• 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
mac said:
Who, in your opinion, is primarily at fault for the shutdown?
Click to expand...

I would place the primary blame on the Republicans, but the Democrats also hold their share of it. 60-40 or 65-35 Republican fault over the Democrats. It does seem now the Republicans are looking for the Democrats to help them out of this mess that is mainly of their own making with all these calls for the Presidents intervention etc. This is just pure dumb politics by the Republicans. Are they trying to lose the 2014 elections today?
 
Perotista said:
I would place the primary blame on the Republicans, but the Democrats also hold their share of it. 60-40 or 65-35 Republican fault over the Democrats. It does seem now the Republicans are looking for the Democrats to help them out of this mess that is mainly of their own making with all these calls for the Presidents intervention etc. This is just pure dumb politics by the Republicans. Are they trying to lose the 2014 elections today?
Click to expand...
It seems that way!
 
humbolt said:
Heh. This is funny. State programs. Again and again? Hell, repeat the lie enough, and surely someone somewhere will buy into it, huh?
Click to expand...
Obviously, you didn't read a single link I posted.

Heritage and Romney were explicitly and unquestionably supporting every major feature of what went into the ACA: individual mandates, Medicare expansions, health insurance exchanges, subsidies on health insurance, requirements for insurers to accept pre-existing conditions and so forth. They supported Romney's reforms, it was unquestionably a bipartisan effort, and iirc had representatives when it was signed into law.

Every major component of the ACA was developed by conservatives and Republicans, notably Romney, and the impetus was to offer a free-market solution. Their goal was to stop people from freeloading off the system (e.g. only getting health insurance when they need it).

It is screamingly obvious that "this should not be a federal law" is a very small part of the criticism of the ACA. Republicans are not shutting down the government because of the principles of federalism. They are openly targeting the parts of the law whose origins were developed by conservatives, as a free-market solution.

Most, I'm sure, genuinely believe it's a bad policy -- despite the fact that none of their dire warnings have come to pass in MA. However, I'm pretty sure that their abject hatred of Obama, and failure to accept that they lacked the votes to elect a Republican president, all play into their beliefs and emotions on the matter.


humbolt said:
A cantaloupe has enough sense to know which party is responsible for the ACA.
Click to expand...
The question is not "who vote for it." The question is "who came up with the idea, and what were their motivations?" The answer is "conservatives" and "offer a free-market solution."



 
Romney is not a conservative.
 
Boehner is at fault.

He won't let the House vote on a clean bill.
 
Visbek said:
Obviously, you didn't read a single link I posted.

Heritage and Romney were explicitly and unquestionably supporting every major feature of what went into the ACA: individual mandates, Medicare expansions, health insurance exchanges, subsidies on health insurance, requirements for insurers to accept pre-existing conditions and so forth. They supported Romney's reforms, it was unquestionably a bipartisan effort, and iirc had representatives when it was signed into law.

Every major component of the ACA was developed by conservatives and Republicans, notably Romney, and the impetus was to offer a free-market solution. Their goal was to stop people from freeloading off the system (e.g. only getting health insurance when they need it).

It is screamingly obvious that "this should not be a federal law" is a very small part of the criticism of the ACA. Republicans are not shutting down the government because of the principles of federalism. They are openly targeting the parts of the law whose origins were developed by conservatives, as a free-market solution.

Most, I'm sure, genuinely believe it's a bad policy -- despite the fact that none of their dire warnings have come to pass in MA. However, I'm pretty sure that their abject hatred of Obama, and failure to accept that they lacked the votes to elect a Republican president, all play into their beliefs and emotions on the matter.



The question is not "who vote for it." The question is "who came up with the idea, and what were their motivations?" The answer is "conservatives" and "offer a free-market solution."



Click to expand...
Sorry. I didn't. You lost me with your first sentence. My canoe is similar to the Nimitz, too. They're both boats.
 
mac said:
What Bill? and what budget for that matter.
Click to expand...

The Senate took the House bill, stripped out the stuff that was unrelated to the Continuing Resolution, and sent it back to the House.

Boehner won't let them vote on it.

So much for democracy.
 
Visbek said:
With all due respect, that article is a massive truckload of BS.

The WSJ called him on it: Heritage Rewrites History - WSJ.com

Fox recognizes Heritage as the origin of the individual mandate: Individual health care insurance mandate has roots two decades long | Fox News


Heritage defended Romneycare, including individual mandates, in 2006: Understanding Key Parts of the Massachusetts Health Plan

And again The Significance of Massachusetts Health Reform
and again The Massachusetts Approach: A New Way To Restructure State Health Insurance Markets And Public Programs
and again Massachusetts Health Reform: What the doctor ordered
Click to expand...

You keep bringing up Massachusetts as some health reform victory but that just isn't the case.

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.

Most new patients in the state of Massachusetts have to wait anywhere between 40 to 71+ days to get into see a doctor. Experts have been warning for years this would be the case under Obamacare too.

Hard-To-Get Primary Care: Mass. Waits Still Long, ‘No New Patients’ Common | CommonHealth
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Only many complaining here would love ACA if republicans were in control.
:roll:
Click to expand...

No that is false.
ACA is a direct attack on the insurance sector of the economy.
It is riddled with numerous tax increases many that have nothing to do with the healthcare industry to help pay for it. We haven't felt the brunt of all these taxes yet, 14 more will be implemented starting January 1, 2014.
ACA is causing job layoffs and forcing many into part time status so the employer can avoid all the additional mandates resulting in high costs in covering their employees.
None of this is supported by the majority on the right. The left in their game of social justice is killing capitalism through corporatism one private sector at a time.
 
mac said:
Who, in your opinion, is primarily at fault for the shutdown?
Click to expand...

Republicans of course. Putting the defunding of PPACA in the budget is an obvious (and extraordinarily childish) nonstarter.
 
Irrelevant, different system, different laws.
Click to expand...

Not really. "You give, you get" works in any political system, and it has worked in the United States, and would have worked for Republicans. It's less a problem of systems and laws and more a problem of culture: partisans in the United Kingdom want their side to make a good trade, partisans in the United States want crushing, glorious victory over every mole hill.

BS. The Republicans have been compromising with Democrats for 5 years.
Click to expand...

In the land of the sugar plum fairies with the make-believe trees. How can we both have a "different system" with "different laws" where compromise does not figure and and yet we can also say Republicans make meaningful compromises in the past five years?

And so no Imperative for the Republicans to work with them. The house funds government, and it's run by Republicans.
Click to expand...

... all of Congress funds the government, and it is shared between Democrats and Republicans. Plus a commanding majority of the public did not want the shutdown, and even if they did, the consequences of a government shut down are bad for all political actors, whereas getting rid of Obamacare is only good for Republicans. You can't threaten something that is bad for everyone to get something that is only good for yourself and expect results. That's identical to saying that Republicans should rule society when they have an electoral mandate but also whenever they don't.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Only many complaining here would love ACA if republicans were in control.
:roll:
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't, not in its current form. It has the appearance of being cobbled together, it's confusing, and most people are not attorneys who talk in circles. Whatever happened to the concept of K.I.S.S.? keep it simple, stupid!

Greetings, BooRadley. :2wave:
 
mac said:
Who, in your opinion, is primarily at fault for the shutdown?
Click to expand...

well stated that way it makes it pretty easy, just have to go with reality if i have to rank them

THIS shut down down obviously goes

1.)Republicans
2.) government in general and how its becoming so polarized, party orientated/biased and media driven.
 
Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Richard Nixon because nearly everybody hates him and he's dead, just like Pelosi's brain.
 
polgara said:
No, they wouldn't, not in its current form. It has the appearance of being cobbled together, it's confusing, and most people are not attorneys who talk in circles. Whatever happened to the concept of K.I.S.S.? keep it simple, stupid!

Greetings, BooRadley. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Sure, we'll be waiting with baited breath for Republicans to propose substituting PPACA with UHC. Because when I think "Republicans," I totally think "providing fair and comprehensive health care to the huddled masses."
 
Last edited:
vesper said:
No that is false.
ACA is a direct attack on the insurance sector of the economy.
It is riddled with numerous tax increases many that have nothing to do with the healthcare industry to help pay for it. We haven't felt the brunt of all these taxes yet, 14 more will be implemented starting January 1, 2014.
ACA is causing job layoffs and forcing many into part time status so the employer can avoid all the additional mandates resulting in high costs in covering their employees.
None of this is supported by the majority on the right. The left in their game of social justice is killing capitalism through corporatism one private sector at a time.
Click to expand...

I do t think it is false. And remember, insurance companies were in the room and largely got what they want. You should also know this is just the latest excuse fir moving toward more part time employees. This movement isn't new. So, most of what you said is just part of the current propaganda. Which would all be reversed if republicans were in charge.
 
Cardinal said:
Sure, we'll be waiting with baited breath for Republicans to propose substituting PPACA with UHC. Because when I think "Republicans," I totally think "providing fair and comprehensive health care to the huddled masses."
Click to expand...

I understand contingency planning, but did it really have to take over a thousand pages to explain ACA? That seems excessive to me, and probably explains why people don't understand it, and have to call to have it explained to them. Thus my reference to K.I.S.S. I have BC/BS, and it required three lengthy booklets to tell me what I have, and also that my premiums will now be double what I paid last year. :eek:

Good morning, Cardinal. :2wave:
 
polgara said:
No, they wouldn't, not in its current form. It has the appearance of being cobbled together, it's confusing, and most people are not attorneys who talk in circles. Whatever happened to the concept of K.I.S.S.? keep it simple, stupid!

Greetings, BooRadley. :2wave:
Click to expand...

It was cobbled together from republican ideas. That's true enough. But the tenor would certainly be different. I don't think that's debatable.
 
Mithros said:
Only if you conflate Libertarianism with Conservatism. The ACA is a conservative idea invented by Conservatives in response to a bipartisan mandate that forces hospital ERs to treat people first, and worry about getting paid second. Do you remember the kid who bled out from a gunshot outside the doors of a hospital while the ER doctors looked on from inside the hospital? Because we all think that's a terrible system.

But that mandate means that people can get health care without paying for it. The ACA is based on the idea of personal responsibility, there's a chance you'll need emergency care so you'd better pay for insurance so that the rest of us aren't stuck with your bill. That's as Conservative as it gets.
Click to expand...
The mandate of ObamaCare is not related to personal responsibility. The mandate of ObamaCare is based on the socialist idea of spreading the wealth from those who create it to those who don't.
 
Diogenes said:
The mandate of ObamaCare is not related to personal responsibility. The mandate of ObamaCare is based on the socialist idea of spreading the wealth from those who create it to those who don't.
Click to expand...

Only in a skewed misinformed mind. ;)
 
polgara said:
I understand contingency planning, but did it really have to take over a thousand pages to explain ACA? That seems excessive to me, and probably explains why people don't understand it, and have to call to have it explained to them. Thus my reference to K.I.S.S. I have BC/BS, and it required three lengthy booklets to tell me what I have, and also that my premiums will now be double what I paid last year. :eek:

Good morning, Cardinal. :2wave:
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom