The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[ISiddiqui]

Mostly because those 'plans' were craptastic insurance that covered hardly anything.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Cripes, this is a frightening thread to read right now.

Glad you're starting to see how serious the healthcare situation prior to ACA was for most Americans.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

The irony here is that defenders of the ACA felt it was needed because a lot of people without employer coverage couldn't afford available plans. Now, with the ACA, people who had affordable coverage are losing their plans (replaced with more expensive exchange options). Yet, somehow, this instance of losing coverage is somehow more acceptable to the ACA defenders.

I don't find it acceptable. I'd love to look at legislative fixes either on the plan side or subsidy side, but that won't happen because the GOP is more concerned with sabotaging the law than making it work.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't find it acceptable. I'd love to look at legislative fixes either on the plan side or subsidy side, but that won't happen because the GOP is more concerned with sabotaging the law than making it work.

Exactly - responsible government could likely fairly-easily solve these issues, the problem is the GOP isn't a party committed to responsible government and "looking out for the people" despite their rhetoric.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Glad you're starting to see how serious the healthcare situation prior to ACA was for most Americans.

That wasn't the frightening part.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Now, with the ACA, people who had affordable coverage are losing their plans (replaced with more expensive exchange options).

Affordable in terms of monthly premiums, sure. Affordable in terms of the insurance actually paying out a full claim in the event it's needed? Not so much. That's the point here.

Part of ACA was to get the uninsured on insurance, so as to stop them from either a) avoiding treatment or b) going into bankruptcy to afford treatment.

Part of ACA was to get the underinsured on better insurance, so as to stop them from mainly b, above.


Claims that people with affordable individual plans now that also will adequately cover them financially if used as intended are merely anecdotal, until some of you start citing data. And simply saying "X million folks will lose their policy" isn't the point. How many of those policies would adequately cover their members is the point, and here's data to the contrary: Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That wasn't the frightening part.

You don't say? You mean you are just concern trolling as usual?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You don't say? You mean you are just concern trolling as usual?

Yes, along with a good chunk of the rest of the country except those of us who realize there are problems don't consider it trolling.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd love to look at legislative fixes either on the plan side or subsidy side

What would you propose?

[flere-imsaho]

Well, the simple solution would be to re-introduce the public option.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, along with a good chunk of the rest of the country except those of us who realize there are problems don't consider it trolling.

You can make a good chunk of the country think dihydrogen monoxide is a serious problem, too.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What would you propose?

Without consultation with experts I can't say specifically, but there has to be a way to broaden the acceptable plans and/or expand subsidies/tax credits. The particular problem shouldn't be that difficult to alleviate.

[DaddyTorgo]

52-48 - the Nays have it. Filibuster on nominations (not including Supreme Court) is gone.

Grrr

Democrats Carl Levin, Joe Manchin, Mark Pryor voted against changing the rule.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Without consultation with experts I can't say specifically, but there has to be a way to broaden the acceptable plans and/or expand subsidies/tax credits. The particular problem shouldn't be that difficult to alleviate.

There are lots of important things to do with healthcare in America imho - one of the obvious ones is decoupling it from employment.

At present I know lots of people who remain in jobs they hate because they need healthcare, it stifles competition between corporations for positions and thus depresses the wage level.

Another obvious one would simply be to remove the ludicrous purchasing restrictions which are placed on government healthcare programs preventing them from negotiating fairly with drug companies - at present they're handicapped in total violation of the 'free market' which is so touted by conservatives ...

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

There are lots of important things to do with healthcare in America imho - one of the obvious ones is decoupling it from employment.

At present I know lots of people who remain in jobs they hate because they need healthcare, it stifles competition between corporations for positions and thus depresses the wage level.

Another obvious one would simply be to remove the ludicrous purchasing restrictions which are placed on government healthcare programs preventing them from negotiating fairly with drug companies - at present they're handicapped in total violation of the 'free market' which is so touted by conservatives ...

You silly Europeans and your practical, data-driven and supported solutions.

[flere-imsaho]

Woah.

Edit: This was in response to the filibuster on nominations being lifted.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Woah.

Edit: This was in response to the filibuster on nominations being lifted.

Took them far too long to do it, and it's only half-hearted, so I'm not exactly celebrating in the streets, but it's a step in the right direction, so that's good.

[flere-imsaho]

The quick consensus seems to be that this will likely serve to enrage the TP/GOP even more leading to yet more gridlock and (ironically) the Democrats maybe looking, in 2015 (if they still hold the Senate) towards removing the rule for legislation as well. Slippery slope and all that....

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The quick consensus seems to be that this will likely serve to enrage the TP/GOP even more leading to yet more gridlock and (ironically) the Democrats maybe looking, in 2015 (if they still hold the Senate) towards removing the rule for legislation as well. Slippery slope and all that....

How could they be more obstructionist? Basically anything the D's try to do.. good/bad/negative gets objected to and filibustered.

We had the Know Nothing Party, the GOP is now the "Do Nothing" party.

Or maybe the Tantrum Party.

[sterlingice]

I'm trying to decide if this is a big deal or not and I think ultimately the answer is "not". It will be a talking point for a little bit. But, frankly, I think it's esoteric enough that the general population will just sigh and shrug it off.

But politics has always been about creative ways to bend the rules to your political will. Just as the incidence of filibuster has gone up recently, there had to be a reason it was the new tool in the toolkit. Now that it's gone, there will be another.

Also, near as I can tell- this is just for nominees, not for legislation, correct?

SI

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Another obvious one would simply be to remove the ludicrous purchasing restrictions which are placed on government healthcare programs preventing them from negotiating fairly with drug companies - at present they're handicapped in total violation of the 'free market' which is so touted by conservatives ...

You could reduce the need for insurance entirely if individuals were charged the same amount insurance companies were for prescriptions and care...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The quick consensus seems to be that this will likely serve to enrage the TP/GOP even more leading to yet more gridlock and (ironically) the Democrats maybe looking, in 2015 (if they still hold the Senate) towards removing the rule for legislation as well. Slippery slope and all that....

While I'm reasonably sure you can't enrage conservatives too much more than they already are (not without armed revolt anyway), I'm not going to sweat this too much. Goes around, comes around, etc.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While I'm reasonably sure you can't enrage conservatives too much more than they already are (not without armed revolt anyway), I'm not going to sweat this too much. Goes around, comes around, etc.

I don't get the timing, frankly. Popularity for Obama will continue to wane throughout his term as happens with second term presidents, the Dems have a ton of seats to defend in 2014, and it didn't appear that there were a lot of nominees out there awaiting passage, just a couple (tho this could be the fact that I'm totally off on). Why now and why not in 2009? Politics is such theater, sometimes.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't get the timing, frankly. Popularity for Obama will continue to wane throughout his term as happens with second term presidents, the Dems have a ton of seats to defend in 2014, and it didn't appear that there were a lot of nominees out there awaiting passage, just a couple (tho this could be the fact that I'm totally off on). Why now and why not in 2009? Politics is such theater, sometimes.

SI

This is why I'm not excited. It should have happened in 209 or 2010 at worse or whatever.

[flere-imsaho]

From what I'm reading, while there are only a handlful of Executive Branch appointees that are unfilled and can now go through, there are also 90 (or 93, it's unclear) judicial appointments that can now also go through, which may be more significant.

[ISiddiqui]

There was also a rumor that the reason Sebelius wasn't fired as head of HHS was because Obama wouldn't be able to find a replacement that the GOP wouldn't filibuster. It may be too late for that, but would allow for people to be fired easier if they mess up.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't get the timing, frankly. Popularity for Obama will continue to wane throughout his term as happens with second term presidents, the Dems have a ton of seats to defend in 2014, and it didn't appear that there were a lot of nominees out there awaiting passage, just a couple (tho this could be the fact that I'm totally off on). Why now and why not in 2009? Politics is such theater, sometimes.

SI

The GOP really has escalated things. They are now at a point where they won't accept any nominations to the D.C. Appeals Court.

I actually think the results of this rule change should have been standard practice. An elected President with a majority Senate should get to fill executive and court positions. That's part of what the populace voted for. Ideally the minority party would be responsible enough to maintain the filibuster for extraordinary cases, but the majority party has a right to make appointments.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

There was also a rumor that the reason Sebelius wasn't fired as head of HHS was because Obama wouldn't be able to find a replacement that the GOP wouldn't filibuster. It may be too late for that, but would allow for people to be fired easier if they mess up.

She won't be fired, but she should be. She not only fucked up implementation, she has sounded clueless in the aftermath. If this rule change results in a new HHS Secretary I'll be thrilled.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The quick consensus seems to be that this will likely serve to enrage the TP/GOP even more leading to yet more gridlock and (ironically) the Democrats maybe looking, in 2015 (if they still hold the Senate) towards removing the rule for legislation as well. Slippery slope and all that....

Quick consensus? Here is the quick consensus:

The same democrats who passed this bill will be in tears when (not if, it's cyclical people, it's going to come around) republicans get in charge and start ramming through Pro-Life/Anti Gay marriage candidates. They took away the checks and balances and deal making. (while deal making might sound horrible, it at least mitigates how psychotic certain appointments end up being)

As I said above, the dems will pay the piper for this decision. It may be 2015, it may 20 years after, but they will feel the impact of this. This was a very shortsighted decision that will hurt badly in the long run.

[ISiddiqui]

To be honest, a better way to do this would likely be to make positions that been empty for x amount of time to be subject to an up or down vote. Would likely lead to more negotiation earlier.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The GOP really has escalated things. They are now at a point where they won't accept any nominations to the D.C. Appeals Court.

I actually think the results of this rule change should have been standard practice. An elected President with a majority Senate should get to fill executive and court positions. That's part of what the populace voted for. Ideally the minority party would be responsible enough to maintain the filibuster for extraordinary cases, but the majority party has a right to make appointments.

This.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

As I said above, the dems will pay the piper for this decision. It may be 2015, it may 20 years after, but they will feel the impact of this. This was a very shortsighted decision that will hurt badly in the long run.

+1

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Quick consensus? Here is the quick consensus:

The same democrats who passed this bill will be in tears when (not if, it's cyclical people, it's going to come around) republicans get in charge and start ramming through Pro-Life/Anti Gay marriage candidates. They took away the checks and balances and deal making. (while deal making might sound horrible, it at least mitigates how psychotic certain appointments end up being)

As I said above, the dems will pay the piper for this decision. It may be 2015, it may 20 years after, but they will feel the impact of this. This was a very shortsighted decision that will hurt badly in the long run.

What - like Scalia (and yes I know he's SCOTUS and this doesn't apply, just making the point that deal-making doesn't prevent wackos)?

You're delusional or being deliberately disingenuous if you don't admit that Republicans would have taken it away to ram through those same candidates when they got into power anyways.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What - like Scalia (and yes I know he's SCOTUS and this doesn't apply, just making the point that deal-making doesn't prevent wackos)?

You're delusional or being deliberately disingenuous if you don't admit that Republicans would have taken it away to ram through those same candidates when they got into power anyways.

Agreed. It's time that this silly notion that somehow stopping anything from passing (or being appointed) can be considered 'checks and balances'.

With that said, the genie is out of the bottle now. It's only a matter of time until the other shoe falls and it is changed for legislation as well. They can't say it's a good idea in one instance and not another.

Hell, at some level we've got some terrible laws because of the filibuster mess. People think they need to put EVERYTHING in a law that does pass because they don't know when they'll be able to get anything done again. Pass things in small chunks, not in huge laws where no one has even read it all before voting on it.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What - like Scalia (and yes I know he's SCOTUS and this doesn't apply, just making the point that deal-making doesn't prevent wackos)?

You're delusional or being deliberately disingenuous if you don't admit that Republicans would have taken it away to ram through those same candidates when they got into power anyways.

Chuck Grassley said it today - he doesn't believe that Obama should be able to make any appointments to the DC Court because of ideology - in that there were 4 judges appointed by Dems and 4 by Republicans and Obama shouldn't be allowed to break that "balance". That's a far different intent than just trying to prevent the far right-or-left wing candidate from getting on the court. That's essentially saying that he wants to subvert the '08 and '12 elections because it didn't agree with with this philosophy. Weird, thought...I certainly didn't notice that sentiment when the Republicans got their chance to pack the Supreme Court with their ideologues.

The Republicans left the Democrats no other option. Bush's 1st term nominees were approved at a 94% clip. Obama's were approved at only 81%. His second term is trending far worse. So if the Republicans do manage to take back the White House and the Senate in 2016, there would be far more openings available because Obama hasn't been allowed to make appointments. So what would happen? The Republicans use the nuclear option and pack the courts in 2016 with Scalia Clones.

So while it may hurt the Dems at some point, it would have hurt 'em far worse if they didn't do it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. It's time that this silly notion that somehow stopping anything from passing (or being appointed) can be considered 'checks and balances'.

With that said, the genie is out of the bottle now. It's only a matter of time until the other shoe falls and it is changed for legislation as well. They can't say it's a good idea in one instance and not another.

Hell, at some level we've got some terrible laws because of the filibuster mess. People think they need to put EVERYTHING in a law that does pass because they don't know when they'll be able to get anything done again. Pass things in small chunks, not in huge laws where no one has even read it all before voting on it.

FML - bipartisan agreement from me.

Mark this date in the calendar - MBBF and I agree on something political.

Sure - we probably disagree on what is terrible in those laws, but we agree on principal.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The same democrats who passed this bill will be in tears when (not if, it's cyclical people, it's going to come around) republicans get in charge and start ramming through Pro-Life/Anti Gay marriage candidates. They took away the checks and balances and deal making. (while deal making might sound horrible, it at least mitigates how psychotic certain appointments end up being).

Deal making's dead, Jim. See also: recess appointments, use of reconciliation, and signing statements. Hell, have you forgotten the government shutdown already?

The GOP just took the world economy to the brink because Obama wouldn't agree to a) throw away his signature legislative accomplishment, b) agree to budget spending levels lower than those proposed by Paul Ryan, and c) a host of other, less reasonable demands. These guys aren't going to compromise when they get back in power anyway, the way things are going.

You want compromise and deal-making back in Congress? Find a way to get rid of TP influence. Because when you're a GOP Congresscritter and any time you compromise you risk a primary challenge from the right, there's plenty of disincentive to waddle up to the table to talk turkey.

And who says the GOP didn't already ram through psychotic candidates, especially during the Bush II Administration?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What - like Scalia (and yes I know he's SCOTUS and this doesn't apply, just making the point that deal-making doesn't prevent wackos)?

You're delusional or being deliberately disingenuous if you don't admit that Republicans would have taken it away to ram through those same candidates when they got into power anyways.

Republicans were threatening to do this when the democrats were blocking Bush's nominations. (the dems actually went longer than the republicans have thus far. Appellate judges were at 238 days under Clinton, 355 days under Bush and 257 for Obama. )

They threatened, then they cut a deal. Trent Lott, the republican who coined the term and first talked about doing it, realized very quickly how dumb of an idea it was and he backed off it. Yes, by the way, you read that correctly. Despite Bush's nominees being delayed over 100 days more and him being referred to as the worst president of all time, he didn't endorse the nuclear option and his party didn't enact it. So to your response above, at this point no Republican had ever done it even when they had the reason and the chance to do so. So no, I'm not sure they would have done it if the roles were reversed right now.

I'm not delusional (well, ok, I'm sure some people think I am and I wouldn't know it if I was, so fair play to you sir) I hate both parties. Which is why I hate ANYTHING that gives one party a ton of unchecked power. Once you push a button like this, there is no going back. When the Republicans get power (and again, I stress WHEN, because they will get it back someday), they are going to say "you had your fun, OUR TURN" and go nuts.

It's why you want a cold war. You don't want anyone punching the button. Because even if you win short term, everyone feels pain long term.

[flere-imsaho]

You know, let's not forget that Mitch McConnell famously said, after Obama's first election (when the TP was still only in its infancy, and couldn't have influenced this) that the GOP's primary legislative priority would be to make Obama a one-term president.

The GOP aren't interested in governing. They're interested in a) defeating Democrats and b) destroying the government, in roughly that order. I'm just glad the Democratic leadership finally woke up and saw it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Hell, at some level we've got some terrible laws because of the filibuster mess. People think they need to put EVERYTHING in a law that does pass because they don't know when they'll be able to get anything done again. Pass things in small chunks, not in huge laws where no one has even read it all before voting on it.

This is undoubtably true. Laws get stuffed to the gills with hand outs for the minority parties to get past any potential filibusters.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It's why you want a cold war. You don't want anyone punching the button. Because even if you win short term, everyone feels pain long term.

The "pain" of up-and-down votes on judicial and executive nominees (and possibly, down the road, legislation)? Yeah, sounds terrible. Let's take complete gridlock, government shutdowns, ratings downgrades and driving the economy over the cliff instead.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

FML - bipartisan agreement from me.

Mark this date in the calendar - MBBF and I agree on something political.

Sure - we probably disagree on what is terrible in those laws, but we agree on principal.

Oh god, I agree too.

I don't know if this is worse than that one time I agreed with Jon.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This is undoubtably true. Laws get stuffed to the gills with hand outs for the minority parties to get past any potential filibusters.

At its heart, it's the difference between crafting a legitimate compromise (a practice now dead at the federal level) and merely horse-trading.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The "pain" of up-and-down votes on judicial and executive nominees (and possibly, down the road, legislation)? Yeah, sounds terrible. Let's take complete gridlock, government shutdowns, ratings downgrades and driving the economy over the cliff instead.

You don't get it, do you? This is going to go beyond all of that.

Gridlock, government shutdowns and economy over a cliff are both parties doing by the way. I don't know how anyone over the age of 12 can still blindly blame one side in this at this point. It isn't one side is a bunch of evil douche bags who want to destroy everyone and the other is angelic and wonderful. Both are power hungry dirtbags who have about as much care for individuals as most people do for the bug on the ground outside our homes.

Both parties defecate in paper bags, set them on fire, ring the doorbell and talk about the door of opportunity that was just opened for you. I know, I know, one party is less evil because they believe in things you believe in.

I wish I had a party. I'm against the death penalty, for gay marriage, believe we need to raise some taxes but also cut some entitlement programs. . . where the hell is my party?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That may happen to some degree, but no way 1/3 of the American population is losing health insurance.

Aren't most medium-to-large-sized companies, along with with unions, self-insured when it comes to health insurance? Isn't this a big talking point that people are missing or don't really understand?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I wish I had a party. I'm against the death penalty, for gay marriage, believe we need to raise some taxes but also cut some entitlement programs. . . where the hell is my party?

Sounds like you're Obama.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sounds like you're Obama.

Except the cut entitlement spending part.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Except the cut entitlement spending part.

True, expect he offered to do chained CPI and Medicare cuts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The real fun may come a little later down the road ... when all the clowns Obama appoints have to be removed, and we see an end to lifetime appointments pushed through to make that happen.

Make a note of it, m'kay. Just for when it comes up later.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by TroyF

You don't get it, do you? This is going to go beyond all of that.

Gridlock, government shutdowns and economy over a cliff are both parties doing by the way. I don't know how anyone over the age of 12 can still blindly blame one side in this at this point. It isn't one side is a bunch of evil douche bags who want to destroy everyone and the other is angelic and wonderful. Both are power hungry dirtbags who have about as much care for individuals as most people do for the bug on the ground outside our homes.

False equivalence.

One party steps in shits far too often. The other wallows in it.

Here's an example on this page of a false equivalence that you posted.

Republicans were threatening to do this when the democrats were blocking Bush's nominations. (the dems actually went longer than the republicans have thus far. Appellate judges were at 238 days under Clinton, 355 days under Bush and 257 for Obama. )

They threatened, then they cut a deal. Trent Lott, the republican who coined the term and first talked about doing it, realized very quickly how dumb of an idea it was and he backed off it. Yes, by the way, you read that correctly. Despite Bush's nominees being delayed over 100 days more and him being referred to as the worst president of all time, he didn't endorse the nuclear option and his party didn't enact it. So to your response above, at this point no Republican had ever done it even when they had the reason and the chance to do so. So no, I'm not sure they would have done it if the roles were reversed right now.

5 of 6 Bush appointees were put on that court. 4 of 5 Obama appointees have been filibustered. This hasn't been going on for 100 days, this has been going on for years. That's right, these seats have been open for years and the Republicans refuse to sit any judge nominated by Obama on this court per Chuck Grassley. So again, where's the equivalence? A short delay and a permanent delay aren't the same thing.

Bush got 91% of his judicial nominees on the bench. Obama only 76%. When Bush came into office, there were 80 vacancies in the Federal Judiciary (which rose to over 100 in year one). By year 3 that number was below 60 and was below 50 his entire last term. Obama came into office with about 60 vacancies, which rose to over 100 by his second year. It's still over 90 today. The facts just don't support a "they did it too" claim.