Skip to main content

Speaker of the House John Boehner speaks to the news media with U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) (L) at his side at 1:00 in the morning after the House of Representatives voted to send their funding bill with delays to the
The Republican incoherence on whether or not to do something about the debt ceiling, and what exactly that thing is, still rages. Because, you know it would be "irresponsible" not to make threats about the full faith and credit of the nation. Also, too, Obamacare.
CAMBRIDGE, Md. – House Republicans are considering attaching a provision that would prevent a “bailout” of insurance companies under ObamaCare to a one-year increase in the debt limit.

The Republican conference met behind closed doors Friday on the final day of their annual retreat to hash out a plan for raising the debt limit, which the Treasury Department says must happen within a month to avoid a first-ever default. [...]

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) led the debt-limit discussion and said the leadership wanted a plan that could win 217 Republican votes and avoid the possibility of the House having to swallow a “clean” increase from the Democratic-led Senate, the source said.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has lowered expectations for the debt limit, saying Republicans did not want to default and that the options had “narrowed” given President Obama’s stance and his unwillingness to accept major entitlement reforms without tax increases.

No, they don't know what in the hell they're doing and Boehner still can't lead. (And by the way, even some conservatives admit that that "bailout" isn't a bailout and without it, everyone's insurance premiums could be more expensive.) Because Boehner—who doesn't want to default—can't make his insane caucus do anything, so here we go again.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 12:06 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (36+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 12:06:52 PM PST

  •  Let the music play! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott jones, leonard145b, daeros

    "Republicans in Disarray" - could you please play that song one more time?

    Shall we go? Yes, let's go.

    by whenwego on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 12:25:38 PM PST

  •  Why are they so mean? It has to be making (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nocynicism, alasmoses

    them ill. What would make you want to deny uninsured people a chance to be insured when you personally have the best insurance in the country.
    What is wrong with helping your fellow humans.
    They like to point out someone "gaming" the system as a reason to lower entitlements. A "welfare queen" or some slob in California. Most of these culprits are the result of lazy enforcement, but so what if a few take advantage. That is no reason to deny help to others.
    If you're a real Christian, as they claim to be, you believe in an afterlife, so let God be the judge of these things..
    The parable of the good Samaritan and the adage about how it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get to heaven are two of the most unambiguous statements in their Bible.
    I think they have built themselves a big needle with an 8 foot eye and bred some tiny camels and are planning on pulling a fast one on their God

    "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

    by Cruzankenny on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 12:26:57 PM PST

    •  What is wrong with helping your fellow humans? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sotiredofusernames

      What makes you think that they consider the uninsured poor to be fellow humans?

      ''Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into the mental hospital."-Bill Maher

      by shoeless on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:44:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sooner or Later, real Americans will demand (0+ / 0-)

        that we go back to helping each other out.

        Too much of America is struggling hard to simply get by...and learn more and more each day about the power, influence and consequences of their vote.

        Methinks the People will come out ahead in this struggle.

        How nasty must it get? Who knows at this time. But change cannot be stopped. And I believe we are very close to that tipping point.

        The 1%'ers? Fuck 'em - they are on their own. It's approaching pitchfork time.

        And I think the Christie scandal is going to start feeding that anger. Power vs. People. Like the "poor shlubs" on the GWB bridge or underwater in Hoboken.

        "radical, ideological wet dream"

        by Scottsdalian on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 05:23:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  They are Ayn Rand dystopians. (0+ / 0-)

      This is heaven for them.

      The most violent element in society is ignorance.

      by Mr MadAsHell on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 03:01:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!...there, now I gave (3+ / 0-)

    the GOP something to talk about among themselves.  The sound of "Benghazi" being spoken out loud among themselves is a medicinal miracle.

  •  Clarification (factual) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikejay611
    isn't a bailout and without it, everyone's insurance premiums could be more expensive.)
    1) Not a bailout because they didn't need one and were making money hand over foot

    2) everyone's insurance premiums could be more expensive with or without it; as long as the sun comes up, premiums will rise.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:02:08 PM PST

    •  this provokes a further question: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris
      2) everyone's insurance premiums could be more expensive with or without it; as long as the sun comes up, premiums will rise.
      Since the ACA doesn't do bupkiss to control insurance costs and doesn't do jackshit to stop companies from raising rates whenever they feel like it, I am forced to wonder whether, if rates and premiums go up, the much-vaunted subsidies go up correspondingly . . . . . or do we just eventually get to the point where the insurance companies can charge us a mint (with a laughably minimal "subsidy") for insurance that, by law, we HAVE TO BUY AT ANY PRICE.

      In the end, reality always wins.

      by Lenny Flank on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:46:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Medical loss ratio discourages arbitrary increases (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mr MadAsHell, sotiredofusernames

        Insurance companies can raise their premiums, but must soon show that they are paying out 80 percent of their receipts for reimbursing medical claims (and I believe that rises to 90 percent over time). Any expenditures less than that have to be refunded to policyholders.

        Consequently, it creates a disincentive for insurance companies looking to arbitrarily jack up premiums. Moreover, the fact that there are cost controls and bars on denying coverage due to preexisting conditions means that people who would have been "trapped" in policies without any option to switch plans could in principle change companies to save money, an option they didn't have in the past.

        So there are lots of ways the ACA helps to control costs without explicitly limiting rate hikes.

        •  oh, come onnnnnn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0+ / 0-)

          You're telling me the insurance companies who jacked up rates for half a century, can't find a way to keep doing it . . . . ?

          I'll believe it when I don't see it.

          Insurance companies can raise their premiums, but must soon show that they are paying out 80 percent of their receipts for reimbursing medical claims (and I believe that rises to 90 percent over time). Any expenditures less than that have to be refunded to policyholders.
          If my math is correct, 10% of 2x is more than 10% of x.

          So there's a BIG fucking incentive to raise premiums. Ten percent of "more" is "more".  And insurance companies are all about getting "more".

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 02:27:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  ps--you didn't answer my question (0+ / 0-)

          If premiums go up, do the subsidies go up to match?

          Or do WE get to pay the difference.

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 02:28:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It actually simply encourages them to pay (0+ / 0-)

          more for meds and services.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 03:06:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  which they won't mind doing as long as their share (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            groupw, enhydra lutris

            keeps going up, too.

            Scenario 1--they take in $100 zillion, pay out $90 zillion in med care, and pocket $10 zillion

            Scenario 2--they raise their rates to take in $200 zillion, pay out $180 zillion in med care, and pocket $20 zillion

            Guess which one they will try for . . . . . . . .

            In the end, reality always wins.

            by Lenny Flank on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 04:24:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That isn't untrue but... (0+ / 0-)

              In this senario aren't they paying for twice as much actual "care"? Unless they start colluding with healthcare providers to simply jack up prices which is not totally off the table for them I guess (I mean most people with souls would have a problem doing this but as we have seen in many examples in the past it wouldn't bother them.)

              But collusion includes the possiblity of getting caught especially at the level necessary to do what you are talking about.

              So we will see I guess, I hope you are wrong (not gonna bet the farm against you though)

              New Plan: Obamacare Old Plan: Nobodycares

              by groupw on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 08:53:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Collusion isn't required for the obvious. (0+ / 0-)

                For years company x argued doctor y into charging only 80% of what he wants to charge. They stop doing so. He immediately figures out the scam and raises his rates next quarter.

                That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                by enhydra lutris on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 08:58:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  they don't give a rat's ass how much care they pay (0+ / 0-)

                for. All that matters is how much is left over for THEM. And 10% of 2x is bigger than 10% of x. Simple math.

                PS--no "collusion" necessary. All they gotta do is pay everything and deny nothing. We're paying for it anyway.  (shrug)

  •  Forgetting something? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet

    Benghazi

    Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies, We were roaring drunk on petroleum -Kurt Vonnegut

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:33:26 PM PST

  •  Imagine if Boehner resigned (0+ / 0-)

    And a more hardline conservative replaced him.  If he threatened to quit, would you be tempted to give him a reason to stay, or would you rather have the Republicans be led by someone more driven to extract a pound of flesh?

    •  He does what the Rightest of the right wants (0+ / 0-)

      anyway (because he cannot lead) so what's the difference?

      If they were even more radical it might wake up a few more people.

      202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

      by cany on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:39:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder if it might be for the best (0+ / 0-)

        In the long run for the Republicans to force a government default, if that is what it takes to wake people up sufficiently to give Democrats a clean majority in Congress.  If so, it would be a good thing if we could find a way to encourage a GOP coup that replaces John Boehner with a hardcore Tea Party darling as Speaker of the House.

        •  Maybe, dunno. I just know that Boehner does (0+ / 0-)

          their bidding, so why we'd need anyone else to help out...

          On the other hand, if we got someone with a really wild mouth, that might help. There's plenty to pick from.

          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

          by cany on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 02:46:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well, when all one has to deal with is a pack of (0+ / 0-)

      "devils", I suppose it's better to deal with, "the devil you know" than with "the devil you don't know" - as some old proverb has it, if I remember rightly.

  •  well, why would the goppers NOT keep (0+ / 0-)

    threatening the hostage?

    We've only had the balls to stand up to them once- so far, and they know it. They should ALWAYS assume we'll cave in to them yet again--after all if we don't, the goppers lose nothing. And if we DO cave, again, and again, and again, the goppers keep winning again, and again, and again.

    The rewards for them are great, the risk virtually zero.

    They'd be morans NOT to keep doing it.  (shrug)

    In the end, reality always wins.

    by Lenny Flank on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:42:01 PM PST

  •  Since when are Republicans against bailouts? (0+ / 0-)

    They didn't say a word when Reagan bailed out the Savings and Loans, or when Bush bailed out Wall St.

    ''Over the last 30 odd years, Democrats have moved to the right and the right has moved into the mental hospital."-Bill Maher

    by shoeless on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:42:15 PM PST

    •  Don't you see? (0+ / 0-)

      Those guys had a melanin deficiency. That makes all the difference in the world.

      Oh my god, it's full of cheese! - 2001 first draft

      by sizzzzlerz on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:49:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My god... after all this time, don't you get it?! (0+ / 0-)

      If something that a conservative does is a double standard and you ignore it, there's no longer a double standard.

      If something anyone else does is a double standard, find a special prosecutor and impeach their ass.

      It's how these bastards roll.

  •  and...cue the whackos... (0+ / 0-)

    ...this seems like deja vu all over again, so a speak. Last fall, Republicans seemed in disarray and that's when the Tea Party's hero...General Disarray...in the form of Ted Cruz came running to their rescue....

    ...it seems to me that this is beginning to smell like an opportune time for Cruz...or any one of their numerous other crackpots...to start crawling out from under the woodwork again...to try to score some brownie points with their Tea Party fringe.

    Who will it be this time? Cruz? Rand Paul? Marco Rubio (he does, after all, have some serious "making up to do" with the Tea Partiers), Mike Lee?

  •  Least. Competent. Speaker. Ever (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet

    I was up all night trying to think of another word for synonym.

    by jazzmaniac on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 01:55:51 PM PST

  •  John Boehner and company (0+ / 0-)

    America's Grotesques.

  •  Well, Teanuts... (0+ / 0-)

    ...you can either grab your ankles and take it from the Party Establishment, or you can go out and start an actual Tea Party. Your choice.

    On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

    by stevemb on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 02:34:10 PM PST

  •  Boehner walks a fine line (0+ / 0-)

    Follow the Tea Party and lead the nation into default and destroy the economy or do the sane thing and increase the debt ceiling without strings (or abolish it completely).  If he does the sane thing he risks the Tea Party forming a third party and the potential death of the GOP.  He has to throw just enough bones to keep them from leaving while still trying to not blow up the country.  That included leading the nation right up to default last time.  Hopefully this time it's a proven losing idea and we can just skip the BS.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site