|
On October 02 2013 07:49 overt wrote:
I feel like this was kind of inevitable considering how often the tea party Republicans will hold Congress hostage and act like children to get what they want. The fact that you have tea party Republicans applauding this shut down as a good thing should sicken most Americans.
Its odd that you have that sentiment. If you read what I posted above, both sides are equally stubborn. You could just as easily say "its disgusting that Democrats applaud letting Entitlements slowly consume a greater % of the GDP every month." There are two opposing sides, and one side has no incentive to negotiate unless the government is about to shut down, so what is the other side supposed to do?
|
On October 02 2013 07:54 HappyCamper wrote:
Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad.
I think many of our Scandinavian members on TL would disagree with you. 
|
On October 02 2013 07:57 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 07:54 HappyCamper wrote:
Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad. I think many of our Scandinavian members on TL would disagree with you.
Canadians too.
|
On October 02 2013 07:57 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 07:49 overt wrote:
I feel like this was kind of inevitable considering how often the tea party Republicans will hold Congress hostage and act like children to get what they want. The fact that you have tea party Republicans applauding this shut down as a good thing should sicken most Americans. Its odd that you have that sentiment. If you read what I posted above, both sides are equally stubborn. You could just as easily say "its disgusting that Democrats applaud letting Entitlements slowly consume a greater % of the GDP every month." There are two opposing sides, and one side has no incentive to negotiate unless the government is about to shut down, so what is the other side supposed to do?
This Congress has filibustered more than any in history. Literally everything that comes up gets shit on by tea party Republicans. Even the rest of the Republican party gets annoyed with it and the fact that average Americans don't just baffles me. They cause a shit storm over every little thing, they don't work with the majority leader, and they have a big enough bloc that the GOP is forced to work with them. You don't see Republicans calling the Affordable Healthcare Bill, "crack cocaine healthcare," like Bachmann.
Yeah, both sides won't negotiate but I don't see Democrats or Republicans applauding a government shut down in which they can't pay government employees yet I've seen plenty of tea party Congressmen glad about it.
|
Here's my question. Why are the Democrats allowed to delay ACA for whoever they deem fit? Why don't they just put it into effect all at once?
|
Yep the democrats are truly awful people for thinking more of the GDP to go into welfare programs >.<. I don't understand how Republicans can applaud Obama for pushing back the employer mandate then say that it all needs to be enforced at once.
|
On October 01 2013 21:22 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 21:17 Varanice wrote:
Shouldnt this just go into the US politics megathread thingy? It's an issue worthy of a seperate thread. On topic: the debt ceiling is a ludicrous concept. The debt ceiling is always raised (because it has to be for the US government to function), but the senate always holds off until the last second for political leverage. This time both sides are putting their foot down, when obamacare was already delayed a year last time if I remember correctly. Which side is to blame? Hard to say. Both?
Following from that thought, isn't the entire economy a ludicrous concept? The debt ceiling is constantly being raised which defeats the purpose of a ceiling, and I think it's fair to say that the current debt will never be 'repaid.' I doubt it will ever even stabilize given the amount of interest it generates. Yet the economy is still functioning and looking stable. Will something eventually happen that will make it okay to erase the debt? Because that's only way to get rid of it.
I don't know much about economy but the whole idea of debt seems like a pretty abstract construct which doesn't actually reflect the state of the economy, making the economy as a whole kind of a big joke. It's like if a company was deep in the red every year and ridiculously in depth, yet it doesn't really go out of business. In fact its stock shares keep on rising steadily. Makes no sense to me.
Essentially the Republicans are using this random, yearly 'raise the debt ceiling event' to point fingers at stuff they don't like. Really stupid.
|
It's incredible that a radical minority in one chamber of the legislative can take the entire government hostage like this, just because they dislike a public healthcare law. I hope they get their shit together before the debt ceiling has to be raised.
|
Why should the Democrats negotiate? Obama is the elected president and if i'm not totally wrong the healthcare reform is one of his biggest topics and it was probably one of the reasons people voted for him.
And now the tea-party republicans come along and basically say :" Hey, we're taking this one central program of your policy, (which by the way our own presidential candidate advocated in his own state), and we're going to make you undo it, or else we're not approving next years budget. We also ignore the fact that the law has already been passed and put into motion, but hey we're going to do it anyway to make you look like an idiot."
How is anyone supposed to argue with these people?
Edit: And as far as i understand from reading some papers on the ACA, it's probably going to lower the healthcare costs. The USA actually has the most expensive healthcare system(per capita) on this planet, doubling Norway's,Germany's or Canada's. And if i'm not mistaken all of these countries have a large universal public healthcare sector.
|
On October 02 2013 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Why should the Democrats negotiate? Obama is the elected president and if i'm not totally wrong the healthcare reform is one of his biggest topics and it was probably one of the reasons people voted for him
And now the tea-party republicans come along and basically say :" Hey, we're taking this one central program of your policy, (which by the way our own presidential candidate advocated in his own state), and we're going to make you undo it, or else we're not approving next years budget. We also ignore the fact that the law has already been passed and put into motion, but hey we're going to do it anyway to make you look like an idiot.
How is anyone supposed to argue with these people?
Indeed. Mitt Romney campaigned with the promise that the first thing he would do in office would be to sign the repeal of Obamacare and he lost atrociously. Obama has the mandate and the fact that congress is refusing to pay for things it itself decided is ridiculous.
|
On October 02 2013 07:57 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 07:54 HappyCamper wrote:
Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad. I think many of our Scandinavian members on TL would disagree with you.
Okay, first off your health care plan or whatever was basically that from the start. Also you seem to miss the point of destroying the current system or using the input of the currently in place system to take advantage of it.
Also your scandinavian healthcare is not purely socialistic. It has capitalistic ideas in it. You also have the highest taxes out of every country.<-------- bad
The main reason why obamacare is bad is that it leeches off of the already in place system. That is why you cannot have it in America. It is going backwards, both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but in America our system was working. It was not perfect but it was working. The only people that were not getting taken care of were the homeless. That is not a huge deal. Like 0.01 percent of the whole dam population maybe even less? Is that really bad? That is actually pretty dam good. Now, guess what. More people are not getting taken care of. This is due to numerous things, mostly the fact that medical hospitals absolutely hate obamacare.
|
As long as this doesn't effect the prices of weed and lubricant here in Australia i'm not to fussed.
|
On October 02 2013 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Why should the Democrats negotiate? Obama is the elected president and if i'm not totally wrong the healthcare reform is one of his biggest topics and it was probably one of the reasons people voted for him.
And now the tea-party republicans come along and basically say :" Hey, we're taking this one central program of your policy, (which by the way our own presidential candidate advocated in his own state), and we're going to make you undo it, or else we're not approving next years budget. We also ignore the fact that the law has already been passed and put into motion, but hey we're going to do it anyway to make you look like an idiot."
How is anyone supposed to argue with these people?
Edit: And as far as i understand from reading some papers on the ACA, it's probably going to lower the healthcare costs. The USA actually has the most expensive healthcare system(per capita) on this planet, doubling Norway's,Germany's or Canada's. And if i'm not mistaken all of these countries have a large universal public healthcare sector.
Just confused. Under your plan what are the house Republicans supposed to do? Vote against core values? I mean, some of you seem to be acting like laws are never repealed or changed. When is a better time to change this law?
What I mean is that most people are conflating the Republican's desired result (End Obamacare) and their opinion of that (negative), with the negotiating tactic (passing it in a budget resolution).
Here is a question for liberals: If you wanted to get rid of Obamacare (I know, you dont), what is a better way to do it? Is there a chance that your alternative proposal is successful? If so, why?
|
On October 02 2013 08:23 HappyCamper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 07:57 screamingpalm wrote:On October 02 2013 07:54 HappyCamper wrote:
Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad. I think many of our Scandinavian members on TL would disagree with you. Okay, first off your health care plan or whatever was basically that from the start. Also you seem to miss the point of destroying the current system or using the input of the currently in place system to take advantage of it. Also your scandinavian healthcare is not purely socialistic. It has capitalistic ideas in it. You also have the highest taxes out of every country.<-------- bad The main reason why obamacare is bad is that it leeches off of the already in place system. That is why you cannot have it in America. It is going backwards, both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but in America our system was working. It was not perfect but it was working. The only people that were not getting taken care of were the homeless. That is not a huge deal. Like 0.01 percent of the whole dam population maybe even less? Is that really bad? That is actually pretty dam good. Now, guess what. More people are not getting taken care of. This is due to numerous things, mostly the fact that medical hospitals absolutely hate obamacare.
Considering that part of the world is highly regarded for its standards of living, all I will say to the high taxes argument is SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY. I don't disagree that there are issues with the ACA, just not the ones the right is complaining about. But, if this IS the "path to socialism/single payer", then let's do this already. 
|
On October 02 2013 08:23 HappyCamper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 07:57 screamingpalm wrote:On October 02 2013 07:54 HappyCamper wrote:
Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad. I think many of our Scandinavian members on TL would disagree with you. Okay, first off your health care plan or whatever was basically that from the start. Also you seem to miss the point of destroying the current system or using the input of the currently in place system to take advantage of it. Also your scandinavian healthcare is not purely socialistic. It has capitalistic ideas in it. You also have the highest taxes out of every country.<-------- bad The main reason why obamacare is bad is that it leeches off of the already in place system. That is why you cannot have it in America. It is going backwards, both systems have their advantages and disadvantages, but in America our system was working. It was not perfect but it was working. The only people that were not getting taken care of were the homeless. That is not a huge deal. Like 0.01 percent of the whole dam population maybe even less? Is that really bad? That is actually pretty dam good. Now, guess what. More people are not getting taken care of. This is due to numerous things, mostly the fact that medical hospitals absolutely hate obamacare.
Im pretty happy with the government taking half my paycheck in exchange of epic services like healthcare.
|
On October 02 2013 08:29 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Why should the Democrats negotiate? Obama is the elected president and if i'm not totally wrong the healthcare reform is one of his biggest topics and it was probably one of the reasons people voted for him.
And now the tea-party republicans come along and basically say :" Hey, we're taking this one central program of your policy, (which by the way our own presidential candidate advocated in his own state), and we're going to make you undo it, or else we're not approving next years budget. We also ignore the fact that the law has already been passed and put into motion, but hey we're going to do it anyway to make you look like an idiot."
How is anyone supposed to argue with these people?
Edit: And as far as i understand from reading some papers on the ACA, it's probably going to lower the healthcare costs. The USA actually has the most expensive healthcare system(per capita) on this planet, doubling Norway's,Germany's or Canada's. And if i'm not mistaken all of these countries have a large universal public healthcare sector. Just confused. Under your plan what are the house Republicans supposed to do? Vote against core values? I mean, some of you seem to be acting like laws are never repealed or changed. When is a better time to change this law?
They tried repealing the ACA 41 times and failed. They don't not have the votes to repeal it.
They can come up with changes to the law. Changes that can be shown to be beneficial. The Democrats may well vote for changes if they are for the better while still following the ideal of the ACA, giving affordable healthcare to everyone.
If neither of these things work... there shit out of luck. They will have to wait for another election where they can try to claim the majority in the senate as well so they can pass the repeal.
What they should not be doing is holding the country hostage over it like a spoiled child. Ofc the Democrats will not allow for a 1 year delay. It would just mean the exact same scenario would happen next year when they can again use government funding to force an issue they cannot accomplish through the democratic process.
Sometimes you dont get what you wanted. Sometimes you just dont have the votes to do what you were elected to do. Welcome to a democracy.
|
On October 02 2013 08:29 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Why should the Democrats negotiate? Obama is the elected president and if i'm not totally wrong the healthcare reform is one of his biggest topics and it was probably one of the reasons people voted for him.
And now the tea-party republicans come along and basically say :" Hey, we're taking this one central program of your policy, (which by the way our own presidential candidate advocated in his own state), and we're going to make you undo it, or else we're not approving next years budget. We also ignore the fact that the law has already been passed and put into motion, but hey we're going to do it anyway to make you look like an idiot."
How is anyone supposed to argue with these people?
Edit: And as far as i understand from reading some papers on the ACA, it's probably going to lower the healthcare costs. The USA actually has the most expensive healthcare system(per capita) on this planet, doubling Norway's,Germany's or Canada's. And if i'm not mistaken all of these countries have a large universal public healthcare sector. Just confused. Under your plan what are the house Republicans supposed to do? Vote against core values? I mean, some of you seem to be acting like laws are never repealed or changed. When is a better time to change this law? What I mean is that most people are conflating the Republican's desired result (End Obamacare) and their opinion of that (negative), with the negotiating tactic (passing it in a budget resolution). Here is a question for liberals: If you wanted to get rid of Obamacare (I know, you dont), what is a better way to do it? Is there a chance that your alternative proposal is successful? If so, why?
You suck it up and move on. When you've been fighting it for years and you still have no way of winning you move on and realize you've lost. Obama and the Dems aren't going to negotiate or cave. They have no incentive to.
There's shit the GOP passes that I don't like but I wouldn't expect Democrats to shut down the government to get their way.
|
On October 02 2013 08:39 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:29 cLutZ wrote:On October 02 2013 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Why should the Democrats negotiate? Obama is the elected president and if i'm not totally wrong the healthcare reform is one of his biggest topics and it was probably one of the reasons people voted for him.
And now the tea-party republicans come along and basically say :" Hey, we're taking this one central program of your policy, (which by the way our own presidential candidate advocated in his own state), and we're going to make you undo it, or else we're not approving next years budget. We also ignore the fact that the law has already been passed and put into motion, but hey we're going to do it anyway to make you look like an idiot."
How is anyone supposed to argue with these people?
Edit: And as far as i understand from reading some papers on the ACA, it's probably going to lower the healthcare costs. The USA actually has the most expensive healthcare system(per capita) on this planet, doubling Norway's,Germany's or Canada's. And if i'm not mistaken all of these countries have a large universal public healthcare sector. Just confused. Under your plan what are the house Republicans supposed to do? Vote against core values? I mean, some of you seem to be acting like laws are never repealed or changed. When is a better time to change this law? What I mean is that most people are conflating the Republican's desired result (End Obamacare) and their opinion of that (negative), with the negotiating tactic (passing it in a budget resolution). Here is a question for liberals: If you wanted to get rid of Obamacare (I know, you dont), what is a better way to do it? Is there a chance that your alternative proposal is successful? If so, why? You suck it up and move on. When you've been fighting it for years and you still have no way of winning you move on and realize you've lost. Obama and the Dems aren't going to negotiate or cave. They have no incentive to. There's shit the GOP passes that I don't like but I wouldn't expect Democrats to shut down the government to get their way.
This. As a political party the most important thing for you is the well-being of your country. You don't shut the government down like a 3 year old angry kid just to get your will.
|
On October 02 2013 08:23 HappyCamper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 07:57 screamingpalm wrote:On October 02 2013 07:54 HappyCamper wrote:
Putting a purely socialistic system into a very capitalistic system is bad. I think many of our Scandinavian members on TL would disagree with you. (...) Also your scandinavian healthcare is not purely socialistic. It has capitalistic ideas in it. You also have the highest taxes out of every country.<-------- bad(...)
I'm not going to argue about the rest of the post because I've 0 knowledge about it, but this part that I bolded is foolish thinking.
Your thinking here is just like those of the great masses: "omg they are taking money off me, therefore it is a bad thing!!!". It is only a bad thing when the money the government take from you is not paid back in the form of good public services/investment in the development of the country.
Scandinavian countries have high taxes yes, but the return of the goverment is equally high, so there should be no much to complain.
Now if you have high taxes and low or no return from the goverment, like in many 3rd world countries (Brazil being the prime example imho), then you have all the reasons to think it is bad.
|
On October 02 2013 08:39 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2013 08:29 cLutZ wrote:On October 02 2013 08:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Why should the Democrats negotiate? Obama is the elected president and if i'm not totally wrong the healthcare reform is one of his biggest topics and it was probably one of the reasons people voted for him.
And now the tea-party republicans come along and basically say :" Hey, we're taking this one central program of your policy, (which by the way our own presidential candidate advocated in his own state), and we're going to make you undo it, or else we're not approving next years budget. We also ignore the fact that the law has already been passed and put into motion, but hey we're going to do it anyway to make you look like an idiot."
How is anyone supposed to argue with these people?
Edit: And as far as i understand from reading some papers on the ACA, it's probably going to lower the healthcare costs. The USA actually has the most expensive healthcare system(per capita) on this planet, doubling Norway's,Germany's or Canada's. And if i'm not mistaken all of these countries have a large universal public healthcare sector. Just confused. Under your plan what are the house Republicans supposed to do? Vote against core values? I mean, some of you seem to be acting like laws are never repealed or changed. When is a better time to change this law? What I mean is that most people are conflating the Republican's desired result (End Obamacare) and their opinion of that (negative), with the negotiating tactic (passing it in a budget resolution). Here is a question for liberals: If you wanted to get rid of Obamacare (I know, you dont), what is a better way to do it? Is there a chance that your alternative proposal is successful? If so, why? You suck it up and move on. When you've been fighting it for years and you still have no way of winning you move on and realize you've lost. Obama and the Dems aren't going to negotiate or cave. They have no incentive to. There's shit the GOP passes that I don't like but I wouldn't expect Democrats to shut down the government to get their way.
So basically what they are doing now? ( Keep the status quo on the healthcare, or shutdown the government). Don't delude yourself, both sides are to blame even if ones ideas might be better than the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
