From email:
Over a dozen Senators are pushing for a scenario that should be unthinkable: they want to use a government shutdown as leverage to enact an extreme, right-wing agenda that starts with defunding the Affordable Care Act. And these folks are picking up more support every day.
A government shutdown would be disastrous. Real people’s jobs are on the line. The strength of our economic recovery is on the line. The American people’s confidence in our political system could sink to an all-time low – and seriously jeopardize efforts to use the government to make people’s lives better.
We need to create the political will in Washington to confront our problems responsibly – where we roll up our sleeves, and approach our differences of opinion honestly so we can meet in the middle, find common ground and settle on real solutions.
Every elected official has his or her own favored policy positions. But if folks dig in their heels and threaten to seriously damage the American economy if every one of their demands isn’t met, our government can’t function. In fact, nothing could be more irresponsible.
This isn’t a game of chicken. It’s governing. When there are problems with our laws, individual representatives need to work together to fix them.
Shutting down the government to gain political advantage on any issue is simply irresponsible and un-American. It reminds me of shutting down the schools because some Virginians opposed integration back in the 50’s. That just isn’t an appropriate problem-solving technique.
We also nearly defaulted on our debts back in 2011 because tea party zealots in Congress took us right up to the point of brinkmanship over raising the debt ceiling. Many Americans lost big bucks in the stock market because investors got very skittish. Do we expect things to be any different this time?
Once again our economy and our general well-being is jeopardized because of a few fools who have simplistic answers for very complex issues.
The Republicans are not shutting down government. The House will pass a budget that does not include Obamacare. If the Democrats in the Senate want to avoid a shutdown, then they can pass the House’s version of the budget. Congress can then take up Obamacare funding legislation separately while avoiding a government shutdown.
Of course we know that will never happen, because Obamacare is unpopular so that it can never stand on its own in separate legislation. The Democrats have to keep Obamacare bundled in the budget together with the threat of government shutdown in order to keep it going.
The latest Gallup and Rasmussen polls show that 52% and 53%, respectively, of ALL Americans disapprove of Obamacare.
Then the Obama haters have done a good job of propaganda. I can’t imagine how it is legal to not fund that which is law.
Do you really think that the American people want pre-existing health conditions to keep them from getting insurance or keep them frozen on their jobs because they cannot get new health coverage? Do they like being able to keep their kids on their health coverage to age 26?
Do people like the idea that insurance companies can cap existing policies so that they max out if the patient has high enough medical bills? Do people like the idea they are currently floating all the people who don’t have health insurance on their own policies?
If the American people want to do away with all that then I guess I would have to ask what their problem is.
I’m sure one could poll Americans on almost any federal law and get close to a 50/50 split (+ or – a few points, depending on how one puts the question) on whether they approved of the particular measure. Health care is not something that Americans are particularly keen to be without. The House Rs have clamped onto this particular campaign gizmo with leech-like tenacity, but have said very little about what system will immediately be in place to supplant the current federal healthcare program should they succeed. This is just political marketing, pure and simple. It’s about all some Rs have left in their public policy gimcrackery bag, so they’ll hang on until, by some seismic change in the American political landscape, they make a decision that the GOP ought to return to being about offering competent governance to the American people.
One of the huge problems with the House Republican positions on this is that there are, in fact, a number of things that need to be done to make America competitive with the rest of the developed world in terms of health care services, but which can’t be intelligently approached in a legislative context until these goofs get over their quixotic charges against a relatively modest twiddling of the dials on health care issues. The Affordable Care Act was a messy compromise approach that incorporated conservative and liberal ideas in a way designed to minimize controversy and to avoid substantive change to an insurance company-dominated, grossly inefficient health care system. It still foists the burden on American private employers, but attempts to buy them off (and their workers with tax code favors) and does relatively little to address why we have second-rank health care at galaxy-leading cost levels.
Maybe once it ACA gets up and running and Americans see that the gubbinment isn’t going to be deciding if they live or die, people will calm down and lawmakers can do a little tweaking.
What baffles me is how some opponents defend the insurance companies which are the biggest bunch of pirates on the face of the earth. Talk about making life and death decisions for people! ARRGH!
The ACA is law, passed by congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and validated by Obama’s reelection. The repugs need to respect that. If they want to overturn it, they should try harder to win the presidency.
I love the hypocracy of politicians. Obamacare is the law of the land according to the constitution, yet the GOP wants to try to force the president to de-fund it. I thought the GOP was all about closely following the constitution!
The idea that the GOP wouldn’t be responsible for shutting down government is laughable. All they want to happen is that the president sign legislation to de-fund his signature accomplishment. THAT’s likely to happen!
What the polls show if you drill down just a little is that the 53% unfavorable rating for Obamacare includes those who want single payer and MORE coverage for the uninsured. The number who want Obamacare repealed is considerably lower.
Personally, I think that defunding it is the wrong way to “defeat” ACA.
I say that the House should enact a bill demanding immediate activation of all elements, no waivers allowed and Congress must use it. All of the Democrat allies that have gotten waivers, like the unions, would stop sending money to their politicians. If ACA is so good, then everyone should be using it.
It would be repealed so fast……
The unions were turned down for waivers.
Why do you think it would be repealed, Cargo?
Exactly what is it about ACA that you do not like or that is screwing you over?
I want the individual mandate repealed. Obama was able to get it passed by claiming it was not a tax. The Supreme Court upheld it because it was a tax. So it is based on a huge lie.
Essentially Obamacare is being imposed by one segment of society on another. It was passed without a single Republican vote. I think 70% of Republicans are against it and 70% of Democrats are for it. This represents an extremely partisan measure that was passed over the objections of half of the population. Massachusetts elected Scott Brown (a Republican!!!!) as the 41st vote to defeat it. Yet Reid used legislative maneuvers to get it through.
It is entirely constitutional for the Congress to deny funding for any Bill. The House was specifically given the power of the purse for this purpose. A Congress cannot commit future Congresses to fund programs which is why revenue bills are considered each year.
Given the partisan nature in which Obamacare was passed and the deceptions used to get it through, Republicans owe Obama exactly nothing.
Well, he and the country have gotten exactly noting from them.
Just a couple observations:
ACA is law, not a bill.
I feel confident that the power of the purse wasn’t given to Congress to defeat laws it didn’t like. I expect other reasons were involved. As to the constitutionality of defunding ACA, not sure that has been tested yet.
I certainly don’t think trickery was involved. I believe it was a matter of numbers.
Your logic fails me when you say Obama said it wasn’t a tax and the Supreme Court said it was. You act like Obama colluded with the Court. They have different opinions is all.
I haven’t figured out which section of society is imposing a law on another section. I seriously don’t care. As a female I have had all sorts of laws imposed on me without my consent.
In this case, those who are going to cost me money are now being required to carry their own insurance. Why do I care?
I am not sure it matters. First the legislative branch had the votes to push it though. The president signed the bill into law and the Supreme Court upheld the law. I have seen no Republican suggestion for improvement. It really just sounds like you all are being sore losers.
Kelly, I am curious why you feel that ACA is hurting you.
The polls are all about how the question is asked and sometimes skewed. Obamacare is a large effort that will change things – some good and some not so good – but all in an effort to make people take on some responsibility for their own healthcare. This is a conservative approach – to get people to pay for their own care. Where is the alternative plan? It was all about repeal and replace but the only thing that has been proposed is the repeal – is it that there is no thought leadership on the replace?
What would it mean to not fund Obamacare – Medicaid? Insurance subsidies? Pre-existing conditions for federal workers? Kids on federal workers plans? Etc.
If this is proposed and it is all on the R’s for shutting down the government and will go to prove that the R’s are in their own little rubber room bouncing ideas off the same walls as when they shut down the government before. As Newt is gaining more prominence in the party he is starting to gloat a little that he shut it down before. Where is that budget that was promised (and campaigned on) by the R’s?
Politicians of both parties obscured the nature of the penalty for non-enrollment because “tax” is a politically impossible word these days. The Supreme Court has the luxury of not having to play games with words. It’s very clear that the “mandate” (which was, by the way, a conservative concept from the Hilary-care days), is, in fact, a tax on people trying to game the system by avoiding participation. I agree with Kelly that there was the usual amount of verbal camouflage going on with this measure (like any other large bill, this is commonplace these days – just check the names that lawmakers give these measures). Not sure why that’s important now. Kelly is free to opt out of health care, but the tax system is set up to penalize that choice in order to make affordable health care universally available at a reasonable cost.
Obamacare is absolutely a partisan idea- the Republican’s! The very same conservative organization that came up with most of the facets of Obamacare, including the individual mandate, is now leading the charge to de-fund it.
Obamacare is already saving money for states, it has worked in Mass. for years, and the CBO report out today indicates it will save the federal taxpayer money. It’s not great for insurance companies, and that’s whose water the GOP is carrying.
@Scout
I can see that you are among the minority of Republicans that support Obamacare. There has always been tension in the Republican Party between the conservative wing and the big-government, statist wing. I get that someone in the Heritage Foundation proposed the individual mandate, but that doesn’t make it conservative. Using legislation to enforce “responsibility” is a big-government, statist solution.
Plus it is virtually guaranteed that Obamacare will increase costs, not decrease them. Just as guaranteed student loans have contributed to an exponential increase in college tuition, Obamacare will do the same for medical costs. Only in an open and free market with competition does a large infusion of customers result in lower costs.
Kelly, I fail to see the cause/effect.
You are speculating.
What do you personally have against ACA?
Open and free markets have led to patient abuse from insurance companies. Apparently you have never known anyone who maxed out or had a condition that prevented them from being insured.
Maternity coverage is often just for the primary subscriber or spouse. Children regardless of age aren’t included.
We haven’t had open and free markets.
We also don’t need a law based upon a bill that, in some cases, has not been written yet. The regulations are STILL being compiled.
As for the tax vs not a tax. Here’s the problem. It was declared a penalty by the President. That allowed it to be written and passed in the Senate first. If it is a tax, then it originated in the wrong chamber. All funding bills must start in the House.
I keep hearing this mantra that Obamacare will increase costs, when the exact opposite is actually happening in reality, in contrast to the Republican sponsored prescription drug coverage expansion, which HAS increased costs exponentially.
As I stated, the CBO, various state information and years of history in Mass. all point to savings.
Just for clarity, the ACA is not still being written. It can be amended, but the bill, once passed and signed by the president, is law. The regulations to implement it are a separate issue, and as with all bills, take a while to write.
@middleman
I don’t know why you’re changing the subject from Obamacare to the prescription drug benefit program. That was a mistake too.
The available evidence suggests that Obamacare will increase costs and reduce benefits. I don’t like it for that reason plus I resent the government mandating that I purchase health insurance. If I had my way, I would purchase catostrophic coverage only and use health savings account to pay cash for everything else.
If Massachusetts is considered a harbinger of things to come, the news is not good. Despite near-universal coverage, the state has the highest rates in the country together with large increases in out-of-pocket costs and in overall rates. The link below gives details.
http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/news/ci_23867274/study-mass-health-care-costs-rise-benefits-fall
Kelly, your report shows that deductibles in Mass. are still below national averages. Policy costs in Mass. have risen 9.7% in two years while the national average is 8%- not a huge difference, but part of that increase is large administrative cost increases, which are capped by Obamacare as of October.
The prescription drug benefit fiasco is important because it was passed by the GOP and not paid for, while Obamacare IS paid for, according to the CBO. It shows that the Democrats are fiscally responsible while the GOP isn’t.
The bigger question, and the original issue of this thread, is how can anyone link de-funding Obamacare to budget issues like the debt ceiling and funding the government? Eliminating Obamacare would ADD to the deficit, according to the CBO. The fact that the tea party radicals are controlling the GOP threatens to destabilize our economy.
The rx drug program saves individuals millions. It was a greawt bill. Could it have been handled better? Probably. Most things could.
@ Kelly: not sure how you get the idea that I support Obamacare. I think it is an entirely diluted half-measure that doesn’t begin to address our issues concerning health care quality and costs. Having said that, I don’t think it is much more than a refinement of the pre-existing system. I view it as kicking the can down the road in best Washington fashion, thus leaving the catastrophic future problems to others.
But it’s not the end of the world, either. All the hoopla is what passes for GOP strategerizin’ these days. It’s just noise.