No respect!

[Guinevere]

The House Republicans, having lost the Affordable Care Act issue in the legislature, and then having lost it again in the Supreme Court, are now resorting to stomping their feet and holding the entire Federal Government hostage while they whine and cry some more. These are the folks who couldn't get it together enough to avoid the sequester, to federal agencies and federal employees are already taking budget cuts and on furlough, and now they want to shut the whole thing down.

Time to get rid of these babies and elect some folks who aren't afraid to actually govern.

And oh yeah, time to look at campaign finance reform once again, too (which may even require some fiddling with the First Amendment, but I can live with that).

[Sue U]

One fundamental problem is congressional districting, which creates far too many "safe" seats and therefore allows those representatives to be legislative assholes without electoral consequences.

Another problem is the two-party winner-takes-all duopoly we have. A system of multi-party proportional representation would allow for more voices and more opportunities to build coalitions in government, better reflecting the public's actual and more nuanced sentiments on policy rather than us-versus-them demagoguery.

[Lord Jim]

Hey, maybe the 42nd time will be the charm....

I agree that at this point this is really silly and I've made pretty clear what my views are on politicians who think compromise is a dirty word...

I have no idea, (I don't believe anyone does) what the actual impacts and effects of Obamacare will be, (wildly divergent claims and predictions have been made on both sides) but at this point it seems to me we're now going to have a national laboratory (one of the nice things that our federal system provides) to test this, and find out who's claims are correct...

Some states are implementing it , some states aren't. If a couple of years from now, (especially after the business mandates, that Obama himself delayed kick in) the states that are implementing it have unemployment skyrocketing, premiums shooting up and are staggering under debt created by unfunded mandates, (which is what one side predicts) we'll know the thing is a bust, and that will be the time to make a serious effort to get rid of it...

If on the other hand, the states that implement it are experiencing no increase in unemployment as a result, premiums are going down, vast new numbers of folks are being brought into the system and there's enough cash flow to make it self sustaining, (which is what the other side claims) we'll know that too, and the political pressure on the states that have been holding out will become irresistible, and they will join the program...

While I in no way support those on the Hill in my party that seem to have adopted a pathological obsession with this to the point that they seem ready to send the economy over a cliff over the issue, it should be pointed out that there's a reason for why they are able to take this position. And that reason is because in poll after poll Obamacare remains widely unpopular with the public.

There's no way to dispute the fact that the Obama Administration, (from Obama on down) has done a piss poor job of selling this to the public. (One of the mistakes Obama made was embracing the phrase "Obamacare"; that pretty much tied the program's popularity to his personal popularity, which is currently mired in the low forties...he probably should have called it "Reagancare" )

Another mistake I believe they made was in putting so much emphasis on highlighting the aspects of the program that will help those not covered by healthcare, (which is a minority of the population) rather than on the benefits (that they believe exist anyway) for middle class folks in terms of reducing the cost of healthcare.

It's a simple fact that (especially in a shaky economy) people are much more worried about themselves and their families then they are about the other guy and his problems...

It's salesmanship 101; if you want to sell a product you have to sell it on the basis of what's in it for them....

Obama and Co really dropped the ball on that.

[Long Run]

Except, it won't be so clean, Jim. If a state doesn't set up an exchange, the federal government will; probably after some delay. Also, many of the requirements included in healthcare reform apply regardless of what the state does -- an insurance company (or self-insured plan) will have to include the expanded coverage the law requires. As a result, even in states that don't implement the exchanges, nearly all of the requirements of the new law will impact nearly all health plans. (And the law is cost increase driver, which is why the Administration could not tout how much more affordable the care will be to those who already have coverage).

As for the R strategy, my best guess is that they are simply making a point, perhaps as a sop to their hard-core constituents, knowing that they will have to back off when the bill gets amended in the Senate. At the end of the day, there are enough adults to avoid another government shut down defeat, which would do nothing more than take the spot light off of the Administration's many failings. Which, of course, is why the Administration would like nothing more than for the Rs to box themselves into a Syrian corner on a budget impasse.

[oldr_n_wsr]

It's all political football with the American people getting kicked around.

[dgs49]

Who, exactly, is getting kicked around?

This law was passed by a single political party that knew its majority was shortly going to be gone. Given the scope of the changes and its impact on the entire country, the failure to even attempt to make this a bi-partisan measure was unconscionable.

It was sold on a pack of grotesque lies. "If you like your coverage, you will be able to keep it...your insurance won't cost you any more..." and so on. Blatant, knowing lies.

It's implementation was also cynically timed so its effects would not impact the 2012 election, and hopefully would be forgotten by 2016.

This was an unpopular, ill-advised bill, and while it was not passed in the dead of night, its massive size and complexity ensured that NOBODY but the insider-est of insiders had any idea what was in it.

The basic premise of the bill was that tens of millions of young people who basically can live without insurance, would be forced to buy it, in order to fund tens of millions of old and sickly bastards who could never afford insurance if it were priced appropriately. Basically robbing from one generation to bail out another. Typical Democrat "compassion."

Bring on the government shutdown. We'll see if anyone notices.

[Lord Jim]

Basically robbing from one generation to bail out another.

Without going into the specifics of Obamacare, the principle of cross generational support, (one generation bearing a cost that another primarily benefits from) has been fairly well established in this country for many decades, and the overall benefits have been pretty clear.

Whenever the government invests in education, or infrastructure, or scientific research, the people who are bearing the bulk of the cost are not the ones who are going to be the primary beneficiaries; younger generations are.

Conversely, we don't expect old geezers to bear the risks of serving in the front line of military action; younger people bear that cost.

There are many other examples. The idea that some will make sacrifices that benefit primarily others, and that in turn others will make sacrifices that primarily benefit them, is more than mere "compassion"; it's a fundamental pillar for a successful modern society.

[dgs49]

But it wasn't sold on that basis. It was promoted on the premise that everyone would benefit.

We had (have) the relatively manageable problem of the few percent of older and ill (those with expensive pre-existing conditions) who could not afford health insurance if priced appropriately. The solution was to burden the entire younger generation to subsidize older people, most of whom can afford the higher premiums that their age warrants, but, being human, they don't want that burden, if they can avoid it.

It is a lie and a program that is analogous to Social Security. To address the relatively small percentage of elderly who were destitute (back when the culture was supportive of the elderly), the entire working population was co-opted into an unconstitutional Ponzi-like retirement system, with the lie that the money was going into a "trust fund." And now, surprise, surprise, we find that it is unsustainable.

[Long Run]

This highlights a big divide in the attitude about health care. For the most part, conservatives view it as a service like most other goods and services, like food, shelter, etc. Under that view, people who are able should take care of themselves, and there should be a limited and basic safety net for those who cannot. For the most part, liberals view healthcare as a right that everyone should have access to, and therefore, it makes sense that society should provide this service (like it provides for schools, parks, roads, etc.). With that point of view, it makes sense that the funding should be societal, with limited or no connection to the actuarial expected costs; so it is okay that younger people (who are generally less well off) subsidize the cost of older people (who are on average much wealthier).

[Long Run]

The basic premise of the bill was that tens of millions of young people who basically can live without insurance, would be forced to buy it, in order to fund tens of millions of old and sickly bastards who could never afford insurance if it were priced appropriately. Basically robbing from one generation to bail out another. Typical Democrat "compassion."

The first part of this statement is actually one of the real problems that the ACA tries to address -- young people cannot live without health insurance. The incidence of younger people getting seriously ill is significantly less than in older people, but they still need coverage if it happens. (And there are many types of serious injuries that are more common in younger people). Younger people, on average, have gamed the system far more than older people by not paying for insurance, but when they need expensive health care, they get it. Who pays for it? Those who are paying insurance premiums and taxes, which, on average, is older people.

The flaw with Obamacare is not that it addresses problems that don't exist. The problem is that it is a terrible piece of the legislation that does an extremely bad job of providing solutions to those problems. Even my liberal friends who understand the law (and like the general intent of the law) agree that this is bad government.

[dales]

A nation is only is good as it treats the least among them.

[Guinevere]

All of which is beside the point - if you don't like it, change it. If you can't, well then you can't. But don't act like immature adolescents and shut down the entire federal government because you lost a political fight.

[Econoline]

If the Republicans really think that ObamaCare must be stopped because it's going to be such a disaster, why aren't they pointing to the one state where this plan has already been tried and showing what a disaster that was?

Oh, right. In Massachusetts RomneyCare wasn't a disaster, it was a success. Oh well...

[oldr_n_wsr]

They are not shuttubg down hte entire gov. They will fund everything BUT the ACA.

And as far as Romnicare, let the states do it then, not the feds.

For the life of me I don't understand that if the feds wanted a national health care program, they already had medicaid/care to build on/with. Why start over from scratch and build this monstrosity that no one understands and now doesn't want.

[Sue U]

For the life of me I don't understand that if the feds wanted a national health care program, they already had medicaid/care to build on/with. Why start over from scratch and build this monstrosity that no one understands and now doesn't want.

Because a genuine national healthcare system (like virtually every other western democracy has) based on Medicare would be socialism! So booga-booga! Instead, the administration and Democrats in Congress supported a "free market" model based on Heritage Foundation policy proposals that had been touted and implemented by Republicans. Except that when Obama does it, it's tyranny, so Must. Be. Stopped. For Freedumb!

This country. Gah.

[Econoline]

IIRC, the President and the Democrats tried to put a "public option" ("Medicare for all") in the ACA, and had the votes to pass it, but Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) (I-CT) (R?-CT) threatened to filibuster the bill if that part wasn't removed.

[Lord Jim]

That's close to what happened Econo, but it doesn't give Harry Reid the credit he deserves. As I posted a while back:

They could have had at least some GOP support in the Senate, but once again high handed arrogance carried the day, this time on the part of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid....

The Senate Budget Committee reported out a bill, that actually contained a trigger mechanism for a public option that had the vote of Republican Committee member Susan Collins.

Reid then announced no no, that bill is dead, (completely throwing Collins under the bus) and that he, Reid, would bring his own bill to the floor and that it would contain a public option without the need for a trigger....

Then either deliberately or accidentally (I don't know for sure, but I lean towards deliberately since Reid has always been an excellent vote counter) Reid completely bungles this strategy because he has two Democrats Lieberman and Nelson...who absolutely will not vote for a public option, or a trigger for a public option, so he winds up with a bill that has neither.

At this point he needed every single Democratic vote, (The Dems still had 60 at the time, so they could pass it) because obviously no Republican was going to vote for it after the way Collins had walked the plank on it, only to be betrayed by Reid.....

Ironically, if he had accepted the Budget Committee bill he would have had at least one GOP vote for a bill with a trigger mechanism, and it's entirely possible he could have picked up one more to offset the loss of Lieberman and Nelson...

The fact he didn't go that route leads me to believe that he didn't really want a public option or public option trigger in the bill, himself....

[Big RR]

I agree Jim; and Obama dropped the ball also in not working within and outside of his party to try and get the votes needed for a public option. Indeed, he seemed to throw his hands up when the opposition mounted.

[oldr_n_wsr]

So now we have this "thing" which is not anything it was said it was to be and extensions are being given willy-nilly and banks are being set up or not depending on which state you live in and congress is exempt and some others are exempt and my health care went up again (for whatever reason, but I'll blame some of the hike on the ACA) and still 30 million will not be insured because paying the fine is cheaper than getting insurance and whatever other reason not to get covered.
Typical government bull $#it. You wonder why approval ratings are so low for all of our so called "leaders".

[Sue U]

So now we have this "thing" which is not anything it was said it was to be and extensions are being given willy-nilly and banks are being set up or not depending on which state you live in and congress is exempt and some others are exempt and my health care went up again (for whatever reason, but I'll blame some of the hike on the ACA) and still 30 million will not be insured because paying the fine is cheaper than getting insurance and whatever other reason not to get covered.
Typical government bull $#it. You wonder why approval ratings are so low for all of our so called "leaders".

Did you call your Senators and Congressional representative in 2008, 2009 and 2010 to tell them say you wanted a single-payer system? Or at least a public option? Did you ask people you know to call? Did you send any letters or emails? Did you go to your representative's office or to a town meeting event to express that view?

ETA:

This "thing" is in fact exactly what it was said to be, since it's exactly what the statute provides. Extensions in implementation are not "being given willy-nilly," but as an accommodation to those (largely business interests) who claim to need a slower roll-out. Every state will have an insurance exchange, but some will be run by the feds where certain state governments for reasons of pure political pandering have refused to create one of their own.