About compromise: what are the Rs offering?

[VoiceOfReason]

I see lots of commentary on here that the Rs are willing to negotiate and/or compromise... but the Ds will not negotiate.

The 2nd part is fact: The Ds have come out and said... "We will not compromise on the CR to fund the government or the debt ceiling". Whether you agree with that strategy or not... at least the that facts are not in dispute.

But what about the 1st part? In negotiations and compromise, both sides need to give a little to get a little. The Rs want to dismantle the ACA or at least impede it's implementation. OK, so what what are they offering in return?

Don't say the Rs are offering to fund the government... that's not on either party's political wish list. That's the job of both parties.

Not intending to flame... this is a legit question I have. What are the Rs offering the Ds in exchange for weakening the ACA? Because I don't see anything... which would prove this is not negotiation on the Rs part.

[BigDave]

Republicans want the Path to Prosperity budget (balances in 10 years), which includes doing away with Obamacare.

Offering to fund the government at Obama's inflated levels and delay only one provision of Obamacare by one year (the individual mandate) is a pretty huge compromise position.

I would like for one person to make a rational argument why anyone even thinks it makes sense to have an individual mandate next year in light of Obama suspending the employer mandate. How much sense does it make to tell people to go out and buy insurance on the exchange for one year? The Republican plan is hardly even a compromise - it's total surrender to the democrats with a tiny dose of common sense.

[oaktonhokie]

Our president has said he would be willing to negotiate, to compromise.

AFTER the Rs give him a clean CR, open the government and raise the debt ceiling.

Cave in on everything, THEN i'll negotiate with you.

Marxist negotiating strategy.

Republicans want the Path to Prosperity budget (balances in 10 years), which includes doing away with Obamacare.

Offering to fund the government at Obama's inflated levels and delay only one provision of Obamacare by one year (the individual mandate) is a pretty huge compromise position.

I would like for one person to make a rational argument why anyone even thinks it makes sense to have an individual mandate next year in light of Obama suspending the employer mandate. How much sense does it make to tell people to go out and buy insurance on the exchange for one year? The Republican plan is hardly even a compromise - it's total surrender to the democrats with a tiny dose of common sense.

[Hokie5150]

Republicans want the Path to Prosperity budget (balances in 10 years), which includes doing away with Obamacare.

Offering to fund the government at Obama's inflated levels and delay only one provision of Obamacare by one year (the individual mandate) is a pretty huge compromise position.

I would like for one person to make a rational argument why anyone even thinks it makes sense to have an individual mandate next year in light of Obama suspending the employer mandate. How much sense does it make to tell people to go out and buy insurance on the exchange for one year? The Republican plan is hardly even a compromise - it's total surrender to the democrats with a tiny dose of common sense.

This. It seems to me that the GOP has put a great deal on the table...all while the Dem refuse to even come to the table. I would see things differently if the GOP hadn't put forth the comprise of a the one year delay in the individual mandate. Given Pres. Obama prior actions, such a move does not seem extreme in any way (particularly in light of the not-yet-ready-for-prime-time performance of the IT system) and the Dems refusal to even consider it shows that they are far more interested in the winning the political point than funding the government and ending the shutdown.

[cwtcr hokie]

see below, Big Dave brings up the biggest thing about this whole mess. Obama broke his own law by suspending the mandate on businesses but you keep the individual mandate. Now that folks are actually trying to use the system (which has been an utter disaster) they are finding out that they do not meet the qualifications for getting me to pay for their health insurance and there is no way they can afford the premiums as the asinine plans have everything under the sun thrown in them when H/C coverage should definitely be tailored to each individual when buying a individual health insurance policy. Why should a male have MATERNITY INSURANCE, last time I checked they still had not perfected that male pregnancy deal yet. But that is just one example of the idiocy of putting the fed gov. in charge of H/C.

It would be similar if the feds had made the requirements for vehicle insurance and mandated (like in health care) that the auto insurance policies cover every conceivable occurrence under the sun, for instance since I can haul probably 40--50k worth of stuff on my trailers anyone that is required to have auto insurance should have to carry cargo insurance for that amount....when they will never ever ever ever need it!!!

I see lots of commentary on here that the Rs are willing to negotiate and/or compromise... but the Ds will not negotiate.

The 2nd part is fact: The Ds have come out and said... "We will not compromise on the CR to fund the government or the debt ceiling". Whether you agree with that strategy or not... at least the that facts are not in dispute.

But what about the 1st part? In negotiations and compromise, both sides need to give a little to get a little. The Rs want to dismantle the ACA or at least impede it's implementation. OK, so what what are they offering in return?

Don't say the Rs are offering to fund the government... that's not on either party's political wish list. That's the job of both parties.

Not intending to flame... this is a legit question I have. What are the Rs offering the Ds in exchange for weakening the ACA? Because I don't see anything... which would prove this is not negotiation on the Rs part.

[HokieFanDC]

Republicans want the Path to Prosperity budget (balances in 10 years), which includes doing away with Obamacare.

Offering to fund the government at Obama's inflated levels and delay only one provision of Obamacare by one year (the individual mandate) is a pretty huge compromise position.

I would like for one person to make a rational argument why anyone even thinks it makes sense to have an individual mandate next year in light of Obama suspending the employer mandate. How much sense does it make to tell people to go out and buy insurance on the exchange for one year? The Republican plan is hardly even a compromise - it's total surrender to the democrats with a tiny dose of common sense.

So, why don't they go to conference on the Path to Prosperity budget? They aren't offering that has anything to do with the Path to Prosperity Budget.
On a relative scale, offering to pass a CR, which is a short-term impact, in exchange for delaying THE major component of the ACA, is only a huge compromise position to Obama.

As for the argument....
Personally, I would love to see the individual mandate delayed. I would love to see the ACA scrapped altogether, although it would be nice for both sides to actually do something meaningful about healthcare - something they have been failing miserably at accomplishing for 40 years.
But, you can't just delay the mandate if you're Obama. Delaying the mandate means delaying all of the ACA. There are millions of people who are going to benefit greatly from the ACA. Those people want the ACA and are happy they are getting to sign up for healthcare at very reduced rates. They are going to be pissed, very pissed, if they don't get to do so.
The only way they get to do so is b/c the individual mandate is a revenue generator. You take away the mandate, you take away the funding, you piss a lot of people off.
The POTUS isn't going to do that. It's his signature bill. Asking him to do so is huge, beyond huge.