• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who do you hold at fault for the Govt shutdown?

Who is at fault for the shutdown?

  • Republicans

    Votes: 87 45.3%

  • Democrats

    Votes: 32 16.7%

  • Both

    Votes: 65 33.9%

  • Neither

    Votes: 8 4.2%
  • Total voters
    192
Jack Hays said:
Health care is a commodity, like food, clothing and shelter. As with those, buy it or receive it as charity. I would rather subsidize unpaid ER use via higher costs than impose coercion on Americans. In other words, I would prefer the pre-ACA status quo ante to the ACA. If that's not politically feasible then go all the way to single payer. ACA is a coercive, incoherent mishmash that destroys freedom while subsidizing both government and the insurance/drug complex.:peace
Click to expand...

Agreed except for the endorsement of single payer, which would give all of us the poor quality of health care now available only on Indian reservations. There are changes we could make to the status quo ante which would improve the system without the heavy hand of government: allow policy purchase across state lines (like auto insurance); make premium payments by individuals tax deductible for the individual; allow formation of sponsor groups other than employers, like the Elks or Kiwanis. The heavy hand of bureaucratic regulation never works out well for the patients.
 
American said:
Young people eager to execute Obamacare, you make the leftwingers proud. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Count me among those eager to execute Obamacare, but probably not in the sense you meant... :mrgreen:
 
Dezaad said:
I pretty much agree with this. However, I don't get to shut down the government because I think this. The House has a responsibility to fund the laws on the books. The law can be repealed once the Republicans have enough control to do so.
Click to expand...

150 years ago, the Democrats argued that slavery was established law; suck it up and learn to love it. 50 years ago the Democrats argued that segregation was established law; suck it up and learn to love it. Now the Democrats argue that Obamacare is established law; suck it up and learn to love it. I see a pattern here...
 
Cardinal said:
Morning!

Look, just saying "it's complicated" isn't really an argument against PPACA. You've got to actually address the pros and cons of the plan itself.

The reason I support the PPACA, if you're in the least bit curious, isn't because I think it's an edifice of perfection (I don't know anyone who does). We wanted universal health care. But the reason I support PPACA is because the votes and the political momentum just doesn't exist for something like UHC. If we scrap PPACA, flawed as it may be, we get nothing and will continue to get nothing for perhaps a generation.

Remember: perfect is the enemy of good enough.
Click to expand...

Good points made in your post, Cardinal! :thumbs: Would something like Medicare-type coverage for all be workable, with the option of adding more if you choose to do so, or does that get into areas that people don't like or fear about government control? It would be easier to understand, and it would be the same for everyone, no matter where you live. The retirees sure seem to be ready to fight to keep it!

I like your quote, BTW!
 
polgara said:
Good points made in your post, Cardinal! :thumbs: Would something like Medicare-type coverage for all be workable, with the option of adding more if you choose to do so, or does that get into areas that people don't like or fear about government control? It would be easier to understand, and it would be the same for everyone, no matter where you live. The retirees sure seem to be ready to fight to keep it!

I like your quote, BTW!
Click to expand...

Would an extension of medicare to everyone not, in effect, be universal health care?
 
Diogenes said:
150 years ago, the Democrats argued that slavery was established law; suck it up and learn to love it. 50 years ago the Democrats argued that segregation was established law; suck it up and learn to love it. Now the Democrats argue that Obamacare is established law; suck it up and learn to love it. I see a pattern here...
Click to expand...

What, you couldn't think of a way to put "Hitler" in there?
 
Cardinal said:
What, you couldn't think of a way to put "Hitler" in there?
Click to expand...

Not necessary. I leave the Hitler references to liberals who use those references to distract from the feebleness of their arguments. :mrgreen:
 
Cardinal said:
Would an extension of medicare to everyone not, in effect, be universal health care?
Click to expand...

Probably, but that seems to be a problem for many people. I believe that the current ACA will be such a mess, though, that it could eventually be what we end up with, which may have been the ultimate goal all along. :?:
 
polgara said:
Probably, but that seems to be a problem for many people. I believe that the current ACA will be such a mess, though, that it could eventually be what we end up with, which may have been the ultimate goal all along. :?:
Click to expand...

Why is that a problem for many people? Genuinely curious.

ACA won't be as bad as you think. Obviously it's not an ideal long term solution (again, I don't know anyone who thinks it is), but the doomsday hype over ACA has been completely over the top. When the majority of the opposing arguments consist of media scare phrases like totalitarianism, implosion of our economy or death panels, you're just not getting very good information.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Why is that a problem for many people? Genuinely curious.

ACA won't be as bad as you think. Obviously it's not an ideal long term solution (agains, I don't know anyone who thinks it is), but the doomsday hype over ACA has been completely over the top.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, it seems to be a problem of government control over a very large percentage of our economy. Retirees are one thing; controlling health care for over 300 million people is something else. This will be interesting to follow. :peace:
 
Moot said:
If Romney had won the election we'd be calling it Romneycare.
Click to expand...
If Wiener had won the election we'd be calling it Wienercare. That's something nearly half of the country could support.
 
polgara said:
From what I've read, it seems to be a problem of government control over a very large percentage of our economy. Retirees are one thing; controlling health care for over 300 million people is something else. This will be interesting to follow. :peace:
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
The House Repubs took the initiative to tie budget approval to defunding Obamacare, Obamacare being an inappropriate socialist "solution" ramrodded down Americans' throats that never truly addressed at its core the real problem with healthcare: the outrageous cost of healthcare materials-services and insurance in America. Obamacare was really all about a quick-fix bandaid of keeping healthcare institutions from going bankrupt tending to the care of so many Great Recession victims (underscoring Obama's failure to get Americans back to work!) and other people who can't afford insurance and, of course, finding a way to insure 20 million illegal aliens, all part of Obama's idealized Multi-Cultural Internationalist agenda that does great harm to America.

Obama and the Senate Dems refused to approve the budget, based, essentially, solely on the defunding of Obamacare.

So, with the deadline approaching, The House Repubs compromised (damn them!) and changed "defunding" of Obamacare to "delaying" of the individual mandate etc.

That was resubmitted to Obama and the Senate Dems and they refused to compromise.

Then the deadline came and went .. and that's where we are now, with 10/17/13 looming, the date of default.

So .. who's at fault?

It really doesn't matter.

What matters is that the House Repubs have done the right thing by Americans.

And, Obama and the Senate Dems, idealistically clinging to this part of their agenda, refuse to compromise.

The real question is who's responsible for the government continuing to be shut down.

And, of course, that's the side refusing to compromise, refusing to do what's right for Americans, blindly clinging to their extremist idealism .. Obama and the Senate Dems.

Obama and the Senate Dems need to do the right thing: delay Obamacare for individuals as well, just like they did for the employer side last year, keeping that delay as well.

That is the right thing to do.

That will bring our government back up.

It really is that simple.
 
Diogenes said:
Agreed except for the endorsement of single payer, which would give all of us the poor quality of health care now available only on Indian reservations. There are changes we could make to the status quo ante which would improve the system without the heavy hand of government: allow policy purchase across state lines (like auto insurance); make premium payments by individuals tax deductible for the individual; allow formation of sponsor groups other than employers, like the Elks or Kiwanis. The heavy hand of bureaucratic regulation never works out well for the patients.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm not a fan of single payer either, but it would not be the incoherent, coercive mess that is ACA. The good news about single payer is that in every country where it exists there is some means (within the system or otherwise) to get better care by paying more.:peace
 
humbolt said:
If Wiener had won the election we'd be calling it Wienercare. That's something nearly half of the country could support.
Click to expand...
So what was your point again?
 
Ontologuy said:
The House Repubs took the initiative to tie budget approval to defunding Obamacare, Obamacare being an inappropriate socialist "solution" ramrodded down Americans' throats that never truly addressed at its core the real problem with healthcare: the outrageous cost of healthcare materials-services and insurance in America. Obamacare was really all about a quick-fix bandaid of keeping healthcare institutions from going bankrupt tending to the care of so many Great Recession victims (underscoring Obama's failure to get Americans back to work!) and other people who can't afford insurance and, of course, finding a way to insure 20 million illegal aliens, all part of Obama's idealized Multi-Cultural Internationalist agenda that does great harm to America.

Obama and the Senate Dems refused to approve the budget, based, essentially, solely on the defunding of Obamacare.

So, with the deadline approaching, The House Repubs compromised (damn them!) and changed "defunding" of Obamacare to "delaying" of the individual mandate etc.

That was resubmitted to Obama and the Senate Dems and they refused to compromise.

Then the deadline came and went .. and that's where we are now, with 10/17/13 looming, the date of default.

So .. who's at fault?

It really doesn't matter.

What matters is that the House Repubs have done the right thing by Americans.

And, Obama and the Senate Dems, idealistically clinging to this part of their agenda, refuse to compromise.

The real question is who's responsible for the government continuing to be shut down.

And, of course, that's the side refusing to compromise, refusing to do what's right for Americans, blindly clinging to their extremist idealism .. Obama and the Senate Dems.

Obama and the Senate Dems need to do the right thing: delay Obamacare for individuals as well, just like they did for the employer side last year, keeping that delay as well.

That is the right thing to do.

That will bring our government back up.

It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Excellent post with well made points! :thumbs:

IMO, it's not a matter of anyone "backing down," which reeks of partisanship and is disgusting, but rather making it fair for everyone! That could be easily explained by good PR people!

Greetings, Ontologuy! :2wave:
 
Jack Hays said:
Then the BHO gang would have been wise to avoid the straight party line enactment that they achieved.
Click to expand...

Republicans didn't leave any choice when they said they would oppose any and every thing.
 
I am never sarcastic as that is the language of the weak. I mean what I say. Why do you think I am sarcastic?
 
vesper said:
You keep bringing up Massachusetts as some health reform victory but that just isn't the case.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I don't hold it up as a "victory." What I'd say is that in many but not all respects, it is working. To wit:

• 97% of MA residents are now insured.
• It's got a 65% approval rating
• It's working well with the advent of ACO's
• Insurance premiums rose at half the rate of the rest of the US
• Insurers are not going bankrupt
• It hasn't bankrupted the state


As recently as a couple of months ago studies show long waiting periods to see a general practitioner especially for new patients. It usually takes a referral from an general practitioner to get into see a specialist.
Click to expand...
Maybe if you're in an HMO, but that's not a requirement of any health care law.


Most new patients in the state of Massachusetts have to wait anywhere between 40 to 71+ days to get into see a doctor.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any data which suggests it's worse in MA than anywhere else. That's a national issue, not a Massachusetts issue.

Nothing about the ACA changes the rates at which primary care physicians get paid; that's still between the doctor and the insurer. The only possible way it could have an effect is if the law results in more people going to see doctors.

And surely you are not going to hold up one and only statistic -- wait times for non-emergency care -- and on that basis declare that Romney's reforms are a disaster across the board?
 
Visbek said:
While somewhat noble, your standard cannot possibly work.

1) No matter how much you try to point out similarities, people will sort themselves into groups, and will have conflicts over those interests.
2) I do not accept responsibility for someone whose ideas and actions are completely different than my own.
3) It doesn't make sense to suggest that someone in Georgia (and is not a national figure) is responsible for the actions of someone in, say, California.
Click to expand...
1.) I agree, but I think there is a solution that is fair to everyone. Natural selection can work for societies too. When a society wants to go in two different directions then they should split apart and go their separate ways just as a cell performing a cell division or mitosis.
2.) and 3.) Because we are such an interconnected society with the ability for anyone to influence almost anyone who can vote, then everyone is responsible for damages done by others if they do not try to persuade others of what is best or good for the society. You might of heard of the butterfly effect where a butterfly flaps its wings and causes a chain of events that causes a hurricane a month later on the other side of the world when if that small change in air movement had not happened there would not have been a storm. This was proven by the small rounding errors in Lorenz's weather simulator that produced significant changes that did not occur in the simulation without the rounding errors. So everything has the potential to cause great harm or great good due to things understood by chaos theory and complexity science. When you understand how parts in a system are inter-related then you will understand what I mean to say.


It's not the job of a citizen of Kenya to tell American legislators what to do.
Click to expand...
The world is connected so everything affects everything in time. In a more tangible sense, if those in Kenya do not care about our society and economy, then they will suffer when the value of the dollar drops which many depend on if we go into a default.


No, we shouldn't.
Click to expand...
Why should we not let those republican lead areas go their own way to govern how they want? I do not agree with their way but they have a knife to the throat of the world economy, so this is a way we can give them what they want and we can get what we want and everyone is happy.


No such solution exists.

There are 300 million people in the US. Legislatures almost never reach total consensus. I'm stunned that we all agree that "2+2=4" let alone something as complex as health care reform.

The simple fact is that like it or not, the decision has been made. The bill was passed into law, it was vetted by the SCOTUS, has survived an absurd number of repeal attempts, and survived an election which was in no small part a referendum on the ACA. It's over.

The real solution is to get rid of the procedural nonsense which allows a small group (of any political persuasion) to hold the entire government hostage, and for the Republicans to realize that swinging harder to the right is costing them elections.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly know for certain that there is no solution that everyone will like when you unless you understand everything there is to know which no one knows everything? I do agree with your solution to change the way we make decisions so that more people are represented for their ideas and solutions. I am working on a project that will do that, listen to everyone's concerns, values, and visions.
 
Right now Boehner is the man standing in the way of ending the shutdown.

All he has to do is let the House vote on a clean budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom