What is the real reason GOP hates the Affordable Care Act

I have never quite understood the consevative fascination with the grammatical misuse of the word "fail".

Is this something some talk radio host uses?

 

I don't have a problem at all. The fact you can't back up the claim is your problem.

 

"Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"

The 'Hundred Days' of F.D.R., by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Commentary, NY Times, April 1983.

 

What? There is a federal supervision of the stock market? When? You mean the one holder doesn't want to go after? The too big to fail? The one that when they do fine them for stealing million or more get fined by Holder ten mins. worth of profits?really? Hell even banks for that matter. Busted for laundering drug cartel money and nothing happens. Holder is too scared to do a damn thing. He is affair if the banks.

 

Since 1929 the stock market and trading has been regulated. Which is why we didn't have 10% down margin trading that was such a big factor in the 1929 crash.

 

The insurance companies were doubling and tripling premiums way before Obama. That's why we have the ACA.

 

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education." FDR, sotu 1944

There is no doubt that health care was one of the carrots that progressives used to buy votes.. "Free stuff for all!" ..was the cry of the day, & it is still working. Just let Øbama print up a bunch more money, & he can 'give' it to everyone! Heck, he can print up enough money to just give EVERYONE a million dollars! What a great idea! Just print money & declare its value! Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?

Look at this list of 'rights'. These are all on the bucket lists of most socialists & nanny statists. They are like con men, who promise 'something for nothing'. Government cannot provide these things!! It is absurd! Only a healthy, productive society can provide this. Someone has to WORK to produce food, shelter, & medical care. Leftists can only steal them from the producers to buy votes & power.

1. If they mandate that 'everyone' be hired at any place they went to look for work, at some arbitrary wage that the govt sets, ALL businesses would go bankrupt within a short time. If the govt hires everyone, the govt will go bankrupt, because there are not enough productive taxpayers funding it.
2. Wage setting. They would also have to set prices for goods & services. It would crush business, & kill the economy.
3. Same as 2, just appealing to farmers, who were hit hard during the depression.
4. Inconsistent. FDR would have to set prices for wages, & by extension, goods & services. A business would have to 'apply' for any price increase. Corruption & inefficiency would be the norm, & the culture of prosperity would end. This was tried with communism & didn't work then or now.
5. Who builds them? Will the govt price fix those too? They will have to. It is such an absurd mess of an idea i can't believe intelligent people nodded in agreement with this list.
6. Finally we have this: obamacare.
7. guaranteed income, health, friends, & loving family in your old age.. No need to buy insurance, the govt will provide it for free!
8. Free education, too! All teachers will make 6 figures, & all campuses will be like resorts! I guess the idea is to just print money to pay for it.

The folly of the progressive mind.. always something for nothing. Money growing on trees.

 

Those things sound good to me. What is your problem with medical care, education, security for the aged, a decent home, fair business, etc?

I think a lot of what your wrote was folly. For example, please cite quotes from who exactly was saying "free stuff for all" as you claim "was the cry of the day".

Sounds like another giant conservative straw man, but I'll give you a chance to prove your post isn't just folly.

 

Why is it the left automatically the word hate to any disagreement of any of their programs and political beliefs? Seems to me there are many Democrats running away from Obamacare, millions of people who are PO'd after getting their cancellation notices, union bosaes now demanding the unions be exempt from Obamacare, young people suffering sticker shock over the cost, and employers dumping their employees into the exchanges

Democrats own this classic example of liberalism and it will hang around their neck until Election Day.

Meanwhile it is a money pit swallowing up trillions of taxpayer dollars and all we have to show for it is more people without coverage now then before Obama's first term "crowning achievement" took effect

 

I am amazed that a thinking leader of a world power could think this way. How are any of these thing, 'rights'? These are goals &/or responsibilities in life, not something inherent to the human animal. This is like saying antelopes have a 'right' to graze on the savannah, free from lion attacks.. Or that lions have the 'right' to meat, without having to hunt.

There is no 'right' to a job. A job is simply an exchange between parties. You provide a service, the employer pays you for your time & work. If you 'mandate' this, it will only collapse the economy, as jobs cannot be mandated.. they can only come from a healthy, productive economy.

There is no 'right' to a home.. how can there be? How can anyone construe that it is my right to live in a hollywood mansion, or a suburban cracker box, or ghetto projects condo? Your only right to a home is in what you can afford.

The same is with healthcare, food, old age pension, or any other commodity. Someone provides a product or service, & you can buy it. These are not rights. I do not have the right to go on Old McDonald's farm & take chicken, eggs, a cow, broccoli, or anything i want. I can pay for his goods, or swap work for them, but to expect to take them as my own personal 'right' is absurd. That will just get me shot. So how can FDR or any number of these progressive idealists think these are rights? What basis do they have for believing this? It is illogical, unworkable, & has no precedent in the entire history of mankind. SOMEONE has to work to produce food, goods, or services. These are not 'rights'. They are commodities.

The progressives make it sound like there is a big warehouse, full of food, shelter, cell phones, healthcare, weed, & everything you could possibly want. They want to spread it around evenly, but the evil capitalists keep the door locked, & horde it all to themselves! If it were not so pathetically stupid it would be funny. SOMEONE has to work to produce food, clothing, shelter, drinking water, medicine, or any commodity humans might want or need. They can never be construed to be a 'right', as you have to violate someone's right to property in order to redistribute it to someone else.

I know this sounds like an argument of incredulity, but i find it incredible that anyone could think these things are human rights. How do they come to this conclusion? The whole concept is absurd, yet millions if not billions of people will nod like bobbleheads while some slick tongued politician recites this nonsense.

From my perspective & analysis of history, WW2 provided a break.. a respite from the move to progressive socialism. The world was suddenly under attack from totalitarian systems, & the contrast to american freedom was significant. Americans celebrated their freedom & understood the differences. Socialism & other statist systems had to slink around in the dark, hiding from the bright lights of freedom.

But once the totalitarian systems were defeated, a time of peaceful lull began.. it was somewhat relative, as there were 'police actions' still taking place. But the overt differences between statist totalitarianism & a democratic republic were not as clear. The progressives could start to come out in the daylight, & pitch their propaganda again. They framed it in 'free stuff!', & promised all manner of goodies from the public treasury, if people would vote for them... which they did. Slowly, the cancer of progressive thought corrupted the whole nation, taking over all the institutions.. the media, govt, academia, entertainment.. any institution with a voice or influence was a target of acquisition by the statist manipulators. .. and how they have manipulated! Here we are, trillions in debt, with a slim chance of finding solvency in our finances, yet still they spend. They add people on the public dole like it grows on trees. They shuffle printed money around & enrich themselves & their cronies. Their lies have been told so loudly & so often we aren't moved to outrage when we hear them anymore. Instead of voting for these crooks & enemies of individual freedom, we should be covering them with tar & feathers.

- - - Updated - - -

You go over the list. How are any of those 'rights'? Who produces these things, & why would they be rightfully someone elses? How is it 'right' to take from someone who works for their property, & give it to those who haven't?

BTW, you can think whatever you want about my opinions & points. I don't care. But if you want to debate the points, you have to go through them & offer a rebuttal. I provided a quote, analyzed the logic of it, & gave my conclusion. Show me where my reasoning is faulty. Just saying 'folly' means nothing & my points stand, unrefuted. I can only conclude you have NO arguments, & are resorting to ad hominems & deflections.

 

I ask you why does the progressive unions hate it? Do they not care about the sick and the poor? Are liberal unions racist?

 

I don't know exactly what you mean by "rights", but thinks on your list like a good education are certainly things we should want for all Americans to have to the best of their abilities, and do things to accomplish that end. Don't you agree?

 

Some Repubs hate the fact that that the concept of WillardCare was a Republican idea applied to the nation. Romney generously credited the Newt with the "individual mandate" approach to reducing the vast ranks of the uninsured so the medical care for 50 million Americans would no longer be dumped on the American taxpayer. And, of course, the conservative Heritage Society enthusiastically embraced the approach.

Then there is the factor that many of those same kvetchers are taxpayer-subsidized to the tune of $250 billion annually if they are covered under an employer-administered plan. Employers and unions love to have the subsidized perquisite to pretend they are responsible for, of course, and just don't care that advanced nations cover everyone at half the cost.

Until Republicans can design and present an alternative reform, their bellywhinging has no real value. All they have been able to achieve thus far is WillardCare.

We have no shortage of paradigms that demonstrate clearly superior approaches, but ideological paralysis prevents them from embracing any such pragmatic solutions.

If they don't like nationalized WillardCare as a reform, let them suggest and support some other model. They do exist.

 

No thanks. If you don't want to debate the points, or make counter arguments, i don't want to be distracted by deflections. But NO.. education is NOT a right. It is a commodity, that IF the citizens of a community decide is worth providing, they can. But they have to collectively pay for it.. teachers, buildings, supplies, books, computers, chalk & erasers do not grow on trees.

Who pays for the bulk of american education? Property owners. They pay local taxes that fund schools. This is a valid decision for local communities to decide.

Why don't you explain to me how these things are rights.. btw, so as not to hijack this thread, i started another on this subject here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=341469

 

Whether you want to call it a "right" or not, IMO every American should have the right to be able to develop is education as far is his abilities take him.

That you disagree I guess is why you are a conservative and I'm a liberal.

 

Why? Why is it a right? It is something society can provide, like roads or bridges, but i cannot go up to a river & demand that a bridge be provided there, because it is what i want, or it would help my life. If it helps everyone, or there is some kind of collective benefit, THAT is the argument, NOT some inherent right.

If we disagree, it is not because of labels, but the basis of our philosophical views. You think it is fair to take anyone's property for things you like or consider 'rights'. You want redistribution to force life to be fair. But to me, this is folly, like trying to convince me that all of life's commodities are everyone's 'rights'.

 

I think it should be a right for two reasons. (1) I believe in meritocracy, and every person should have the opportunity to develop themselves as a person as far as their abilities take them, and not just those who happen to be born to wealthy families. (2) I believe America is stronger with number (1).

So what is your problem with people having the right to educate themselves as far as their abilities allow?

 

WHY is it an odd claim? Mandating EVERYONE have drastically higher levels of coverage purchased by a PRIVATE insurance corporation or pay a fine??????

You think that's an ODD CLAIM from a LIBERATRIAN????

 

Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rollout

 

O yay, you posted what's already been posted or referenced repeatedly and shown NOT to actually be Obamacare? W/e. Idiots will parrot idiocies.

 

interesting.

 

Folks like me want Obamcare repealed because:

it has cost over 6 million the coverage they had and liked

it is costing more than 3 times want we told it would cost

Obama lied about being able to keep your coverage and your doctor

hundreds of billions are being spent for a website that does not work and for a PR blitz for a program nobody wants

I could go on but those are a few reason for the opposition

 

Health care for all is an admirable goal for us to accomplish. But who do we mean by "us"? Who can accomplish it? While certainly the government can help, it is the people who must accomplish it. My gripe with the ACA is concerning liberty. Congress has always regulated commercial activity. But this is the first time we see Congress regulating inactivity. It is something new, and it makes me skeptical of whether it will actually increase liberty.

 

What November 2014 has in store for Democrats who voted for Obamacare

 

There are plenty of folks who have gripes about the Affordable Care Act, some real, some grossly exaggerated, some imaginary.

It will either follow the pattern of success of its Massachusetts model, or will need to be seriously revised.

It's unfortunate that no one is offering a serious alternative reform plan. Vapid bluster is not going to make coverage available to all Americans, universal inclusion at half the cost such as advanced nations have achieved. Anything they can do, we should do better or at least as well.






.