- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 91
Obamacare defunded?
- Thread starter PhysMatMan
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 16
What's to discuss? It won't pass the Senate because everyone will vote along party lines. Even if it did, it would get vetoed.
On a side note, this habit of attaching unrelated legislature to bills needs to stop. After the bill is defeated, each party will use the vote to shift blame for the ensuing government shutdown. Huge waste of everybody's time/tax money.
On a side note, this habit of attaching unrelated legislature to bills needs to stop. After the bill is defeated, each party will use the vote to shift blame for the ensuing government shutdown. Huge waste of everybody's time/tax money.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 11,799
- Reaction score
- 2,808
Talk about a misleading title.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 678
- Reaction score
- 486
This. 👍
Also, is this forum an RSS feed now? How about offering your thoughts on the article you posted, OP?
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Messages
- 774
- Reaction score
- 23
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 678
- Reaction score
- 486
Do they ever have a counter-proposal? It's always just "socialism rabble rabble freedom rabble rabble."
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2012
- Messages
- 146
- Reaction score
- 91
I find less interesting the question of whether it will work. I am more interested in the question of what would happen if it did? Having the ACA in place without any funds, what does that even mean for healthcare? I can't say I'm super informed on this issue, but I live off of SDN hatred. FEED ME!
I hope this delivered:
I hope this delivered:
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 16
I think this article summarizes it pretty well: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/15/news/economy/defunding-obamacare/index.html
Basically, it means that the ACA wouldn't be repealed, but there would be no funds to enforce the new policies.
Basically, it means that the ACA wouldn't be repealed, but there would be no funds to enforce the new policies.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,466
- Reaction score
- 2,371
Someone doesn't understand politics.
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,661
- Reaction score
- 657
I find less interesting the question of whether it will work. I am more interested in the question of what would happen if it did? Having the ACA in place without any funds, what does that even mean for healthcare? I can't say I'm super informed on this issue, but I live off of SDN hatred. FEED ME!
I hope this delivered:
Way to roll with the punches bro, hats off.
Anyway, the impulse to defund ACA is deeply flawed. It is not the place of the legislature to pick and choose which laws they will pay for once they've been signed into effect. The legislature passes laws and the executive enforces them. Congress has not just the responsibility, but the Constitutional duty to provide the requisite funds to the executive for him to implement the laws passed by that body. It's important that we hold true to the Constitution, even though (and especially because) Mr. Obama has clearly demonstrated the low esteem in which he holds that document.
This whole issue has become a terrible mess for the GOP and it will end badly for them, unfortunately. While I agree that the ACA must needs be stopped, this has to be done through the standard process of legal repeal, for Constitutional as well as practical reasons. This will require the GOP to recapture the Senate and most likely the White House. The defund ACA movement, and especially implementation of a government shutdown, will tarnish the GOP as it will almost certainly lose these battles, and thus make the electoral successes necessary for actual repeal even harder to achieve. I stand with Karl Rove on this issue.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324492604579082851832871952.html
