Yuratuhl wrote:
Alright, here we go.
The ACA will be (and is) funded and operational regardless of whether the federal government is funded. It passed years ago, withstood constitutional challenge, and survived dozens of targeted efforts to repeal it before becoming fully instated.
I don't dispute that.
Yuratuhl wrote:
Whether it works or not is clearly not tied to the funding of the federal government.
It's going to fail on its own merits, but that's not going to happen in the first few months. Since I'm trying to be fair about it, I'd also acknowledge that I'm no fan of the people who are giddily pointing out problems with the implementation in the first few days. It's a huge program, and even with responsible planning there were going to be some issues to address.
Yuratuhl wrote:
It has no business being attached to the budget.
I'm going to disagree with you on this. The ACA was passed using budget procedures, namely reconciliation, and as such should be subject to being altered and/or repealed using those same methods/procedures.
Yuratuhl wrote:
The attempt to defund it has zero effect on the rest of the federal budget because spoilers, the money for it is already there.
The money may be there for the ACA, but there isn't a budget for anything, and there hasn't been for several years because Senator Reid hasn't gotten a budget out of his chamber in years. In some years this was due to his avoiding the budget because he didn't want members of his party to have to answer for their votes during their re-election bids. The republicans have policy goals just like the democrats do. One of those goals is defunding the ACA. The only mechanism they have at the moment is the budget, and they're using it to full effect.
Yuratuhl wrote:
This isn't a budgetary concern, it's simple vindictiveness. And while you (and certain Republican congressmen) claim that the ACA is this unpopular monolith, it's pretty obvious to anyone who has signed up/tried to sign up that it's so popular the servers are down. This is, to use Aestu's favorite term, the basest cognitive dissonance. It's also dereliction of duty.
I'll agree that it's not a budget concern. I won't agree that it's "vindictiveness," and I'd suggest you're not looking at the situation objectively if you really believe that. There are numerous problems with the ACA that are already evident. A lot of people are trying to access the servers for the exchanges, but they're under an obligation to do so because of the individual mandate. People complying with the law isn't a measure of popularity. The servers being flooded shouldn't be surprising among us, either, because we all know what happens to servers on the first few days of a new release or expansion.
Yuratuhl wrote:
For all of Harry Reid's flaws (and they are numerous), he's doing something right for once. The ACA defunding has no business riding on the congressional appropriations authorization for governmental functions. There's nothing to meet halfway on, one side is just blatantly wrong.
Senator Reid is doing what the people who voted him into office want him to do. There's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with Boehner doing the same. My complaints about Reid have many been a reflection of the complaints some of you were making about Boehner. I was hoping you'd see the parallel. There are plenty of compromises that could be made that republicans would be hard-pressed to reject, some of which would strengthen the law, and I'm still baffled at why removing the congressional subsidy and extending President Obama's exemptions to everyone was such a onerous, evil idea.
Yuratuhl wrote:
It's okay though. I'm already seeing and hearing more and more conservatives switch away from "Obamacare" language in favor of the more neutral "ACA." In 10 years, when everyone's happily covered and enjoying the ability to not die, you clowns will be saying this was your idea from the start.
I've been using ACA instead of Obamacare for a long time just to be accurate. There isn't a law called "Obamacare." I may rethink how I address it, however, since a lot of polls show that calling it "Obamacare" polls worse than calling it "Affordable Care Act."
I still can't believe how people fall the names of some of these laws. They could pass a law mandating that preschoolers have to break the necks of rabbits twice a day and people would support it if they called it "The Cute and Fluffy Bunny Act."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still have a few questions about the situation, if you guys could clue me in to the thinking motivating "your side:"
1) If the ACA is "the law," and republicans shouldn't be able to change it or repeal it, why is OK for President Obama to undermine the law by granting exemptions? Should the ACA fully take effect or not?
2) If the ACA is "the law," and republicans shouldn't be able to change it or repeal it, isn't the Debt Ceiling (or any other onerous/unpopular law) also the law, and if so why should that be changed or repealed?
I think I have some other questions, but I have to go to work. I'll talk to you hosers later.
Your Pal,
Jubber