GOP may "leverage" debt ceiling against de-funding Obamacare

[midlandmilli]

In the popular CNN poll:

59% want ACA as is or stronger.

35% oppose ACA.

And both the House and Senate voted for the ACA.

Now ....

House Republicans have 80 of 245 votes to defund or shut down Government.

35% of the House is against ACA, and 35% of the population is against ACA.

A fair fight, it seems ....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shouldn't there be real consensus before moving forward?

We had a Congressional consensus for ACA, and we have a popular consensus for ACA.

ACA is the law of the land, and you should help implement it in your community.

Consensus by elections of 2008, 2010, 2012, by Congressional legislation, by Presidential signature, by SCOTUS opinion.

We have Consensus out our ass.

8% of you don't get to derail it.

This is a done deal - except for the squeal.

 

[dblack]

Shouldn't there be real consensus before moving forward?

We had a Congressional consensus for ACA, and we have a popular consensus for ACA.

No, we don't. A consensus is qualitatively different than a majority. The kinds of fundamental changes implemented by ACA, by Constitutional design, require more than a simple majority. They require amending our Constitution - a process that involves much more deliberation and consensus building than simply pushing something through Congress. Trying to short circuit that process might be tempting politically, but it leaves us in an unstable state, with a large chunk of the electorate no longer buying into the fundamental structure of our government and society. That will come back to haunt you.

ACA is the law of the land, and you should help implement it in your community.

Not in my view. To me it represents a dangerous, fundamental shift in our form of government. I intend to fight it tooth and nail. Everyone who cares about rule of law, equal rights, individual liberty, etc... should fight it as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shouldn't there be real consensus before moving forward?

We had a Congressional consensus for ACA, and we have a popular consensus for ACA.

ACA is the law of the land, and you should help implement it in your community.

newbie liar?

we DID NOT have a consensus on obamatax in Congress and neither do we in the general population.

The majority opposes obamatax and the opposition is steady

Health Tracking Poll: Exploring the Public?s Views on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Stop the fabrication the minority opposition grows less, Vox.

You must follow the rules of this forum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doesn't matter. Private insurance will no longer stand between a patient and his doctor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, we don't. A consensus is qualitatively different than a majority. The kinds of fundamental changes implemented by ACA, by Constitutional design, require more than a simple majority. They require amending our Constitution - a process that involves much more deliberation and consensus building than simply pushing something through Congress. Trying to short circuit that process might be tempting politically, but it leaves us in an unstable state, with a large chunk of the electorate no longer buying into the fundamental structure of our government and society. That will come back to haunt you.

Really? Show us this in the Constitution, please.

 

[midlandmilli]

ACA is the law of the land, and you should help implement it in your community.

Not in my view.

Your view is a tiny minority - and the Constitution urges you to exercise your right to keep squeeling and ranting - but you need a majority, son, to get things done in a Democracy, and an overwhelming majority has spoken.

 

[midlandmilli]

Keeping in mind the title of this thread: GOP may "leverage" debt ceiling against de-funding Obamacare

It is astounding that tea baggers don't understand the difference between a vote for spending and a vote not to pay for what they voted to spend.

But then, these bird brains supported Bush and Republicans in the destruction of the U.S. economy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

ACA is the law of the land, and you should help implement it in your community.

Not in my view.

Your view is a tiny minority - and the Constitution urges you to exercise your right keep squeeling and ranting - but you need a majority, son, to get things done in a Democracy, and an overwhelming majority has spoken.

Again Drive by monkey we are not a Democracy.

 

[dblack]

ACA is the law of the land, and you should help implement it in your community.

Not in my view.

Your view is a tiny minority - and the Constitution urges you to exercise your right keep squeeling and ranting - but you need a majority, son, to get things done in a Democracy, and an overwhelming majority has spoken.

If it were tiny, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And we have a Constitutionally limited democracy that, supposedly, protects the rights of the minority. Majority rules isn't the final word.

 

[midlandmilli]

Majority rules isn't the final word.

In the case of ACA, it certainly is .....

 

[dblack]

Majority rules isn't the final word.

In the case of ACA, it certainly is .....

Then why are we still talking?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because the minority thinks it can still stop ACA. Incorrectly thinks so.

 

[dblack]

That's what gets me about the apologists on this thread. If opposition to ACA is so inconsequential, why are you all trying so hard to squelch it?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Some Indian-type in Bangladesh does this today for United Health and Met Life.....

Actually, having been in the health insurance business for 50 years, I can tell you that this is not done by somebody in Bangladesh. If your doctor's request for preauthorization does not name your insurance company, the pre-authorization is simply denied by a computer.

A figure of speech to dumb down the idea of "some ignorant GS7"

As you must know, most health claims are processed by third parties, many with overseas operations.

It is splitting hairs and of no value to discuss where a health claim is denied by Private Insurance for lack of medical necessity - because the Company sets the rules for claims examiners - in Bangladesh or Boston.

I'm not sure that I know why my post bothers you. I'm on your side.

 

[Kondor3]

Keeping in mind the title of this thread: GOP may "leverage" debt ceiling against de-funding Obamacare

It is astounding that tea baggers don't understand the difference between a vote for spending and a vote not to pay for what they voted to spend.

But then, these bird brains supported Bush and Republicans in the destruction of the U.S. economy.

Bold words for someone with only 31 posts under their belt (as I write these words).

When I first showed-up here some months ago, I kept my mouth shut and observed, and gingerly began to contribute, and only began serving-up impassioned posts as I grew comfortable with the Board and its Code of Conduct and its Audience.

And I sure-as-hell didn't start-off alienating entire blocs of people nor condemned members of any of the major political parties or their minority or majority positions.

But, then again, and, of course, you're not new here, despite your meager 31 posts, are you?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That isn't what the Supreme Court thinks.

 

[Kondor3]

Majority rules isn't the final word.

In the case of ACA, it certainly is .....

Then why are we still talking?

<snicker>

There are always ways to skin ANY cat, and, if they want it badly enough, the GOP can probably find a way to torpedo ObamaCare...

The question is: DO they want it badly enough?

The supplemental question is: Do they have the BALLS do do it?

At first glance, the answer to both questions seems to be "No".

Pity... they have a unique and signal opportunity to do what is right for The People.

And they may very well end-up not doing a damned thing about it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I would not object if the tea party types were given the opportunity to opt out of the insurance coverage requirments, if , at the same time, congress and the states eliminated madatory treatment by hospitals in emergencies, as well as Medicaid, and dozens of other free health coverage grant programs that are currently funded by taxpayers.

 

[dblack]

. The kinds of fundamental changes implemented by ACA, by Constitutional design, require more than a simple majority.

That isn't what the Supreme Court thinks.

I'm aware of that. Roberts fucked us. And we're clearly losing this battle - so far. But we haven't given up yet. That's really what this thread has become - establishment stoolies trying to shut down dissent and 'dismiss' those of us refusing to acquiesce.