I'm sick of the ACA (Obama care) fight! How about this..

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zipur, Mar 22, 2015.

  1. zipur macrumors 6502a


    Mar 3, 2011
    The great state of Texas
    The ACA debate and law has frozen our government and divided our country. The scares of which will affect our politics and ability to run the country for decades to come. There are good and bad aspects to the law but the haze of pundants on both sides continue to kindle the fires of distrust and diversion. The law was forced through as I see it, with the infamous "We have to pass it to know what's in it" Do people really want it or was it just the powerful personality of president Obama in which the historical first Black President could not be denied? So a thought came to me that I want to bounce off the forum.
    --- And special National Yes/No vote on the ACA ---
    No riders, no special kick backs, no additions just let every willing voter cast a vote of ether yes or no. The result would be that all three branches of our government be mandated to institute the results of this vote.
    Currently congress Is that voice for the people but that has been trumped by the R or D party they must support.
    I peonally can't say which way the vote would go. But it would end this ongoing spiral of blockage on Both sides.
    It could start a trend on many of our most fierce issues. Abortion, Carbon Tax, gay Marrage, Amnesty for illegals. Imagine if we could put theses abrasive issues aside without question! I am aware of the cost of a national vote however the offset of this constant bickering and fighting, well it would be worth it. It would provide a means for our government to truly work on Governing.

    Does this make sense,
  2. 0007776 Suspended


    Jul 11, 2006
    And if it is voted down then you have the fight over what replaces it. If not you will have people claiming that the vote was rigged.
  3. mellofello macrumors 65816

    Feb 1, 2011
    The slow pace of congress is actually a good thing imo. Stops the populace from knee jerk reactions. Things like the aca are a bitter pill to swallow at first but will be ingrained in us culture in the future.

    All of these issues you mentioned have way too many moving pieces to be a simple up or down vote
  4. Bug-Creator macrumors 6502


    May 30, 2011
    -Very few question can be answered with a simple yes/no

    -the way a question is asked will have massive effect on the result ("remove Obamacare yes/no" vs. "Go back to a health system of as in 2008 yes7no")

    - stuff like this is often complicated and with the amount of "low information voters" (tm) it will be far to easy for politicians to mislead the public (add the broken US news-media to the mix ..)
  5. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Jan 19, 2014
    In California the referendum process is ripe for abuse by monied interests and crackpot ideologues. Just based on that I'd opt against your idea.

    Furthermore, the Constitution was designed, in part, to protect minorities of people against the whims and tyranny of the majority. Reducing every controversy to a simply majority decision is actually a serious threat to individual freedom and liberty.
  6. chown33 macrumors 604

    Aug 9, 2009
    Sailing beyond the sunset
    There is no Constitutional provision for a national referendum or ballot proposition. So the first step would have to be passage of a Constitutional Amendment describing this process. I'll let you look up what it takes to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

    In a naive and simplistic way (in my opinion).

    If the intent is that national propositions or referenda will avoid contention, all you need to do is look at states that have them for counter-examples. The easiest example I can think of is Prop 8 in California.
  7. thekev macrumors 604


    Aug 5, 2010
    I doubt that is even legal. The judicial branch isn't actually accountable to public opinion. If it was, it would be redundant.
  8. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008
    I think a great first step would be to stop with the nonsense talking points that deliberately misquote (hell at least use the full sentence, if not the full context) leaders to score political points with the the disengaged.


    As to the nonsense that the Dems pushed through the bill, it took months and months of negotiations, capitulations, and abandoning ideas that would have actually done a major overhaul of the system to get it to the table. There are dozens (possibly hundreds) of changes that the GOP had put into the bill, significantly weakening it, only for them to not vote for the FINAL passage when they very clearly had a huge impact on shaping it in the first place. In fact, how about an Excel sheet of exactly those proposals (it's only partial): http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2220911/2221030/2222297/GOPHELPAmendments.xls

    Then they go to their know nothing constituents, aiding by the parrots we call the press, and point to only the final vote saying "we had no part of this" when they concretely did. They forced a watering down to the point where the ACA only smooths the edges of a ****ed up for profit system and have the nerve to walk away at the end so they can point out they didn't vote for the bill they helped shape for political reasons. The whole affair is that of extreme cynicism.

    I'm not a fan of the ACA, as I think it set back this country from joining the modern world in healthcare (Single Payer) yet another generation. It has a few bones thrown to the population that are nice, but it just reinforces a morally repugnant system that only serves to skim money off of people who need help. But I'm tired of the crap coming from people whom say they are informed but spout off the nonsense like "the bill was forced through by one party" and that BS Pelosi talking point.

    Lets get real people. This was the Nixon administration's plan, which became the Heritage Foundation's plan, which became Hillary's plan, which became Obama's plan. The only reason the GOP backed away was because they don't want Obama to have any legacy at all (see: Iran negotiations and the sickening opportunism of the GOP in trying to derail what could legitimately be one of the most significant foreign diplomacy deals in generations).

    But let's call it what it is, the ACA is nothing but a Corporatist's wet dream.
  9. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010

    Better idea: Each side appoints a champion, who will fight to the death in a spiked, steel cage.
  10. chown33 macrumors 604

    Aug 9, 2009
    Sailing beyond the sunset
    Would this be carried by all broadcast TV networks, like the President's "State of the Union" speech, or would there be competitive bidding and only the highest bidder gets to show it?
  11. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010

    The proceeds would benefit the children.

    Somebody has to think about the children.
  12. Eraserhead, Mar 22, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2015

    Eraserhead macrumors G4


    Nov 3, 2005
  13. Renzatic Suspended


    Aug 3, 2011
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    Why don't you put the children in the cage alongside the champions? They can add to the free-for-allness of it. Like little short wild cards armed with folding chairs and cudgels.
  14. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Jun 20, 2010
    A democratic supermajority in 2008 set the stage for introduction of the bill. Obamacare was introduced 4 months into the President's first term. Running over a thousand pages leads one to believe this was a document long in the making, so long, that few read it before voting on it. Presently, it continues to be written and, at 33,000 pages, the paper stands 7 feet tall when stacked.
  15. bradl macrumors 68040


    Jun 16, 2008
    Supermajority? Really?

    One Senator out sick on his deathbed, a second caught in lawsuits by his opponent challenging the victor's election FOR MONTHS, keeping him from being sworn in, and independents caucasing with the Blues does not make a 'Supermajority'.

    You should review your numbers based off the outcome of that election.

  16. Meister Suspended


    Oct 10, 2013
    Excellent idea!
  17. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Jun 20, 2010
    Class is in session.

    On April 28, 2009, the 2008 Wall Street Journal's prediction of a LiberalSupermajority proved correct; as the defection of Senator Arlen Specter from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party put the Democrats on the verge of one of the rarest blessings in politics, a Supermajority - complete control of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and Presidency so that they wouldn't need a single Republican vote to pass bills. Senator Bernie Sanders then urged the Democratic party to pursue single-payer healthcare reform. On May 16, 2009, Barack Obama urged Congress to pass health care reform within the year.
  18. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008
    Can you be any more disingenuous? (Unless of course you simply haven't bothered to know what you're talking about)

    You're talking about the length of draft legislation which is triple spaced for markups. :roll eyes:


    Text of the law: 1024 pages with clarification language.

    Where the hell are you getting 33,000 pages and standing 7 feet tall? :rolleyes:
  19. FieldingMellish, Mar 23, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2015

    FieldingMellish Suspended

    Jun 20, 2010
    What’s most interesting is that Obama, credited for his pushing through his flagship legislation that was obviously being written before his presidential aspirations, was really in the right place at the right time, vis a vis the super majority. The same as his giving the thumbs up to assassinate Bin Laden.

    Oh, about the pages, it was mentioned in a Washington Post article. And it was actually 13,000 pages, my bad.

    Your links are from 2010 and 2012, and the Obama administration has remained busy writing since then and it is ongoing.

  20. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008
    As far as the ACA, sure.

    Now when you get to UBL, Bush literally stopped devoting resources to find him, stating publicly at a presidential press conference (6 months after 9/11) that he was "truly not concerned about him". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

    Not only that, but he could have prevented the entire protracted war in Afghanistan if he wasn't looking to be a wartime president. Instead he took the "bang bang cowboy" posture of "**** diplomacy in the quest for justice , I want to bomb."http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5


    The Taliban (the functioning government of Afghanistan at the time) offered to turn UBL over to a third party country (Saudi Arabia, an "ally") in exchange for a weakening of sanctions and proof of UBL's involvement in 9/11.

    So let's stop pretending that the military was actively searching high and low for UBL during Bush's tenure. It WAS exactly Obama coming into office and restructuring the goals, the primary goal being getting UBL, that led to his (illegal) assassination. Woodward made it very clear that one of Obama's first directions in the War Room upon taking office was to make UBL a top priority. The previous administration stopped giving a damn months after 9/11 as they instead focused on lying us into Iraq


    Shifting goalpoasts enough?

    I think you don't understand how laws going from being passed to actually being implemented (or frankly the difference). You're sourcing "pages of regulation" as if it is the text of the law, it's not.

    Every department, agency, and board that is effected by a law needs to write how it's going to be implemented. That needs to be all encompassing. You're taking the implementation plans and procedures (required to be written to clarify how a law will be operationally instituted) of dozens of departments and acting like they are still wiring the law. They aren't, they're putting into the public record how that law is going to function in day to day operations.

    That's a disingenuous stance at best, or you not understanding how things work at worst.
  21. bradl macrumors 68040


    Jun 16, 2008
    Refresher course for you.

    60 for a supermajority, right?

    Ted Kennedy out ill. Brings you down to 59.

    Joe Leibermann: Independent, swings either way.

    Bernie Sanders: Independent, goes either way. Party lines brings you to 57.

    Hardly the supermajority you believe it is.

    Furthermore, Kennedy's death brings in Scott Brown (R) from Mass. in February 2010. The ACA passed in March 2010; both before midterm elections, and without any supermajority. Not filibuster-proof at all.

    So before going on about events, you may want to check your math when it comes to the Senate at that time, because I count 57 (Kennedy out on illness, and 2 Independents, which turn into a concrete 57 when Brown gets in).

  22. iBlazed macrumors 68000


    Feb 27, 2014
    New Jersey, United States
    I agree 100% and this is exactly what I've been telling people. People also thought Medicare was communism for two decades after it was signed into law. It will be something that people take for granted in 20 years from now and benefit from daily, not remembering what it was like before it. Future generations will wonder what all the fuss was about. Today, good luck telling seniors that they're losing their Medicare. They'll tell you to keep government hands off their Medicare. Funny how things work huh?

    Attached Files:

  23. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Jun 20, 2010
    You just keep on believing that.
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4


    May 18, 2008
    Believing the facts...is this an issue for you? :confused:

    The SuperMajority was short lived, there is no disputing that.
  25. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Jun 20, 2010

    Okay, here's the long version. (I tried to keep it short before)

    Obamacare is the product of a brief moment of total Democratic dominance in Washington. Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. It wasn’t a sure bet for Democrats; despite victories in 2008, the party’s hopes for that majority depended on the outcome of a contested race in Minnesota. After a controversial recount, Al Franken became the 60th Democratic senator on July 7, 2009, giving Democrats an unassailable edge.

    But that majority disappeared just 49 days later when, on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy died. State law called for a special election to fill the empty seat. That would have taken months, and as public opposition to Obamacare grew, Democrats became increasingly anxious to pass the bill as quickly as possible. Luckily for them, Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature came to the rescue, changing the law to allow the immediate appointment of Democrat Paul Kirk. Kirk was sworn in on September 24, 2009, giving Democrats 60 votes once more.

    After Obamacare passed the House on November 7 — over the opposition of 39 Democrats and all but one Republican — Senate Democrats raced to get the job done. Threatening to keep the Senate in session through the holidays, they finally passed the bill — 60 Democratic votes, not one to spare — in the early hours of Christmas Eve.

    Even as that vote was taken, a little-known Massachusetts Republican named Scott Brown was rising in the polls in the race for Kennedy’s seat — by promising to become the 41st vote against Obamacare. On January 19, Brown’s victory shocked the political world. When he was sworn in on February 4, the second period of a Democratic filibuster-proof majority was over. It had lasted 134 days.

    But health care had been passed. Later, without a decisive Senate majority, Democrats were forced to use procedural maneuvers to put the final touches on Obamacare. But they were just tweaking what had only been possible with a 60-vote majority.

    The last such achievement, Medicare, passed in 1965 with bipartisan support on the foundation of a huge Democratic majority that lasted many years. Obamacare barely scraped by.

Share This Page