-Rahm-Emanuels-Residency-Challenge/

Seriously, this is fascinating reading.

In short, Mr. Morris appears to be a republican hack who pushed his way into jobs in the Reagan administration. I do not for a minute put stock in much this fellow has to say. Or, as Vinny put it in the movie: "I got no more use for this guy."
 
Last edited:
I think it is fair to say that the real reason beyond all of this nuttiness is that a certain faction (TP) of the Republicans in the House of Representatives is determined to do anything and everything to prevent President Obama from having a successful Presidency. They just decided to pick the ACA as their excuse.

This article provides a clear explanation that exposes the TP duplicity in all this nonsense:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...tial-threat-to-America-not-Obamacare/(page)/2

Even though Democrats disagreed with much of the G. Bush agenda which gave huge $$$$$$ breaks for his super-wealthy Big Banking and Big Oil buddies, and brought us "The Great Recession" Democrats did not go gadding about looking to shut down the government because they were not getting their way. Which is WAY unlike this band of thugs, which ought to respect their of office and put the Country first, instead of their small-minded agenda.

Let's agree to give the ACA a chance, THEN change it if need be. No doubt we DO need serious health care reform in this Country. Let's agree to act like adults.
 
Last edited:
The difference this time, is the president has said "no negotiating".....period. I don't seem to recall anyone saying "defeat Obama at all costs". I do recall McConnell saying our goal is to make him a one term president, which is what the media reported. However, they never quoted his follow up line, which was something in the order of "unless he is willing to work with us". I do not recall the democrats compromising on much when they had full control of the Congress, in fact, didn't the president comment that "elections have consequences, and I won".

But the big difference here, is Reagan would always meet with the other side. He never told Wall Street that they should be really worried, in an effort to drive down the stock market like this ***** just did. He didn't close down the monuments, scenic oversights, and privately owned and run buildings just because the government owned some section of the land or something, like this president is doing. The media wasn't calling O'Neill a hostage taker, and they weren't reporting that the shutdowns were going to cause the economy to crash and burn. The media in this country is almost as pathetic as the community organizer we have running it.
 
How convenient to have such a selective memory! I guess you fail to remember it was G. Bush (aka "Shrub") who pushed this idea that "elections have consequences" right after the 2004 election. President Obama was merely reminding everyone that if was true for Bush in 2004, it must certainly be true in 2012, especially since Obama's election margins were appreciably larger than Mr. Bush's.

A couple of additional insights:

#1

Abel Malcolm
Bush is a Weapon of Mass Deception

Remember George Bush, the self-dubbed "decider"--the one who (correctly) pronounced that "elections have consequences"?* The one who appointed his crony to lead FEMA and in the middle of the Katrina disaster put his arm around him and told him "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".* The one who put Monica Goodling in charge of cleansing the Department of Justice of political leftists and independents, and unapologetically appointed as immigration judges people with no immigration experience but plenty of political juice.* And he did it with his head held high, confident that he was right and ambivalent to those who didn't agree!* Why?* Because ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.*

While I was disgusted at the time, I now have a grudging respect for Dubya.* Through either cunning devise or blithering idiocy (either way doesn't matter), he did what he wanted to do because he was the President of the United States of America.* He did it because he could.*

#2:

CJ Werleman
The Contributor

Elections Have Consequences... Except in the Minds of Republicans
Home > Health Care Published September 24, 2013 - 8:00am
*
Steve Sack / Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Cagle Cartoons
I’m old enough to remember when elections had consequences. A time when voters made a decision as to what direction the country should head, at least politically. That “golden age” was as recent as 2005, when President Bush said, “We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 election.” Simply put, elections have consequences, and whether Democrats liked it or not, the people had spoken.

In 2012, the American public had a clear choice for which direction they’d like the country to move towards. Both major parties laid out clear and starkly contrasting visions: the Republican Party’s philosophy of, “You’re on your own,” versus the Democrat Party’s, “We are in this together.”

The centerpiece of the respective party’s opposing platforms was Obamacare. Romney said he’d repeal it. Obama said he’d affirm it. What did the voters say? Well, the election wasn’t even close. Obama crushed Romney in the Electoral College, 332-206, and carried every single battleground state except North Carolina. Not only did Obama win the popular vote by a margin greater than 5 million, House Democrats received 1 million more votes in congressional races than their Republican counterparts. THE PEOPLE SPOKE!

For the fanatics, nihilists, religious zealots, and know-nothings who are now calling the shots in the Republican Party, they really don’t give a flying fire-truck what the public thinks, they’re too busy pandering to the small handful of billionaire funded super PACs, whose entities exist for one purpose only: to repeal every program or safety net ever implemented by the federal government, so that corporations can profit from our lives - from the cradle to the grave.
In justifying the GOP’s vote to shutdown the government should the Congress not defund Obamacare, Speaker Boehner cited a CNN poll that shows 59 percent have an unfavorable view of it. Yes, ironically Republicans suddenly care what the public thinks. Funny how they are inversely unenthusiastic for polling data when it shows that 60 percent are against shutting down the government over defunding Obamacare, or equally polls that show 90 percent of Americans are for gun background checks.

More significantly, a Washington Post/ABC News poll shows 62 percent of Americans say they need more information to understand Obamacare. In other words, a majority of those who say they have unfavorable view of it likely do not know how it works, or were led to a negative view thanks to the right wing echo chamber and/or the endless barrage of negative television advertising funded by the billionaire Koch brother’s Americans for Prosperity. A media watch group found that between July 1 and September 16, the Koch brothers ran more than 3,200 spots to slam Obamacare. That’s four times the number of ads placed in the same period by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, charged with implementing the law. Over the course of the next two weeks, the gonzo billionaires will spend $3.1 million advertising in six states. Welcome to the plutocratic Corporate United States of America.

The GOP and their billionaire backers are desperate to defund Obamacare now because they know its popularity will soar once the law goes into full effect. They know that once it is fully implemented, it will be impossible to take its many benefits away from voters (“Keep your government hands off my Medicare”). They know once it is in full effect, it will be impossible to tell the 129 million non-elderly Americans who have some type of pre-existing health condition that they must return to the pre-Obamacare days of being denied coverage altogether. They know once the law is in full effect, it will be impossible to end coverage for the millions who will for the first time have coverage through the expansion of Medicaid. They know that once it goes into effect, the public will be reluctant to return their healthcare needs to the mercy of the insurance companies. Now, ask yourself this: if Republicans are so sure Obamacare will be a failure, then why not let it fail and then let the Democrats pay a heavy electoral price for said failure? They know there’s no chance of failure, which is why they’re so desperate now.

This is why the sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome on the Right are holding the economy, government workers, and the American people hostage, because they know that their scare mongering will soon be exposed for what it is – a corporate agenda driven to ensure the failure of Obama and, in turn, to hurt Democrats in 2016, regardless of the cost.
They know the public will discover their erroneous justifications for taking healthcare away from 30 million Americans, and thus putting the full faith and credit of the United States in peril, and for further hurting the economy and stunting job growth, were concocted purely for political expediency rather than determining what is not only in the nation’s best interests, but for what is also the will of the American people. When the jig is up, hopefully, maybe then the Republican Party will return to that golden age of when elections had consequences.

- See more at: http://thecontributor.com/health-ca...except-minds-republicans#sthash.kp3VUgP6.dpuf
 
Last edited:
I'm not disputing that elections have consequences, my dispute is over just how much compromising Obama was doing with the republicans on the health bill, he wasn't. The two main things the republicans wanted included was tort reform and for the insurance to be able to be purchased across state lines. Neither of which made it into the law. Obama did not compromise on the bill, and he didn't have to, because they had the majority all around. But now they don't have that majority in the House. One of the main reasons they republicans were able to get control of the House, was due to their opposition of the health care law. They even picked up Ted Kennedy's former seat that year due to it.

No one has ever answered this. If the republicans should accept that Obamacare is now a law that is untouchable, how has Obama managed to change the law as it was written, going around Congress to do so, 5 times? Two of those 5 times changing major provision. Where did that authority to do so come from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top