Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Forar wrote:
Despite what the Tea Party may have led people to believe, part of governance is being realistic. Single Payer wasn't going to happen, so instead they set their sights on something realistic. And they got it. Trying to paint that as some sort of shortcoming is pretty remarkable.

Single payer also wasn't the only other option on the table.

They controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. They could have passed one of the numerous better alternatives to Obamacare, but Obamacare still had Republican stink on it, so they figured they could trick people into thinking it was something both Democrats and Republicans agreed on. Because, they knew perfectly well, if the program eventually bombed, it'd come back to haunt them if it was purely a Democratic plan.

Polls (such as this one: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958) have the public blaming the Republicans more for this mess than Democrats, and rightly so.

They're trying to push it onto Democrats, by passing resolutions they know have no chance of passing, hoping the public will think "wow, the House is doing things, and the Senate is rejecting them," but the majority of the public has seemingly seen through the ruse.

Tying political policy changes to the passing of continuing resolutions to the government to work seems to have been a step too far.

It's one thing to try to pass policy changes as a naked resolution, free of other constraints. By putting up bills to remove Obamacare free of other issues, you are putting that issue in something of a vacuum. Admittedly, there are still tons of political pressures on members of each caucus, but it looks, and is, more pure, in that you can have a debate on the merits of the issue by itself.

It's another thing, albeit a still politically acceptable thing (sometimes, depending on the issue), to hold certain policy changes the Democrats want hostage in order to force a change on the issue of Obamacare. It does depend heavily on the public's view of the policy they're holding hostage, but provided the policy change the Democrats seek to make is not overwhelmingly popular, they can tie the issues together and negotiate a sort of compromise on both.

But this goes even further than that. This is not about stopping Obama from getting some new initiative in place, but rather about allowing the government to function in the first place.

Outside of the most reactionary fringes, there is general acceptance among both parties and independents that the government has certain functions it ought to perform. The shut down has impeded some of those basic functions, or at least will appear to do so.

The majority of the public does not appear to be alright with that. Where many will not increase feelings of political ill-will towards Republicans for introducing a naked repeal bill, and limit their increase in feelings of political ill-will in the case of hostage taking of competing policy endeavors (based upon how important said endeavor is to each individual), a large portion of the public feels that impeding basic functions of government to force political policy changes is too bold.

TLDR, the public, for the most part, doesn't like the GOP tying basic government functions to political issues.

So how come no one has really/directly responded to Whembly's question about what was wrong with the CR that pushed the Individual Mandate back a year for individuals, that forced Congress and their staff, etc... to fall under the same system as the people they represent, and to fully fund the government?

 Alfndrate wrote:
So how come no one has really/directly responded to Whembly's question about what was wrong with the CR that pushed the Individual Mandate back a year for individuals, that forced Congress and their staff, etc... to fall under the same system as the people they represent, and to fully fund the government?

I'm waiting too...

Because they'll just keep pushing it back until they have enough votes to toss it. If it goes into action, and works, and the American people see it work, then they don't have a leg to stand on.

This is their major worry.

 Alfndrate wrote:
So how come no one has really/directly responded to Whembly's question about what was wrong with the CR that pushed the Individual Mandate back a year for individuals, that forced Congress and their staff, etc... to fall under the same system as the people they represent, and to fully fund the government?

Because it was just a stall tactic. They know from the example of Romneycare that once Obamacare goes into effect people will like it. Thereby killing the R's push to destroy it.

Of course, not destroying it could also push the R's back into the Political wilderness like after the New Deal.

Putting Congress into the system is fine by me (as someone who isn't even a citizen).

Pushing the mandate back a year: A) as noted, is just the first step on doing this forever. And B) it's my understanding that the mandate is part of what is intended to keep the insurance industry from utterly collapsing. The part that is already enacted that prevents companies from refusing to insure someone based on pre-existing conditions (which was often used in bull-gak ways) was in part predicated on the latter going into effect, to keep everyone involved in the system to one degree or another, spreading out the costs and risks across the populace. Making it harder to turn away people (especially those with legitimately problematic expenses) and then defanging the part that's supposed to help keep the system funded just goes towards stacking the deck against the system working and thus potentially giving them something to crow about next election cycle. "Oh look, Obamacare nearly killed the insurance industry!*" (*Because we tried to make sure it couldn't be properly supported).

 Forar wrote:
Putting Congress into the system is fine by me (as someone who isn't even a citizen).

Pushing the mandate back a year: A) as noted, is just the first step on doing this forever.

So... what about the Employer Mandate? Hmmm? What about the thousands of other organizations exempted?

And B) it's my understanding that the mandate is part of what is intended to keep the insurance industry from utterly collapsing. The part that is already enacted that prevents companies from refusing to insure someone based on pre-existing conditions (which was often used in bull-gak ways) was in part predicated on the latter going into effect, to keep everyone involved in the system to one degree or another, spreading out the costs and risks across the populace. Making it harder to turn away people (especially those with legitimately problematic expenses) and then defanging the part that's supposed to help keep the system funded just goes towards stacking the deck against the system working and thus potentially giving them something to crow about next election cycle. "Oh look, Obamacare nearly killed the insurance industry!*" (*Because we tried to make sure it couldn't be properly supported).

Uh... dude... it's the Individual Mandate being delayed that's in question. The rest of the law is still in force. (taxation, regulation, ect...)

 Alfndrate wrote:
So how come no one has really/directly responded to Whembly's question about what was wrong with the CR that pushed the Individual Mandate back a year for individuals, that forced Congress and their staff, etc... to fall under the same system as the people they represent, and to fully fund the government?

Pushing the individual mandate back is a political policy change. In addition, the individual mandate is, to a certain extent, the glue that holds things together, and hypothetically once it's implemented, holds costs down.

By requiring people to have insurance, you help to drive costs down by covering previously uninsured people. Uninsured people account for billions of dollars of healthcare costs each year, and those costs are passed onto the government by and large, not insurance companies (adding to the deficit). By requiring everyone, through their own insurance or through a tax, to have healthcare, you ensure that the vast majority of those costs fall less on the government, and more on the insurers, who receive a larger customer base, and are compensated for those costs that are shifted to them, which in theory should keep costs from rising dramatically. The costs that still fall on the government are covered by the tax/fine.

Basically, what's wrong with that CR is that you're still tying a political issue (individual mandate/healthcare) to basic government functions. By cutting out the individual mandate, you are cutting out one of the key parts of the bill, both politically and structurally, something the Democrats politically oppose, and the public apparently opposes the tying of the CR to.

Edit:
Also, that increased pool of people is vital to other provisions of the healthcare bill. If you make discrimination based on pre-existing conditions illegal, then costs go up. Without an increased consumer base, that leads to everyone's costs going up across the board. The individual mandate is what ensures that costs don't go up based on that.

Basically, Republicans know the score perfectly well. Kill the individual mandate, which will help keep insurance costs stable/down, while keeping in place the things that raise insurance costs, like making discrimination on pre-existing conditions illegal. The result is insurance costs go up for everyone, the bill becomes super unpopular, and the Republicans score a political victory. The Democrats realize that this is their game, and aren't biting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Well, the employer mandate had questions about reporting and the like. Implementation problems are a legitimate reason to push it back. If they hadn't, and there were issues surround reporting leading to false positives or missed negatives, then the program wouldn't be particularly effective and there'd be tons of complaints. Basically, they pushed it back to make it work better. In this case, the Republicans seek to push it back for political reasons, rather than functionality reasons.

In addition, the individual mandate is more integral to the downward cost pressures for the industry than the employer mandate. The employer mandate doesn't guarantee an increase in enrollment, and thus an increase in low cost individuals to offset high cost individuals coming into the healthcare industry, while the individual mandate does guarantee that. More people might enter the market if employers have a mandate, but that is not guaranteed.

Basically, delaying the employer mandate likely won't increase costs across the spectrum for healthcare while the rest of the bill is implemented. Delaying the individual mandate, without delaying the other cost increasing provisions, would almost certainly increase costs.

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing where the Democrats have compromised with the Republicans. Sorry.

No need to apologize -- many Americans have memories even shorter than yours. Take a moment, however, and recall this fight has been going on for four years. There have been all kinds of challenges. Remember when the Republicans claimed the ACA would infringe on religious liberty, for example? Or how about this exact same government shut down threat every X months?

Frazz, you can spin like a dachshund with bacon grease on his tail and you still can't make this look like Democrats want to shut down the government to anyone with more than a single braincell.

So... you're saying that the Republican branch needs to just rubber stamp everything?

Why have parties then?

It's folks like Reid leading the Democrat Party, folks who refuse to negotiate, are responsible for any shutdown that occurs imo.

Granted, I'm in Frazzled camp. Let it all happen, and then the D's would politically pay for it in next year's election. I think what the R's are doing is tactically wrong.

Or maybe the Republican should stop tring to stop what the majority of pepole voted for, and was passed at all level of government including the SC. But, I'm sure non of that matters, I mean really how many time can you lose the same fight.

Noir wrote:
Or maybe the Republican should stop tring to stop what the majority of pepole voted for, and was passed at all level of government including the SC. But, I'm sure non of that matters.

I don't recall a national referendum on the ACA.

 Seaward, who didn't use quotes right, wrote:
I don't recall a national referendum on the ACA.

Oh man, that's an awesome point. You know who totally disagrees with you?

 Seaward wrote:
I generally have a low opinion of the average American's ability to understand complex geopolitical situations, and I do not I believe the average American is privy to all available and relevant classified intelligence, despite the best efforts of patriot-martyrs like Edward 'Tovarisch' Snowden.

We elect presidents to lead. We can kick 'em out if we don't like where they're leading us, but the notion that national defense decisions should be made based on public opinion polling is one I do not subscribe to.

You guys should debate this. We should have national referendums on some stuff, but not on others! The president should lead, except when he shouldn't! Americans are too stupid to make decisions, but sometimes they aren't!

 Seaward wrote:

Noir wrote:
Or maybe the Republican should stop tring to stop what the majority of pepole voted for, and was passed at all level of government including the SC. But, I'm sure non of that matters.

I don't recall a national referendum on the ACA.

Missed that too...

It's wildly unpopular... but, the supporter don't wanna listen. *shrugs* The true test would be the '14 and '16 elections. ('cept, Hillary will be the next Prez)

 whembly wrote:
It's wildly unpopular... but, the supporter don't wanna listen. *shrugs* The true test would be the '14 and '16 elections. ('cept, Hillary will be the next Prez)

Do not not see that you have two things wildly disagreeing in that same sentence? That the ACA is "wildly unpopular" but you also think that Hillary Clinton is likely to win the next vote via a popular election on the Democratic ticket?

Noir wrote:


Or maybe the Republican should stop tring to stop what the majority of pepole voted for, and was passed at all level of government including the SC. But, I'm sure non of that matters, I mean really how many time can you lose the same fight.

So was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

It was the law of the land at the time. Survived numerious challenges in Congress and was upheld by SC too.

 Alfndrate wrote:
So how come no one has really/directly responded to Whembly's question about what was wrong with the CR that pushed the Individual Mandate back a year for individuals, that forced Congress and their staff, etc... to fall under the same system as the people they represent, and to fully fund the government?

It's a two part problem for me.

1) It has absolutely nothing to do with funding the government. That's the biggest issue. Holding the government as a whole hostage to a 5 year old wish of a policy change is stupid, pointless, and sets a very dangerous precedent. No budget unless we have gun control! No budget unless we overturn Roe v. Wade! No budget unless we approve the Keystone Pipeline! No budget unless we pull out of a war! No budget unless we ban all off-shore drilling! Etc etc etc.

2) The Republicans have done absolutely nothing to actually negotiate. Having a functioning government is just as much in their own interest as it is in the Ds interest. Both parties need a government that actually is open, pays bills, and works. The public that is a member of any party needs an open government. So "we will fund the government and not shut it down" is not a position to start negotiating from, nor is it any kind of concession to the Democrats. So the negotiations started out with "We will fund the government (something we both want), you get rid of ObamaCare (something I want) and in exchange you get.......(absolutely nothing for the Democrats)". The latest "negotiation" by the Republicans was still "We will fund the government (something we both want), you delay parts of ObamaCare for a year (a little bit of what we want), and you still get......(absolutely nothing for the Democrats)."

Let's say the party affiliations are reversed:

The Democratic house decides to send a CR funding the government with an amendment banning the interstate sale of firearms. The Republican Senate sends it back.
The Democratic house decides to send a CR funding the government with an amendment banning the interstate sale of rifles. The Republican Senate sends it back.
The Democratic house decides to send a CR funding the government with an amendment banning the interstate sale of rifles for a year. The Republican Senate sends it back.

Are the Republicans the bad guys for refusing to negotiate even though the Democrats haven't offered a single thing in exchange?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's wildly unpopular... but, the supporter don't wanna listen. *shrugs* The true test would be the '14 and '16 elections. ('cept, Hillary will be the next Prez)

Do not not see that you have two things wildly disagreeing in that same sentence? That the ACA is "wildly unpopular" but you also think that Hillary Clinton is likely to win the next vote via a popular election on the Democratic ticket?

A) Hillary isn't tied to the ACA

B) I think the ACA is turning into a boogyman in social circles now... every bad thing justly or UNjustly will be blamed on the ACA. It's getting to the point that it's public perception is damaged.

C) Clinton is teflon... if she runs... who can take her down? Cristie? Jeb Bush? Batman? nah... bet on Clinton.

 Ouze wrote:
Oh man, that's an awesome point. You know who totally disagrees with you?

No, he doesn't. He is smart and dashing, though.

Pointing out that we elect presidents to lead is not the same as pointing out the falsity of the claim that Americans voted for the ACA.

It was almost a nice try, though.

 whembly wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Noir wrote:
Or maybe the Republican should stop tring to stop what the majority of pepole voted for, and was passed at all level of government including the SC. But, I'm sure non of that matters.

I don't recall a national referendum on the ACA.

Missed that too...

National referendums?

What are we, a direct democracy?

I thought we were a Republic?

Make up your damn mind people...

Noir wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Not seeing where the Democrats have compromised with the Republicans. Sorry.

No need to apologize -- many Americans have memories even shorter than yours. Take a moment, however, and recall this fight has been going on for four years. There have been all kinds of challenges. Remember when the Republicans claimed the ACA would infringe on religious liberty, for example? Or how about this exact same government shut down threat every X months?

Frazz, you can spin like a dachshund with bacon grease on his tail and you still can't make this look like Democrats want to shut down the government to anyone with more than a single braincell.

So... you're saying that the Republican branch needs to just rubber stamp everything?

Why have parties then?

It's folks like Reid leading the Democrat Party, folks who refuse to negotiate, are responsible for any shutdown that occurs imo.

Granted, I'm in Frazzled camp. Let it all happen, and then the D's would politically pay for it in next year's election. I think what the R's are doing is tactically wrong.

Or maybe the Republican should stop tring to stop what the majority of pepole voted for, and was passed at all level of government including the SC. But, I'm sure non of that matters, I mean really how many time can you lose the same fight.

No "person" voted for the ACA. It was voted on by Congress. Majorities of people are against the ACA in its current form actually.

 whembly wrote:
A) Hillary isn't tied to the ACA

B) I think the ACA is turning into a boogyman in social circles now... every bad thing justly or UNjustly will be blamed on the ACA. It's getting to the point that it's public perception is damaged.

C) Clinton is teflon... if she runs... who can take her down? Cristie? Jeb Bush? Batman? nah... bet on Clinton.

Come on. The Democratic party is indelibly connected to the ACA. Not a single Republican vote, remember! If the ACA is so enormously unpopular, why isn't Ted Cruz doing to be the president (pretending for a moment that he's eligible to hold that office)? In fact, a prominent Republican is already going to call it "Clintoncare"!

And yet you think no one can beat her. How are these 2 ideas simultaneously possible?

 d-usa wrote:
National referendums?

What are we, a direct democracy?

I thought we were a Republic?

Make up your damn mind people...

No, we're not a direct democracy.

Which is why the statement, "The majority of the country voted for the ACA," is incorrect.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Noir wrote:
Or maybe the Republican should stop tring to stop what the majority of pepole voted for, and was passed at all level of government including the SC. But, I'm sure non of that matters.

I don't recall a national referendum on the ACA.

Missed that too...

National referendums?

What are we, a direct democracy?

I thought we were a Republic?

Make up your damn mind people...

That was in response to Noir D... I highlighted the pertinent part.

EDIT: ninja'ed

edited

The Democratic house decides to send a CR funding the government with an amendment banning the interstate sale of firearms. The Republican Senate sends it back.
The Democratic house decides to send a CR funding the government with an amendment banning the interstate sale of rifles. The Republican Senate sends it back.
The Democratic house decides to send a CR funding the government with an amendment banning the interstate sale of rifles for a year. The Republican Senate sends it back.

Are the Republicans the bad guys for refusing to negotiate even though the Democrats haven't offered a single thing in exchange?

And herein lies the problem.

 Frazzled wrote:
No "person" voted for the ACA. It was voted on by Congress. Majorities of people are against the ACA in its current form actually.

Indeed, all those unelected congressmen foisted it on us, and then it was signed into law by a president who never said a single word about healthcare while campaigning, and then who stole the election!

Truly, the will of the people was unheard.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Noir wrote:
Or maybe the Republican should stop tring to stop what the majority of pepole voted for, and was passed at all level of government including the SC. But, I'm sure non of that matters.

I don't recall a national referendum on the ACA.

Missed that too...

National referendums?

What are we, a direct democracy?

I thought we were a Republic?

Make up your damn mind people...

That was in response to Noir D... I highlighted the pertinent part.

EDIT: ninja'ed

The majority of people only voted for the guy who the bill is named after.

Once when he was running on health care reform.
Once after he signed it.

That is the closest thing we have to a national referendum.

 d-usa wrote:
What are we, a direct democracy?

I thought we were a Republic?

Make up your damn mind people...

Can we not do this again, I beg you.

 Ouze wrote:
Indeed, all those unelected congressmen foisted it on us, and then it was signed into law by a president who never said a single word about healthcare while campaigning, and then who stole the election!

Truly, the will of the people was unheard.

You genuinely believe that every person who cast a vote for Obama did so solely based on the ACA.

I'm actually not surprised.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
A) Hillary isn't tied to the ACA

B) I think the ACA is turning into a boogyman in social circles now... every bad thing justly or UNjustly will be blamed on the ACA. It's getting to the point that it's public perception is damaged.

C) Clinton is teflon... if she runs... who can take her down? Cristie? Jeb Bush? Batman? nah... bet on Clinton.

Come on. The Democratic party is indelibly connected to the ACA.

Yep... that's true.

Not a single Republican vote, remember!

I remember... don't remind me that I'm going old fogey.

If the ACA is so enormously unpopular, why isn't Ted Cruz doing to be the president (pretending for a moment that he's eligible to hold that office)?

Uh... no... just no. No President Cruz please. He's a noobie Senator. Last time a Noobie Senator elected to Presidency isn't turning out so well. Just give us an ex-Governor next time, please. Cristie, Richardson, Walker... any of these yahoo would be better.

In fact, a prominent Republican is already going to call it "Clintoncare"!

And yet you think no one can beat her. How are these 2 ideas simultaneously possible?

The Clinton machine will rise again. Seriously... she's already building her war chest. Who else is going to be the Democratic nominee?