Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I'm sure you meant except, of course, for the Gang of Six--three Republicans and three Democrats-- who, over the course of nearly a year, held dozens of hearings in which progressive ideas like single payer or a public option were jettisoned and hundreds of GOP amendments to the law were accepted; released joint policy option papers; and presided over 31 meetings for a total of more than 60 hours, all in a futile attempt to try to hammer out a compromise that would attract GOP support.
You mean except for all that, right?
You mean these RINOS...? There was no real GOP participation, nor endorsement. Even two of the three Republicans gave the Democrats a hard time.
Too bad for them. The president's animosity is to blame.
I have an interesting idea, though.
No federal employee should have ANY benefit. Only a straight paycheck. No retirement, no health care, no anything. That includes ALL of them, including the elected ones. No retirement for POTUS, or congresscritters, OR their staff.
You mean these RINOS...? There was no real GOP participation, nor endorsement. Even two of the three Republicans gave the Democrats a hard time.
But you claimed that the Democrats refused Republican input, which is a lie. The Democrats did everything they could to bring the Republicans into the process because they wanted it to be a bipartisan bill. But as you admit, instead, the Republicans gave the Democrats a hard time at every turn because they never had any intention of voting for the bill, even after getting their way in many of the things that ended up in the ACA.
The law is what it is in its current form largely because of the Republican input. I wish Democrats had locked the GOP out of the process. We would have single payer now instead of the ACA.
Originally Posted by Kibby
Those Sequester spending levels are The Law of the Land and part of the Budget Control Act of 2011.
I thought The Law of the Land" was inviolate to the Obama followers and Far Lefters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
It's not a tactic in the debt ceiling issue, it's for a CR to end shutdown and take another shot at negotiating a solution that failed to be accomplished in 2011.
What "another shot"? The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed by Congress and signed into LAW by President Obama in 2011. Are you saying it's not "valid"?, it was a "mistake"? It's the Law, as in "Law of the Land". The Continuing Resolution (CR) is to this Law .... it "continues" this Law . What happened to "no negotiation"? Do we now "negotiate" the Law of the Land when the Leftists want it?
Why do we have a double standard on this? The "Law of the Land" only counts when the Democrats say it's counts? Is that the position you are attempting to defend?
"
Put this in your memory book right this minute - Obama & Reid say there will be "NO Delay or Defund of ANY kind to Obama's signature Legacy ACA. " Remember that statement. and don't forget that I've always been very against any "delay/defund" to ObamaCare. I'm all about the spending and the Debt - ObamaCare is already a disaster that will implode, why try to give Obama and Company an easy out on this?
That's not true at all. Sure you can cherry pick incidents of higher cost but I can also pick incidents of lower cost. One thing is becoming clear, though. The states that have adopted Obamacare and the increase in medicaid eligibility are showing the lowest rates, the highest level of participation and the largest pool of participants. The Red states that have rejected Obamacare and are refusing to broaden their medicaid programs by increasing eligibility, are showing much higher premiums in their exchanges, less opportunity for lower working class to obtain affordable coverage and a smaller pool of eligible individuals across the board.
This is turning out to be another way for republicans to sabotage the ACA.
The reality is that Republicans can't "sabotage" ACA. The Media is full on both sides of the aisle on the success and failure (depending on viewpoint) of the ACA. Read the Tech reports and you have a better shot of understanding what is involved.
I don't spend a lot of time on researching ObamaCare (ACA) because I don't think it's going to matter much and isn't even relevant right now. The only decent reports at all (in terms of costs) appear to be coming from the only two States that already have an extensive Social program in place for Medicaid and Social Insurance .... New York and California. A couple of States have some decent results (if you consider a few thousand "decent") but most States are reporting "disaster".
What's lost in all this frenzy for "numbers" is that the numbers only really represent those that have managed to "enroll" in the system ..... does anyone really understand what that means? They are not "signing up and purchasing a policy" .... they are "enrolling" to establish an account so they can later try to figure out what a policy is and how much it costs..
HealthCare.Gov has not established the costs of a policy.
HealthCare.Gov has not established what subsidies will be.
HealthCare.Gov does not have the links working yet for State Exchanges to Verify those who have Enrolled.
As you stated .... the Medicaid levels ARE established and those States that agreed to increase their Medicaid levels and set up their own Exchanges might be the only ones in the Nation that can actually sign up to 'ObamaCare' (ACA) - but all of those Medicaid people are totally funded by their States and the Federal Government. What was really the purpose of this Law? That's what we all need to think about. I know people who have no Doctor or Clinic within 100 miles - it doesn't them no good to be "eligible" for Medicaid when there is not Doctor or Clinic they can even get to. The people who are not eligible for Medicaid are in exactly the same boat as those who are ..... NO access, NO doctors. The point is to provide Medical Access to people that don't have it. This Law fails on that point.
This was not the Promise of ObamaCare - it was supposed to "help" everyone, not just those who are on Medicaid (and live in large Urban areas). It's a fact that there is a LOT we still don't know. I think all of us have to consider "why don't we know?" "What don't they want us to know?". Nobody (even the NY Times) is saying that this is going well ..... it's a Mess and they are still pretending "everything is just fine". It's NOT "fine", it's not "working". It may never "work". This is our chance to attempt to address the real issues of people without "Access" and we are letting it slip away due to "ideology".
Of course the sane members of the American population already know who is responsible for the shutdown, but now they know that the same people are responsoble for it not being reopened as well
What's the purpose of the debt ceiling and what's the point of having a debt ceiling if you're just going to keep raising it? We've heard there will be dire consequences if the debt ceiling isn't raised. Apparently all you have to do is raise it and everything is OK again. But then why have one?
Sounds like one big ponzi scheme. The government keeps borrowing to pay debt as it comes due.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and don't forget that I've always been very against any "delay/defund" to ObamaCare. I'm all about the spending and the Debt - ObamaCare is already a disaster that will implode, why try to give Obama and Company an easy out on this?
