Government Shutdown

[Rich]

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.

This is simply not true. The democrats wanted a single-payer system of nationalized health care for everyone, as pushed originally by the Clintons and outright rejected by the republicans. Obamacare (modeled after Romneycare, which was in turn modeled after a plan created by the Heritage Foundation itself) WAS the compromise. It is a market-based system requiring individuals to purchase PRIVATE health insurance. This is as conservative of a plan of socialized medicine as you can get. Many democrats (including myself) were furious at Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for agreeing to this compromise rather than instituting a true system of nationalized health care. They foolishly thought republicans would support THEIR OWN PLAN. How silly of them. But make no mistake. Obamacare was a huge compromise on the part of the dems in order to get some kind of health care reform passed.

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?

First of all, Obamacare is not "untouchable." The republicans can amend or dispose of the law through the same democratic process by which all laws are changed. But first, they will need to win the Senate and/or the Presidency, and the way they are going, I see little chance of that happening for a long time. The problem is that they are trying to hold the entire country hostage to blackmail for the changes they want.

Let's see . . . in this negotiation, the republicans are supposed to get a year delay in the ACA, approval of the Keystone Pipeline, elimination of a medical device tax, and numerous other things, and the democrats get . . . what exactly? To keep the government running another couple of months and payment of the nation's debts? Can you even comprehend the ridiculousness of that proposal? That is not negotiation. That is not compromise. That is sheer blackmail and holding the nation hostage for the wishes of a very small minority of tea-party backed ultra-conservatives. That is not how a democracy works. It is tyranny of the minority. And in fact, if the debt ceiling is not raised and the expected ramifications occur, it may very well border on treason. I commend Obama for not falling prey to such underhanded tactics. Every time he has tried to negotiate and compromise with the republicans they have slapped him in the face. It is high time they got some well-deserved fallout for their poor behavior.

As for a well-reasoned answer to the second part of your question, I defer to this article: Tom Graves says Obama has changed the Affordable Care Act 19 times

 

[slowGEEZR]

Kevin, Rich is correct. How could you not know that the health care plan passed was not a compromised version of the original? Many of us, as Rich says, were furious at this compromise. There has been nothing but contempt from the right for this president since he was elected. From the first republican congressman yell of "LIAR" to the endless lies perpetrated by the tea party, the Koch brothers and FOX "news", there has been zero support from the right.

This is simply not true. The democrats wanted a single-payer system of nationalized health care for everyone, as pushed originally by the Clintons and outright rejected by the republicans. Obamacare (modeled after Romneycare, which was in turn modeled after a plan created by the Heritage Foundation itself) WAS the compromise. It is a market-based system requiring individuals to purchase PRIVATE health insurance. This is as conservative of a plan of socialized medicine as you can get. Many democrats (including myself) were furious at Obama, Pelosi, and Reid for agreeing to this compromise rather than instituting a true system of nationalized health care. They foolishly thought republicans would support THEIR OWN PLAN. How silly of them. But make no mistake. Obamacare was a huge compromise on the part of the dems in order to get some kind of health care reform passed.




First of all, Obamacare is not "untouchable." The republicans can amend or dispose of the law through the same democratic process by which all laws are changed. But first, they will need to win the Senate and/or the Presidency, and the way they are going, I see little chance of that happening for a long time. The problem is that they are trying to hold the entire country hostage to blackmail for the changes they want.

Let's see . . . in this negotiation, the republicans are supposed to get a year delay in the ACA, approval of the Keystone Pipeline, elimination of a medical device tax, and numerous other things, and the democrats get . . . what exactly? To keep the government running another couple of months and payment of the nation's debts? Can you even comprehend the ridiculousness of that proposal? That is not negotiation. That is not compromise. That is sheer blackmail and holding the nation hostage for the wishes of a very small minority of tea-party backed ultra-conservatives. That is not how a democracy works. It is tyranny of the minority. And in fact, if the debt ceiling is not raised and the expected ramifications occur, it may very well border on treason. I commend Obama for not falling prey to such underhanded tactics. Every time he has tried to negotiate and compromise with the republicans they have slapped him in the face. It is high time they got some well-deserved fallout for their poor behavior.

As for a well-reasoned answer to the second part of your question, I defer to this article: Tom Graves says Obama has changed the Affordable Care Act 19 times

 

[Kevin]

That was no compromise. That is a kin to my going home this evening and telling my wife that I plan to spend $5000 on fishing equipment, but since I know this would upset her with our current financial situation, I will only spend $2000 as a compromise. This wasn't something that was hashed out between the two parties, besides, the only way the eventual law was passed was through much arm twisting of a couple of democrats at the end and a procedural move to get around Scott Browns being elected, I doubt the single payer idea would have had a chance at passing. Yes, the republicans want a few things, they shouldn't get all of what they want, that would be the compromise.

Once again, I wish they would just let the thing pass. Commonsense tells me it will fail, and if you look at all the problems already showing up, it might fail earlier than I thought it would.

 

[Rich]

Once again, I wish they would just let the thing pass. Commonsense tells me it will fail, and if you look at all the problems already showing up, it might fail earlier than I thought it would.

Conservatives can't let it go because they know for a fact that just the opposite is true. Once it takes full effect and is successful, much like Romneycare was in Mass., they know there will be no turning back. Why do you think they are going to such drastic measures to kill it before the public has a chance to try it?

By the way, if you want an understanding of just how conservative the Obamacare plan is, read through the legislative history section of this wiki article on the ACA: Prior to Obama becoming president, this exact type of plan was championed by republicans and enjoyed bipartisan support. I wonder exactly what it is about Obama that changed all that sentiment from the conservatives?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Dare I say:

1) He's not an American citizen.

2) He's beaten McCain and Romney.

3) His skin color is not .... er normal.

GG

PS: Breaking news. Just heard on NPR a snippet from our esteemed Republican and sole Wyoming member of the House of Representatives Cynthia Lummis. She said that the Reps are trying to fund "important" services of the Federal Government and one of those was the National Park Service, who had to close the National Parks due to the shutdown.

I wonder when the House of Representatives, in their wonderful, current "piece meal" approach (obvious tactic for future elections), will authorize continued funding for the WIC program during the shutdown. :ROFL:

And no "up and down" vote, without strings, is being allowed by Bonehead, which will likely pass if allowed.

 

[Kevin]

Conservatives can't let it go because they know for a fact that just the opposite is true. Once it takes full effect and is successful, much like Romneycare was in Mass., they know there will be no turning back. Why do you think they are going to such drastic measures to kill it before the public has a chance to try it?

That may end up being how you would define 'success'. If getting more people covered is the main source of success, then yes, it will probably be successful. But if I'm right about my insurance premium rate rising, perhaps quite substantially, then I won't be defining it as a success. If this gets people covered, but makes it harder for them to find a job and/or decreases income, would that be a success?

This isn't the first time that our government found a reason to involve itself in the insurance business. There was a time that private insurance looked at the cost of providing homeowners with flood coverage, and saw that it was probably a losing game. Either they made the price too high for most people to purchase, or they risked paying out more in claims than they took in with premium. So the federal government, through FEMA, administered a program offering flood insurance. Again, not being able to see two steps beyond initial thinking, they started selling people insurance to cover homes within flood plains. The result was millionaires placing expensive homes right up on sand dunes to get the best ocean views, and the taxpayers having to subsidize the claims when the program would run out of money, which it quite often does. Before the program started, people either built smaller homes on flood plains and took the risk upon themselves, or they sacrificed having better views for a safer home. Try now to take flood insurance away from the beach and river front communities, you couldn't do it. Does that mean that flood insurance has been a success? I guess if you have a beach front home, perhaps the answer is yes, but that isn't the opinion I would offer from my little shack on the hillside.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Kevin, what would your definition of success of the health plan be?

 

[twich54]

Kevin, what would your definition of success of the health plan be?

Steve, Dave here...........how about we start with 'personal responsibility' FIRST and FOREMOST ! I don't recall one one politician drumming for that (perhaps there were a few).

While I'm no fan of Mayor Bloomberg, his half cocked attempt to limit 'sugared' drinks in NYC speaks volumes to the millions of stupid individuals who would then expect the Gov't to carry for their sorry you know what's once type II diabetes sets in !!

 

[Gordon Gray]

Dave,

Lots of healthy people, some of which who cannot afford / obtain health insurance for a variety of reasons (think hereditary pre-conditions, loss of employment, family emergencies, etc) , do get sick and require medical care.

And yes, Bloomberg's effort way way over the top.

Gordon

 

[twich54]

understood Gordon, that wasn't my point......rather to put it simply........insurance / medical is partly out of control due to the 'lack of control' ie 'personal responsibility' again, of numerous individuals with or without insurance that collectively put a strain on the system.

I see it EVERY DAY !

 

[Kevin]

Kevin, what would your definition of success of the health plan be?

Are you asking me what result would have to occur, for me to see the ACA law as turning out to be a success? If so, I really can't say it would be possible for me to see it as a success, no matter the results. Some of the provisions within it are so fundamentally unfair to me.

The penalty system can be one big loophole in some circumstances. You can have someone save thousands of dollars a year by paying penalties, over someone being responsible and paying for their insurance. And yet if the person paying the penalties comes down with a medical condition, they can still rush out and purchase a policy. This is basically allowing someone to legally cheat the system. This goes against all the principles behind insurance. It's the same as being allowed to purchase homeowner insurance on your beach house, with the hurricane just a mile or two offshore.

Another example is the medical device tax. It taxes gross revenues from sales and not off the profits. So a company which loses money for the year making 'gidgets', is still taxed if they sold any 'gidgets' at all. That is just very un-American in my opinion.

I'm not anti-government, but rather see myself as pro-small government. We definitely needed improvements to our current health care system, but I don't think this poorly written law was the answer. It's going to be interesting to see how things turn out, regardless.

 

[Len44]

Are you asking me what result would have to occur, for me to see the ACA law as turning out to be a success? If so, I really can't say it would be possible for me to see it as a success, no matter the results.

"No matter the results"??? If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying you have prejudged and condemned the ACA as a failure, even though time may well prove it to be a roaring success.

No way to deal with someone who's mind is firmly made up, and is not open to other points of view, or facts...

 

[Kevin]

"No matter the results"??? If I understand correctly, you seem to be saying you have prejudged and condemned the ACA as a failure, even though time may well prove it to be a roaring success.

No way to deal with someone who's mind is firmly made up, and is not open to other points of view, or facts...

I'm open to other points of views Lynn. Why don't you tell me how those two examples I listed above are correct and good in the approach they take?

Here in VA, we have what a lot of people would consider a very successful industry based out of Reedville. It employees a couple hundred people and brings much money into the areas local economy. Most people would refer to it as a successful business.......,but I wouldn't. It has decimated the menhaden (a small prey fish) population, and thus, in my opinion, has had a large effect on fish populations on up the food chain. As an avid outdoorsman and one who cares about environmental issues, I wouldn't say it is a successful business because of the means at which it has achieved that 'success'. Just as I don't agree with many of the ways that this law is trying to achieve it's success.

I certainly don't think that everything about the law is bad. I agree that people shouldn't be canceled based upon their health taking a turn for the worse. I don't agree with a cap on payouts. I think that the price of health care is getting too high, and there are ways to bring down that cost. It's great to offer people a helping hand when they either absolutely can't provide for themselves or find themselves at a bad time. Although I'm very much against just giving more 'free stuff' to people who make no attempt to provide for themselves. It's not some of the goals of this bill that I have problems with but rather the methods it takes to achieve them.

 

[Gordon Gray]

So it appears Cruz and the other crazies in the Tea Party (including those Rep moderates in the HOR who sat on their hands not allowing an up or down / no strings attached vote - AKA take one for the party and the Bonehead) have been dismissed from the process regarding their demands to defund the ACA as part of a CR and Debt Limit discussion and the political theater now goes onto the Senate.

DUH!

 

[Len44]

I certainly don't think that everything about the law is bad. I agree that people shouldn't be canceled based upon their health taking a turn for the worse. I don't agree with a cap on payouts. I think that the price of health care is getting too high, and there are ways to bring down that cost. It's great to offer people a helping hand when they either absolutely can't provide for themselves or find themselves at a bad time. Although I'm very much against just giving more 'free stuff' to people who make no attempt to provide for themselves. It's not some of the goals of this bill that I have problems with but rather the methods it takes to achieve them.

Ah, I think there are some areas of agreement, after all.

 

[twich54]

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.

Len , I agree..........then again, not much has changed.........

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. America deserves better."

- Senator Barack Obama , March 2006

 

[Gordon Gray]

Good quote Dave.

I guess the obvious questions are:

1) Who caused the debt problem? Many possibilities in the recent past (pre Obama) including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the recession, etc.

2) Who failed to lead in 2006?

3) And finally, who's failing to lead now?

Gordon

PS: If I recall correctly, there was an annual surplus when Bill Clinton left office.

 

[timm]

Figure others might be getting info on their health premiums by now.? I work for a large corp and the amount we will be paying has gone up 80% quite a jump

Also was in canada on a subway this weekend when i read an ad on a subway it was for psychotherapy. The ad read 'we do not participate with CHIP ....very reasonable rates....no waiting lists!!' I guess you can read into that whatever you like.

 

[jmschnur]

Not sure your rise has a direct correlation to the AFAC. Of course if we had gone single payer then you would be covered and then could go buy extras as you wanted.


J

 

[InterMechanico]

Figure others might be getting info on their health premiums by now.? I work for a large corp and the amount we will be paying has gone up 80% quite a jump

Also was in canada on a subway this weekend when i read an ad on a subway it was for psychotherapy. The ad read 'we do not participate with CHIP ....very reasonable rates....no waiting lists!!' I guess you can read into that whatever you like.

Well, in British Columbia, we have world class health care, and our premiums max out at $120.00 per month for a family of (as many as you have). It's not perfect, but care doesn't depend on ability to pay. If you're sick, you go to the doctor, and there is no user fee.
Life expectancy in Canada is higher than in the U.S. by about 3 years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Since Canada and the U.S. have a similar demographic, it could just be that our health care is a little more inclusive, and effective, despite the advertisement you saw. Don't mistake the changes in your health care system for a system that mirrors ours (and 15 other countries). You have a Band-Aid solution so far as I can see.

And what is the deal with the profound lack of interest in one anothers' well being in the U.S.? You know, there is strong correlation between a healthy workforce and a prosperous economy; neither of which exists south of the border.

Too inflammatory ?