• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Bill Defunds Health Care

aberrant85

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
594
Reaction score
209
Location
SF Bay Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1379520833-M0U+hZzlocDrMbeP5FlRag

House Bill Cuts Health Funds, Raising Odds of U.S. Shutdown

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: September 18, 2013

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders — bowing to the demands of their conservative wing — will put to a vote on Friday a stopgap spending measure that would strip all funding from President Obama’s signature health care law, increasing the likelihood that the government will shut down in two weeks.


So what's going on here? Another defeat Obamacare vote? And will this shut down the government like in the 90's? If so, will it come back to bite the Republicans in the a**?

Why the urgency to defeat this "train wreck"? If that's what this is, why not let it fail and bring down its Democratic authors? Republicans have shown they can play politics with the welfare of the American people by threatening the full faith and credit of the country, so why not let the law destroy itself, then sweep in and take the credit for predicting it?

My question is, do Republicans fear that ACA will not be the disaster they predict, or even worse, a success, and are trying to sabotage it before they look bad for opposing it? Or is this just a stunt to appease their radical right wing? "Obamacare delenda est"?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1379520833-M0U+hZzlocDrMbeP5FlRag

House Bill Cuts Health Funds, Raising Odds of U.S. Shutdown

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: September 18, 2013

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders — bowing to the demands of their conservative wing — will put to a vote on Friday a stopgap spending measure that would strip all funding from President Obama’s signature health care law, increasing the likelihood that the government will shut down in two weeks.


So what's going on here? Another defeat Obamacare vote? And will this shut down the government like in the 90's? If so, will it come back to bite the Republicans in the a**?

Why the urgency to defeat this "train wreck"? If that's what this is, why not let it fail and bring down its Democratic authors? Republicans have shown they can play politics with the welfare of the American people by threatening the full faith and credit of the country, so why not let the law destroy itself, then sweep in and take the credit for predicting it?

My question is, do Republicans fear that ACA will not be the disaster they predict, or even worse, a success, and are trying to sabotage it before they look bad for opposing it? Or is this just a stunt to appease their radical right wing? "Obamacare delenda est"?

No, I'd think any rational review of the Republicans objection to Obamacare would find the concern is not that it will be a success, but as the Obama Administration has proved through all it's waivers and wave offs, it will be the disaster that has been predicted.
 
No, I'd think any rational review of the Republicans objection to Obamacare would find the concern is not that it will be a success, but as the Obama Administration has proved through all it's waivers and wave offs, it will be the disaster that has been predicted.

That's not it at all. Even if it passes they KNOW Obama will veto it and they don't have a majority for it to pass after a veto. Thus forcing a shutdown. This is to try and score political points for the 2014 election nothing more. Not saying the Dems don't try to pull stuff like this off either, but that is what this is.
 
That's not it at all. Even if it passes they KNOW Obama will veto it and they don't have a majority for it to pass after a veto. Thus forcing a shutdown. This is to try and score political points for the 2014 election nothing more. Not saying the Dems don't try to pull stuff like this off either, but that is what this is.

Chess is battle of wills and strategy. I'm not convinced the current Republican leadership is willing to see a government shutdown, nor is it willing to allow the MSM to spin the cause should it come to that.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1379520833-M0U+hZzlocDrMbeP5FlRag

House Bill Cuts Health Funds, Raising Odds of U.S. Shutdown

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: September 18, 2013

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders — bowing to the demands of their conservative wing — will put to a vote on Friday a stopgap spending measure that would strip all funding from President Obama’s signature health care law, increasing the likelihood that the government will shut down in two weeks.


So what's going on here? Another defeat Obamacare vote? And will this shut down the government like in the 90's? If so, will it come back to bite the Republicans in the a**?

Why the urgency to defeat this "train wreck"? If that's what this is, why not let it fail and bring down its Democratic authors? Republicans have shown they can play politics with the welfare of the American people by threatening the full faith and credit of the country, so why not let the law destroy itself, then sweep in and take the credit for predicting it?

My question is, do Republicans fear that ACA will not be the disaster they predict, or even worse, a success, and are trying to sabotage it before they look bad for opposing it? Or is this just a stunt to appease their radical right wing? "Obamacare delenda est"?
I think the reason Republicans are making a stand here is because they don't want it implemented in the first place. To implement it, let it fail, and then subsequently figure out something new would cost a ton of money and time, not to mention would really be a catastrophe for the average person and business. Republicans are also concerned that if implemented, assuming that repealing it or letting it fail would be too costly, there would be an obligation to "make it work", thereby solidifying it as "too big to fail". That would mean fixing the system concurrent with people using the system.

Sure there are politics involved, but this is a case where politics are used to achieve an ideological objective and not just to make the administration look bad IMO. The majority of people believe the implementation of Obamacare thus far has been disorganized at best, and most don't believe it's the best way to fix the problems in healthcare. Unfortunately, Obamacare supporters have been so unrelenting in their support that they don't want to consider ways to make it better or change it because that would be a sign of weakness in their minds. So now we're in a position where a sub-par medical system is about to go into effect and in a disorganized fashion (a fact that most recognize), and the only potential way to change it or fix it is to defund it.
 
IMO, the bigger risk entails possible attempts to use the debt ceiling increase for political purposes. According to The Washington Post such an effort might be pursued. The newspaper reported:

In addition, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) laid out his party’s legislative grab bag of requests that will be attached to a bill that would lift the debt ceiling, including a delay of the health law, an overhaul of the tax code and approval of an energy pipeline running from Canada to the gulf coast.

House Republicans plan Friday vote on defunding Obamacare - The Washington Post

Were the U.S. to default on its obligations, even for a temporary period of time, that outcome would very likely inflict long-lasting damage on the credibility of U.S. commitments. It would demonstrate that in the U.S. political system, political pursuits carry greater weight than even the nation's credit record. Unlike with the S&P debt downgrade, this outcome would probably result in a long-term increase in the nation's risk premium, In turn, that would translate into higher costs for taxpayers, borrowers, and firms given the financial system linkages. A higher cost of capital for firms would entail lower economic profits (financial profits minus cost of capital) and there would be some shifting of capital. Marginal businesses would particularly be hurt.

If a temporary default occurs, sole responsibility would belong to those who attempted to use the debt ceiling for leverage in purely political battles. The default would have been completely self-engineered.
 
IMO, the bigger risk entails possible attempts to use the debt ceiling increase for political purposes.

It's been used as a political purpose for the past 2 years now by both sides.
 
It's been used as a political purpose for the past 2 years now by both sides.

The only people who are using it for political purposes are those who refuse to pass it. The debt ceiling should be a non-issue; it is just a means of funding spending programs that were already approved. There shouldn't even be any negotiation required on either side about this. If you didn't want to pay for the spending programs, you shouldn't have voted for them. This is why it was never an issue in the past.
 
Congress is trying to pass a bill to defund a law they passed, and if the law they passed isn't defunded by Congress, then Congress will decide to temporarily suspend the government they are responsible (while they themselves are still getting paid) for from work, and likely not pay the bills Congress accumulated.


Take partisanship out of it for just a second and take a moment to think how utterly ridiculous this situation is.
 
If non-establishment Republicans need to re-learn the lesson from the last government shut down, let them. The establishment mostly doesn't want to see this happen again, but God knows others do.
 
Precedence has been set, and whomever the current President is has the discretion, via the HHS secretary and the IRS, to ignore 90% of the provisions via waivers or delays.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/u...l=1&adxnnlx=1379520833-M0U+hZzlocDrMbeP5FlRag

House Bill Cuts Health Funds, Raising Odds of U.S. Shutdown

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and ASHLEY PARKER
Published: September 18, 2013

WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders — bowing to the demands of their conservative wing — will put to a vote on Friday a stopgap spending measure that would strip all funding from President Obama’s signature health care law, increasing the likelihood that the government will shut down in two weeks.


So what's going on here? Another defeat Obamacare vote? And will this shut down the government like in the 90's? If so, will it come back to bite the Republicans in the a**?

Why the urgency to defeat this "train wreck"? If that's what this is, why not let it fail and bring down its Democratic authors? Republicans have shown they can play politics with the welfare of the American people by threatening the full faith and credit of the country, so why not let the law destroy itself, then sweep in and take the credit for predicting it?

My question is, do Republicans fear that ACA will not be the disaster they predict, or even worse, a success, and are trying to sabotage it before they look bad for opposing it? Or is this just a stunt to appease their radical right wing? "Obamacare delenda est"?

Perhaps this vote will be different from the previous 41 votes to repeal "Obamacare."

Tim Huelskamp Explains Why 42nd House Vote To Repeal Obamacare Will Be Better Than The Previous 41
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans have now voted 41 times to repeal Obamacare, knowing each time that those bills would go nowhere in the Senate and never get the green light from President Barack Obama.

But Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) is amped up about attempt number 42. He and other Tea Party lawmakers in the House are pushing GOP leaders to tie a vote to defund the Affordable Care Act to a must-pass, temporary spending bill aimed at keeping the government funded past Oct. 1, when current funding runs out. The effort has been a serious headache for GOP leaders, who want to appease their Tea Party flank but don't want to risk a government shutdown.

Huelskamp was excited this week as he talked to reporters about the latest strategy for killing Obamacare.

"None of the other votes were on must-pass bills. They were on individual bills," he told The Huffington Post, comparing the House's past attempts to sink Obamacare to baseball. "We've had 42 different swings at the bat. Forty-two different exhibition games. But we've never actually had a regular season."

But my bet is that it's just more partisan political grandstanding that will accomplish nothing, not even bringing Congress' approval rating lower.

How much lower than zero can you go?
 
Oh, gee, the federal government shuts down for a few weeks or months.

What will we ever do?

LOL
 
I say let the Republicans shut down government. That is fine by me just another death rattle from a bunch of fat old white guys.
 
Oh, gee, the federal government shuts down for a few weeks or months.

What will we ever do?

LOL

The 90's don't seem to ring a bell do they?

Goodness, maybe we should have a shut down. Apparently Republicans forgot that they were blamed for the last one and that it was incredibly unpopular.
 
The 90's don't seem to ring a bell do they?

Goodness, maybe we should have a shut down. Apparently Republicans forgot that they were blamed for the last one and that it was incredibly unpopular.

Is this when the social security payment threats begin from the Dems.......for the 108th time?

This ain't the 90s, and Congress has never had a poorer reputation in my lifetime. I think many would WELCOME a shutdown. In fact, they'd prefer a permanent vacation and a start-over.
 
Is this when the social security payment threats begin from the Dems.......for the 108th time?

This ain't the 90s, and Congress has never had a poorer reputation in my lifetime. I think many would WELCOME a shutdown. In fact, they'd prefer a permanent vacation and a start-over.

So you think the public is going to look at this like: We don't like this ineffective Congress because they are ineffective. Ineffective Congress could use a shutdown to make them even more ineffective. I would also like the American economy to loose billions of dollars in revenue.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
 
So you think the public is going to look at this like: We don't like this ineffective Congress because they are ineffective. Ineffective Congress could use a shutdown to make them even more ineffective. I would also like the American economy to loose billions of dollars in revenue.

Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

When you take in less than you spend, perhaps a shutdown would be a net gain.
 
Is this when the social security payment threats begin from the Dems.......for the 108th time?

This ain't the 90s, and Congress has never had a poorer reputation in my lifetime. I think many would WELCOME a shutdown. In fact, they'd prefer a permanent vacation and a start-over.

A permanent vacation and start over seems to me like a good idea.
 
What's this temporary bull****? Can we please shut down the federal government permanently? They really aren't any good for anything.
 
What's this temporary bull****? Can we please shut down the federal government permanently? They really aren't any good for anything.


Anarchy?

I'm curious: who remembers the last government shutdown? I was too busy playing with LEGO to care. Was it awful, or was it no big deal? And with the economy today, would it be worse now?
 
Anarchy?

I'm curious: who remembers the last government shutdown? I was too busy playing with LEGO to care. Was it awful, or was it no big deal? And with the economy today, would it be worse now?

Not anarchy, shut down the Federal government. With state and local governments, we don't need a federal government. We could function just fine without it.
 
It's actually a brilliant move. It's a good way to make a public statement about who you should vote for if you want a shot in hell of repealing Obamacare in the future.

Think of it like intellectual gerrymandering.
 
It's actually a brilliant move. It's a good way to make a public statement about who you should vote for if you want a shot in hell of repealing Obamacare in the future.

Think of it like intellectual gerrymandering.
I like that... "intellectual gerrymandering." :thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom