Yes and no. People who wanted universal healthcare can still be pragmatic about the path of the ACA as it was drafted. The fact that if it incorporated the republican market approach it would be more likely to last until implementation, and more likely to get people the insurance. They also figured they'd get some brownie points (republican votes) for using the republican plan. Making the plan harder to portray as partisan.
Taking a risk by going with universal healthcare, then potentially losing the 2012 election, then having it repealed.... the Dem's could have passed it, but it might not have become the law of the land in the long run. Nobody expected such a weak republican 2012 presidential candidate back in 2010 however.
Current poll numbers:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...ing-obamacare/
Last edited by Pitkanen; 2013-10-03 at 06:49 PM.
The ACA was not implemented by a republican governor. Just because I would vote to keep state taxes for school and police doesn't mean that I would vote to allow the federal government to control what my state spends on law enforcement and schooling.
The ACA was not bipartisan and never was. Stop trying to pretend like it was. Republicans and Democrats probably never would have agreed on a law and that is an issue in itself. Don't act surprised though when a law is passed by only one party, without any compromise to get a single vote from the other party, and the implementation becomes rocky.
I agree. Obama should whip out the 14 amendment then sit on his hands and watch the tea party destroy the GoP.
I was referring to RomneyCareThe ACA was not implemented by a republican governor.
You're right. It wasn't ever really bipartisan. First the GoP pushed it and the Democrats were against it because they wanted universal health care. Then the democrats began to push it and the GoP suddenly hated it.The ACA was not bipartisan and never was. Stop trying to pretend like it was
Last edited by Olo; 2013-10-03 at 06:52 PM.
So refusing to have any meetings about the budget for six months, then shutting the government down unless a law is taken out that you don't have the legislative control to take out, isn't on the GOP? Really? Just giving them a wash for trying their hardest to do nothing but throw a wrench in the government to prove it doesn't work? Its like a mechanic who cuts through your axle to show you need a new one. It is fucking idiotic.
So the Huffington Post article that lists the various offers the Republicans made is bullshit? HuffPo is now in the business of supporting Republicans even to the point of telling lies for them?
Well that's a revelation.
And I'll take your "In either case" to mean you realize you've been wrong for about 7 pages now. The first step to healing has been taken! Rejoice!
The voters gave them the power to make this decision. Nothing in the constitution says our Congress has to pass funding measures they don't want to. The Senate isn't passing the one they don't want either. California was going through this nearly every year for a while and we have a 1 party majority system here.
indignantgoat.com/
XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]
178 pages. How much common ground has been found?
But it IS a Republican thing. The Democrats aren't threatening to not pass a budget if the Republicans don't comply. The Republicans are doing that. Hell, if Boehner would break the Hastert Rule, they could pass a budget right now. This is ENTIRELY on the shoulders of the Republicans, and specifically the far right hard liners.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
Isn't that a big hole in the system if your entire government shuts down if both parties can't agree on something...?
Like i don't agree on things conservatives do but having a terrible idea added would be much better than having nothing at all... I really can't see why any party would be in favour of shutting down the government just because they can't get their own way. Seems like an incredibly childish thing to do.
Last edited by Frozenbeef; 2013-10-03 at 06:56 PM.
If we assume that at least 60% of that 800,000 have families that require that income to make ends meet, that means about 480,000 families are effected. That's when you start getting into businesses that are effected by the shutdown, like every single business that depends on the tourism to national parks. Then you start thinking about the fact that the FDA isn't conducting any safety inspections at the moment, nor are any of the agencies that have been shutdown. People have to wait out the shutdown to get approved for loans. Research programs aren't getting their funding. Investors are wondering if congress if ever going to get it's act together, so they're hesitating to invest.
Suddenly, you're talking about a massive chunk of the population effected by the shutdown. Maybe not always as dramatically as losing their jobs temporarily, but still clearly impacted by the shutdown.
Not to mention that it's a national embarrassment.