Couldn't it be just as easily said that all of the Democrats who weren't willing to "defund" Obamacare were willing to allow the US to default? (That's a rhetorical question, you don't need to answer, nor can you answer in a way that isn't entirely biased.)

[quote]Couldn't it be just as easily said that all of the Democrats who weren't willing to "defund" Obamacare were willing to allow the US to default? [/quote] No, because there was nothing to compromise on. House Republicans wanted the ACA changed. Congress passed the ACA, POTUS signed it, and SCOTUS confirmed it. There's no compromise to be made at this point. If they wanted to change even a letter of the ACA, they needed to pass it like they passed the ACA originally.

I'm not asking you to defend Obamacare. I think that you absolutely have a valid point in saying that the Democrats passed the bill legitimately, and therefore didn't need to compromise in such a way that the Republicans could indirectly "overturn" it. However, you're defending a point that is unrelated to what you originally stated, which was that the Republicans were the ones willing to default by voting against the Democrats. The Democrats weren't willing to forfeit Obamacare, and such is why they would have let the country default (had the Republicans not been un-unified and given into what the Democrats wanted). The Democrats were just as willing to default as the more conservative element of the Republican Party.

The issue is simply the fact that the Democrats were not required to concede anything. Holding their ground is not a signal to default, especially because the Senate did good work. McConnell and Reid ended up saving the US. It's the GOP House with the Tea Party segment that almost brought everything crashing down. The Democrats were always ready to get a clean CR pass. They never asked for anything significant; in fact, one of the bills had ~300 billion in cuts in comparison to Obama's recommended budget. If the Democrats folded, there would be literally nothing stopping the GOP from doing this again and again and again. They would rule America by proxy and extortion; it would make a mockery out of the US democratic process. Not to mention how the credit agencies would downgrade the US to AA or even A+ if things got bad.

Lol. The Democrats were required to concede Obamacare because they're so goddamn -blam!-ing retarded. To think that a healthcare plan that gives everyone care is going to actually work better and cheaper is -blam!-ing asinine. Somebody is going to have to account for the tens of millions of people who are new to the healthcare system, and that bill will inevitably be accounted for by the middle-class and rich. The conservative Republicans are trying to save what little economic morals this country still has. The idea of working hard and earning your own shit seems to be a long-lost virtue. But then again, America isn't really a shining example of personal accountability and morals. All in all, I thank God for people like Ted Cruz. While many disagree with his method of trying to get rid of what will soon be socialized healthcare, at least he has the -blam!-ing nuts to defend what this country was founded upon, alongside some economic foresight. I have no will to continue debating on this issue. My activity on this site has been greatly reduced recently, and my willingness to debate people who believe in theoretical economics has done the same.

[quote]The Democrats were required to concede Obamacare because they're so goddamn -blam!-ing retarded. To think that a healthcare plan that gives everyone care is going to actually work better and cheaper is -blam!-ing asinine. Somebody is going to have to account for the tens of millions of people who are new to the healthcare system, and that bill will inevitably be accounted for by the middle-class and rich.[/quote] I don't think you understand how economies of scale work. Nor have you actually read the bill. It literally puts limits on the profits of insurance companies, while expanding their base. They have to reduce prices, they don't have a choice. [quote]The conservative Republicans are trying to save what little economic morals this country still has. The idea of working hard and earning your own shit seems to be a long-lost virtue. But then again, America isn't really a shining example of personal accountability and morals.[/quote] Haha the US has become increasingly less and less """""socialist"""""" over the last 30 years. Nixon by the modern definition would be a[i] "liberal commie". [/i] There is no state on Earth that is a shining example of personal accountability and morals. There [i]never was, and never will be.[/i] The United States did not become a super power on this basis. [quote]All in all, I thank God for people like Ted Cruz. While many disagree with his method of trying to get rid of what will soon be socialized healthcare, at least he has the -blam!-ing nuts to defend what this country was founded upon, alongside some economic foresight. [/quote] So threatening default over Obamacare is justified? I don't care how bad you think the law is, [i]a default is far, far worse. [/i] [quote]I have no will to continue debating on this issue. My activity on this site has been greatly reduced recently, and my willingness to debate people who believe in theoretical economics has done the same.[/quote] Theoretical economics? Are you this asinine? Even some of the most well known supply side economists like Hayek admitted the need for government involvement in certain areas. Basically every single Western country in the world has universal healthcare. It is a fantastic system. You know why Romney care/ Gingrinch's plan is similar to Obamacare? Do you want to know why this concept is based on conservative thought? -The individual mandate; required health insurance for all. People have to be prepared for emergencies. It would push people to take responsibility for their action,[b] as completely subsidizing emergency visits is very expensive.[/b] People taking health insurance would therefore be covered; the insurance company would have to pay, reducing the cost for the government, and for the person involved for certain procedures that aren't completely covered. I.e., no more expensive visits, government pays less, consumer pays less. Technically, it's a tax, [i]they don't have to do it. [/i] http://www.bungie.net/en/Groups/Post?groupId=12337&id=62132558&path=1 My full post on the bill is here. Take a look. [quote]You're missing my point. In fact, you're only furthering what I'm saying about how unwilling the Democrats were to give up Obamacare (and thus very willing to default on our debt to save Obamacare). The Republicans weren't necessarily right in what they were asking for, but the Democrats were just as willing to default as conservative Republicans. You liberals should be rejoicing that RINO's exist.[/quote] So the moderate Republicans, you know, the ones similar to most past Republicans, are RINO's now? Holy shit, [i]that's a new level. [/i]

*sigh* I originally wasn't going to respond to this, but you I feel almost obligated. [quote]I don't think you understand how economies of scale work. Nor have you actually read the bill. It literally puts limits on the profits of insurance companies, while expanding their base. They have to reduce prices, they don't have a choice. [/quote] First off, you're only partially right. While the ACA in part forces down insurance company profits (which is ethically wrong, in and of itself), it does so because there needs to be additional money to subsidize the poor. Considering the middle-class and rich can already receive most of the insurance they need without a reduction in insurance company profits, it's a safe bet the reduction will be the result of insurance covering all. There are people who can't pay for themselves but will still be required to have health insurance. In order to pay for said insurance, the government will either force the insurance to cut losses (which is unethical, socialistic and anti-American) or indirectly increase premiums for those who can pay. [quote]Haha the US has become increasingly less and less """""socialist"""""" over the last 30 years. Nixon by the modern definition would be a[i] "liberal commie". [/i] There is no state on Earth that is a shining example of personal accountability and morals. There [i]never was, and never will be.[/i] The United States did not become a super power on this basis. [/quote] Is this my cue to start spewing equally untrue BS? [quote]So threatening default over Obamacare is justified? I don't care how bad you think the law is, [i]a default is far, far worse. [/i][/quote] The Democrats could have prevented the default by forfeiting Obamacare. I don't care whether you think they didn't have to or not -- they could have. [quote]Theoretical economics? Are you this asinine? Even some of the most well known supply side economists like Hayek admitted the need for government involvement in certain areas.[/quote] I'm not an anarchist, nor am I a laissez-faire capitalist. I just don't believe in quasi-socialized healthcare. [quote]Basically every single Western country in the world has universal healthcare. It is a fantastic system.[/quote] No it's not. Ask [url=http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/66149-canadas-healthcare-disaster]Canada[/url]. (Actually, don't. The young and poor in Canada will happily take whatever free shit is given to them so long as they don't have to pay for it.) [quote]You know why Romney care/ Gingrinch's plan is similar to Obamacare? Do you want to know why this concept is based on conservative thought? -The individual mandate; required health insurance for all. People have to be prepared for emergencies.[/quote] I in no way support that system either. Romney isn't an ideal politician by any means. [quote]So the moderate Republicans, you know, the ones similar to most past Republicans, are RINO's now?[/quote] Past Republicans haven't tolerated socialized forms of healthcare and similar insitutions. Those that have are corrupt, reelection-happy Republicans; i.e. RINO's.

Well, there were 144 "nay" votes, and they were all Republicans...so...yeah..