General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums[Breaking news update 3:45 p.m.] House Republicans have dropped two demands related to Obamacare
House Republicans have dropped two demands related to Obamacare from their proposal to end the fiscal stalemate in Washington, sources told CNN. These include a proposal to delay the medical device tax and another to tighten income verification of those seeking subsidies to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Separately, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California told CNN's Dana Bash that he expects the House to vote on Tuesday night on its plan to reopen the government and avoid a possible U.S. default.
http://www.news8000.com/news/politics/House-GOP-in-disarray-over-shutdown-plan/-/1032/22438336/-/7q7d0l/-/index.html
spanone
(135,846 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Why?
Because that will give them a chance to shut down the government over Obamacare again before it enters into full force on January 1.
That's how stupid the Teabillies are.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Ooooof.
They'll be decimated next November. People remember when they can't get their kids Christmas presents.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)That's right, they insisted on removing a tax repeal from the package.
Why?
Because they think that leaving the medical device tax intact will give Democrats more incentive to vote to defund or delay the entire ACA by a year.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Kber
(5,043 posts)BadgerKid
(4,553 posts)flamingdem
(39,313 posts)& then your pantalones so you can get spanked by the electorate!
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)unappetizing, my heartfelt apologies!
MSMITH33156
(879 posts)If it is to restrict flexibility for the Treasury to use "extraordinary measures", they can stick up their ass. What they are basically saying is we have to do it again shortly.
Alhena
(3,030 posts)putting Congress members and their staffs on Obamacare with no subsidies.
This is the scenario I worried about, because it has like 90% support in the polls. Do we really keep the govt shut down over a proposal with 90% public support?
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)properly, and that's no guarantee given the idiocy that the GOP uses as language it only restricts members, not staffers anymore, from subsidies and it would be useless in any case as all of them are covered by non Obamacare insurance.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Grassley thought he'd put a "gotcha!" into the ACA by requiring Congress and their staffers to buy insurance on the exchanges. See, he'd propose that and Democrats would refuse to pass it. Then the Republicans would have a talking point.
Democrats passed it.
The OMB ruled that they can still provide an "employer contribution" to the cost of these plans, but they were still buying the plans on the exchanges.
The Vitter amendment removes that employer contribution. It's also unconstitutional. Congressional pay changes can not take effect until a new Congress is elected.
randome
(34,845 posts)Eventually, someday, it will get to the Supreme Court.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It would be enforceable on the new Congress, and their aides.
Given that lots of aides are making about $30k/year, are not eligible for subsidies nor Medicaid, it would be a very bad thing for them. And it could not be reversed until 2017.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And the suffering of their own aides would be proof of just how bad Obamacare is.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)I knew that if Vitter had something to do with it there must be a massive FUBAR in there somewhere, just not where I thought it would be.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Any change to Congress's pay can not take effect until a new Congress is elected. So they can't yank the "employer contribution" now, they'd have to wait until 2015. The Vitter amendment does not do this.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The CBO is supposed to score the economic effect of legislation. If the economic effect of the Vitter amendment is zero, then it deserves ridicule.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Kber
(5,043 posts)BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)But going back to demanding a delay of the individual mandate.
Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)They want default and I think Boner is willing to let them have it.
Wish I didn't think that but I do.
Alhena
(3,030 posts)because that means the House won't pass anything.
An extension plus Vitter is what worries me because that's their best play politically. I'm hoping the Bachman crowd won't accept that and will insist on something major that won't pass.
ChangeUp106
(549 posts)Called deal "unacceptable."
Future of world economy comes down to about 20-30 lunatics in the House.
a kennedy
(29,675 posts)BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)Gothmog
(145,330 posts)This is a true poison pill and should be rejected