# what do the Republicans have to negotiate with? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 9, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768 "2013-10-09T13:47:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/521 "2013-10-16T18:10:03Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > > [@Bone](#): > > > > People are required to purchase insurance if they are alive. They can avoid this by dying. > > Can we just extend the list a bit? > > They can avoid purchasing insurance by: > > - Dying > - Moving to another country > - Paying a $95 tax penalty The middle option is asinine. The assumption is what happens in the U.S. But let me help you. Millions of people do not buy auto insurance and pay no tax or penalty. That is now NOT the case with health insurance. If you think your point is correct, can you supply an apt analogy with anything else that people have the option of buying. I’m going to go out on a limb and say No, you can’t. Welcome to Obama’s America. Unless, of course, you can come with an analogy that is actually apt. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/522 "2013-10-16T18:11:23Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yes, it does. As in > > “If the amount of advance credit payments you get for the year is less than the tax credit you’re due, you’ll get the difference as a refundable credit when you file your federal income tax return.” > > If you choose not to get any “advance credit payments” then at the end of the year you get a lump sum payment of the whole handout. Payable to you. From the federal government. You really gotta learn how to read your cites. Ah, I see where the disconnect is. You think a “tax credit” is the same as a “lump sum” How adorable. And wrong. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/523 "2013-10-16T18:13:08Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yes, it does. As in > > “If the amount of advance credit payments you get for the year is less than the tax credit you’re due, you’ll get the difference as a refundable credit when you file your federal income tax return.” > > If you choose not to get any “advance credit payments” then at the end of the year you get a lump sum payment of the whole handout. Payable to you. From the federal government. You really gotta learn how to read your cites. If I may, I _think_ you two are talking past each other. It seems that the tax credit will be issued and IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER TAX LIABILITIES to offset it, you would receive a check for that amount. If you do, you won’t. That’s how I read it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/524 "2013-10-16T18:14:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > And yet the complaint about voter ID is that people don’t have driver’s licenses because they don’t drive. A model of consistency. > > Many people do not own vehicles and rely on public transportation. Those people do not have auto insurance. Rolleyes right back at you. Well the people who do not age or get sick or have accidents SHOULD be able to not buy health insurance, dammit! Would you perchance have a count? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/525 "2013-10-16T18:15:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes, we don’t know all this for sure. From what I’ve read, the savings will be greater than the extra expenditures. But we’ll see. And even that will be hard to tell, considering that other factors are in play that could raise and lower health care prices. That’s right. And other unknown is the the degree to which the previously uninsured will access healthcare beyond what they did prior to not having insurance. There really are some big, fat unknowns. So, we can’t just say, this is a cheaper route, writ large. That was my only point. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/526 "2013-10-16T18:16:35Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Well the people who do not age or get sick or have accidents SHOULD be able to not buy health insurance, dammit! Would you perchance have a count? That’s not the point, as I think you now realize. So do you agree that the auto insurance analogy is inapt or not? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/527 "2013-10-16T18:18:46Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > The middle option is asinine. The assumption is what happens in the U.S. > > But let me help you. Millions of people do not buy auto insurance and pay no tax or penalty. That is now NOT the case with health insurance. > > If you think your point is correct, can you supply an apt analogy with anything else that people have the option of buying. I’m going to go out on a limb and say No, you can’t. Welcome to Obama’s America. Unless, of course, you can come with an analogy that is actually apt. One can function perfectly well without owning a car or buying car insurance. But it is nearly impossible for someone to live without requiring medical care at some point. They can either take responsibility and buy the insurance, be rich enough to be self insuring, or be freeloaders and let the rest of us pick up the tab when they inevitably visit the ER. Since we don’t let anyone die for lack of means to pay for their ER visit, we are perfectly within our rights to insist that freeloaders stop expecting a free lunch. The individual mandate violates nobody’s rights. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/528 "2013-10-16T18:18:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If I may, I _think_ you two are talking past each other. It seems that the tax credit will be issued and IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER TAX LIABILITIES to offset it, you would receive a check for that amount. If you do, you won’t. That’s how I read it anyway. No where does it say you will get a check. It says the subsidy will be paid as a tax credit. Any other inference is unsupported. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/529 "2013-10-16T18:19:51Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Ah, I see where the disconnect is. You think a “tax credit” is the same as a “lump sum” How adorable. And wrong. Yes, it is. It is the whole amount of all the handout for the year, paid in one payment. As in “lump sum”. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/530 "2013-10-16T18:21:01Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If I may, I _think_ you two are talking past each other. It seems that the tax credit will be issued and IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER TAX LIABILITIES to offset it, you would receive a check for that amount. If you do, you won’t. That’s how I read it anyway. Whether you receive a check for it or it offsets your other tax liabilities, it is still a payment to you. A lump sum one. From the federal government. AKA the handout. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/531 "2013-10-16T18:21:17Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No where does it say you will get a check. It says the subsidy will be paid as a tax credit. Any other inference is unsupported. How do you receive your tax credits? I get mine in the form of a check. Sometimes direct deposit. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/532 "2013-10-16T18:25:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No. Both breaking someone’s legs and killing their wives is illegal. What are the Reps doing that is illegal. Answer: nothing. Way to completely miss the point. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Also, let’s not forget the Republican success in the House in 2010. Yeah. Except that that had nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with people realizing that Obama was a politician rather than a visionary. But it doesn’t _matter_, because to repeal a law, you need to pass a law, and democrats are not on board for that. > [@](#): > > But they didn’t. They asked for I don’t think you get it. I don’t give _two shits_ what they asked for. I literally do not give two shits. If someone offered to change their demands to something less stupid, I would literally not give that person two lumps of shit for that. They could have held the government hostage with the demand that each congressional meeting start with a public viewing of the day’s “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic” episode and I would be opposed to it (even though it would almost certainly make congress a more interesting place). It’s _not about the demands_. It’s about the methods. > [@](#): > > a year’s delay on the mandate And for all intents and purposes, they might as well ask for a fucking space elevator, because that is never going to happen, and suspending the individual mandate without suspending the other parts of Obamacare destroys health insurance in America. If you’re interested in understanding why, check out the links above about the three-legged stool. But most republicans can’t grasp this really simple idea: if we increase the risk pool significantly without offsetting it by making everyone buy in, _we end up with insurance that is expensive to the point of useless_. > [@](#): > > You might want to say that’s as unreasonable as insisting on impeachment proceedings Because it is. Demanding the delay the individual mandate is at least close to as unreasonable as insisting on impeachment proceedings. It completely cripples the landmark achievement of the administration and turns the bill into poison for the health care industry, and there is _no excuse_ for republicans in congress not to understand that at this point. Which makes me wonder why they demand it in the first place. Probably because they _do_ understand it, and they probably understand that if they can force this, they can make the bill look incredibly bad. But you know what? You’re _still missing the point_. Because it doesn’t matter what they demand; the objectionable thing is first and foremost _how they are demanding it_ - by holding the full faith and credit of the USA hostage, and by shutting down the government. As said above, it _does not matter what their demands are_. That their demands are utterly unreasonable, and it’s officially too dumb to chalk up to anything other than malice, is just the icing on the cake. > [@](#): > > Not sure what you’re asking. How would _what_ work? My point is that telling one party to go fuck themselves and we don’t care if even one of you votes for this 1. There were _170_ republican amendments to the PPACA that made it into the final bill. The democrats bent and bent and bent trying to get _any_ republican support. But the problem is, the republican party wasn’t interested. But to try to use this partisan lineup as an excuse is ridiculous. “Backlash” would be the republicans playing hardball, trying to hold off on passing things the president wants. Not the republicans shutting down the government and putting the USA at risk of default unless they get their way. The former is reasonable and rational, the latter is _completely insane_ and utterly unreasonable. > [@](#): > > So, you admit that there is, at the very least, a loophole in which they are operating. I assume you view activities that operate within loopholes to be legal and within the rules. Correct? Yes. But that loophole is destroying American democracy. The fact that both houses of congress and the president need to agree for the state to continue functioning is okay right up until someone says “no”, at which point the whole house of cards falls apart. American government is _defunct_. It is broken. There is no way to fix it beyond plugging these loopholes. If you are defending the republicans using these loopholes, you are advocating the end of democracy or the end of government in the United States of America. There is no way around this conclusion. > [@](#): > > What they’re supposed to do is negotiate to the point that they _do_ get some bipartisan support. That’s good governance. And there is no way to give them bipartisan support when they’ve taken hostages. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. We saw this in 2011, where the republicans got exactly what they wanted from exactly this kind of hostage situation over the debt ceiling, and the democrats got nothing but the continued full faith and credit of the USA… Which is something the republicans wanted too. It’s like if your roommate threatens to burn your shared living accommodation to the ground in some bizarre land where such things are legal. It’s not a compromise if you get to keep your room and he gets to keep your CD player. > [@](#): > > Not only is it good for the governing bodies for future legislation, The sheer unmitigated stupidity of this statement really left me gobsmacked for a while. I’m sorry, setting up a precedent where one party can tell the other “do what I say or I blow up the economy” is _good_ for the governing bodies of future legislation? What fucking color is the sky in the universe you live in? > [@](#): > > but it means that the final bill is not just one side imposing its will on the other. Do you even understand how democracy fucking works? > [@](#): > > When you have at least some support from the other side, both sides _own_ it. That’s a good thing. But you’re _never_ going to get support from republicans for any such social health care reform, regardless of how sensible it is. And that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? > [@](#): > > Granting the exemption for one year would have been reasonable, due to all the other exemptions Obama has handed out. _No_, and if you say this again, I will call you a liar and be _justified_, because I have explained to you why this is not the case, and the only reason you would repeat it is because you are _lying_. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > That’s pretty well documented.[one citation.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/robert-draper-anti-obama-campaign_n_1452899.html) Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/533 "2013-10-16T18:26:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > One can function perfectly well without owning a car or buying car insurance. But it is nearly impossible for someone to live without requiring medical care at some point. They can either take responsibility and buy the insurance, be rich enough to be self insuring, or be freeloaders and let the rest of us pick up the tab when they inevitably visit the ER. Since we don’t let anyone die for lack of means to pay for their ER visit, we are perfectly within our rights to insist that freeloaders stop expecting a free lunch. The individual mandate violates nobody’s rights. Let’s say you are correct in this. (All except the last line anyway.) The point, which you seem to agree with is that the auto insurance analogy does not work. Do you agree with the one point or not? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/534 "2013-10-16T18:27:47Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No where does it say you will get a check. It says the subsidy will be paid as a tax credit. Any other inference is unsupported. As I said, that’s my take, too. I’m agreeing with you. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/535 "2013-10-16T18:36:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > People are required to have auto insurance as a condition of driving on public roads. They can avoid this by not driving on public roads. As you know, that is not an option for many, even most, people. > [@](#): > > People are required to purchase insurance if they are alive. They can avoid this by dying. And decrease the surplus population? We’ve already tried living that way. We’ve outgrown it. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/536 "2013-10-16T18:36:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let’s say you are correct in this. (All except the last line anyway.) The point, which you seem to agree with is that the auto insurance analogy does not work. Do you agree with the one point or not? Sort of but perhaps not to your liking. I will agree that one does not have to buy car insurance if one can positively prevent needing it (by not owning a car or driving), but one cannot avoid the need for health insurance (well, maybe the Bionic Man could) because our parts eventually wear out and require servicing. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/537 "2013-10-16T18:45:52Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s not the point, as I think you now realize. So do you agree that the auto insurance analogy is inapt or not? I was saying it was NOT apt, because EVERYONE might need health insurance at some time or another. EVERYONE ages, you don’t have a single fucking choice about it. ANYONE can get in an accident at any time. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/538 "2013-10-16T18:46:44Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > …EVERYONE ages, you don’t have a single fucking choice about it… Well, there is that one option. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/539 "2013-10-16T18:52:58Z")
“Live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse.” - James Dean I’m out, on all three counts. How about you? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/540 "2013-10-16T19:02:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, there is that one option. The ultimate opt out!:eek: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768.md?page=28)