All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
10/1/2013 5:00 PM
Weren't the two provisions attached to the CR that:
 
1) there be the same one year delay on the implementation of the ACA (and individual mandates that come with it) that was granted by the administration to corporations in regards to their penalties, and

2) members of Congress participate in the exchanges without government subsidy

If so, why do Democrats care about corporations more than they do about individuals?  And why are the exchanges a great idea for America, but a bad idea for them?
10/1/2013 5:12 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 1:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dahsdebater on 10/1/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
I don't really 100% understand why the President and Senate Democrats are choosing to take a strong stand on this at the moment, frankly.  People don't like Obamacare.  Opinion polls have nearly universally demonstrated the truth of that statement.  That doesn't mean, as a Democrat, you have to give up on it.  But if you vote to delay it, you haven't even voted on any meaningful change to the law.  Just give yourself more time to do a better job of explaining it and trying to convince the more gullible members of society that it's actually a good idea.  Of course if you're heavily invested in the law you don't want to see full implementation pushed back.  But right now you certainly aren't doing anything to increase its popularity with Republicans or the general public.  I don't think fighting for implementation on the original timetable is good for the long-term viability of the bill.  I think the wiser move would be to allow the delay, start running a lot of public service ads on TV and in print to explain the law to the people, and gear up for a big battle over whether Obamacare stays or goes further on down the line.
"People don't like Obamacare.  Opinion polls have nearly universally demonstrated the truth of that statement."

I think the poll, at least the one I've seen, shows that 1/3 don't like it, 1/3 like it, and 1/3 wish it went further (more liberal). 2/3 are in favor of Obamacare or more liberal health care reform.
So if this is the logic used to defend Obamacare, doesn't the same logic apply across the board.  As in "2/3 of Americans are in favor of existing gun control laws or more liberal gun control laws.  Therefore 2/3 of Americans support existing gun control laws."

It's just another way of saying "we have to fix the laws we have."  Obamacare included.
10/1/2013 5:14 PM
#1 is poison pill. They tried to defund, now delay.

#2 is just a way to have a talking point. It's like having a bill saying that we're going to throw toxic waste into the drinking water and also attaching a violence against kittens act. Then when people vote against it and they say they don't want toxic waste in the drinking water the others scream, "WHY ARE SUPPORTING KITTEN VIOLENCE!"
10/1/2013 5:15 PM
Look, the Republicans are morons.  That's well documented.  What isn't as well documented is that Democrats are absolutely no better.  Pelosi's platform for pasing the ACA was "we have to pass the law to know what's in the law."  That was the rationale.  That's why the labor unions that rallied to support the law are now scrambling to find ways to exempt themselves from it.  That's why the very members of Congress who passed the law don't want to participate in the healthcare it provides.  The reason the Dems don't want a one year delay is that they don't want people figuring out what's in the law before it's implemented.
10/1/2013 5:19 PM
I think it's idiotic that the Republicans allowed a shutdown over this.  But don't think for a second that the Democrats didn't want this.  Reid wanted to go to committee at the beginning of negotiations.  He's voted down committee now because he wants the shutdown, so he can highlight the Republicans role in this for political gain.  There are no good guys here.  None of those idiots are looking out for the American people.
10/1/2013 5:20 PM
10/1/2013 5:23 PM
Dems have been trying to get to committee since ******* March! They've tried 18 times since then and it gets blocked by the Repubs. Now when it's convenient the Repubs pretend they want a committee.
10/1/2013 5:28 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 10/1/2013 5:23:00 PM (view original):
Dems have been trying to get to committee since ******* March! They've tried 18 times since then and it gets blocked by the Repubs. Now when it's convenient the Repubs pretend they want a committee.
I agree that Repubs should have gone to committee.  So should Dems now.  It would be best for the country.  Instead, everyone is looking for a win.  And we all lose.
10/1/2013 5:30 PM
And I believe it's actually "conference" - I know you were just following suit on my f*ck up.
10/1/2013 5:38 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 10/1/2013 5:20:00 PM (view original):
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html
Yes.  The old "Listen to what I (say I) mean (after having time to get together with my spin doctors), not what I say" defense.
10/1/2013 5:46 PM
Obviously neither party is trying to do what's best for the American people right now, they're trying to do what's best for their parties.  That's almost always the case.  More often than not it works well enough because if your party is seen as helping people it's generally favorable.  But in major battles the trend is always to value the win and the party above protecting the public.  That's an inevitable consequence of a bipartisan political landscape.
10/1/2013 5:47 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 10/1/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):
#1 is poison pill. They tried to defund, now delay.

#2 is just a way to have a talking point. It's like having a bill saying that we're going to throw toxic waste into the drinking water and also attaching a violence against kittens act. Then when people vote against it and they say they don't want toxic waste in the drinking water the others scream, "WHY ARE SUPPORTING KITTEN VIOLENCE!"
You mean like this:

"This Republican shutdown did not have to happen. But I want every American to understand why it did happen," Obama said during remarks in the Rose Garden. "They've shut down the government over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans." (NBC News)

Are we really supposed to think that Republicans hate poor people so much that they will block any effort to give health insurance to the poor?  If that's what the Dems are selling, and there's a legitimate chance that the American poeple are buying it, we need to scrap the healthcare law and pour all of that money into education immediately.
10/1/2013 5:48 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 5:00:00 PM (view original):
Weren't the two provisions attached to the CR that:
 
1) there be the same one year delay on the implementation of the ACA (and individual mandates that come with it) that was granted by the administration to corporations in regards to their penalties, and

2) members of Congress participate in the exchanges without government subsidy

If so, why do Democrats care about corporations more than they do about individuals?  And why are the exchanges a great idea for America, but a bad idea for them?
RE #2:

Prior to the ACA, the government subsidized 72% of the cost of private insurance for members of congress (and their staffs). Requiring congress and staff members to participate in the exchanges without any subsidy is effectively cutting the pay of members of congress and their staffs.

Maybe you think they deserve to get their pay cut, but don't pretend like the ACA is is giving them something extra.
10/1/2013 5:49 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 10/1/2013 5:46:00 PM (view original):
Obviously neither party is trying to do what's best for the American people right now, they're trying to do what's best for their parties.  That's almost always the case.  More often than not it works well enough because if your party is seen as helping people it's generally favorable.  But in major battles the trend is always to value the win and the party above protecting the public.  That's an inevitable consequence of a bipartisan political landscape.
This is absolutely true.  It's frustrating as hell, and it's true.  The more frustrating thing to me is when a narrative takes hold where it's only true for one party but not the other.
of 57
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.