However, I still disagree. To me this still sounds like rationalization of an unreasonable demand to defund Obamacare. The House has attempted 41 times to repeal Obamacare, and to my (admittedly limited) knowledge made no serious attempt to remedy the law.

There are so many things wrong with this law, including the premise it provides healthcare when it only provides insurance for a few more people, it is almost unfix-able. This is frustrated in how it was passed and how the supreme court reinterpreted the law in order to keep it constitutional. Now we have the administration making changes to it 17 times through executive order, some of which appears to be completely unconstitutional and at least one state is suing over- one change provides special privileges.

I look at our country, with our unreasonably high costs of medical care, and the fact that the ACA isn't that much different from Republican plans in the past, and can only conclude that Obama's plan isn't great but better than watching Americans go bankrupt because they got sick. I realize there are huge devils in a sea of details but remain optimistic that we can make lives better.

There are a few flaws in this line of reasoning. First, the ACA does nothing to reduce the costs of health care and actually increases the costs of medical devices that might be needed to provide healthcare with a medical device tax. What it does do is decrease the payouts for medicaid and medicare which the medical providers will need to supplement from increased costs to insured patients.

The reason for the high costs of medical care in the first place is because we half assed medicare back in 1965. Congress almost had a heart attach after finding out how much they were spending so they passed the HMO act in 1968 which gave authority of medical care to semi-trained officer clerks and secretaries. They did this in an attempt to control what was being spent by medicare at the time. Not only did the HMO's control the quality of care for the elderly, they also chose the spending levels.

Well, this didn't exactly have the right outcome so the government instituted an average payment schedule and a series of tests to determine if a procedure or specific treatment was needed or not. With this average, the US was divided into 5 specific economic regions and medical procedure costs were collected and averaged over those regions. The government would only pay the average and made a law that if the providers couldn't go after the patient for the difference else they couldn't accept medicare or any government assistance. What this led to was an incentive to jack the costs up. Hirer costs means a higher average. The government then responded with only paying a percentage of the average which enticed the increasing of costs again just to break even with what they really wanted to charge. The Insurance companies had a fit so congress exempted their costs from the averages as they negotiate discounts not available to the general public. This once again, increased costs to the people who were not covered by insurance or a government aid program.

Second, the biggest problem with it looking similar to republican proposals of the past is that those proposals never became law. Comparing something that didn't become law to something that is regarded as bad law is a bit of a misnomer.

Third, the Obama plan doesn't really stop people from going bankrupt. The problem with bankruptcy is that you need a reason to file other then you went shopping to often. The biggest or easier reason to file is because you have a substantial loss of income which usually happens when you get large medical bills. The medical bills themselves isn't what bankrupts people, it is the loss of income a person has after spending months off the job. The affordable care act does nothing to remedy this.

Finally, and this probably should be construed as a counter point, there are some things in the ACA that are actually beneficial and helpful. the pre-existing condition clause is good, it could be tweaked a bit but good. The concept of a federal exchange where minimums on coverage can be set (most likely catastrophic coverage) and anyone in any state can purchase insurance across state lines with the change that it must warn of any deficiencies in coverage compared to what their state requires in state providers would be another. There are a few more but my brain is fogging over right now from watching to much anime. The problem is that they are so dependent on the terrible stuff that starting fresh for the most part is a lot easier then trying to fix a broken bridge. It is easier to replace a bridge almost no one uses then it is to replace one that is vital to the rush hour flow. That is why it is important to either get rid of it as soon as possible, or take the special exemptions out so it can fail as soon as possible.

As for the inflammatory half-truths spouted by prominent pundits, I have two things on this. First, most republicans or their intended audience already knows much of what is being said so they don't go into great details and instead sing to the choir. Second, someone has convinced those idiots that being like the democrats somehow wins people over to their side. Look at the beating Ted Cruz has gotten from the democrat senate on the floor and against senate rules if you don't understand that. Those pundits think being like that is somehow going to make them win or something. I don't understand it and think it is unnecessary but I can't stop anyone. I've even been guilty of it myself a few times when I get frustrated.

Right now, my biggest issue with the ACA is with this shutdown. Imagine if you will, another shut down in 10 years and the government decides paying medicaid or medicare coverage or the tax credits need to go the way the parks and memorials did. With any government in this much control of anything that impacts the people's lives this much, it is something to fear if you ask me. We already have had a park ranger state they were told to make it as painful as possible (he used other words to the same effect), and a supposedly senior white house official claim the they didn't care how long the government was shut down because they were winning. I can post links to those claims if you need them but a goolge search should show them.

They've reversed those policies as they weren't working. And you remember that power crisis California had a few years ago? It came about because it deregulated the power companies, and let them shut down operations for no reason, forcing California to buy power from out of state resources at premium rates.

Wrong..The rolling blackouts came because companies involved in supplying CA with energy were corruptly manipulating the markets. They decreased supply artificially in order to inflate prices causing a shortage that didn't exist. Enron was convicted of purposely flowing pipelines at half capacity claiming they were saving infrastructure costs. The deregulation allowed part of it to happen but it was only because of a partial deregulation that it could happen. Deregulation does not mean failure to enforce laws or carte blanche to defraud an entire state.

As for the leaving California for Texas, quite a few of the businesses are doing that and I'm sure quite a bit of the population is following. It might not be as much as the population replacements but it is happening.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-03/why-are-californias-businesses-disappearing

http://www.kcra.com/news/Two-dozen-companies-commit-to-leaving-California/-/11797728/18533954/-/ivlxudz/-/index.html

There are also several counties trying to secede from California. I guess the ultimate plan is to form a new state called Jefferson.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/26/california-counties-vote-secede-golden-state/

More like Nationality instead of race. However, Foreign nationals are not typically privileged to all aspects of US law.

Besides, a previous law cannot bar a future law from being passed if they are on the same legislative hierarchy (State verses state, federal verses federal). Only a constitutional amendment can do that and it is limited insofar as another constitutional amendment can undo it. The courts will likely ignore it.

Not really, the US spying and crap of more internal governmental information. The Chinese hackers are gathering and using this information to directly economically compete with us.

Interesting, so you decided that what you perceive as personal attacks are superior to arguing facts about what has been said. I guess no matter what you think of me or what I post, I can sleep comfortably knowing I am always a couple rungs higher then you.

I think you are confused a bit. The interstates were originally funded by taxes on fuel purchased. This tax money is now spent on other things as well so from time to time money from outside funds need to be allotted.

As for the speed, the federal government has absolutely no authority to pass a law concerning the speed limits. The interstates were turned over to the states during the construction and outside certain dimensions and load bearing requirements required for military use and interstate commerce (tanks and trucks baby), the only way the feds can require something is by withholding funding. Of course this gets even more difficult since the supreme court rules that the feds couldn't withhold existing funding based on a state's willingness to adopt or implement something, they would have to withhold additional funding to do so. They really were upset about Montana not having a specific speed limit for the longest of time. It wasn't until recently it was more then "reasonable and prudent". Kind of like the American autobahn.

Oh, the feds can regulate the speed limits of trucks engaged in interstate commerce to a degree. But that's more of an exception then a rule.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are clambering for one right now so a large powerful government doesn't seem to help a lot.

I would guess that Miley Cirus imitating porn on TV is doing more to calm the masses then the federal government could.

Planned or not is pretty important. What happens when the government controls your health care or your insurance company's ability to pay for it and another tantrum goes into effect. Will an administration restrict health care in order to get their point across and demonize those that disagree with them?

Law will not go away if the organization enforcing them does. It takes an act of congress to remove laws. To think they would automagically disappear with a smaller government is silly. All those agency regulations would remain without the agency. The difference is that Congress would have to actually pass laws concerning what they regulate instead of bucking it off to a political appointee under the control of only one branch of government.

Lol.. Last I heard, she was already upset over the shutdown causing her to tween less.

http://www.infowars.com/less-tweets-due-to-govt-shutdown-first-lady-tells-legion-of-fake-followers/

If refusing to fund it- to the point of shutting down the government creates action on it, then maybe so.

However, the government remains shut down largely due to Democrats refusing to take up individual spending bills and refusing to concede on very minor points in the law. The republicans have decreased their demands from de-funding it to removing the medical device tax which is also popular with a few democrats, to removing the special subsidy that Obama somehow created for congress and it's staff that the regular citizens don't get and paring the individual mandate with the exemption Obama gave to large businesses. They essentially want congress to live by the same means the people who use the exchange will have to and either delay the mandate for as long as the executive order allows Big business to ignore it, or force big business to play on the same terms as the citizens. The democrats are not being reasonable on this.

So if I adopt the "it is a stupid thing to do" approach, I would be hard pressed to claim those who started it remain the ones acting stupid if it is still a stupid thing. If I kept the "something needs to be done" approach, given the insistence to keep the law intact without any changes- even if it is simply applying it equally to big business, government, and citizens alike, it seems to be the only way.

He didn't misread, you are saying the same thing although you are saying more. The workers who work during the shutdown are by default considered essential as it is illegal and unconstitutional for them or the government to claim they are donating their time or the government to not compensate them for work done (unless it is a bona fide volunteer position established well before the shutdown and would most likely be non-essential).

The problem is that their paychecks will not be sent (deposited) out until funding is restored. So they are essentially working without pay if the shutdown lasts longer then the pay cycle and the pay is missed.

I understand that people need money, but I am completely against this bill, as it basically means that federal workers get a paid vacation while congress fights. We want federal workers to be afraid of losing money so they will lobby their representatives to get this fixed.

I understand what your sentiment is saying but I have to disagree. Too often congress does something because it is popular (this shut down happened because it was popular with certain portion of the country) or makes people angry. Hate crime for instance is one of those, you violently murder a person and face life in prison or the death penalty, yell an inflammatory racial slur in the process and you face life in prison or the death penalty. Then politicians say, see- we fixed the problem. Too much pressure ends up with bad law, ineffective law, or overly strict law. If you don't believe me, look at the patriot act and how it is applied today.

I do think that contractors should be paid provided they pay their employees too. I think a government shut down should have to cost the government money so it isn't used often.

They did that to an inn on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/4/blue-ridge-hotel-defies-park-service-shutdown/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

I think the state did that with the southern rim of the grand canyon successfully back in 1995 too.

After some research, back in the 1980's most of the spending bills were passed separate then an omnibus bill so the shutdowns largely only impacted the areas in dispute instead of the entire government.

Democracy would seem to require the input of all involved. Not negotiating would literally be the end run around democracy. Perhaps you meant an end run around what you want?

Calling the republicans terrorist because they are using valid and existing tools of the trade to participate within this republic- and those tools have been used by democrats in the past 40 years as well, is just another symptom of a mindset that doesn't jive with reality.

In the last 40 years, there have been 17 shut downs, Of the 17 shutdowns in, Democrats controlled the House during 15 and had charge of both chambers during eight. Five shutdowns happened when the democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency. This isn't anything new, it just seems that way because even though G.W Bush was hated, he never got a shutdown (most likely because he never passed an opportunity to spend more).

You can validate those numbers here and here.+

This first link I suspect is a bit sided, but the second is wikipedia and I looked over the edits for the last 3 days only to find wording issues being changed (tonal and grammar)

So please stop with the Rhetoric about terrorist. It is untrue unless you want to call all the democrats who many are still in office terrorist too. This is the problem with government- when party politics come into play, one party does something, it's all puppies and kittens frolicking in a sunny field. When the other does the same things, it is terrorist and evil dead part 99.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. There's nowhere to go after the Supreme Court.

No they did not. They ruled the ACA is not unconstitutional based on the arguments presented to them. The Supreme court does not deem anything constitutional, it determines if something violates the constitution and infers the constitutionality of it when it is not unconstitutional. Don't let the wording trip you up. When a court's opinion says something is constitutional, it is only in reference to the arguments of it not being constitutional that was presented to it.

The distinction there is that a law or aspects of a law found to not be unconstitutional under one set of arguments can be unconstitutional under another. For instance, segregation and the voter rights act have been in front of the supreme court several times and by the same mentality *deemed constitutional* but ultimately were found unconstitutional. The supreme court is only supposed to decide on the issue in front of it, not the entirety of a law or the policy within the law. Stop and Frisk has been deemed constitutional but the way New York is applying it, it will likely be determined unconstitutional. The DC gun ban is also an example of this where certain aspects of the law were perfectly legit and even if implemented and enforced differently would have remained so but according to the court but it was ultimately unconstitutional.

You're saying that they ruled it a "tax". That's not their ruling. If they ruled that way, that would imply they could make a law constitutional, but by ruling in such a way, the law is then unconstitutional. They cannot make up a paradox like that, that's not how the court works. Especially not the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.

Boy, you sound just like the dissenting opinion on the Obamacare case. You should actually pick up the opinions and read them- they are available from the Supreme court's website.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

It clearly states in the opinion around page 58 of the PDF,

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congressâ(TM)s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congressâ(TM)s power to tax.

In the dissenting opinion by SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ, it clearly says

In answering that question we must, if âoefairly possible,â Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. âoeââoe[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- lation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . .â or judicially rewriting it.â(TM)â Commodity Futures Trading Commâ(TM)n v. Schor, 478 U. S.

Congress passed it. The president signed it. It went before the Supreme Court and passed judicial review. It's the law, designed and built by democracy. The Republican party should respect that.

No future government will ever be constrained by a previous government unless it passed and ratifies an amendment of the US constitution and to that end, the limitation only exists insofar as the inability to further amend the Constitution. This entire congress made it law and the courts said it was constitutional argument neglects history and common sense. Clinton raised taxes, Bush lowered them. The supreme court upheld slavery and forcing the free states to return the escaped slaves to the owners in the slave state and that has gone away. At one time, drinking alcohol was constitutionally forbidden but now it isn't. There are plenty of other examples of when congress or the states have changed their minds. I'm not even going to get into the entire how this thing passed through tricks and legal maneuvers rather then how it is presented because the argument you made fails just on the premise that nothing can be changed due to one time support for a law.