What is the real reason GOP hates the Affordable Care Act

Pay more, get less, wait longer.......please tell me what's to like?

 

Well if you enjoy going to DMV or the Post Office you will love Obamacare

 

And shouldn't that ring alarm bells. Your precious legislation took all of 5 years to begin initiating, 5 years! The President's party wrote it as such to enable him to escape culpability(IE: Even their OWN party expected him to lose a re-election bid)

But now that he won, if there's one thing we can take solace in, is that his political profile will eternally crash and burn along with his "signature legislation".

The Democrats in '14-'16 are about to return to the days of post-Jimmy Carter. Political insolvency. And remember when you nuked the Senate Rules? Ah, bet you wish you didn't.

 

The nuke rule will not last. If the Democrats lose the Senate, the lame duck Senate will repeal the nuke options so they will not have to live under the rule they wanted R's to live under

 

You make an excellent point.

The one major event in post WWII America that significantly affected average American's life spans was the introduction of Medicare in 1967.

When people on limited incomes stopped having to worry about the cost of health care, they used it and lived longer.
'
That effect reflected the experience of every nation that adopted a single payer health care system. When people paid for health care as part of thier taxes, they used it without fear of being turned away or bankrupted.

 

I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.

The conservative media is now reduced to ranting about the high decuctibles in the ACA exchange plans. They never mention that this is the precise model that conservative politicians advocated high deductibles all along.

Conservative media has tried to freighten people with scare stories about "death panels", a non existant government takeover, non existant armies of IRS agents, scare stories about costs, false and misleading stories about cancellations and premiums.

They've suceeded in making just about everyone nervous.

Three months from now, most people will know that none of this came true, and the most people were not affected at all.

And those who were will want something even better.

What most people want is freedom from worry about this issue. So the GOP is making a serious mistake fearmongering over it.

In 2016, we'll have a right wing Republican politician campaigning on doing away with the ACA and replacing it with an unworkable grab bag of disjointed ideas, like the GOP "plan" that was floated last week.

In 2016, we'll have Hillary Clinton, whose solution with be either replacing Obamacare with single payer, or bringing back the Public Option.

 

Or it could be simply understanding fundamental principles of power and government.

 

You are spouting ideological boilerplate that comports with neither demonstrable reality nor sound actuarial principles.

Medicare, comprising the highest cost demographic, has served Americans well, and incrementally lowering the eligibility age would advantage the economy of size aspect whilst introducing less costly demographics into the expanded risk pool.

Of course, your dogma is also contradicted by the reality of extant, advanced nations that include all their citizens at about half the cost of the US.

Rather than clinging to a $250 billion tax payer subsidy for the thusly privileged, dumping 50,000,000 Americans onto that taxpayer tab, and resigning yourself to the highest cost in the world by far, just present a coherent alternative to cover everyone as efficiently as do the successful paradigms of those nations.

Eliminating the profit margins, exorbitant executive compensations, multiply-duplicated administrative costs, employee salaries, marketing expenses, advertising budgets, lobbying and political contributions, etc., is clearly sensible, but doing away with all that waste and excess in one fell swoop would throw too many onto the unemployment rolls. Thus, the incremental expansion to progressively include lower-risk demographics, smoothing the transition to needed reform, and gradually adapting to the improvement. Of course, the privateers are free to peddle luxury plans, but without the taxpayer subsidies they now enjoy.

Again, if you have alternatives, feel free to explain them. - Pragmatism demands they be real.

.

 

A sensible idea.

And we could accomplish most of it by introducing a Public Option to the ACA.

 

Willard touted the "individual mandate" as a conservative principle, being personally responsible for the medical expenses one might incur rather than dumping them on the taxpayer. If providing for oneself rather than shifting your costs onto the community is principled, it is equally proper at the local, state, and national level.

Of course, the most angry resistance to reform is hard-pressed to explain why they support the perpetuation of the annual $250 billion federal subsidy to sustain their employer-administered plans. If they truly wished to eliminate government from the equation and save the taxpayer money, that's the logical place to start.

 

The markets opened in October. Some parts of the ACA started before then. The implementation's deadlines are in the bill... the bill passed by Congress. If you're implying that there was no vote on the bill in Congress or that there was a conspiracy to delay the implementation so that Obama could escape culpability, then you're wrong.

Obama has some culpability for "Obamacare", and it's working, so good for him.

The GOP party has a historically-low approval rating and yet you think that they're going to take the Senate? LOL.

 

Whew! Good thing it was the republican idea! LOL

 

Which line of propaganda B.S. is it?

That the Conservatives don't care about health care or the poor?

Or that we invented an idea to help the poor and those with health care needs by creating the system your Boys in Congress fashioned into Obamacare in a way which differs from the Heritage Foundation version of the law?

Make up your lying minds!

 

No, they don't explain it at all. They just ignore it and pretend that it's not a factor.

You have to understand that something for nothing is a key element of far right wing thinking.

In good times, GOP politicians borrow and spend so their constitutents can claim the fiction of having governemnt without having to pay for it. The Iraq war was conducted.

Besides doing away with the subsidies would make the other GOP health care ideas even more unworkable.

Conservatives never worry about the workability of one of their ideas.

They fall for budgets without numbers and parrot ideas that are a little more than slogans.

 

So you mean the IRS Agents that were hired was something that we simply made up? They don't exist? The same thing with the DHS's unprecedented massive purchase of civilian-like military weapons? The ACA itself has provisions for these agents in its own bill! Were the co-sponsors of the bill conspiracy tin-fold hat people?

They're not "reduced" to ranting about anything. These are facts, that are hurting everyday average, non-political Americans. These middle-class Americans can't afford these high co-pays, these deductibles. But very famously, one senator Democrat spoke out that the insurance was "vastly superior" to the junk these middle-class Americans were receiving and hence should be satisfied!

This is the true essence of what the "party of the people" actually THINK of the people. And most ironically, the most heavily affected is the women!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ate-increases-10x-under-obamacare_764837.html

This in addition to another Liberal female who supported the initiative and once she received the sticker shock, derailed the initiative on TV.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron...source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral

The Democrats war on America continues.

And for all of this, the most inept party(and its supporters) blames the TP Republicans. You actually think this earns you a vote? Perhaps among low-information voters but here's a hint: You probably already have that particular contingency in your corner anyway.

Independents and Conservatives are searching for LEADERSHIP. Which is non existent among your party's top members. You've blamed the TP Republicans for every mishap. Every misstep was either a TP Republican's fault, or in the words of the president: It simply didn't happen!

While you may bring up Iran-Contra, at least Reagan acknowledged the scandal was a serious infraction of trust in the American People's government.

There are only two great Democrats who I'd elect(and the rest were trash). James Madison, but he himself transcends political parties and was more a statesman than anything. And John F Kennedy.

JFK was the last great American President. Everyone else is below par.

Including Madam Clinton. She'll run on an even more far left diktat policy, and you think this'll earn you votes? I see you're heavily counting on the female vote. Which is not at all a different strategy from the one that carried Obama in 08 and to a similar(but lesser) extent in '12.

This, from the party that wants to accuse conservatives of racism and sexism. The pot sure loves to call the kettle black.

 

Whatever you say, ready to repeal it? Can you call your democrat senator for
me? Get your friends to all do the same and support candidates with that view? Thanks!

- - - Updated - - -

Why was JFK great?

 

Some of the policies he planned to initiate were very populist in nature and many of them today would be A: out of step with the modern Democrats and B: Would actually work . In particular, he wanted to reverse Nixon's treason and return us to a standard of currency(Silver I believe was his initiative). He pursued a policy of lower taxation and higher wages among all Americans.

His philosophy of "Ask not what the country can do, but what you can do for your country" would be seen as conservative, bible-belt, "out of touch" TP Republicanism.

Today, JFK would align with the Centrists over the extreme left of the party who've since hijacked it and now rule Washington. To our misfortune

 

Doctors are paid well in countries with socialized medicine. They practice medicine there, not a business. Health care is a societal service, not a business.

- - - Updated - - -

The Democrats in office today are more centrists than extreme left. Your view of the political spectrum is just THAT off base. American Democrats are roughly even with the conservative parties of other developed nations.

 

OMG you conservatives are so wrong about EVERYTHING.

We got off precious metal for a two reasons:

1) There wasn't enough gold in deflations, when people would buy it all up and deplete our gold reserves
2) The amount of oil in OPEC's reserves is 26 times the MONETARY VALUE of gold ever mined in the HISTORY of mankind.

Gold will never come back, because RESOURCES (Hint: Oil, soon to be water) are more valuable to society than meaningless metal.

 

The knowledgeable ones must know it, and thus, their inability to articulate a coherent reform plan beyond mouthing ideological platitudes whilst incessantly kvetching about reality-based systems.

In formulating their ideal approach, they should be encouraged to start with their primary articles of faith: Eliminate all taxpayer subsidies (especially the $250 billion annual one to prop up employer-administered plans, of course) and banish all disabled and 65+ Americans to the magic of unbridled, unregulated capitalism. As a demonstration, let's first just apply it to those who advocate it and are predisposed to enthuse over it, and allow them to bask in the glow of the actual results.

 

What is the real reason GOP hates the Affordable Care Act

The fact that outside of those getting it free, or those getting a big subsidy, it isn't affordable to many.

 

Well, if you don't care about the poor, then why be so against a law that is structured on republican ideas that helps the poor? Why try to keep the poor from getting insurance over 40 times? Why shut down the government over the poor getting insurance?

So you can SAY and PRETEND that the gop isn't against the poor, but their actions speak louder than their words.

 

So you don't care to be honest and admit that the ACA was structured on republican ideas..................ones in which the republicans absolutely hate now that the "other" man has enacted them? They hate their own ideas so bad, they are willing to attempt to repeal them over 40 times with no luck/progress whatsoever.

Its ok if you don't want to be honest, we know the truth.

 

Can you store those resources? Can the Average American access them? What part of a banking service could they possibly be a part of? While it's true that the amount of oil surpasses the amount of gold purchased/used, America(nor the rest of the world) doesn't have access to that much oil.

It's called accessability (and transferability) That damn simple. I know Liberals have a very tough time with economic concepts.. It's why your policies over the last 40-50 years simply doesn't work.

While Oil is a resource, water can be monetized even less. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Nearly 90% of the developed world has access to water, etc.

It's not the resource itself that's important but the cost that governs that resource. Ideologically, we probably could value the resource by itself. But that would return us to a dog-eat-dog economy where we were trading away chicken and goats as barter .

**shakes head** Come on Liberals, at least TRY to research the economy and it's history. I don't ask for much, the ACA is proof you clowns couldn't make a strong economic thesis if you tried but at least TRY to understand why the world works.

While we're on: "Teaching Liberals economics", I might as well delve further into history: The Gold Crisis and why it happened. The stock traders of their time had a Bank Run. And to keep it in layman's terms for everyone to understand, they created a Panic that forced massive withdrawals.(Not unlike what would happen if a similar panic were to take place today).

The Gold Crisis occurred, specifically because gold unlike a fiat currency cannot be reprinted. Gold had no elasticity. But that was actually Gold's greatest economic feature Gold itself was a defensive mechanism against too much printing. Which the Founders had specifically warned against, time after time.

There probably wouldn't be a money shortage if another Bank Run occurred. No, instead we'd be faced with something much worse: run-away inflation as the printing presses make up for the money withdrawn. Shortening our line of credit and further destabilizing our country to the rest of the world.

It's already happening, very famously we all remember the Chinese students laughing at FMR. Chairman Geithner? It was on this exact topic.

It's not even "recent history", it's a very modern problem that we can blame Richard Nixon for. We can equally blame Liberals for the fact that there's not a social program they didn't like.

You compared yourself to some "conservative parties in Europe"(somehow I get the feeling that the BNP for example would find that laughable). Actually, no. If I were to compare you to a political party in Europe, the failed Social Democrats in Germany would be an apt comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPD. They got a little bit of an upswing in votes, but that was because IMO it couldn't possibly get any worse!

The USA Democratic Party, which runs on the same miserable platform with the same miserable results is simply very very very lucky we don't have a parliamentary system.

You're a far left party, that today would likely reject one of your very last historical figures who actually was poised to do a good job(JFK).

Perhaps in reading history, James Polk would be another Democratic figure. So how far back in history is this? Oh, only the 11th Pres of the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Polk

I mean, this is how sad it is for Democrats. You have about as many good statesmen as one could count on a single hand.

And Polk, like JFK would be rejected today(or labeled a bible-belter).

I WISH we had Europe's parlimentary system. Just to send the failed SPD rejects where you belong: To the bottom of the political barrel.

As it stands, America is politically incompetent and third parties politically challenged by the system. So we'll get alot more of you rejects then we want or deserve.

 

OK, so long as you call your Democrat Senators and work on getting them to repeal it and join every other Republican we are OK then.