What? No government shutdown threads?

[TerryMathews]

Enough compromise was made to ensure passage, which is the same way that basically every law ever placed on the books was written. (not to mention the fact that the legislation includes numerous Republican amendments)

Your argument is that despite a law having already been passed, if one of the two parties doesn't like it then it should be reopened and compromised on again. That's simply absurd. What if the GOP still doesn't like it after this compromise? Let me guess, 12 months from now when the individual mandate delay is set to expire the GOP will cause another budget crisis at which point they will just want to 'compromise' again with another delay or repeal.

So again, I want to repeal all the remaining Bush tax cuts in their entirety. I'm willing to meet you halfway and only repeal half of the remainder. Why won't you compromise with me?

Gee, maybe that would be a good compromise for Harry Reid to offer?

You keep making it sound like the Republicans compromised on the PPACA and are now going against it. They've been against it since introduction.

 

[fskimospy]

Gee, maybe that would be a good compromise for Harry Reid to offer?

So we agree then that the current Republican position offers no compromises then, right?

The Democrats don't want to repeal or delay the ACA at all. They are fine with the status quo. If the Republicans want something from the Democrats, they should make an offer of what they are willing to give up to get it.

 

[fskimospy]

You keep making it sound like the Republicans compromised on the PPACA and are now going against it. They've been against it since introduction.

You're missing the point. Compromises were made between people when enacting the law. Now that it's on the books there's no need to compromise on it any more than there is a need to compromise on any other laws already on the books. They are the law now.

 

[dainthomas]

And yet, a good number of house republicans were elected specifically to fight Obamacare, and that is what they are doing.

Darn those politicians actually working on the platforms they ran on.

There is a process to do that. Such as offering ammendments to the law in a committee. Then if the committee votes to send it to the chamber for an up or down vote and it passes, then it goes to the Senate and if the Senate agrees and president signs it then it becomes law. If you can't come up with the votes to do this, then it doesn't (and shouldn't) become law. Civics 101.

Allowing a minority to hold the entire government hostage unless a law is changed that they don't like opens a Pandora's Box I don't think anyone wants to see opened.

 

[AViking]

Internationally the USA looks completely stupid right now. How soon can we expect our credit rating to be dropped?

 

[TerryMathews]

You're missing the point. Compromises were made between people when enacting the law. Now that it's on the books there's no need to compromise on it any more than there is a need to compromise on any other laws already on the books. They are the law now.

If there's no need for compromises, then why the current deadlock?

The power of the purse.

Your argument falls flat because these people were elected to do what they are doing. If "the country" supported Obamacare as you claim, the Democrats would have never lost those seats.

 

[fskimospy]

If there's no need for compromises, then why the current deadlock?

The power of the purse.

Your argument falls flat because these people were elected to do what they are doing. If "the country" supported Obamacare as you claim, the Democrats would have never lost those seats.

The deadlock comes from an attempt by Republicans to overthrow governing norms in service of an ideological agenda. The negative effects from this are pretty obvious, as outlined in Lincoln's letter. If you give in now to extortion the extortion will never end. For the sake of future presidents and congresses, this foolishness needs to be broken now.

 

[TerryMathews]

That's completely wrong. You know what the first president was who required US citizens to purchase something? George Washington. (Militia Act of 1792)

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The deadlock comes from an attempt by Republicans to overthrow governing norms in service of an ideological agenda. The negative effects from this are pretty obvious, as outlined in Lincoln's letter. If you give in now to extortion the extortion will never end. For the sake of future presidents and congresses, this foolishness needs to be broken now.

It hasn't been a "governing norm" to compel the people to make a purchase in over 200 years.

The congress is using its last tool to effect change, the power of the purse. Call it foolishness all you want, only election day will tell if you're right or not.

 

[fskimospy]

It hasn't been a "governing norm" to compel the people to make a purchase in over 200 years.

That makes no sense. What else would the government have needed to compel purchase of?

The congress is using its last tool to effect change, the power of the purse. Call it foolishness all you want, only election day will tell if you're right or not.

I know you aren't stupid. I know you can see the type of danger inherent in governing this way. Even if somehow you got your way on this that just means that we will have an endless series of crisis of exactly this sort. Do you think that is a good way to run a government?

The Republican Party went all out to obstruct Obama and in doing so unwittingly radicalized their base to such a degree that they lost control. Now we're all paying the price for their foolishness.

 

[TerryMathews]

That makes no sense. What else would the government have needed to compel purchase of?



I know you aren't stupid. I know you can see the type of danger inherent in governing this way. Even if somehow you got your way on this that just means that we will have an endless series of crisis of exactly this sort. Do you think that is a good way to run a government?

The Republican Party went all out to obstruct Obama and in doing so unwittingly radicalized their base to such a degree that they lost control. Now we're all paying the price for their foolishness.

Insurance, evidently. Surprised it took them 200 years to figure it out.

You're right, this isn't a good way to govern. Our government works much better when both sides work together.

If only that had happened with the PPACA.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

If there's no need for compromises, then why the current deadlock?

The power of the purse.

Your argument falls flat because these people were elected to do what they are doing. If "the country" supported Obamacare as you claim, the Democrats would have never lost those seats.

This is an act of vandalism pure and simple.

If we cave into this nonsense it will set a precedence for all future such negotiations, and no law will be safe.

It is not the "will of the people", but I can see how cognitive dissonance might make you think that.

But all let James Fallows explain it for you:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ton-breakdown-in-3-graphs-and-1-story/280099/

In summary:

In short, we have a faction making historically unprecedented demands -- give us everything, or we stop the government and potentially renege on the national debt. And it is doing so less than a year after its party lost the presidency, lost the Senate (and lost ground there), and held onto the House in part because of rotten-borough distortions.

You can call this a lot of things, but "gridlock" should not be one of them. And you can fault many aspects of the President's response -- when it comes to debt-default, I think he has to stick to the "no negotiations with terrorists" hard line. But you shouldn't pretend that if he had been more "reasonable" or charming he could placate a group whose goal is the undoing of his time in office.


And that's what this is really about. A bunch of delusional ideologues who think Obama is the second coming of Mao, and its their job to stand up to him and bring him down.

 

[fskimospy]

Insurance, evidently. Surprised it took them 200 years to figure it out.

You're right, this isn't a good way to govern. Our government works much better when both sides work together.

If only that had happened with the PPACA.

So you're saying that the Democrats should have pretended their majorities didn't exist and taken demands from a defeated minority?

Sounds like right now too. Are you sure you don't just mean that Democrats should do what Republicans want?

 

[TerryMathews]

So you're saying that the Democrats should have pretended their majorities didn't exist and taken demands from a defeated minority?

Sounds like right now too. Are you sure you don't just mean that Democrats should do what Republicans want?

You say demands, I say compromise. It might have avoided the current impasse we are at now if there were a few Republican votes the Democrats could point at and say "See? You used to support this. What changed?"

For what its worth, I have nothing against health care for everyone. I do think this is a bad law. We shouldn't be cramming more people into a broken system and expecting the young to subsidize it.

Perversely, I would've preferred a single payer system to this mess. I grew up in a military family, I know the government can do health care right if it chooses to.

 

[dainthomas]

It hasn't been a "governing norm" to compel the people to make a purchase in over 200 years.

Exactly why we should have gone with single payer. Nobody would have to buy insurance or risk penalties and everyone would be covered. The ACA could have read "The age of eligibility for Medicare is now zero. The end."

The ACA is an abomination in its current form largely as a result of compromising with Republicans.

 

[TerryMathews]

Double post

 

[TerryMathews]

Exactly why we should have gone with single payer. Nobody would have to buy insurance or risk penalties and everyone would be covered. The ACA could have read "The age of eligibility for Medicare is now zero. The end."

The ACA is an abomination in its current form largely as a result of compromising with Republicans.

I agree with you on this.

I fail to see what comprise, since not one Republican voted for it. The compromises on the ACA were solely in the Democratic party; you can't blame the Republicans for that.

 

[fskimospy]

You say demands, I say compromise. It might have avoided the current impasse we are at now if there were a few Republican votes the Democrats could point at and say "See? You used to support this. What changed?"

For what its worth, I have nothing against health care for everyone. I do think this is a bad law. We shouldn't be cramming more people into a broken system and expecting the young to subsidize it.

Perversely, I would've preferred a single payer system to this mess. I grew up in a military family, I know the government can do health care right if it chooses to.

For like the 20th time, there is no compromise being offered. As Obama correctly said, allowing the government to continue to function or allowing the US to not default on its legal obligations is not a concession or a favor to the Democrats.

 

[michal1980]

There is a process to do that. Such as offering ammendments to the law in a committee. Then if the committee votes to send it to the chamber for an up or down vote and it passes, then it goes to the Senate and if the Senate agrees and president signs it then it becomes law. If you can't come up with the votes to do this, then it doesn't (and shouldn't) become law. Civics 101.

Allowing a minority to hold the entire government hostage unless a law is changed that they don't like opens a Pandora's Box I don't think anyone wants to see opened.

There are plenty of pandora's boxs open that should be closed.

Just like how Obamacare was passed. The house passed a bill that had nothing to do with Obamacare. The senate hit delete to all of the text, put in obamacare, and then claimed the house passed obamacare.

 

[TerryMathews]

For like the 20th time, there is no compromise being offered. As Obama correctly said, allowing the government to continue to function or allowing the US to not default on its legal obligations is not a concession or a favor to the Democrats.

And he is entitled to his opinion however we have a branch of government that disagrees strongly with him.

It seems that they are getting his attention.

 

[werepossum]

To be fair to Fern, here is Professor Randy Barnett's posting on Volokh discussing the issue:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/09/13/new-obamacare-challenge-the-origination-clause/

The most pertinent issue is the extent to which the Senate can amend a revenue bill from the House. Prior challenges based upon the Origination Clause have failed mainly because the amendments were still relevant to the overall purpose of the bill as opposed to the scenario created by the ACA "amendments."

Whether the Supreme Court will ultimately choose to hear the case filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation is up in the air but there seems to be a legitimate Constitutional issue posed by the practice of gutting and replacing entire House bills. This extreme use of gutting and replacing a House originated bill whereby the amendments are entirely unrelated to the original bill seems like a huge loophole that will have to be addressed at some point.

Interesting. My recollection is that no special effort was ever expended to gutting a related bill; I remember being especially outraged because third degree amendments are not allowed in the Senate and a first degree amendment replacing the entire bill with text unrelated to the original subject seemed to me to be far worse than a third degree amendment. But that would suggest that earlier challenges should have been successful.

Like I said, we're arguing matters of degrees in the amount of change the Senate imposes on a House bill. With regards to your second point, even Justice Marshall stated in United States v. Munoz-Flores:

Do you not feel there is something wrong with a system that blatantly end runs around a Constitutional provision?

I think there is something very wrong with that; I just think this is not a good bill to establish that process.

Well I guess we know where Thomas would come down on it then. Scalia wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole though.

Really though I'm not sure they could even get past an argument about standing. The House in theory was the party victimized by this violation wouldn't it have to sue the Senate? Yet another scenario not likely to happen.

Negative. The Origination Clause is to protect the American people, not the House.

 

[fskimospy]

And he is entitled to his opinion however we have a branch of government that disagrees strongly with him.

It seems that they are getting his attention.

No, this is basic logic. The only way that Republicans are offering concessions to the Democrats by keeping the government functioning and the debt ceiling un-breached is if you believe their preferences are for debt breach and a non-functional government.

As in, absent all other considerations, Republicans would prefer those two things to happen. Do you believe this to be the case? If you don't, they aren't a concession. If you do, holy shit.

 

[werepossum]

Just to once again fight the blatant dishonesty here, the Republican demands are to delay the Congressional subsidies (you know, those subsidies that are illegal for everyone else in the exchanges) and the individual mandate for one year. Somehow delaying the individual mandate for individuals is the end of the world, whereas delaying the employer mandate is just good sense. Go figure.

 

[TerryMathews]

Just to once again fight the blatant dishonesty here, the Republican demands are to delay the Congressional subsidies (you know, those subsidies that are illegal for everyone else in the exchanges) and the individual mandate for one year. Somehow delaying the individual mandate for individuals is the end of the world, whereas delaying the employer mandate is just good sense. Go figure.

They can't delay the individual mandate because costs will skyrocket without all those young healthy people to offset the added risk of the unhealthy people insurance companies started picking up yesterday.

Of course they think we are too stupid to realize that.

 

[fskimospy]

Just to once again fight the blatant dishonesty here, the Republican demands are to delay the Congressional subsidies (you know, those subsidies that are illegal for everyone else in the exchanges) and the individual mandate for one year. Somehow delaying the individual mandate for individuals is the end of the world, whereas delaying the employer mandate is just good sense. Go figure.

Just to once again fight the blatant dishonesty here, the individual mandate and the employer mandate are two entirely different things.

The individual mandate exists because it is required if insurance companies cannot discriminate based on pre-existing conditions. As everyone well knows, having one without the other would lead to bankrupting the insurance industry.

The employer mandate is a requirement for employers of a certain size or larger to provide health care for their employees. If the employer mandate is delayed or removed, all individuals are still subject to the individual mandate, therefore there is no death spiral for the insurance industry.

With that in mind it is quite easy for any individual familiar with the law to see why delaying one would be a big problem for the law as a whole and delaying the other would not. Unfortunately some dishonest individuals on this board attempt to tie the two together because they are mandates.

Go figure.

 

[Jhhnn]

There are plenty of pandora's boxs open that should be closed.

Just like how Obamacare was passed. The house passed a bill that had nothing to do with Obamacare. The senate hit delete to all of the text, put in obamacare, and then claimed the house passed obamacare.

Then the House gutted the bill again, substituted their own version of the ACA, sent it back to the Senate for the final vote, where it was approved & sent to Obama.

All of which tells us about Repubs' desire to "compromise", then and now.