Meanwhile, at the Capital...

yamaha wrote: ....they attempted to send a bill through that was without any "defunding of the affordable care act".....

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe you cannot really "defund" the ACA. It's not really part of the budget, it essentially funds itself (or is already funded?) through taxes, penalties, requirement etc. (making having this argument now so much more ridiculous).

Another thing to consider, from a precedent perspective. If the R's do manage to make the D's capitulate. What do expect will happen if the R's have power and D's don't like one of their laws (e.g. Gun Control) and it's budget time again? It becomes a "hey, they did it to us" situation.

In reply to aircooled:

It is a 3 year old law that is on the books. "Defunding" it is basically saying "We can't seem to change the law using the means at our disposal for changing or repealing laws so... berkeley you. We will try extortion."

That to me seems like it is detrimental to the country on purpose. Which, I would then, conclude is a direct act of aggression. As Cesar I would declare them all to be enemies of Rome, rounded up and fed to the lions.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: In reply to aircooled: It is a 3 year old law that is on the books. "Defunding" it is basically saying "We can't seem to change the law using the means at our disposal for changing or repealing laws so... berkeley you. We will try extortion." That to me seems like it is detrimental to the country on purpose. Which, I would then, conclude is a direct act of aggression. As Cesar I would declare them all to be enemies of Rome, rounded up and fed to the lions.

That is what I'm trying to figure out. It was signed into law by Congress and the President. If they want to kill it why not go back through the process instead of this stupid backdoor politicking crap. The fight was pretty much decided by the American people when Obama was reelected.

I heard one GOP Congressman touting how many times he'd voted to repeal ACA. Well no wonder there is no budget, the House has been wasting their time holding useless votes to repeal the ACA that they know full and well the Senate will never pass.

In reply to slefain:

There is no budget because the Senate has failed to pass every one forwarded from the House.

Which party has controlled the Senate since 2009?

And, yeah, the GOP is basically wrong in their approach in defunding the ACA. On the other hand, the House is intended as the "voice of the people" and what we have are duly elected representatives who are doing exactly what they were sent to accomplish. Rock, meet hard place.

Ten-year cost projections are now two to three times more than what was first calculated. The ACA should be allowed to fail on its' own but there is the (logical) fear that the fiscal damage it will cause merits the defunding strategy.

In reply to aircooled:

No I doubt they could "defund it"......and while I like to think this is them getting back at the former majority that crammed this law through, I bet they'll do the same in turn at some point....

But, do you know if that "Exemption removal" was actually included by itself in a spending bill? Seriously, why are they any better than the rest of us?

slefain wrote: Well no wonder there is no budget, the House has been wasting their time holding useless votes to repeal the ACA that they know full and well the Senate will never pass.

Whoa whoa whoa there. We haven't had a budget in four years and this continuing resolution stuff is crap. Everyone should have stood up against it when it happened the first time. It doesn't seem reasonable to stand up against that process now just because of the one bill, but it's still right even if they are doing it for the wrong reasons.

At any rate, one bill simply eliminated the cushy exemptions and let ACA live, it didn't pass either.

I am pretty sure the Exemptions did not go through congress.

Question: If the R's get what they seem to want (or have asked for). Remove the medical device tax (which is absurd when you think about taxing the same thing you are trying to reduce the cost of) and remove the exemptions.

Assuming the ACA is flawed, bad for the country and bound to fail, removing the tax (reducing funds), and forcing businesses to implement it sooner, would only make something that is bad worse, right?

It sounds a bit like: "oh, we don't want this, this is bad, so lets strap a rocket to it and show people how bad it really is"

Am I wrong? Or are the R's demanding something else? They can't be thinking there is any chance ADA will go away right?

I guess I just don't understand what they want. Other then making the point that "we don't like this"... and I think everyone is well aware of that now.

aircooled wrote: I am pretty sure the Exemptions did not go through congress.

I'm pretty sure the exemptions were authorized via "negotiations" in the White House. That, by itself, is in violation with law established long before the ACA.

oldsaw wrote: And, yeah, the GOP is basically wrong in their approach in defunding the ACA. On the other hand, the House is intended as the "voice of the people" and what we have are duly elected representatives who are doing exactly what they were sent to accomplish. Rock, meet hard place.

How are they "speaking for the people" when 72% of Americans polled do not want the ACA defund in the same bill as the budget? They are going AGAINST what the people want.

Of course 90% of Americans also wanted universal background checks on firearms, but they didn't listen to the people on that either. They listened to the NRA instead.

Cone_Junky wrote: How are they "speaking for the people" when 72% of Americans polled do not want the ACA defund in the same bill as the budget? They are going AGAINST what the people want. Of course 90% of Americans also wanted universal background checks on firearms, but they didn't listen to the people on that either. They listened to the NRA instead.

Oh yeah? Well 137% of internet forum statistics are made up on the spot.

You are both wrong, I am 200% sure of that!!! (I win )

oldsaw wrote: Ten-year cost projections are now two to three times more than what was first calculated. The ACA should be allowed to fail on its' own but there is the (logical) fear that the fiscal damage it will cause merits the defunding strategy.

Do you have any data to back up this? If so, please post it. Otherwise this is just your opinion.

In reply to Cone_Junky:

House elections are held every two years to more accurately reflect citizens attitudes. Like it or not, the reps leading the defunding crusade were elected in 2010 and 2012 because that's what they campaigned on.

The people elected in 2008 got bounced because their actions in two years didn't jive with the expectations of the people who elected them.

That's the result of votes, not polls.

Xceler8x wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Ten-year cost projections are now two to three times more than what was first calculated. The ACA should be allowed to fail on its' own but there is the (logical) fear that the fiscal damage it will cause merits the defunding strategy.

Do you have any data to back up this? If so, please post it. Otherwise this is just your opinion.

Read it: http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-obamacare-costs-double-to-1.8-trillion-in-first-decade/article/2529655

It goes hand in hand with this, too: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57605822/poll-americans-not-happy-about-shutdown-more-blame-gop/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/poll-confirms-americans-blame-gop-for-shutdown

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/03/cbs-poll-shows-shutdown-more-unpopular-than-obamacare/

http://www.voanews.com/content/polls-show-republicans-blamed-for-government-shutdown/1761103.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/10/government_shutdown_is_bad_for_republicans_the_gop_s_divisions_and_fissures.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-update-poll-97783.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/30/poll-just-one-in-four-approve-of-republicans-handling-of-government-shutdown-standoff/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/18/polls-give-both-sides-ammunition-in-shutdown-fight/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-poll-idUSBRE98T0J720130930

To try and get back to my question: What do they expect to accomplish regarding the ACA?

They can't possibly think they will repeal it (unreasonable expectation). It doesn't appear they can defund it (not possible). The best they can do (it seems) is to try and cripple it (something that is already supposed to be crippled), which seems like it will make it's effect worse and thus be worse for the country.

It seems a bit like throwing salt in a wound to make someone realize they are cut. Yes, you can do that, and they will know, but it also pisses them off.

Or is it more like throwing salt in someones wound to let the doctor know someone is cut. It works, but the guy with the cut is the one getting hurt, not the doctor you are trying to get the attention of.

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Cone_Junky: House elections are held every two years to more accurately reflect citizens attitudes. Like it or not, the reps leading the defunding crusade were elected in 2010 and 2012 because that's what they campaigned on. The people elected in 2008 got bounced because their actions in two years didn't jive with the expectations of the people who elected them. That's the result of votes, not polls.

House elections are run by gerrymandering, so they mean nothing about the American people's opinion. The house has a 10% approval rating but a 90% re-election rate. It just doesn't jive.

BUT...If we want to go that route, how about the fact that the big scary black man was re-elected after pushing the ACA?

Why do you have to go racist on this? Can't you survive the conversation on your merit alone without name calling and racism? Damn son.

Cone_Junky wrote:

oldsaw wrote: In reply to Cone_Junky: House elections are held every two years to more accurately reflect citizens attitudes. Like it or not, the reps leading the defunding crusade were elected in 2010 and 2012 because that's what they campaigned on. The people elected in 2008 got bounced because their actions in two years didn't jive with the expectations of the people who elected them. That's the result of votes, not polls.

House elections are run by gerrymandering, so they mean nothing about the American people's opinion. The house has a 10% approval rating but a 90% re-election rate. It just doesn't jive.

That same argument applies to the party that controlled the House from 2006 to 2010.

Cone_Junky wrote: BUT...If we want to go that route, how about the fact that the big scary black man was re-elected after pushing the ACA?

If you can't keep it civil, please, just go away....

And keep in mind the President was re-elected because his opposition ran a piss-poor campaign headed by a candidate who couldn't/wouldn't play dirty and didn't motivate voters.

In reply to aircooled:

If I am remembering correctly, the law after it was passed has been delayed until off election years so that people will be pissed in the off seasons and allowed to blow over before the next one.

Also, unless we have a complete nationwide survey(I mean every single man, woman, and child who IS a US citizen), Polls mean absolutely nothing. The outcomes are otherwise too easy to manipulate by using simple demographics. Time of day, location, etc can all manipulate a "polls" outcome. Jesus, please tell me they still teach that in high school government class.

Bobzilla wrote: Why do you have to go racist on this? Can't you survive the conversation on your merit alone without name calling and racism? Damn son.

You're right, I shouldn't have crossed that line. I could post dozens of extremely racist photos, picket signs, and memes to back my point. But then I would cross that same idiotic line.

Point taken.

Yes Romney was a horrible candidate that got way more votes then he should have. BUT..........the GOP primaries decided he was THE BEST candidate to represent the party.

Discounting his win to just the other candidates lack of appeal is an excuse for losing on principals. Obama ran on health care reform and was re-elected on his stance on health care reform. Don't discount that because you don't agree with the winning side.

And I could post dozens of conversations I've encountered telling me I'm racist becuase I disagree with out CIC. It goes both berkeleying ways. LEarn to be polite of GTFO.

Bobzilla wrote: And I could post dozens of conversations I've encountered telling me I'm racist becuase I disagree with out CIC. It goes both berkeleying ways. LEarn to be polite of GTFO.

Wow. I was being humble and polite in my response. Get over it and recognize humility. (You could use a little yourself)

oldsaw wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Do you have any data to back up this? If so, please post it. Otherwise this is just your opinion.

Read it: http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-obamacare-costs-double-to-1.8-trillion-in-first-decade/article/2529655 It goes hand in hand with this, too: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521

The Washington Examiner is unabashedly biased. The front page is all pro-conservative hit pieces. The CBO report your posted talks about overall government expenditures and also how not raising taxes will cause problems into the future. It doesn't specifically call out Obamacare as a cause of significant issues alone.

Also, I don't see a need to re-debate a presidential election that occurred years ago. I also don't see a need to halt all of government for a set of sore losers. Time to grab some sack, man up, and move on.

Cone_Junky wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: And I could post dozens of conversations I've encountered telling me I'm racist becuase I disagree with out CIC. It goes both berkeleying ways. LEarn to be polite of GTFO.

Wow. I was being humble and polite in my response. Get over it and recognize humility. (You could use a little yourself)

No, you weren't. A humble and polite response would have been:

Cone_Junky wrote: You're right, I shouldn't have crossed that line. Point taken.

Instead, you wrote:

Cone_Junky wrote: You're right, I shouldn't have crossed that line. I could post dozens of extremely racist photos, picket signs, and memes to back my point. But then I would cross that same idiotic line. Point taken.