Maybe. In this case, maybe.
I’m not sure that this is wise, since the Republicans are likely to take most of the blame for the shutdown and that might hurt them at the polls in the mid terms and beyond.
I’m also wary of this becoming routine and being overused once they get a taste for it.
But just maybe, this is a fight that’s worth fighting. Once Obamacare is done, it won’t be easily undone.
Yep, that is it, in a nutshell. This type of tactic should be so rare as to be hardly even known about. Saved for the most extreme of conditions. But the Republicans are setting it up so as to be SOP, and they cannot have that mentality reinforced.
Funding ObamacRE and funding the entire federal government are two completely different things.
It’s not as simple as “will work” or “won’t work”. Of course it will have the long term effect of hurting the vast majority of Americans who have health insurance now. It will also hurt the many workers who get their hours reduced or get laid off so they don’t need to be given coverage. But it will be very popular with all the people who get “free” coverage who aren’t covered now.
If someone proposed a program to give everyone a free iPad once a year I would oppose that program. I would also be wise enough to realize that program would be very popular and would be difficult to repeal once people got used to the iPad every year. This wouldn’t be inconsistent on my part.
There’s no need to make up anyone’s mind. It’s all very consistent and logical. It’s just that there are a lot of people who disagree with you about Obamacare and you can’t understand that. That’s all.
In the car manufacturer analogies, it’s mostly give and take. A lot of the car regulations are pushed by regulatory bodies and the car manufacturers negotiate the best deal for them in most cases. But a lot of what is pushed by the regulatory bodies first comes from non profits after a lot of study or public opinion, NOT the car makers (or the government).
But your argument rests on the believe that it should be undone. Now it may be that some Republicans sincerely believe that Obamacare care might harm the country, but you have to admit that the reason that others oppose it is because they do not want Obama to get credit if it is a success.
It would be one thing if the Republicans were demanding spending cuts or tax increases in return for increasing the debt ceiling. Or, if they passed a balanced budget but Obama refused to sign it, they could just point to the balanced budget and say that the balanced budget is better than going into debt.
That’s not what’s happening. They’re defaulting on our debts, not because we have to much debt, but over Obamacare.
If Obamacare is so terrible, why don’t they just repeal Obamacare? Oh, that’s right, they don’t have the votes in the Senate, and the president would veto it.
So they can’t repeal Obamacare the normal way. They have to take the country hostage. And Obamacare is so horrible they have no choice. Except, if Obamacare is so horrible, with the whole country opposing it except a few moochers and grabbers and professional victims, why can’t they find the votes to repeal it?
Thing is, “repeal and replace” is a lie. They don’t want to reform health insurance, they want the status quo. There is no “repeal and replace”, there’s “repeal”. The only thing wrong with health insurance in America is that our amazing system will be wrecked by Obamacare.
Or if you have reforms in mind, why not mention them? Right, the reason the Republicans can’t mention them is that the reforms they’d favor are already, you know, part of Obamacare. Sucks for them, I guess.
Shutdowns have happened eighteen times since 1976 (as far back as wikipedia goes). Fifteen of the times the shutdown has occurred was with a Democratic House. Three were with a Republican House.
If shutdowns of government are too common, that’s hardly the fault of the Republicans alone. If anything they have become less frequent over time. The last one was almost twenty years ago. Yet we had eight during the Reagan administration.
Of course, I’m sure that when the government shuts down while a Republican is POTUS and the House is Democratically controlled it’s still the fault of the GOP.
I see a lot of baseless opinion presented as fact in this post.
And how many of those shutdowns were to overturn an established law? You do know that it is a law?
I don’t see how both of these can be true.
Why include this? You must know the answer is yes. Why be insulting for no reason?
Stop fucking saying “once Obamacare is done…”. It is done. The ACA is law.
Steve Benen had a piece showing how often GOP douchebags are still referring to the ACA as a bill. It’s law. It was passed, signed, subject to judicial review and further validated as a “referendum” in the last presidential election.
Pretending otherwise is just an attempt to hide the true nature of what is going on here. If you don’t like a particular law, you don’t sabotage America to force others to undo it. I don’t have much problem likening that to terrorism. “Subvert this law or we will blow a 1.4 billion dollar hole in the economy!”
Fuck that shit.
Most of those 18 were “partial shutdowns” affecting only certain departments. This is a shutdown in order to repeal a piece of legislation that cannot otherwise be repealed. It should not be allowed to succeed in that effort.
How so?
Yes, the law passed. But many of the major provisions of it haven’t yet taken effect. They haven’t yet been paid for. That is the cause of the language that bothers you so much.
And here’s the inconsistency at play again:
After it goes into effect, this is supposed to be a wildly popular program that somehow causes harm to the general population?
Getting a free iPad each year doesn’t cause long term harm, so of course it will be popular.
If we grant your hypothetical (that it causes widespread harm to a “vast majority” of Americans), then the program won’t be popular after it’s enacted.
You are contradicting yourself. Either the harm will be limited to a minority (with the majority seeing a benefit or having a neutral return) and the law should be kept. Or the harm will be widespread and the program can’t possibly be popular. ETA: Or the “harm” will be a minor amount to a vast number of people, a la Social Security, who see direct and ancillary benefits in the long term.
Again, fund it or repeal it. The time to fight implementation of the law was before it was enacted.
In one post you implied that if Republicans win a majority in both houses, ACA will be defunded. Then you said it’s impossible to repeal.
These can be true only if you are making a fine, meaningless distinction between repealing and defunding a law.
Cite? Your iPad analogy is baseless nonsense. You are insinuating that the electorate is incapable of realizing the difference between the rational and the irrational - and they will grasp at any bauble thrown their way as a permanent right. Do you really believe that this program would be difficult to repeal? Citizens do have a basic concept of what the tax money is used for.
It doesn’t?
Would you be in support of such a program?
Hint: It would be ruinously expensive. But people would like it because they would get iPads.
Your basic problem here is that you are assuming people are logical. They often aren’t. I’m glad you brought up social security. It’s a perfect example. It’s terribly conceived program. If it were designed well it would invest the money it takes in and then pay it out once it grew, the same way private sector investments work. That would make everyone involved in it rich. But instead, the impatient government set it up to immediately pay out what it takes in and pays on generation to the next. This ponzi scheme setup is a bad design in many ways. Yet people aren’t willing to change it because the ones collecting benefits are terrified of any change to the check they get in the mail every month.
In the same way, it’s entirely possible for Obamacare to simultaneously be very bad for most Americans yet impossible to repeal because people like free stuff.
I don’t know how you misread my posts but I don’t know where you are getting that from my posts that you quoted. I said that if the Democrats win a majority in both houses then ACA will be funded. I’m not sure how you are inverting that. But yes, I’m saying that once the benefits of it kick in it will be difficult if not impossible to repeal.
The distinction between funding something and repealing it is far from meaningless. It’s the crux of the debate.