Is whether or not you support ACA, worth the current government shutdown?

[SUPlime]

Of course things are popular when you don't have to pay for them yourself.
[/quote]

I would say the vast majority of people pay into both these programs for a lifetime. The problem with the programs is in the execution. Fix the problems. The American government already pays more to healthcare per person than England. Check out this video:
http://www.upworthy.com/his-first-4-sentences-are-interesting-the-5th-blew-my-mind-and-made-me-a-little-sick-2

[headmount]

Rand Paul was on Meet The Press this morning and when the moderator framed a question saying that republicans are holding the government hostage, Rand replied by reframing the question yet again, saying without a blink,  that democrats are holding the government hostage.  This way of responding seemed programed and gave me the distinct impression that he wasn't even beginning to listen to the question.

If he had instead said that he disagreed with the framing of her question and that he believed instead that the democrats were responsible and this is why, then his believability and sincerity would be much better for me.  Why is his speaking like an automaton important?  Because Rand Paul is a strong presidential contender for the republicans in 2016.  We all complain about Obama not listening and that seems valid but this guy doesn't seem any better when it comes to talking straight.

Also  transparent was his reframing the 'piecemeal' OK of separate budget issues to get around saying directly that they were defunding ACA.   Despite whatever opinions I have about ACA, Rand's tactical approach seems to cater to the idea that he thinks we're idiots.  I previously thought he might be a good candidate but not now. 

I think most people are fairly adept to this Karl Rove style repeating the memo message and that message begins to lose its appeal when parroted without thought.  It makes me feel like they can't be trusted not to stick their foot in their mouths by speaking their own minds.  If their party can't trust them to think or speak straight, then how can I? 

[pdxmike]

SUPlime--I do agree healthcare is screwed up and the video's point is important that it's not because too little money is being spent on it. 

My biggest reservation is that government programs just about always snowball into costing far more than proponents anticipate.  Most people do pay into those programs for a lifetime, but they're still unsustainable because the costs are so much higher than predicted.  The costs to the next generations who have no say yet will be higher still.

And popularity always does bother me, because both sides use populist arguments that force the other side to look like the bad guys when they raise legitimate objections.  It's also a reason I don't like the extreme partisan objections to the ACA, or to anything else, because people making legitimate warnings about costs and impacts get lumped in with the partisan bickerers and dismissed, when they should be listened to. 

[Weasels wake]

head, so I guess you didn't have a problem with the way the question was framed.

"Rand Paul was on Meet The Press this morning and when the moderator framed a question saying that republicans are holding the government hostage"

Part of RP's answer, was knowing going in, that he was in hostile territory, that being NBC.

[headmount]

head, so I guess you didn't have a problem with the way the question was framed.

"Rand Paul was on Meet The Press this morning and when the moderator framed a question saying that republicans are holding the government hostage"

Part of RP's answer, was knowing going in, that he was in hostile territory, that being NBC.

Yes I did have a problem with the way it was framed and RP should have called her on it.  Instead he did the same thing as she did and appearing like an automaton by doing so.  Yes it was a hostile question and they always do that on Meet The Press to both sides.  RP missed his opportunity to meet that hostility head on and appeared slippery doing so.  If he knows going in that they're going to frame questions he should call them on it, not be slippery.

[pdxmike]

head, so I guess you didn't have a problem with the way the question was framed.

"Rand Paul was on Meet The Press this morning and when the moderator framed a question saying that republicans are holding the government hostage"

Part of RP's answer, was knowing going in, that he was in hostile territory, that being NBC.

Yes I did have a problem with the way it was framed and RP should have called her on it.  Instead he did the same thing as she did and appearing like an automaton by doing so.  Yes it was a hostile question and they always do that on Meet The Press to both sides.  RP missed his opportunity to meet that hostility head on and appeared slippery doing so.  If he knows going in that they're going to frame questions he should call them on it, not be slippery.

This is pretty educational.  Humans must be wired to respond back the same way you're being questioned or approached.  If you can stay calm, and respond thoughtfully, it's always better, and it also can deflate the other person or make them look bad, if that's useful to you--and if often is, in cases like this where you're trying to convey your message to onlookers.  Getting sucked into the emotion or aggression of the other person means losing an opportunity.  I'm sure Bruce Lee has said this better than that. 

[bts]

If you are asking "Should you be able to use the CR process to re-write existing laws"

No, I don't agree with that approach.

How about this question : What does CR stand for?

Chickenshit runaround? Coward's retreat?

Pass a damn budget already.

[Weasels wake]

If you are asking "Should you be able to use the CR process to re-write existing laws"

No, I don't agree with that approach.

How about this question : What does CR stand for?

Chickenshit runaround? Coward's retreat?

Pass a damn budget already.

Budget?  Well hell, haven't had one of those for years, and in that lies the root of the problem.  Without a budget, you have no restrictions, just so long as you can continue passing CR's.
The endless CR's are killing our country, can't keep printing money forever.

[stoneaxe]

SUPlime...I agree with you...fix the problems 1st before we do anything else. That would mean ending welfare and SS fraud, shutting the border and getting rid of illegals, make it illegal for politicians, their staff, and military from ever leaving government and working for companies that lobby or provide product to the government, and a whole host of other things that our leaders will never do becasue they keep the $ flowing to their coffers and/or buy votes. My question to you is this...if we haven't been able to fix these why do you think this will be any better?

Why can't we simply focus on fixing what is broken before we do something else? I think these CR's should be unconstitutional.....we are supposed to have a budget not be mortgaging the countries future and ignoring home economics 101. Maybe we should all just pay our mortgages with credit cards, and when they come due get another card to pay that, and another and another.

Do we really want more of this kind of bureaucratic BS?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57606233/disability-usa/

[pdxmike]

In regard to fixing problems, one problem is people focus on fixing problems only within the problem.  That is, health care costs are the problem, so the focus is on health care costs, and the solutions are focused on how health care is paid for.  Of course that's a huge issue and needs attention, but on the other hand you can also attack affordability by improving the economy and reducing unemployment, and reduce the huge costs of health care by reducing the number of people with horrible diets who never exercise. 

[lucabrasi]

Went to sleep during the football game. I wake up and Meet the Press is on. Didn't know that's what it was right off but she had Lew, the treasurer on. It went to commercial and there was Rand Paul. I had already seen the posts here and what I took away from it is that her demeanor seemed far different with Lew. I came in mid stride and wasn't quite awake but it seemed when she got to Rand Paul......she had a list/script she was going to follow and not deviate from and a far more aggressive demeanor than the previous guest with no conversational like format, just questions. She didn't seem to deviate much from a predetermined plan for the most part. I may have missed something for sure as I had half an eye on it and wasn't sure what I was watching when first seeing it but she seemed to be talking to Lew and questioning Rand. Rand also seemed on autopilot for sure with a script so to say but very defensive and almost.......bashful. Not backing down but it seemed he did not want to be there. As far as the questions and answers....didn't pay that much attention. I took away that she blamed him/them and was making sure it went that way and he was going to do some 'splaining and he seemed as if he knew that was how it was going to go coming in.

[SlatchJim]

I can help...(reason in parenthesis)
Cancel the following departments and programs immediately.
The Department of Education (state and local issue)
The Department of Homland Security (redundant - Just make existing agencies work together)
Complete pull out of Afgan and Iraqi forces, as well as military bases in Japan and Germany (Uh guys... we're done here).
All health care for federal prisoners on life sentences (why wax the car before demolition?)
All double dipped federal pensions.  (Pick one)

Tomorrow I'll solve immigration and prison reform ...simultaneously 

[waterman60]

Why are so many people for bigger government ?  Why all the name calling by those who neither work in healthcare or the area they have there strong     opionions ?

Easy to throw others peoples money around !
Easy to jump on the bandwagon than research the facts !
Why are people sold on the two party system ?

Being 60 now, I know one thing for sure, A house divided against itself will not STAND VERY LONG.  We had better learn to use some common sense and learn to get along !
 

[headmount]

Went to sleep during the football game. I wake up and Meet the Press is on. Didn't know that's what it was right off but she had Lew, the treasurer on. It went to commercial and there was Rand Paul. I had already seen the posts here and what I took away from it is that her demeanor seemed far different with Lew. I came in mid stride and wasn't quite awake but it seemed when she got to Rand Paul......she had a list/script she was going to follow and not deviate from and a far more aggressive demeanor than the previous guest with no conversational like format, just questions. She didn't seem to deviate much from a predetermined plan for the most part. I may have missed something for sure as I had half an eye on it and wasn't sure what I was watching when first seeing it but she seemed to be talking to Lew and questioning Rand. Rand also seemed on autopilot for sure with a script so to say but very defensive and almost.......bashful. Not backing down but it seemed he did not want to be there. As far as the questions and answers....didn't pay that much attention. I took away that she blamed him/them and was making sure it went that way and he was going to do some 'splaining and he seemed as if he knew that was how it was going to go coming in.

Meet the Press is the longest running show on TV and the format is to ask framed questions to attack the guest on whichever side of the political fence they live.  Also the show has an extensive library of tapes to show previous statements that may or may not conflict with what the guest is currently trying to say.  People that go on, go on because they want to sell their agenda.  They all know what's going to happen and figure going is worth the risks of looking bad more than not going.  John McCain loves to be on the show and has been on more than anyone.   

I like the show because you get to see guys speak and you can generally tell their intelligence or lack of, as well as how they respond to the pressure we as viewers have come to expect.  Most times they bounce off aggressive questions by reverting to party line talking points drilled into them, in which case we get nothing new in the way of info but also get realize these guys are not prime time material.

Treasury Secretary Lew as you noted was shifty and deflected questions.  But he's a dem soldier and that was to be expected.  Rand Paul is a presidential contender in the next election and an appearance on MTP was a great opportunity for him to voice his stand and not appear like he had been scripted.  He should be the one scripting.  I had hopes for the guy but he looked rigid  on MTP and is probably not a good candidate for the GOP in 2016.  Rubio and especially Christie speak much better and sound sincere.   

If people want a break from a demo executive, they better begin looking hard at electable potentials because HC will be tough, real tough.  Get over the OBama deal.  He's not running any more.  Trying to derail him only insures a wipeout by the dems in the next elections.  Instead of stopping the government, try to see how gaining a majority in the senate and executive can achieve your ends.

[Weasels wake]

head, please don't put too much stock into John McCain, he's the perfect RINO, he's cut from the same cloth as Chuck Schumer, neither one of them have ever met a TV camera that they don't just fall in love with.
And IMO, Meet the Press died along with Tim Russert.

But that's just me.