Amazon.com Widgets

Is shutting down the government a fair tactic to use to defund Obamacare?

Asked by: blue_charles
  • Both sides agree to shutdown

    I just wish there could be more honesty here. A few points:
    - both sides must agree to shut down the government. Either side could decide that government is more important than Obamacare. But let's be clear here: The Senate and Obama are also deciding that Obamacare is more important than the rest of the government.
    - The defunding does not change any laws. If Obamacare were just a law, the House could not change it like this. What this CR shows is that Obamacare is indeed a new welfare: Without money, you don't have Obamacare.
    - The House of Representative IS congress. This idea that congress does not have the right to change what congress does, is an attack on democracy itself.
    - Let's quit talking about Democrats and Republicans, let's talk Americans and Americans. When Obama says he won't negotiate with my elected representatives, he is saying that he is not interested in what I want. That's a dictator, not the representative of we the people.

  • YES it is.

    Of course it is, if you refuse to stop spending money and your wife finally puts down her foot and says no more sex until we come to an agreement to get our house in order; is that fair? Of course it is! It would suck but it would be fair. When 2 parties have to live together in harmony and have polarizing views each member should use what tools they have to find middle ground. In this case democrats have been warned for years and they absolutely refuse to work with republicans. So republicans have to use whatever tools they can to get the attention they need to get back on track. Just because there is a Democrat President doesn't mean only democrat law is rule of the land, this is America.

  • This whole defunding scheme is a cheap Democrat fundraising trick

    The media is leading you down the primrose path. This whole manipulation of the nonthinking voter is merely an effort by the Democrats to support their next election disaster. After all, It worked for Slick Willie, the man who lied under oath and had his law license revoked for a while. The media was awful quiet on that one (the loss of the law license, not the oath part) , wasn't it. Yep, demonize the Republicans, to make the corrupt Democrats look like the lesser of two evils. What ever happened to those statements made by Sen Tom Harkins. About soldiers being murderers. Just quietly swept under the rug of time by a media that has no memory. That is the best thing about the new electronic media, it has no memory. All references just disappear.

  • That's an unfair question...

    The question intrinsically assumes that the Government was shut down to defund the Affordable Care Act.
    The government was shut down because there is a lack of consensus over the spending bill, at the core of which is funding for the ACA.

    House GOP leaders have reduced their proposal to delay the individual mandate by 1 year.
    That's not unreasonable, because the website that allows people to sign up is fundamentally broken.
    According to the news-bulletin for healthcare.Gov, it will take 6 months to repair the web-service.
    In LESS than 6 months, every person in America must either have insurance or pay the penalty.

    How can you force someone to sign up under threat of penalty, if the method for signing up won't be accessible until AFTER the penalty is imposed?
    Clearly, the individual mandate must be delayed until (at the very least), the web-service is functional.

  • The democrats are the ones shutting it fdown

    "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. If Reid and President Barack 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."-Thomas Sowell, Stanford Economist

  • It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise

    "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. If Reid and President Barack 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."-Thomas Sowell, Economist at Stanford

  • Republicans are Terrorists

    There is no reason why my mother, a devout Republican who has voted Conservative her whole life, should be furloughed and my family made to financially suffer just because her party disagrees with Obamacare. The Republican party is and always has been a disgusting party, devoid of morals and full of deceitful, crippling tactics. This abhorrent band of terrorists should not only be denied to meddle with American lives but should be brought to justice and made to stand trial by the same procedure and finalistic verdicts as the Nuremberg trials.

  • Republicans Are at it Again

    Republicans are yet again showing why the nation has been rejecting them at the poles. They couldn't make President Obama a one-term president. They couldn't impeach President Obama over the IRS scandal. Now they want to defund a law that will help millions of uninsured Americans get health coverage. Where is the sense in the tactic?

  • The House was designed to be a majoritarian institution

    The House is the cause of this problem; tea party republicans in the House, more precisely. The ultimate problem is that Republicans are looking to the 2014 midterms and worrying about losing their districts to further right Republican candidates. As a result, they are less likely to compromise with Democrats. This is a clear case of the tragedy of the commons thesis: what is individually rational (republican congressman voting to save his district from primary competition) is irrational at the national level (because of him worrying about losing his district, we all suffer). The House was designed to be a majoritarian institution, this is why states have representation by population, unlike the Senate. Currently there are enough Dems and Republicans who would vote for a clean CR, but the Speaker won't allow it because he is caving into the desires of a select few.

  • It should not be legal

    There are only 2 ways to affect a law already in affect: vote it out of existence, or make a new law that cancels it out. This is neither of those options and they are basically holding the government and the american people for ransom. This should not be constitutional at all.

  • Republicans do not believe in Democracy

    To your first point: I think Obama and the Democrats understand that this is bigger than the ACA. If one minority of one party can hold the government hostage to get what they want then we have a broken system. What's to prevent it from happening over and over again, every time the debt ceiling is raised or a government funding bill needs passing. That is rule by the minority, not the majority. That is not democracy.
    To the second point: All laws require money. Could any of them be enforced without paying the enforcers? Even laws without the need for enforcers still need money to implement.
    To the third: Your right, the house has a right to have it's voice heard, but it still needs to accept the results of a vote. The Senate rejected the original house version with a regular vote. Lets have a vote in the house now on the senate's clean version. No? Why not? Because you won't get your way? Well. That democracy.

  • It isnt fair

    We have to recognize that Obamacare is now a law, and trying to get it repealed by shutting down the government is not proper. But one of the claims by proponents of the law is that it would save the government money. This gives me an idea for a deal (which I humbly call the Morgan Compromise), which the Speaker can propose to the President:
    Give Obamacare a one year “trial”. If it does not reduce the deficit, or at least break even, then the President has to agree to repeal it or at least engage in talks to make significant changes. After a year, it will be obvious which parts of the bill are not working, so these talks will have a good chance of being productive.
    Meanwhile, Congress will:
    1. Let the “clean” CR go to a vote in the House. It will be approved, which will reopen the government.
    2. Negotiate a higher debt ceiling before Oct 17, so the United States does not default on its loans.

  • Not a proper tactic

    We have to recognize that Obamacare is now a law, and trying to get it repealed by shutting down the government is not proper. But one of the claims by proponents of the law is that it would save the government money. This gives me an idea for a deal (which I humbly call the Morgan Compromise), which the Speaker can propose to the President:
    Give Obamacare a one year “trial”. If it does not reduce the deficit, or at least break even, then the President has to agree to repeal it or at least engage in talks to make significant changes. After a year, it will be obvious which parts of the bill are not working, so these talks will have a good chance of being productive.
    Meanwhile, Congress will:
    1. Let the “clean” CR go to a vote in the House. It will be approved, which will reopen the government.
    2. Negotiate a higher debt ceiling before Oct 17, so the United States does not default on its loans.

  • I do no

    This is so stupid oh my god why do you think so? I'm a rapper I'll give you the clapper, All the ladies will think I'm a whipper napper. BOOM! There goes the dynamite, That's what I said bunny bread. GET ON MY LEVEL!!! Hahahaha you can't, Im a DOCTOR

    Posted by: TSA5
  • No logic for the Americans

    I am by no means an expert on these matters - but:

    Shutting down the government for any reason isn't justified. Think if all these people who are (or were) not being paid, cancelling plans, stopping routines, etc...

    If the reason the Republicans are against "Obamacare" is because they consider it damaging to Americans; why the Hell would you *damage Americans* to try and stop the thing that's (apparently) damaging Americans?

    Maybe it's just Republican logic...

  • Too many people are hurting due to government shutdown for it to be justified.

    The republican party has disgraced itself in these past few weeks in its stark opposition to a law that has already been passed. I can understand ideological opposition to a law, but we passed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2009. It's time to throw in the towel; the republicans aren't winning any ground in their actions.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.