Obamacare can be defunded without Senate approval

[Maggie123]

I've never understood this "acceptance" by the citizenry, and by Congress, of attaching so much "pork" and special-interest funding to certain primary bills.   Because of lobbying, and the mistaken sense of "efficiency" by "bundling"... this convolution just makes clarity impossible.   I call it lazy politics!  Congress needs to work harder and later... if it takes 100 bills, instead of one, so be it!   I believe all bills should be stand-alone.   How about a bill to force all bills to be stand-alone?!!!

 

Great Point Jax! I have been shaking my head about this for along time. That would be an excellent bill.

 

How about another one to kick lobbying out of Washington DC?

Edited October 4, 2013 by Maggie123

[DiveDeepSix]

 

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

 

Great post buddy, hope ya don't mind but I'm going to put this info on another post too!!! 

[jonjon]

 

 

 

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

 

Who Shut Down the Government?  

Thomas Sowell | Oct 04, 2013

[tigerstripes]

Well, I am one of those people who could not get insurance. Now I can YEA! oh wait I cant afford it... Dang Im in the same position. WHAT ABOUT THAT DONT YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!!!! IT IS NOT AFFORDABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Without knowing your particular case it's a little hard for me to comment on your situation.

 

Have you been onto the exchange to see what plans are available.

 

Looking at your location I see you are in Texas.

 

Perhaps this is a part of the problem.

[tigerstripes]

Different issues TIg.

 

ACA is not a moral issue, having health insurance is NOT a right!!  Why should taxpayers have to pay for someone's lousy lifestyle choices and their choice not to buy insurance?  We shouldn't have to and we won't.

 

Well then, we disagree.

I think the healthcare is a moral issue.

 

I think that in a developed, civilized society, access to healthcare is a right.  A healthy society is a prosperous society.

 

This is where we differ.  You say that health insurance is not a right.

I cannot get my head around that thinking.  In developed society, surely people have a right to access healthcare.

 

And by the way - you already do pay for people who don't have insurance.  Who do you think pays when somebody with no insurance goes to an emergeny room for treatment and then can't afford to pay for that treatment?

 

What about people who previously wanted to get insurance and couldn't because of a pre-existing condition?

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly, nobody seems to be willing to say who they would blame for the government shut down in my hypothetical scenario.

 

Exactly right, and it's not that people wouldn't be for healthcare for all if we could actually afford it, but we can't.

 

Again, have you been on to the exchange to see what is available?

[DinarDiva007]

Without knowing your particular case it's a little hard for me to comment on your situation.

 

Have you been onto the exchange to see what plans are available.

 

Looking at your location I see you are in Texas.

 

Perhaps this is a part of the problem.

 

 

You are very naive'   I am a health insurance agent... of course I have been to the exchange. Rates are going up 2-3 times of what they were. That's the problem it sounds great YEA lets give everyone health insurance! Who's gonna pay for it?

 

Lets all hold hands and sing ku-ba-ya and get unicorns and health insurance. Sounds good but it doesn't work.

 

Since this is a federal issue I do not think being in TX has anything to do with it.

 

What is it with the blame game? Who cares who shut what down, I am glad they are making a stand and I hope they do not back down.

Edited October 4, 2013 by DinarDiva007

[DiveDeepSix]

 

Different issues TIg.

 

ACA is not a moral issue, having health insurance is NOT a right!!  Why should taxpayers have to pay for someone's lousy lifestyle choices and their choice not to buy insurance?  We shouldn't have to and we won't.

 

Well then, we disagree.

I think the healthcare is a moral issue.

 

I think that in a developed, civilized society, access to healthcare is a right.  A healthy society is a prosperous society.

 

This is where we differ.  You say that health insurance is not a right.

I cannot get my head around that thinking.  In developed society, surely people have a right to access healthcare.

 

And by the way - you already do pay for people who don't have insurance.  Who do you think pays when somebody with no insurance goes to an emergeny room for treatment and then can't afford to pay for that treatment?

 

What about people who previously wanted to get insurance and couldn't because of a pre-existing condition?

 

 

 

 

 

Interestingly, nobody seems to be willing to say who they would blame for the government shut down in my hypothetical scenario.

 

Exactly right, and it's not that people wouldn't be for healthcare for all if we could actually afford it, but we can't.

 

Again, have you been on to the exchange to see what is available?

 

TIg, go back and re-read what I said a few posts back....................I agree it would be great if everyone could have healthcare, BUT we CAN NOT afford it.  This plan is a trainwreck that will destroy America.  The libs are screaming well something is better then nothing..........Not in this case it's not.  I can't believe anyone would be for this crap after knowing the idiots in office who put it together and rammed it down our throats won't be using it, why?  Because it sucks, it won't work, the quality of care will suck, and it's going to implode, there is no money to fund it.  It's not a right it's a choice.  In a perfect world it would be great but the world isn't perfect and never will be for the liberals, the rest of us just make do and do the best we can...........we seemed to get along just fine before this garbage got rammed down our throats!!

[tigerstripes]

TIg, go back and re-read what I said a few posts back....................I agree it would be great if everyone could have healthcare, BUT we CAN NOT afford it.  This plan is a trainwreck that will destroy America.  The libs are screaming well something is better then nothing..........Not in this case it's not.  I can't believe anyone would be for this crap after knowing the idiots in office who put it together and rammed it down our throats won't be using it, why?  Because it sucks, it won't work, the quality of care will suck, and it's going to implode, there is no money to fund it.  It's not a right it's a choice.  In a perfect world it would be great but the world isn't perfect and never will be for the liberals, the rest of us just make do and do the best we can...........we seemed to get along just fine before this garbage got rammed down our throats!!

 

For the first nine tenths of your post, I will simply presume that you have all of the evidence at hand, and will present shortly, to validate what you say.

 

I would, however, question why it is that the rest of the developed world can provide affordable health care for it's citizens, but the USA can't.

 

As for your last sentence, if you think everybody in the USA has been doing just fine with health care - I would respectfully suggest that you are wrong.

[DinarMillionaire]

For the first nine tenths of your post, I will simply presume that you have all of the evidence at hand, and will present shortly, to validate what you say.

 

I would, however, question why it is that the rest of the developed world can provide affordable health care for it's citizens, but the USA can't.

 

As for your last sentence, if you think everybody in the USA has been doing just fine with health care - I would respectfully suggest that you are wrong.

Tig, let me ask a couple of straight questions, I hope to get a straight answer.

If Obamacare is so damn great, why did Congress exclude themselves from such a great healthcare? Why have so many waivers been handed out by the Dems to political friends?

[tigerstripes]

Tig, let me ask a couple of straight questions, I hope to get a straight answer.

If Obamacare is so damn great, why did Congress exclude themselves from such a great healthcare? Why have so many waivers been handed out by the Dems to political friends?

Okay,

 

My straight answer is this.

Congress does not have to purchase insurance from the exchanges.  Neither does anybody else.  The only change with regard to Congress that I am aware of was that initially, they were going to be forced to buy through the exchange.  Now they're not.

 

The exchanges were not intended to replace employer provided insurance.  Even without the silly requirement for them to purchase insurance through the exchanges, they would still not be exempt from any measures in the ACA.

 

In fact, as with all Federal employees, members of Congress were already compliant with the individual mandate as they receive employer-provided insurance that satisfies the requirements of the ACA.

 

The State Exchanges wre a conservative idea offered in opposition to a couple of more liberal ideas, and accepted as a compromise to get the thing passed.  They are intended for people who have to shop for their own insurance as opposed to getting insurance through their employer.  the idea being that it will spread the risk out more, somewhat similar to how group insurance works for large employers.  They are for people who's employers don't provide insurance, the self employed and a few other even rarer cases.

 

They were never intended to replace employer-provided insurance, so to suggest that Congress is somehow exempting itself from the requirements of the ACA by not requiring them to buy insurance on these exchanges is nonsensical.

 

 

My non-straight answer would be - "Why do you think members of Congress are exempt from the ACA?"

 

 

 

As for the waivers handed out to political friends - could you cite some examples.  If I can explain them I will happily do so.

[FlintNPebbles]

I have absolutely no love for ACA...I do feel that everyone has the right to affordable health care (well citizens of our nation anyway) but I do not feel that this healthcare bill is the right one. I don't see anyone in Congress, neither the Senate nor the House, coming up with something different. 

 

As far as hoping things stay the way are until the ACA is not funded....that is not an answer. Don't care if the government stays shut down?? How about when we default on our loans? What happens then. There can be absolutely nothing good about defaulting. It is not a simple matter of some government workers not getting paid. If that was the case....then please keep it going until the budget gets passed and a healthcare bills is passed that is good for the country.  The matter of the debt ceiling is not the same as a budget.  It should certainly cause the Congress to step back and rethink a lot of the bills and programs that are being passed and funded but a budget issue should not put our country at risk.

 

Can you tell me where to find the figures on this statement:

 

"Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt."

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/162556-obamacare-can-be-defunded-without-senate-approval/page-2#ixzz2goUwY4oC

 

 

 

 

[tigerstripes]

I have absolutely no love for ACA...I do feel that everyone has the right to affordable health care (well citizens of our nation anyway) but I do not feel that this healthcare bill is the right one. I don't see anyone in Congress, neither the Senate nor the House, coming up with something different. 

 

As far as hoping things stay the way are until the ACA is not funded....that is not an answer. Don't care if the government stays shut down?? How about when we default on our loans? What happens then. There can be absolutely nothing good about defaulting. It is not a simple matter of some government workers not getting paid. If that was the case....then please keep it going until the budget gets passed and a healthcare bills is passed that is good for the country.  The matter of the debt ceiling is not the same as a budget.  It should certainly cause the Congress to step back and rethink a lot of the bills and programs that are being passed and funded but a budget issue should not put our country at risk.

 

And that is what makes me angry about the stance that the Republicans are taking.

They don't have any plan to replace the ACA with anything.

In fact, the ACA was the Republican plan.  It was the compromise reached when the Republicans wouldn't accept the Democrat plan of a single payer "UHC" system.  It is based largely on a plan devised by the Heritage Foundation.  It is the same as the healthcare plan in Massachusetts (called RomneyCare).

 

The ACA was the compromise deal reached.  It is far from perfect, but it is what is left from the negotiations.

 

The Republicans essentially got "their" plan.  But now, because it's been enacted by a Democrat President, it's ceased to be good.

 

So, what's their plan?  What are they going to replace the ACA with.  Or is it just back to the way it was.  Ridiculously high healthcare costs compared to the rest of the developed world and millions unable to get insurance?

 

 

The problem with the way the Republicans are behaving now - by refusing to pass the CR without the de-funding of the ACA clause, is that it potentially leads to a bigger problem with the debt ceiling - as you rightly point out.

 

If the Democrats agree to the Republican's demands now - what's to stop them doing the same thing in a couple of weeks when the debt ceiling has to be raised?

 

The consequences of not raising the debt ceiling could be catastrophic.  The US economy and indeed the world economy really, really doesn't need that right now.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Markinsa
Fixed Quote Box