Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   House GOP: "How about this, Debt Ceiling Lift for Obamacare delay?" Senate Dem: "No, revise it. Be serious." House GOP: "How about this, Debt Ceiling Lift for Obamacare delay?" USA:"fark you"   ( huffingtonpost.com) divider line
407
    More: Sad, House GOP, obamacare, GOP, Van Hollen, Majority Leader Harry Reid, individual mandate, ACA, Boehner  
•       •       •

2762 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Sep 2013 at 7:12 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



407 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
feckingmorons [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 05:10:55 PM  
I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.
 
cameroncrazy1984 [recently expired TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:15:52 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


What is the compromise for the House there? All they want to do is delay Obamacare. They want to raise the debt ceiling. They want everything else. Why give the House everything they want?
 
Rincewind53
2013-09-30 05:18:24 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


As we've said a million times, it's ridiculous to suggest that this is something to compromise on. The house says "Either you agree to delay Obamacare or we shut down the government."

That's it.

Tell me how this places a requirement on the Democrats to compromise. Go on. Explain why "Either do what we say or we'll shut down the government" is somehow a position that puts a positive obligation on the Democrats to do something. And then qualitatively differentiate this from "Either give me $1,000,000 or I'll shoot the hostages."
 
Carn
2013-09-30 05:18:38 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


feckingmorons, I demand you pay for TF for me for 1 year.
 
birdmanesq [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 05:19:33 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


That's dumb.

The Republicans are attempting to extort enormous concessions in return for funding the government for 90 days. That is absurd on its face. It would be like the Democrats using the threat of a government shutdown in order to require mandatory licensing and registration for firearms in return for funding the government for 90 days.

It's crass. It's not an equivocal negotiation. And the press has done an enormous disservice to the public by not reporting this realistically.
 
Blues_X [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:20:43 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


 
photos.imageevent.comView Full Size
 
Rincewind53
2013-09-30 05:20:58 PM  

Carn: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

feckingmorons, I demand you pay for TF for me for 1 year.


If he doesn't at least pay for 1 month, he's being a complete absolutist. How dare he? It's his duty to compromise.
 
mediablitz
2013-09-30 05:24:46 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


Other than the Senate saying they would agree to a 6 week extension. I can see how you would ignore that part.
 
birdmanesq [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 05:25:10 PM  
In a way, I can totally understand viewing the budget CRs and the debt ceiling as leverage points. I mean, it is the desire to not have the US government shut down or for the US to not default on its obligation would seem to present serious incentive to acquiesce.

But in assigning blame, it's pretty clear that the party attempting to extract those concessions ought to be the group that bears the risk for the consequences.
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:26:37 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


Why should anyone, much less the US government, negotiate with terrorists?
 
DamnYankees
2013-09-30 05:28:06 PM  
Honestly, I think its valid to do this over a CR. The thing is, if you think about it, a CR is basically saying "we will keep funding the government as it currently exists". Well, there's no particularly reason to see "as it currently exists" as the baseline. The baseline can be anything. In that sense, the GOP does have a right to do this. I think its stupid and bad policy and bad politics, but its fundamentally a valid way to negotiate. I just think they will lose.

The debt ceiling is entirely different, and not in any way a valid negotiating point.
 
Rincewind53
2013-09-30 05:28:32 PM  

birdmanesq: In a way, I can totally understand viewing the budget CRs and the debt ceiling as leverage points. I mean, it is the desire to not have the US government shut down or for the US to not default on its obligation would seem to present serious incentive to acquiesce.

But in assigning blame, it's pretty clear that the party attempting to extract those concessions ought to be the group that bears the risk for the consequences.


Right. I guess it does make sense to negotiate with the man holding the bomb. After all, you don't want the bomb to go off.

But if the bomb does go off, you really can only blame the man with the, not the people who didn't negotiate with him.
 
birdmanesq [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 05:31:58 PM  

DamnYankees: Honestly, I think its valid to do this over a CR. The thing is, if you think about it, a CR is basically saying "we will keep funding the government as it currently exists". Well, there's no particularly reason to see "as it currently exists" as the baseline. The baseline can be anything. In that sense, the GOP does have a right to do this. I think its stupid and bad policy and bad politics, but its fundamentally a valid way to negotiate. I just think they will lose.

The debt ceiling is entirely different, and not in any way a valid negotiating point.


This comes down to a failure to budget--likely an intentional decision to continue to have these negotiating points every 90 days.

And I think that "budget" issues should be differentiated from "policy" issues. So, as disgusted as I was by the Sequester, at least it was germane.
 
DamnYankees
2013-09-30 05:33:45 PM  

birdmanesq: This comes down to a failure to budget--likely an intentional decision to continue to have these negotiating points every 90 days.

And I think that "budget" issues should be differentiated from "policy" issues. So, as disgusted as I was by the Sequester, at least it was germane.


That's fair enough. The contraception thing, for example, had no place coming up - there's a reason Obama led with it today. That being said though, I don't think "fund X, Y but not Z" is an inherently worse argument than "fund X, Y and Z simply because those programs were funded last time". The problem with the GOP here isn't that they are negotiating over the budget, but that (i) they aren't negotiating at all and (ii) their substantive positions are absurd.
 
TuteTibiImperes [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:36:07 PM  
The Senate should send it back with one addition - agree to delay only the individual mandate for a year, but with rate freezes on all insurance policies so that the companies don't use it as an excuse to jack up premiums, and in exchange for that the GOP agrees to support legislation eliminating the need for a vote over the debt ceiling forevermore, it will just increase automatically by the needed amount from here out.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:38:51 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


Yes, because they aren't fecking morons and realize that the minority party has forgotten how the constitution works and is trying to repeal a law that had already been enacted, despite the fact that they don't have enough votes to pass a bill, much less override a veto.

Not to mention that the constitution requires that the debt of the USA be honored, which the house is refusing to do.  The reason that Republicans are making so many bogus claims about the president violating the constitution is that they know they are the only ones violating it.

The problem is that by violating the Constitution, the GOP is going to weaken it.
 
FlashHarry [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:41:12 PM  
delay the mandate? sure! it was a republican idea anyway. of course insurance companies will be pissed because they'll now have to cover everyone - even people with preexisting conditions - without the mandate to help pay for it. maybe they'll even get out of the business altogether, leaving us no option but single-payer.

so, sure, johnny boy, we'll give up the mandate!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:41:45 PM  

birdmanesq: In a way, I can totally understand viewing the budget CRs and the debt ceiling as leverage points. I mean, it is the desire to not have the US government shut down or for the US to not default on its obligation would seem to present serious incentive to acquiesce.

But in assigning blame, it's pretty clear that the party attempting to extract those concessions ought to be the group that bears the risk for the consequences.


Really, it's the duty of the congress to fund the government.  Funding the debit is constitutionally required.  The Congress is already getting their salary, that's all they should get in exchange for doing their job.

This isn't a policy fight.  Obamacare has already passed both houses of congress and been signed into law.  This is simply the house going on strike.
 
Tigger
2013-09-30 05:47:32 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


It's almost as if 'people' are smarter than you isn't it?
 
Carn
2013-09-30 05:50:35 PM  

Rincewind53: Carn: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

feckingmorons, I demand you pay for TF for me for 1 year.

If he doesn't at least pay for 1 month, he's being a complete absolutist. How dare he? It's his duty to compromise.


Ok ok, in order to keep the good faith negotiations going, I'll settle for 6 months.  Now that's a compromise!
 
Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 05:50:40 PM  

FlashHarry: it was a republican idea anyway.


This is why you support it?
 
Rincewind53
2013-09-30 05:54:44 PM  

Carn: Rincewind53: Carn: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

feckingmorons, I demand you pay for TF for me for 1 year.

If he doesn't at least pay for 1 month, he's being a complete absolutist. How dare he? It's his duty to compromise.

Ok ok, in order to keep the good faith negotiations going, I'll settle for 6 months.  Now that's a compromise!


Done. fecking, you now owe Carn six months of TF.
 
shower_in_my_socks [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:58:40 PM  
Try actually GIVING SOMETHING UP if you want to get something in return. You're tired of being called extortionists and terrorists, but when your only "offer" is a threat to destroy our banking system and plunge us into a Depression if you don't get what you want, WTF is the country supposed to call you?
 
ecmoRandomNumbers [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:00:40 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


You can't possibly be this stupid without having some sort of court-appointed guardian. Are they supposed to let you on the internet this time of day?
 
TuteTibiImperes [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:02:16 PM  
I was getting an oil change today, and they had Fox News on in the waiting room.  I was surprised at the coverage - they weren't blaming the GOP (of course) but they weren't blaming the Democrats either.  They were actually somewhat sympathetic to the Democrats position and hinted that it was the GOP that was being a bit unreasonable.

They still played it off as mainly a partisan divide without one side being completely wrong, but for Fox News to do that instead of trying to hang this completely around the necks of the Democrats leads me to believe that the dissent amongst the ranks of conservatives is really starting to come to a head over this.
 
FlashHarry [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:02:31 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: it was a republican idea anyway.

This is why you support it?


the mandate? no. i want european-style single-payer health coverage.

but i understand that if you're going to have a market-based solution, which obamacare is, that the mandate is there to offset the hit that insurance companies will take by not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.
 
DamnYankees
2013-09-30 06:04:41 PM  

FlashHarry: , that the mandate is there to offset the hit that insurance companies will take by not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.


That's not why the mandate is there, actually. It's there to push healthy people onto the exchanges in order to create a larger risk pool and keep premiums down.
 
Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 06:08:07 PM  

FlashHarry: i want european-style single-payer health coverage.


Because?
 
TuteTibiImperes [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:09:51 PM  

DamnYankees: FlashHarry: , that the mandate is there to offset the hit that insurance companies will take by not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.

That's not why the mandate is there, actually. It's there to push healthy people onto the exchanges in order to create a larger risk pool and keep premiums down.


Two different ways of saying the same thing.  The insurance companies will lose money taking on 60 year old diabetics with cancer, but they'll make money on healthy 30 year olds.

Since the companies can't charge different rates based on pre-existing conditions through the exchanges, it's the only way to help them keep afloat.

Personally, I don't really care if the health insurance companies stay afloat.  I'd rather see them all go bankrupt and a single payer system put in place.
 
Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 06:09:52 PM  

FlashHarry: a market-based solution, which obamacare is


It is ANYTHING but market based.
 
TuteTibiImperes [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:13:21 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: a market-based solution, which obamacare is

It is ANYTHING but market based.


It's more of a market based system than universal single payer.  Our previous system worked in a very convoluted way compared to the market as well.  There's essentially no price competition between different doctors and hospitals, it's nearly impossible to find out what the prices are for various services to comparison shop, and the prices can differ by huge amounts depending on if you pay cash, pay through an insurance company (and then it differs a lot depending on the insurance company paying), or if you don't pay at all.

It's been convoluted and obfuscated for decades.
 
DamnYankees
2013-09-30 06:18:11 PM  
Peter King is apparently leading a charge of House Moderates - PETER KING! This guy is now king of the moderates?!?!?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359969/moderates-revolt-over-cr -j onathan-strong

King wants to pass a clean continuing-resolution bill. "This is going nowhere," he says about the standoff with Senate Democrats. "If Obamacare is as bad as we say it's going to be, then we should pick up a lot of seats in the next election and we should win the presidency in 2016," he says. "This idea of going through the side door to take something you lost through the front door - to me, it's wrong."
 
cameroncrazy1984 [recently expired TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:19:16 PM  

DamnYankees: Peter King is apparently leading a charge of House Moderates - PETER KING! This guy is now king of the moderates?!?!?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359969/moderates-revolt-over-cr -j onathan-strong

King wants to pass a clean continuing-resolution bill. "This is going nowhere," he says about the standoff with Senate Democrats. "If Obamacare is as bad as we say it's going to be, then we should pick up a lot of seats in the next election and we should win the presidency in 2016," he says. "This idea of going through the side door to take something you lost through the front door - to me, it's wrong."


Holy sh*t. That's actually reasonable.
 
what_now [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:23:31 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: i want european-style single-payer health coverage.

Because?


Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for. Like the Army and roads.
 
Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 06:25:44 PM  

what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.


How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?
 
Fjornir
2013-09-30 06:30:57 PM  
fark it.

Shoot the Hostage. Let's get this rolling.
 
Mugato [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:31:16 PM  
No matter how you spin it, the GOP is on the wrong side of this one, even if you don't want Obama Care for whatever reason.
 
DamnYankees
2013-09-30 06:31:33 PM  
Jonathan Strong @j_strong
GOP member gets phone out, plays Johnny Cash cover of NIN "Hurt" to explain how he feels about current CR strategy


Amazing.
 
birdmanesq [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 06:34:02 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: a market-based solution, which obamacare is

It is ANYTHING but market based.


You're kidding, right?

It's absolutely market based. It assumes a population-level customer base who will participate for life. But that doesn't make it any less market based.
 
unyon [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:34:21 PM  

DamnYankees: Honestly, I think its valid to do this over a CR. The thing is, if you think about it, a CR is basically saying "we will keep funding the government as it currently exists". Well, there's no particularly reason to see "as it currently exists" as the baseline. The baseline can be anything. In that sense, the GOP does have a right to do this. I think its stupid and bad policy and bad politics, but its fundamentally a valid way to negotiate. I just think they will lose.

The debt ceiling is entirely different, and not in any way a valid negotiating point.


How 'Market based' it is depends a lot on the single payer structure.  You could have the NHS route (i.e.: also the same as VA care) where the doctors and staff are public servants, and the facilities are publicly owned.  You could have the Canadian model, with doctors being private and paid, employed, or contracted at standard rates by publicly owned facilities like hospitals, which is a bit more like Medicare.

Anyways, the US already has 4 health care models at work.  My argument isn't whether it's public or private, but whether its efficient.  Single payer is more administratively efficient and leverages economies of scale best.  Whether the doctors or hospitals are for-profit entities is really a function of preference, and isn't the most material factor in whether the system as a whole can be successful.  It's being done successfully with both models today.
 
TuteTibiImperes [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:34:32 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


Everyone should pay into the same pot and it will be divvied out as necessary.  Those who need more care will get it, those who need less will get what they need, but everyone pays in equally (well, based on progressive income brackets).

It won't matter if you're a Fortune 500 CEO or an out of work high school drop out - if you need to see a doctor you get to see a doctor free of charge, and everyone receives the same high quality level of care.

Not only is it a more fair option, it will save us money.  With the government acting as the only insurer, it will be free to mandate rates and reimbursements as necessary to control costs.  A panel of medical experts can update rates for reimbursement to hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment companies each year to strike a balance between fair pay for those working in the industry and low costs being charged to the system.

Perhaps even better we could eventually move to just nationalize the entire healthcare industry.  All doctors, nurses, etc, will become government employees paid on a set scale, all pharmaceutical research will be done in government labs for the public good instead of for profit, etc.
 
unyon [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:35:33 PM  

birdmanesq: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: a market-based solution, which obamacare is

It is ANYTHING but market based.

You're kidding, right?

It's absolutely market based. It assumes a population-level customer base who will participate for life. But that doesn't make it any less market based.


Gaah.  Fat fingered.  The above post was meant for you guys.
 
El_Perro [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:35:36 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my roads?  My police?
 
Bschott007
2013-09-30 06:37:57 PM  

DamnYankees: Peter King is apparently leading a charge of House Moderates - PETER KING! This guy is now king of the moderates?!?!?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/359969/moderates-revolt-over-cr -j onathan-strong

King wants to pass a clean continuing-resolution bill. "This is going nowhere," he says about the standoff with Senate Democrats. "If Obamacare is as bad as we say it's going to be, then we should pick up a lot of seats in the next election and we should win the presidency in 2016," he says. "This idea of going through the side door to take something you lost through the front door - to me, it's wrong."


W.T.F. is going on?!?!  A....a...a...Republican(!) said something reasonable?!?!   Wasn't this one of the signs of the end times?

Seriously though, I really thought the Tea Party was going to split the Republican base and destroy that party as we know it by taking such a hard swing to the right.   Seems like the Rank and File republicans are starting to grumble.

Hell, I just found out today that my father, (life long republican) spoke unkindly about the HoR.  I nearly passed out from the shock.


"We need someone perceived by the American people to be irresponsible, untrustworthy, partisan, ambitious and thirsty for the limelight. Am I crazy or is this not a job for the U.S. House of Representatives?"

/Republicans should not look at the way Republicans are portrayed in "The West Wing" as how they should act in real life!
 
czetie
2013-09-30 06:39:12 PM  

what_now: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: i want european-style single-payer health coverage.

Because?

Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for. Like the Army and roads.


And schools.

Thinking about healthcare as insurance is already wrong. We should, like every other developed country in the world, have a society where everybody can rely on a basic level of healthcare regardless of their wealth, simply because it is better for each of us for all of us to be well, just as it is better for each of us for all of us to be educated.

And in the same way that I paid for other people's children's education when I was younger, and others are now helping to pay for mine, I should be happy to contribute to other people's health care when I was young and healthy (and by the way, not all young people are healthy) in the knowledge they will help pay for mine when I get old and sick (and by the way, not all old people are sick). This is simply how civilized nations do things.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:40:25 PM  

El_Perro: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my roads?  My police?


The same amount you pay for mine?  Or I could be an adult and admit that we both use roads and police and so we should both pay for them.
 
nmrsnr [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 06:41:22 PM  

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


Yes. There is no compromise, budget battles should be about budget, which this is not. The Republicans aren't arguing numbers, they're trying to extort partial repeal of a law they don't like and have lost the battle against, and if you think that they won't try and delay (or repeal) it again over the debt ceiling, and then again when this CR runs out, you're delusional.
 
Dancin_In_Anson [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2013-09-30 06:42:20 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Everyone should pay into the same pot and it will be divvied out as necessary. Those who need more care will get it, those who need less will get what they need, but everyone pays in equally (well, based on progressive income brackets).

It won't matter if you're a Fortune 500 CEO or an out of work high school drop out - if you need to see a doctor you get to see a doctor free of charge, and everyone receives the same high quality level of care.


So with single payer, there are no questions asked. You show up, you're ushered in, you get "the same high quality healhtcare" and you physician gets a check. Let's say that I'm unemployed, overweight, eat unhealthy food, smoke like a chimney, don't wear a seat belt etc etc etc...You feel that you are morally responsible to take care of me no questions asked.

El_Perro: How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my roads? My police?


Well, when I buy thing like gasoline I pay for roads. And police protection is nothing like healthcare so please put that tired argument away.
 
unyon [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:42:37 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


Enough so that when ill-fortune strikes you that you aren't made destitute and holding me up at gunpoint for what's mine.  In exchange, you'll fork over an amount so that you won't have to spend additional money putting bars on your windows and buying another gun.

If you don't view providing base-level services that every human requires to be an obvious point of the social contract, then you're likely not interested in maintaining that contract at all.  Fair enough.  But don't drag the cost to society into the argument without calculating for externalities.

And don't drag freedom into the equation without considering the freedom from fear:  The fear of losing employer-based health benefits, or the fear of bankruptcy from an accident or bad luck.
 
vudutek
2013-09-30 06:42:43 PM  

DamnYankees: Honestly, I think its valid to do this over a CR. The thing is, if you think about it, a CR is basically saying "we will keep funding the government as it currently exists". Well, there's no particularly reason to see "as it currently exists" as the baseline. The baseline can be anything. In that sense, the GOP does have a right to do this. I think its stupid and bad policy and bad politics, but its fundamentally a valid way to negotiate. I just think they will lose.

The debt ceiling is entirely different, and not in any way a valid negotiating point.


You don't negotiate AFTER legislation is passed.
 
Displayed 50 of 407 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come on, it's $5 a month, just do it.

learn more | sign up

Report
On Twitter

Report
Top Commented
Top Commented ▼
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.
Report