Republicans Shutdown US Government Over Healthcare

[Shadowstar1922]

Yay, the government shut down because Republicans got pissy that they couldn't get their way through elections, court, and how Congress works, so they stop the government from working until they get their way.

I'm pretty sure that's a terrorist tactic, just saying.

They're doing the opposite of what their job is. I'm surprised they haven't been arrested yet and held in contempt.

All ObamaCare does is help the poor get more affordable and accessible health care and welfare because if they don't do it, they suffer with any disease, and a huge portion of poor people that don't have health care to help them get treatment they need for disease, well, they die. It does this by regulating private and public health care insurers, passing certain regulations to do this, and also making sure the health insurers do not go against the things they protect, and raise how much rich people have to pay for their health care. I don't see the problem with that, is because they get a lot of money and slightly cutting into their profits(if they own a business) or just their total amount of money in general does so much. Republicans portray it, as if the majority of things the wealthy buy is health care and welfare for other people because, damn Obama in helping the poor.

Apparently, btw, helping the poor to not become poor anymore is a communist thing. Not sure why implanting a communist thing, or labeling something that is apparently communist, is soooo bad, but, according to Republicans, it is.

They couldn't work the ways of democracy to get what they wanted, so they threw a fit.

Amazing.

I wish I could go to Canada.

Or Australia.

Ireland sounds great too. -.-

[ghost 9]

Yeah, no. The Republicans compromised, saying they were willing to delay the vote for a year, and fund the rest of the government. If the democratic party can sit down and talk to totalitarian regimes, and not members of an opposing political party in their own country, they are one of the most despicable people that you can find. As for Obama care, it hurts the young and helps the elderly. Premiums have been proven to be more expensive for the younger crowd than a number of different health insurers. As a result, it'd be illogical to chose healthcare.

Furthermore, it's expected to add another 2.6 tril of debt within the next decade. Ontop of the fact that their system isn't even ready to be released on the date that they chose, If they are serious about wanting to pass it, then waiting a year is a logical choice. But no, they wont even talk negations when there are threats around. Oh wait... -Looks at Iran- Right, that's only when it fits their agenda.

Don't even try to push the whole debacle solely on the republican party.

P.S. 57% of America doesn't want Obamacare. Republicans are doing what they're suppose to do, and trying to delay or get rid of it.

[Shadowstar1922]

Yeah, no. The Republicans compromised, saying they were willing to delay the vote for a year, and fund the rest of the government. If the democratic party can sit down and talk to totalitarian regimes, and not members of an opposing political party in their own country, they are one of the most despicable people that you can find.
According to the ideology that is well, democracy, you try to do diplomacy first, then military or political agression/action. Why you do this, is you try to understand the other side's argument, and where they are coming from. I'm not sure how that isn't understandable. The fact that those tolitarian regimes are more willing to talk and debate and compromise than the Republicans, is not the Democrats' fault.
As for Obama care, it hurts the young and helps the elderly. Premiums have been proven to be more expensive for the younger crowd than a number of different health insurers. As a result, it'd be illogical to chose healthcare.
It isn't proven, because ObamaCare hasn't even been fully impleneted. We actually don't know what specifically will happen, only what theorists and what it is designed to do, is what we can build our opinion off. That's like saying the year before NASA sent a shuttle to the moon and saying, "NASA's plan to put a shuttle on the moon is clearly not working, so I don't see why they're doing it.". It's stupid and illogical to say and claim. Only small slivers of ObamaCare is actually in effect.

And, if you compare the costs of health care to the younger people than to those of the higher class, the younger people pay less, around 100-200$ I believe per month, while the rich would have to pay around 200-300$, and the elderly's benefits will slightly change.

Furthermore, it's expected to add another 2.6 tril of debt within the next decade.
The cost on military, funding terrorists, and essentially dominating the world will cost around 10.3 trillion-14.15 trillion dollars per decade, according to the 2012 budget and not including the possibility of an increase. The US spends more money on Defense than the rest of the world combined, yet countries like Russia and China are able to draft, form, and construct pretty intimidating militaries that are comparible to the US's. I'm pretty sure we can cut the defense budget just a bit and still have a far better military than Russia and China.
Ontop of the fact that their system isn't even ready to be released on the date that they chose, If they are serious about wanting to pass it, then waiting a year is a logical choice. But no, they wont even talk negations when there are threats around. Oh wait... -Looks at Iran- Right, that's only when it fits their agenda.
The US Government has become extremely reluctant in talks with Iran, and if the UN did not politically pressure the country to make any progressions with the debate of peace, than America would've said now. After denying Iran peaceful negotiations and Iran's spot in the international community, numerous UN leaders came together and decided that America does not decide on that issue, for it is not just America Iran is interested in making peace with. Any progression in this has not come from the Democratic Administration and Obama, but by political pressure by foreign countries, and the UN's strong stance that America cannot decide who and who does not get to be an active member of the international community and by President's Rouhani's peaceful propositions and the will of the people of Iran.
Don't even try to push the whole debacle solely on the republican party.

P.S. 57% of America doesn't want Obamacare. Republicans are doing what they're suppose to do, and trying to delay or get rid of it.
When it comes to certain issues, specific ones, I may add, there will never be an election, or looking to what directly the people want on that issue. Democracy entrusts that the Representatives and Senators of the Congress will, well, represent what their people want on that issue. That is how Democracy works. The time when the people matter is during elections to whom holds which position in the Government, and they elect people who they think will bring what they promise. The President, or head of state of any modern democracy does not really look to what the people want, but to who the people elected in to represent them want. Especially if the statistic is not much of a majority, like a measly 57%(and, I'd like to get that source of information where it says 57% of Americans oppose the affordable care act, for I cannot find it. Sources will be listed below that counter your claim*)

If you want a government where you elect in the people to represent you, and further, have head of states look to what the people want directly and what the people they elected in to represent them, then you would be thinking of a Communist state. Sadly, all the communist states that ever esisted, were just dictatorships or council-dictatorships and used very little communist policies. According to ideologies, communism, and essentially all left winged form of governments look to more of the will of the people rather than the will of the government. But, you would not want to be in a leftist government for your personal reasons.

So, I don't see why you are shocked when a President doesn't look to what the people directly want, when democracies look to a balance. They care what the people want during elections, then give it up to the representatives and senators to take the extra step to enforce it, and if they don't do that because they are corrupt, well, there's something called a political and/or armed revolution to change the system. But, Americans won't do that because they really don't know what's going on.

*Sources on the issue of percentages going against and for obama care: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/galanty-m ... &ir=Comedy
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/27/poll-mor ... -care-act/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law

[ghost 9]

The republicans were willing to negotiate. They just weren't willing to surrender entirely to the democrats demands. They went from defunding to delaying. That, my friend, is a compromise.

You said all ObamaCare does is help the poor get affordable coverage. Yet, if that were the case, they wouldn't be discriminating on age. There's also hidden charges throughout Obamacare which are used to try and help the funding. Again, not helping the poor. You also have to take into account that hospitals are firing nurses and unneccessary staff, along with businesses, to try and be able to pay an employee and remain profitable, since they now have to pay for all of this. (See here: http://prntscr.com/1uplgx )

No. The costs of those were around 6-8 trillion. The rest was spent in bailouts, an increase in welfare/social security, etc. (See here: http://prntscr.com/1uporw)

You don't even try to argue that their system, which is used for registering constituents, isn't ready. Which is a good thing, because it's a fact that it's not. Which is why it's perfectly logical to hold the debate another year. The system isn't even prepared to take on a massive burden. Also, please note that I was only making a point when I brought Iran up. You can replace it with Syria/Russia and it'll fit like a puzzel piece.

I wasn't calling for an election. I was calling fgor representatives to do their job. As for the statistic, I got it off CNN news, I'll look for a tangible version, if possible.

*http://obamacarefacts.com/* 1st Screenshot
*http://kff.org/* 2nd Screenshot

[Dr Frook]

who needs terrorists, when u have republicans doing far worse than they ever could do to the country...

[Connor]

See, I find Congress to be a bunch of 5 year old brats who keep fighting over some new toy.

I've always suggested a term limit for Congress, but that is never gonna happen. What coherent person would put a term limit on themselves?

I just feel as though independent candidates start getting seats in Congress. They'll know better and do better I believe.

[ghost 9]

who needs terrorists, when u have republicans doing far worse than they ever could do to the country...

It's not just Republicans. They were willing to compromise, the democrats weren't.

[Shadowstar1922]

who needs terrorists, when u have republicans doing far worse than they ever could do to the country...

It's not just Republicans. They were willing to compromise, the democrats weren't.

They compromised after the fact that a lot of people disagreed with their action. In the beginning, the Republicans literally threw a fit that ObamaCare passed on the laws of democracy, so they decided to stop doing anything, which caused the government shutdown. Now, they are willing to compromise since high percentages disagree with the tactic. Though, now that the Republicans are correcting their mistake, and willing to compromise, the Democrats won't, because the Democrats are getting real tired of when they usually compromise with the Republicans, they throw individual fits and the "compromise" is usally what the Republicans wanted with some things the Democrats wanted.

And, I'm sure you guys will find this article interesting.

"The United States' self-imposed federal government shutdown has a way of making people around the world shake their heads in bewilderment. As Georgetown professor Erik Voeten wrote for The Washington Post's new Monkey Cage political science blog, "I cannot think of a single foreign analogy to what is happening in the U.S. today."
But there actually is one foreign precedent: Australia did this once. In 1975, the Australian government shut down because the legislature had failed to fund it, deadlocked by a budgetary squabble. It looked a lot like the U.S. shutdown of today, or the 17 previous U.S. shutdowns.
Australia's 1975 shutdown ended pretty differently, though, than they do here in America. Queen Elizabeth II's official representative in Australia, Governor General Sir John Kerr, simply dismissed the prime minister. He appointed a replacement, who immediately passed the spending bill to fund the government. Three hours later, Kerr dismissed the rest of Parliament. Then Australia held elections to restart from scratch. And they haven't had another shutdown since.
Here's how it happened. Australia, like the United States, has both a Senate and a House of Representatives. In 1975, the chambers were controlled by different parties. The House had passed an appropriations bill to fund the government, but the Senate refused to pass it because it believed that the government was spending too much money on unworthy programs during an economic downturn. The opposition party that controlled the Senate said it would not pass the spending bill unless the government met its somewhat outlandish demand. Does this all sound familiar so far? In the Australian case, though, the opposition's demand wasn't repeal of a health-care law -- they wanted early elections, which they believed would unseat the ruling party.
Prime Minister Gough Whitlam rejected the opposition's demands but couldn't bring the parties to a compromise, and the federal budget went unfunded. Then, on the morning of Nov. 11, Whitlam announced he would hold early elections not for the House but for half of the opposition-controlled Senate (typically, only one half of the Senate goes up for reelection at a time). Kerr, as the the official representative of the queen, who is technically still sovereign over Australia, summoned Whitlam to his office and fired him at 1:15 p.m.
Fifteen minutes later, Kerr appointed the leader of the opposition Liberal Party, Malcolm Fraser, as Whitlam's replacement. By 2 p.m., before most even realized what had happened, Fraser got his allies in the previously deadlocked Senate to push through the government spending bill. Then everything kind of fell into chaos. When the ruling Labor Party, in the House, learned about Whitlam's firing and Fraser's appointment, its members revolted with a no-confidence vote against Fraser. At 4:50 p.m., Kerr dissolved the rest of Parliament, essentially firing everyone, with a formal proclamation that ended with the words "God Save the Queen."

A month later, Australia held national elections to replace the now-dissolved government. The opposition, led by Fraser, swept to victory in both houses. Australia has not had another shutdown since.
This sort of thing, of course, could never happen in the United States. The fact that Australia could pull it off is a quirk of its history as a former British colony that, unlike the United States, never fully broke away.
Australia's governor general does not typically fire prime ministers, or do much of anything. It's a largely ceremonial position and a legacy, as the colonial title suggests, of a time when Australia was a far-flung possession of the British Empire. It's now an independent country but still a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, which means it recognizes the British monarchy as technically in charge. That monarch still has formal power over Australia's government but almost never actually uses it. The 1975 crisis was the exception.
The governor general technically acts solely on behalf of the monarch -- the office was established before telephones existed, after all. This means that, legally speaking, the 1975 Australian government funding crisis ended because Queen Elizabeth II dismissed everyone in the government. In practice, the governor general did in the actual firing.
You might find yourself wishing that the United States could follow Australia's example: Fire everyone in Congress, hold snap elections next month and restart from scratch. But we can't, because we haven't recognized the British monarchy or had a London-appointed governor -general in more than two centuries. Maybe, if we ask nicely, Britain will take us back?"

Original~http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/10/01/australia-had-a-government-shutdown-once-it-ended-with-the-queen-firing-everyone-in-parliament/

[Shadowstar1922]

Another point of view.



and, I think she has a good point. Republicans can't complain about Obama Care, it was passed into law. It was passed by the House, the Senate, signed by Obama, and passed as constitutional by the Supreme Court.

[ghost 9]

2 days before the government actually shutdown, they were willing to delay, and not defund, Obamacare. That's not after the fact. They weren't prepared to surrender their ideals, while Democrats weren't even considering negotiating with them. That in itself shows you that you can't put the most blame on Republicans. It was equally bad choices for both sides.