Dems - Defend your Senators holding the budget bill hostage

Question for the pro-Republican people in this discussion: do the Republicans support DACA, or not?

Because if they’re OK with DACA, they’d have a deal tomorrow, and me and my fellow government workers would go to work on Monday as usual.

And if they’re against DACA, why don’t they own up to it and tell the public just why they’re against it?

(Apparently they’d have had a deal for a 2-week extension last night, but Ryan wouldn’t commit to making DACA part of the funding bill for the rest of the year, after the 2-week extension ran out. Sounds like he’s objectively anti-DACA.)

Simple. They’re for it as policy, but they’re against letting Obama or the Democrats have credit for it. That takes precedence.

They didn’t do it immediately. But the GOP did get rid of the penalty for not having insurance. This puts the Affordable Care Act in what will be an actuarial death spiral (unless the Democrats win this November and bring back a disincentive to waiting until you are sick to get insured).

Yes there are good articles saying that Trump lied when he boasted of having repealed Obamacare.

New York Magazine published one saying that Obamacare wasn’t repealed. So did the New York Times. So did the Washington Post. I subscribe to all three. None is fake news. But for the life of me, I don’t see how Trump is lying on this one.

Because he hasn’t repealed the ACA. Actually, it’s Congress that repeals, he just gets to show off that he signs his name like a big boy.

The ACA still exists. Trump lied.

Did you see post #122? I think it’s pretty clear that they don’t particularly favor the policy by itself.

It works better when your poll covers more than GOP Congresscritters.
87% favor DACA.

With ketchup, of course.

About both repealing and replacing it. The replacing part was an obvious long-standing lie by the party even before Trump, of course. The repealing part turned out to be only sabotaging it.

True, the GOP didn’t replace it.

All they did was repeal the universal coverage mandate. But think through the implications.

Now we are back to where if you don’t have insurance, and get your head cracked open in a motorcycle accident (no helmet needed where I live), you get a couple million dollars in free care. (Or, if you prefer, care that is free except for having to take calls from bill collectors and/or file for bankruptcy.)

To me, the Affordable Care Act was mostly about saying that if you could afford it, you needed to contribute to the cost of your care. No more freeloading.

I realize that this is not how it was framed politically. It was framed as liberals helping people, and Republicans wanting to hold down costs. The problem with this framing is that US hospitals are required to treat everyone with an urgent condition, even if they openly admit unwillingness to pay. It’s true they can try claiming cancer isn’t urgent, but a high proportion of US health care expenses are at end of life, and they can’t avoid that, just like they can’t ignore chest pain. Then the hospitals pass on the cost, of treating freeloaders, to people who do have insurance. Actually, EMTALA (see my link above), plus no insurance mandate, more clearly equates to socialized medicine than does a requirement to buy a private insurance plan.

I realize that other aspects of the Affordable Care Act remain, such as the marketplace plans. But I don’t see how they can remain Affordable for long now that only people with high health care needs have a strong incentive to buy them.

As for the rule against pre-existing condition limitations, yes, that is still on the books. That’s why people will risk waiting to get insurance until they are sick, destroying the Affordable Care Act financial structure.

I should also acknowledge that Massachusetts, AKA Romneycare, has its own insurance mandate, so the exchange plans there are unlikely to collapse.

My favorite sign from the Women’s Marches today:

“Notice the lack of Nazis at our marches.”

I read an article saying that Schumer offered to pay for the wall if Trump would pass DACA, and Trump rejected it.

Well, no wonder! What an insulting compromise: I’ll do this thing you hate if you do this other thing you hate.

Trump hates DACA, right? But Schumer says, give me DACA and I’ll let the wall be included in our budget.

C’mon, Schumer, all together. WHO’S GONNA PAY FOR THE WALL?


No wonder Trump rejected that slap in the face of an “offer.”

Shit, give him his fucking wall, but give it in installments. Sure, we all cringe in fear as cantaloupe -calved immigrants flood over our borders, stopping only here and there for some casual plundering. Thing like that, though, pretty big deal. Needs study. Lots of study.

So, OK, agree to proceed. Budget for phase one, the study part. Further investment and appropriation will, of course, depend on the results of those studies. Why, its the very essence of conservatism not to fly off willy-nilly and throw money around! A study…a thorough study…and then we’ll see.

Sweeten it a tad. Say we are totally on fire for this project, but are persuaded by the wisdom of the Leader, demanding thorough studies and analysis. Shit, he won’t remember if he demanded it or not!

Agreed. So, got an answer for the followup question in my post?

“Illegal aliens” who were brought here at, what, age 10? Age 5? Age 5 months?

Of course, Democratic politicians in Congress are willing to offer much more in their compromise offers.

When it comes to the blame game, I blame the Republicans because:

– Congressional Republicans, and even Trump, aren’t all that much against DACA – many are for it – so it should be possible for them to compromise on it. But they are not compromising on it.

– Congressional Democrats are all against the wall, so it is hard for them to compromise on it, and yet they seem willing to cave on the issue.

From my point of view, the wall is a waste of money. But a shutdown could easily waste just as much money. So Luis Gutiérrez and Chuck Schumer are offering the correct compromise. As to whether it will accepted, and unless there is a quick resolution (maybe today?) this will depend on what the polls say about which side is being intransigent.

Which is fucking ridiculous on Schumer’s part IMO. Trump promised, using his supreme deal making (snake oil lying) skills that US taxpayers were not going to pay for it. Even if Mexico did pay for it, the wall is a moronic idea. That fucking wall should be off of the table entirely. Trump promised repeatedly that Mexico would pay for it, let’s see him make that happen.

But in terms of this particular issue (the funding bill), 65% of Americans don’t think the funding bill should be tied to DACA. Saw that on CNN this AM.

Yeah, but what about FemiNazis? :smiley:

Unfortunately, it’s become quite clear that the only way to get DACA is by shutting down the government until the Republicans agree to bring DACA to a vote.

At least, it’s become quite clear to those of us paying attention. I doubt that most of the public realizes that. Would be interesting to see how the numbers would change if the question were presented that way: would the public think it was better to keep DACA at the cost of the government shutting down for a week or three, or whether it would prefer that the government stayed open, at the cost of sending all the ‘DACA kids’ back to ‘home countries’ that they barely remember from their early childhoods?

Since that’s the real choice, the public should be polled on that choice.

:eek: :smiley:

Now that they actually like nazis right wingers have stopped using this as an insult.