GOP Obamacare Bait-and -Switch NOT THE VOTERS CHOICE

My Recent Posts

January 19, 2011 the GOP House of Representatives passed bill ( H.R.2) that doesn’t mince words in describing its intent: “To repeal the job-killing health care law.” [ACA or Obamacare] In February of 2015 the 56th bill against Obamacare passed the house, however; Obamacare has been funded by spending bills from 2011 through 2016 and beyond with a few components as exceptions, even when the GOP Senate majority was taken over in 2015. GOP Representatives and Senators ran on repealing the gob-killing health care law from 2010 through 2016 elections while voting to fund it and the rest of Obama's programs.

 

That is why GOP candidates during the 2016 presidential primaries all lost and the closer they were identified with the congressional GOP the more they were rejected by voters. Poles since the middle of 2011 indicated that more then half the country did not want Obamacare and as time passed more people rejected it as they or people the knew fell under its regulations, and money spent by campaigns in 2016 did not turn them. With the sweep of the GOP in congress and even Trump running on repealing Obamacare, they now have no excuse.

 

Majority leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker Paul Ryan, and former Speaker John Boehner directed and obtained the votes from the GOP to funded Obamacare from 2011 through 2016 and beyond are now charged with repealing Obamacare. They had the power of the purse strings to defund it in 2011 and chose not to. The voters have shown their disapproval by choosing Trump yet Conservative Review contributor Daviel Horowitz and Joshua Withrow say that the GOP Congress is planning to put forth a bait-and-switch plan or cripple Obamacare  making the death spiral steeper.

 

Why would the GOP Congress do this?  “They are part of the Swamp” which used Chamber of Commerce and K-Street money to fund the failed 2016 GOP candidates and fill the Senate and House campaign chests that funded GOP Rino candidates against Conservative candidate in primaries, often masquerading as more conservative and then defeated Democrats opponents.  It is in the interest of these deep pockets to maintain the distortion in the health care market and put the losses and extra cost back on the voters, their customers.  

Our voices must be louder then the giggle of gold in there chests.  Conservative want good heath care for all Citizens.  Real Liberals have the same goal.  Health care is going to be changed.  Senator Schumer bluster will not have any effect compared to K-Street gold, the sound that Congress will hear. The insurance Health Care lobbyists will support what is best for themselves with gold.  Real Liberals and Real Conservatives choice is to not be a dissident voices, but a harmonic voices  Realize Real Liberals that conservative have been dismissed by the GOP leadership but conservatives got them over the hump.  The voice of the tea party is scorned by both Democratic and Republican 'statist' that have funded Obama's programs for the last 6 years.
 
Few Americans have the information they need to make decisions, about the quality or cost of care provided by their doctors and hospitals.  Consumers today have some idea of cost between Urgent care and Emergency rooms at a hospital.  They know the wait at urgent care centers can be minimal and the cost for services often runs one-fourth of what you'll pay at a hospital.  Urgent care for profit businesses are popping up everywhere and so have other out patient services that the consumer chooses.   The more we vote with our feet the lower health care will become and that can only happen when money passes through the consumers hands.  Will never happen when money passes from the insurance company to the medical providers.   This is a center pillar of ACA (Obamacare).

HSA fund 'pay for services' set up by Medicare and Medicaid which set prices by a panel made up by lobbyist from the service providers.  Corporate heath care group plans piggy back on thesa prices.  Chronic conditions are not treated differently which increase profit for poor performance.  A more cost effective approach is to purchase a year long comprehensive block of medical services for chronic conditions.  This would result in higher profits when less services are needed, better care provided.  “In 2006, a Government Accountability Office report concluded: "HSA-eligible plan enrollees who participated in GAO's focus groups generally reported positive experiences, but most would not recommend the plans to all consumers. Few participants reported researching cost before obtaining health care services, [this is because the services are not competing on cost so even the people providing the services do not know the cost to answer customers questions] although many researched the cost of prescription drugs. [because prices are known] Most participants were satisfied with their HSA-eligible plans and would recommend them for healthy consumers, but not to those who use maintenance medication, have a chronic condition, have children, or may not have the funds to meet the high deductible." "Health Savings Accounts: Early Enrollee Experiences with Accounts and Eligible Health Plans". gao.gov. US GAO. Retrieved 2015-04-07. 

 

Welfare services would provide the funds to meet high deductibles which is the purpose of the HSA.  HSA are used in conjunction with catastrophic health care which falls into the realm of what insurance provides for auto and homes.  Welfare customs would also receive catastrophic insurance that would also be provided by welfare services.    Loss of employment insurance and out of the norm need for HSA will be part of the catastrophic insurance would span the gap for both HSA and catastrophic insurance.  HSA overages Why would the GOP Congress do this?  “They are part of the Swamp” which used Chamber of Commerce and K-Street money to fund the failed 2016 GOP candidates and fill the Senate and House campaign chests that funded GOP Rino candidates against Conservative candidate in primaries, often masquerading as more conservative and then defeated Democrats opponents.  It is in the interest of these deep pockets to maintain the distortion in the health care market and put the losses and extra cost back on the voters, their customers.  

Our voices must be louder then the giggle of gold in there chests.  Conservative want good heath care for all Citizens.  Real Liberals have the same goal.  Health care is going to be changed.  Senator Schumer bluster will not have any effect compared to K-Street gold, the sound that Congress will hear. The insurance Health Care lobbyists will support what is best for themselves with gold.  Real Liberals and Real Conservatives choice is to not be a dissident voices, but a harmonic voices  Realize Real Liberals that conservative have been dismissed by the GOP leadership but conservatives got them over the hump.  The voice of the tea party is scorned by both Democratic and Republican 'statist' that have funded Obama's programs for the last 6 years.
 
Few Americans have the information they need to make decisions, about the quality or cost of care provided by their doctors and hospitals.  Consumers today have some idea of cost between Urgent care and Emergency rooms at a hospital.  They know the wait at urgent care centers can be minimal and the cost for services often runs one-fourth of what you'll pay at a hospital.  Urgent care for profit businesses are popping up everywhere and so have other out patient services that the consumer chooses.   The more we vote with our feet the lower health care will become and that can only happen when money passes through the consumers hands.  Will never happen when money passes from the insurance company to the medical providers.   This is a center pillar of ACA (Obamacare).

HSA fund 'pay for services' set up by Medicare and Medicaid which set prices by a panel made up by lobbyist from the service providers.  Corporate heath care group plans piggy back on thesa prices.  Chronic conditions are not treated differently which increase profit for poor performance.  A more cost effective approach is to purchase a year long comprehensive block of medical services for chronic conditions.  This would result in higher profits when less services are needed, better care provided.  “In 2006, a Government Accountability Office report concluded: "HSA-eligible plan enrollees who participated in GAO's focus groups generally reported positive experiences, but most would not recommend the plans to all consumers. Few participants reported researching cost before obtaining health care services, [this is because the services are not competing on cost so even the people providing the services do not know the cost to answer customers questions] although many researched the cost of prescription drugs. [because prices are known] Most participants were satisfied with their HSA-eligible plans and would recommend them for healthy consumers, but not to those who use maintenance medication, have a chronic condition, have children, or may not have the funds to meet the high deductible." "Health Savings Accounts: Early Enrollee Experiences with Accounts and Eligible Health Plans". gao.gov. US GAO. Retrieved 2015-04-07.  Welfare services would provide the funds to meet high deductibles which is the purpose of the HSA.  HSA are used in conjunction with catastrophic health care which falls into the realm of what insurance provides for auto and homes.  Welfare customs would also receive catastrophic insurance that would also be provided by welfare services.    Loss of employment insurance and out of the norm need for HSA will be part of the catastrophic insurance would span the gap for both HSA and catastrophic insurance.  HSA overages will be paid back over time. Forgiveness will be determined by the state.   For the very small number of preexisting conditions, state and federal insurance should be used,  however; most citizens will purchase the services they need including catastrophic so the pool for expensive long term chronic conditions beyond the upper limit of insurance will shrink over time.

Alternative must be sold on a political stump.  The GOP is expected to come up with at least one but anyone can join in: simple to explain and not inviting a backlash.  It should leave in place existing employers planes which the employer may adjust to take advantages of new standard.  It should not be open to a backlash because costs are open ended,  flexible enough to not discriminate, however; make the customer responsible for choices, [they own the money in the HSA and it is not infinite].  It needs to put the individual customer at par with the tax breaks given employees with things like a tax credit or voucher and tax break.  

 

Comments

Dino Manalis Added Jan 6, 2017 - 5:36pm
Only the employer mandate and taxes should be repealed, while the individual mandate ought to be organized like Medicare's drug coverage with private insurance choice, while Medicaid expansion should stay in effect.  The main objective should be to reduce expenses with market reforms, like import foreign prescription drugs; cap medical malpractice compensation; and streamline insurance bureaucracy and paperwork, as well as allow insurers to compete across state lines to help the economy; shrink the deficit; ensure viability of Medicare/Medicaid; expand insurance coverage; and enable more Americans to use preventive diagnostic care.
Bill H. Added Jan 6, 2017 - 6:02pm
Maybe if we just renamed it to it's original model (RomneyCare), the Republicans would accept it since it was actually created by Republicans.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 6, 2017 - 6:26pm
Bill H.  Majority leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Ryan Would be happy because that would keep the lobbyist happy.  Trump knew this was a possibility.   Do you want National Health Care Bill?   
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 6, 2017 - 6:36pm
Dino M.  read the article:  https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/if-the-gop-repeals-only-most-of-obamacare-theyre-nuts  He talks about the effect of doing what you suggest, just remove pieces could cause a faster death spiral.  You can not get just what you want removed.  It will be a mess.
 
The problem is that by 2015 65% of the citizens were not happy with Obamacare and the voters were not happy with the GOP leaders voting to pay for Obamacare when voting in congress but campaigning on repealing Obamacare.  That is why the GOP candidates were dismissed quickly.
Bill H. Added Jan 6, 2017 - 11:37pm
Affordable heath care is what everyone is entitled to. When insurance providers and pharmaceutical companies are allowed to simply charge whatever they want to without price controls and instill existing condition clauses, the systems ceases to function and everyone suffers (except the CEOs). If it takes National Health Care to accomplish this, then so be it.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 7, 2017 - 9:17am
Affordable heath care comes with access to multiple providers and not having dominant providers or payers.  That is what keeps prices down in every other market.  The price of heath care was stable up until the US government created medicare and medicaid.  They took over a large chuck of heath care and thus their price  set the price of all the other competitors.  The prices went up after a few years when lobbyist started to become members price determining committees, the purchase amount the government would pay for a service.  They represented the providers that put a higher value on the services they were selling then the actual market without the feds would have set.  Prices when up faster then inflation.  
 
That is why Obama care may have good intentions as do every other national health care system but the foundation flies against the nature of man,  To better one self special interest get to the ear of the managers of the system they.   Special interest always win Bill because it is so important to them that then live and breath achieving an advantage where the opposite side it is almost unimportant because the daily cost in minor.
 
What makes maters worse Bill is that the metrics that are easy to measure are used because they are easy to measure.  But they seldom are important to the consumer's measurement of the value verses price of the health care.
 
Patents is another issue since Government give out a special privilege to patent holders.  What needs to be included in patent law is a way of nullifying a patent if it is not used in the interest of society.  Price gouging or sitting on a patent preventing anyone from making a product when their is a real need are both against the interest of society.  Batteries for electric cars is one area where corporations have blocked there development by removing a battery type from consideration with a patent.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 7, 2017 - 2:19pm
This is short history of how ACA came to be, "The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won." Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.  ...   Republicans target="">introduced several alternative target="">stimulus bills that cost half as much as Obama's ("twice the jobs at half the cost" was the target="">GOP mantra). Had Obama really wanted to be the first "post-partisan" president, he could have incorporated one of these alternatives into his final stimulus legislation. ...  But Obama was not interested in compromise. He decided to go it alone. He picked off a few easy GOP votes and rode roughshod over the rest of the Republicans to pass a maximalist bill over their objections. That may have seemed like a good idea at the time. But looking back now, a week from the midterm elections, the wisdom of his approach is hard to discern." ww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102502408.html
 
Obama care was one of the 'maximalist bills' that he was going to pass over and GOP objections.  Here are two articles on the passage of Obamacare.  Republicans did participate in presenting ideas for it.  This likely occurred in Mass. when Romney was Governor.  And this is likely why the GOP has funded Obama care for 6 yrs.  That does not mean they like the final bill that no one read because that was impossible in the short time provided.  "We have to pass it to know what is in it." said Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  The Heritage Foundation presented a similar health care concept years earlier and Newt Gingrich was in favor of it.  So Obamacare in principle was acceptable to progressive Republicans.
 
Maybe one reason no Republican in either house voted for the final bill was that they knew Obama and the Democrats actually was providing health care for the illegal immigrants and everyone on welfare and passing the costs to the middle class.  Kept that a secret and lied to sell it.   But since its passage the GOP have been working on fixing Obamacare when they gained control.  The progressive Republicans never planed to repeal it and removing root and branch.  I presented what is on their desks when Trump takes the oath of office.   History of its passage:
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003712
the legislative history https://resources.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/history-timeline-affordable-care-act-aca
Mike Haluska Added Jan 7, 2017 - 6:30pm
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for!  If the Republicans simply stood aside and let Obamacare implode (as it already is).  The Democratic Party would be responsible for enacting without ANY Republican support and presiding over and defending the single worst government entitlement program in history.
 
Almost all of the major health insurance providers, many large health care providers, tens of thousands of doctors, hospitals are no longer participating in Obamacare.  The final nail in the coffin is the "Cadillac Tax" (which was postponed until AFTER the election) which penalizes everyone fortunate enough to receive health insurance through their employer to the tune of $7,000/year or more!!! 
Joe Chiang Added Jan 7, 2017 - 8:52pm
I don't remember the Cadillac Tax which will affect me, but I do recall there were portions of ObamaCare that were cowardly postponed.  I used to sell Health Insurance and specialized in Group Plans. The big issue is for individuals and groups to purchase plans across borders.  In ND we now have only ONE company permitted to sell, BC&BS.  It has the worst coverage and highest rates of any other BC&BS company of which I am aware.  So simply, a new law that states any company regulated in any state may sell in any other state approved plans that must contain the provisions that children can stay on their parents plans until age 26 and there can be no pre-existing limitations. In Insurance terms, this could be accomplished by forming a group of non-aligned individuals to create a pool large enough to share the risk.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 7, 2017 - 9:40pm
Joe C., instead of fixing Obamacare as the bills on the desks of McConnell and Ryan what do you think as a player in heath care in the plan Dr Carson put forward: "I propose a system in which we use health empowerment accounts, which are like a health savings account with no bureaucrats. We give it to everybody from birth until death. They can pass it on when they die. We pay for it with the same dollars that we pay for traditional healthcare with. We give people the ability to shift money within their account within their family. So dad's $500 short, mom can give it to him." Source: 2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary, Feb 25, 2016
" They can pass it on. We pay for it with the same dollars that we pay for traditional health care with, recognizing that we spend twice as much as many countries per capita and health care and don't have as such access. We give people the ability to shift money within their health empowerment account so that each family basically becomes its own insurance company without a middleman; that saves you an awful lot of money. And that will lower the cost of your catastrophic insurance tremendously, because the only thing coming out of that is catastrophic health care. And then in terms of taking care of the indigent, we have another whole system; go to my website bencarson.com and read about it. " ABC Republican debate on eve of N.H. primary Feb 6, 2016 
"The plan gives people the option of opting out. The annual Medicare budget is over $600 billion. And there are 48 million people involved. Divide that out. That comes out to $12,500 for each one. There are a lot of private-sector things that you could do with $12,500. That's a theme of a lot of the things that I'm talking about. How do we utilize our intellect rather than allowing the government to use its, quote, "intellect," in order to help us to be able to live healthier and better lives?"CNBC 1st tier debate, Oct 29, 2015
"The annual Medicaid budget is $400 billion to $500 billion a year. We have about 80 million people participating; that's $5,000 each. Most concierge practices charge $2,000 to $3,000 a year. And then you still have thousands left over for your catastrophic insurance, which is much cheaper now since everything is coming out of your HSA. And the interesting thing is people say poor people wouldn't be able to manage a health savings account. Of course they would be able to manage it." ABC This Week interview by Martha Raddatz Oct. 18, 2015
Ari Silverstein Added Jan 8, 2017 - 10:23am
Do you honestly believe that health empowerment accounts will make it so that Medicare and Medicaid disappear?  All you just proposed was a massive new entitlement program on top of other massive entitlements.  How about we let the free market be free as the solution to our healthcare expenditure crisis?  If you don’t purchase insurance, the cost of your medical needs are your responsibility, that’s the way a free market is supposed to work. 
 
For the record, health savings accounts are a great way for rich people to put money away tax free to pay for medical needs.  The reason they aren’t great for the poor or middle class is because both of those groups of people pay very little income tax. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 8, 2017 - 10:54am
Ari S. nothing is more massive then Obamacare!  Can not just eliminate it.  If that was possible social security would have been gone decades ago.   Ari since hospitals by law are required to accept and treat people with critical conditions then we already have a massive entitlement program.  What is more cost effective is to not use emergency rooms as a last resort.  And as I describe above Medicare and Medicaid is the most expensive way to go since they are big enough to set the price of care and special interests determine their price.  Human nature will result in the providers that are most interested in the price becoming the individuals that determine price.  Customers where heath care is not a big part of their lives put health care at a lower level of importance so will not work to set price.
 
Capitalism Ari is the only solution and heath saving account is the only method I know of to return Capitalism to health care.  Dr. Carson has floated a health saving account approach that is complete enough yet simple enough to discuss and approach your representatives about.   There are others but this is out in the open and has had national coverage recently. 
 
Even the insurance companies do not loose since they have the less effort and highly profitable Catastrophic area.  So they will support a health savings account plan,  may not be there first choice. 
 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 8, 2017 - 10:59am
Ari  Dr. Carson has address the issues you point out.  Welfare will put money into the account.  It is not a cheep program but will be cheaper then the Obamacare or Canadian or British  etc.  Since the daily health care has spending limits,  even welfare customers will vote with their feet to get the best service at the lowest cost. 
Ari Silverstein Added Jan 8, 2017 - 11:48am
What makes you think I support Obamcare? It’s very easy to rid ourselves of Obamacare.  The only reason it’s currently working is because the soon to be former president keeps changing the rules via executive order.  All Republicans need to do is defund it and it will come to a crashing halt.  But they can also strip it of a lot of executive orders signed by Obama and kill it that way.  Or do a combination of the two.  The point is the Trump needs to propose nothing by way of replacement.  A replacement will only expose Republicans to the same condemnation Democrats duly deserve for enacting Obamacare. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 8, 2017 - 1:35pm
Ari S., I do not support Obamacare and I never though you supported Obamacare.  You are correct all the GOP has to do is defund it then and the Senate has a bill to do just that.  What is left in place is all the regulations.  The mandates are the driving force and they stay in place.  All the insurance policies still have the high deductibles before you get any insurance benefits but now everyone faces them.   That keeps the price regulations in place so the young still have to pay for the old and the uninsured.  And the requirement of selling insurance to anyone stay in place and so do the mandated coverage and the price, you know why companies are dropping out.  Ari none of that changes the money keeps flowing out of the chests of the companies and the government and the government has nothing coming in.  The death spiral speeds up significantly.  and what happens when all the insurance companies stop providing insurance payments for anyone, they file for bankruptcy?  Health care collapse right before everyone's eyes: mine, yours, the poor, illegal aliens, politicians, and your companies health care.  It all collapses and then the hospitals collapse and the doctors themselves collapse because no one is getting a penny coming in.  Heath care will be a cash market.  
 
Stripping away the executive orders will return it to the bill itself which is not an improvement.  The executive orders gave privileges to congress, unions, and companies that are being reduced,  They slowed the deployment and altered worse legislation to make it a little better.  Sorry Ari that will not work any better.
 
Do you really want that Ari S.?  The Democrats would love.  Since health care is a large portion of the economy the whole economy may collapse with it.  I hope you have a lot of cash and a wheel barrel.  We will be Argentina or Venezuela. 
 
So it has to be replaced in an orderly fashion.   Congress can put together a schedule for shutting it down without the replacement items in place.  But that assumes they will have the replacement in place.  Now Ari my experience with congress is that they never achieve the legislation dates on any schedule they construct.
 
Utpal Patel Added Jan 8, 2017 - 10:02pm
You completely misunderstand the challenges before the Republican Congress as it relates to the funding of Obamacare.  They could have shut down the government in an attempt to force Obama’s hand, but they had tried that tactic several times in the past and it didn’t work out very well.  It didn’t out well for two reasons, first most of the populace doesn’t support the effort.  In fact, going back to the days of Gingrich, the effort cost many Republicans their jobs. 
 
Second, Obama has the power to fund and not fund whatever he likes.  As we learned, he was able to make the Republicans look bad as he pulled funding from things that he shouldn’t have.  So from closed National Parks to unnecessary delays at airports, it all became the fault of Republicans.  Now that Republicans control what can or can’t be funded in the face of a shutdown, all those Republicans you ridiculed now truly have the power of the purse to force policy. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 9, 2017 - 10:03am
Ulpal P., the GOP NEVER WAS CAPABLE OF OVER-RIDING A PRESIDENTIAL VETO!!!!!  So the 56 times the house created a bill and voted to defund Obamacare was kabuki theater.  They shut down the government for a few day and then chickened out.

Now the the GOP house of representative could have defunded Obamacare in appropriation bills.  Congress or the President have shut down the government and force a compromise.  Welfare is and  Obamacare may be on the exempt side of the shut down.  So in this case Obamacare is not shut down but other parts of government are.  The compromise would be to change the law.   When the group wanting the change does not chicken out Utpal it has worked out in the past.  

Utpal let me step through the shut downs.  2013 18 days GOP gained 9 seat in house and 13 seats in senate in 2015 congress.  1995 6 & 21 days GOP 3 seats house -4 senate in 1997 congress. 1990 4 days Gop  -1 seat in house and -8 seats in the senate in 1991 congress. Reagan had many shut downs  total GOP gained 4 seats house and 17 seats senate.  Carter had many shut downs  total GOP gain 3 seats house and 15 seats senate.  Finally Ford 1976 11 days GOP 1 seat house and -1 seat senate in 1977 congress.   Utpal seem you believe the myth that the president for a government shut down looses where the data shows the opposite on average.

The Constitution give the House of Representative the power to initiate all taxing and spending bills.  So Obama only has the power of the bully pulpit.  He used the bully pulpit as the executive to choose the shut downs, if the GOP sold the voters that Obama picked what was shut down Obama would have lost.  Clinton did not do as well as Obama because they presented their case to people.  In this case the progressive GOP members did not really want to change Obamacare fundamentally The reason for this article.
Mike Haluska Added Jan 9, 2017 - 10:56am
Thomas - your statement:
 
"Clinton did not do as well as Obama because they presented their case to people."
 
causes me to remind you - Obamacare didn't get a single Republican vote, was passed on a Saturday night over the Christmas holiday to avoid voter backlash and was NEVER supported by a majority of Americans!  
 
The one-sided bragging about "20 million people have health insurance now that didn't before" ignores the fact that many more lost their insurance, now can't afford their insurance or can't get a full time job with benefits because of companies refusing to hire full time employees anymore.
 
Do a history check and you'll find that BEFORE the federal government intervened in the health care industry costs were low, insurance was available to anyone and private charitable hospitals took care of those without means.  The FREE MARKET found the best solution ALL BY ITSELF!  That's all we need to do with Obamacare.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 9, 2017 - 1:29pm
Mike, the shut down of government was the subject when I said, "Clinton did not do as well as Obama because they presented their case to people."   What I forgot was that Clinton was dealing with 6 separate budget bills so government was not totally shut down.  Clinton was limited to choosing the government programs that were in the budget that was shut down.  Where Obama because everything was in one mega budget bill had more choices.
 
Mike the federal government had destroyed the free market in medicine well before Obama.  FDR, LBJ, and BHO administration are responsible for the greatest destruction of the free market.  During LBJ's administration Wikipedia says, "Medicare is a single-payer, national social insurance program administered by the US federal government since 1966, currently using about 30–50 private insurance companies across the United States under contract for administration," and "The Social Security Amendments of 1965 created Medicaid by adding Title XIX to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 et seq. Under the program, the federal government provides matching funds to states to enable them to provide medical assistance to residents who meet certain eligibility requirements. [single-payer per state] ... Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with low income in the United States. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments and managed by the states."
Utpal Patel Added Jan 10, 2017 - 4:01am
“the GOP NEVER WAS CAPABLE OF OVER-RIDING A PRESIDENTIAL VETO!!!!!”
 
That is exactly my point.  You deride “establishment” Republicans for failing to do something they didn’t have the power to do because of presidential veto powers.  In other words, the bill to defund Obamacare never became law, meaning their only option was to defund it the entire government.  Shutting down the government destroyed Gingrich’s Republican majorities and assisted in losing the 2012 presidential election.  So it wasn’t kabuki theater, they tried it and it didn’t work.   As it relates to compromise, the Democrats were not interested in giving an inch on Obamacare, as what Obama couldn’t accomplish in Congress he accomplished with his phone and pen.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 10, 2017 - 8:56am
Utpal you seem to have not read actual effect of government shut downs.  I looked at this data below from who was president and the conclusion is within the margin of error, no one actually gains or looses.   President George W. Bush destroyed the Gingrich Republican majority and caused the rise of the tea party just as Pres. Georg H. W. Bush destroyed the Reagan majority and could lost to Carter.  The Bush branch of the GOP is still in power in Congress and the RNC.  That is why I wrote this article because they are not destroying the party of Lincoln.  Now they do not think they are destroying the party but the dismal performance of the Bush presidencies should have told them something is wrong?
 
The kabuki theater was passing a bill to repeal Obama care 56 time in the House when they did not have the votes in the Senate or the capacity to over ride a Veto.
 
Let me step through the shut downs.  2013 18 days GOP gained 9 seat in house and 13 seats in senate in 2015 congress.  1995 6 & 21 days GOP 3 seats house -4 senate in 1997 congress. 1990 4 days Gop  -1 seat in house and -8 seats in the senate in 1991 congress. Reagan had many shut downs  total GOP gained 4 seats house and 17 seats senate.  Carter had many shut downs  total GOP gain 3 seats house and 15 seats senate.  Finally Ford 1976 11 days GOP 1 seat house and -1 seat senate in 1977 congress.   Utpal seem you believe the myth that the president for a government shut down looses where the data shows the opposite on average.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 10, 2017 - 8:58am
because they are now destroying the party of Lincoln.
Mike Haluska Added Jan 10, 2017 - 2:51pm
Thomas - here's the "Dirty Little Secret" that the Republican elite and Democrats fear the most about a "Government Shut Down":
 
If a so-called "Government Shutdown" did occur, things like welfare payments, social security, military pay, etc. would continue uninterrupted.  "Non-essential branches of government" like Education, Commerce, EPA, Consumer Affairs, etc. (over 1,600 agencies at last count) would close.
 
Here is what the "Big Government" proponents in BOTH parties are terrified of:  
After a couple of months, the vast majority of Americans would realize that their lives are going along just fine despite the fear mongering of the "Government Shutdown".  Having seen that they are just fine without all of the "Big Government" largess, the obvious place to balance the budget will be exposed.  
This is what the "Big Government" proponents fear the most - exposure!!! 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 10, 2017 - 5:03pm
Reagan and Gingrich which were conservatives [Gingrich is an on an off again conservative]  did not worry about shutting down the government since as you see the GOP on average gained seats in both the house and senate. see data above. 
 
I totally agree Bush Republicans and the Democrats are afraid of a government shut.   You are correct.   A shut down shows the citizens that government works just fine with a smaller bureaucracy.  They are afraid that the citizens will demand a smaller cheaper government.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 17, 2017 - 1:16pm
Just to fill you in on the process of screwing us.
"In a seven-hour voting marathon Wednesday 1/11 night on through Thursday morning 1/12/2017, the Senate approved a budget resolution that morning that will enable Republicans to repeal Obamacare through a reconciliation measure, which only requires simple majorities in the House and Senate."
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/4-things-the-senate-did-while-you-were-sleeping-last-night#sthash.aYzBgNGl.dpuf


"Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky. was the only Republican to vote against the budget resolution as a step to repealing Obamacare. Sen. Paul stated, “putting nearly $10 trillion more in debt on the American people’s backs through a budget that never balances is not the way to get there. It is the exact opposite of the change Republicans promised, and I cannot support it, even as a placeholder."" - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/01/4-things-the-senate-did-while-you-were-sleeping-last-night#sthash.aYzBgNGl.dpuf

"Congress on Friday approved a $1.1 trillion spending bill with a pair of overwhelming bipartisan votes, capping a frenzied final few weeks of legislating before lawmakers head home for the holidays and gear up for the 2016 election year.

The House moved first, passing the government funding bill on a 316-113 vote. The Senate followed suit just a few hours later, clearing the legislation —which also included a $680 billion tax package that the House cleared on Thursday — on a 65-33 tally."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/democratic-support-for-omnibus-growing-216931
 
 

Recent Articles by Writers Thomas Sutrina follows.