Obama Care vs Republicans

[Undertoad]

Those 58%, they are against O'care for privacy reasons?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Those 58%, they are against O'care for privacy reasons?

No. They're against OCare because of the way it's being implemented. So, various reasons.

That percentage however, is what spurred the Republicans in the House on, to take todays action (vote).

In 10 days, the Senate and possibly Obama, will have to decide to either live within the current debt limit, (which they can't possibly do, I mean come on, they're democrats), and get Obama care funding support from the House, OR obtain a debt limit increase, but have to drop funding for OCare.

Between now and then I expect there will be a smear campaign deluxe, all over the media. Politicians today can't talk policy - it has to be that their political opponent is personally:

*dumb as a brick
*born stupid and ugly
*can't even talk right
*too blind to see straight ahead in a well lit room
etc.

Nancy Pelosi actually called those who disagree with Obama, "traitors" today. Obama says we're "messing with" him.

It can't *POSSIBLY* be about policy - Oh No! Their socialist policies couldn't possibly be wrong.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Adak

It can't *POSSIBLY* be about policy - Oh No! Their socialist policies couldn't possibly be wrong.

Adak, if you're in favor of a nationalized health service, YOU are a socialist in the eyes of your political cronies. And please spare me (us) your hypocrisy about Democrats not being able to live within the current debt limit. Revisit the history of the GOP over the past couple of decades and then retire quietly to the corner.

We need a) the government to continue to function; b) universal health care with private health care available alongside; c) lots of other political goals that aren't pertinent to this thread.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Adak, if you're in favor of a nationalized health service, YOU are a socialist in the eyes of your political cronies. And please spare me (us) your hypocrisy about Democrats not being able to live within the current debt limit. Revisit the history of the GOP over the past couple of decades and then retire quietly to the corner.

We need a) the government to continue to function; b) universal health care with private health care available alongside; c) lots of other political goals that aren't pertinent to this thread.

No, a socialist favors a lot more than just a universal health plan.

We've had a LOT of politicians willing to spend too much / waste too much, of our money, while they served in Washington, currying favor by so doing. Why shouldn't they? It's not THEIR money they're spending, and for the most part, nobody will ever know the true amount of their little continual dips into the debt pool, in time to do anything about it.

George Bush jr., was a great example of that. There was no big surplus of money to pay for his acts of largess. Barrack Obama even called his increase in our national debt quote:

" A failure of leadership ".

And I couldn't agree more! Now that he's the one doing the unprecedented spending that makes Bush look like a Boy Scout in comparison -- well, everything's different --.

Oh yeah, I've got the hypocrites, from both parties, all in a row.

And helping the poor, and the sick, is not socialism - it's a moral duty.
It's how you go about it that makes the difference.

My guess is we'll have a gov't shut down at the end of the month. I can't see the Republicans backing down in the House, or the Democrats giving in, in the Senate. At least, not before the end of the month.

Time to batten down those hatches, everybody. It may be a long shut down, this time.

[Lamplighter]

Overheard today:

"My 6-year old is better at handling not getting her way than the Republicans"

[Adak]

Show me how the Democrats have compromised, lately!

The last great compromise (the "Contract with America") was when Clinton and Gingrich worked out some reforms and spending cuts, (which helped to really spur growth, and cut our deficit, btw).

And you may recall the gov't went through a shut down also, during their disagreements.

There was no concern in Obama Care for the essential (to my way of thinking at least), equality of the businesses and citizens. We've had:

*No pilot made to determine the REAL impact of Obama Care

*No period of study of the regulations (now at 10,000+ pages), before the bill was passed. It was "Vote for it now, and we'll write up the regulations for it later".

Health care is important to us all, and a huge part of our economy, as well. Don't just ram this down our throats and tell us to swallow it, or else.

Eliminating pre-existing conditions, allowing cross state competition among health care providers, and passing the 85% efficiency rule, along with Tort reform, would have been something both parties could have agreed to.

With the exemptions by the thousands coming out of Washington for Obama Care, I see a large loss of income for the program, and a large loss of people getting the health care.

How can you have the businesses with the most employees, getting opted out of the program? The whole purpose was to give these employees, health insurance - and thus get subscribers (businesses) paying into the program - not exemptions from it.

[Lamplighter]

Show me how the Democrats have compromised, lately!

I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours (i.e., how the Republicans have compromised, lately)

*No pilot made to determine the REAL impact of Obama Care

If not "pilot programs" of some kind, prior to passage of the ACA...
...what do you consider the Massachusetts' program under Romney?
...what do you consider the Oregon program under Kitzhabber ?
...there were probably several trial projects in other states earlier under
federally approved variations of their own Medicare/Medicaid programs.

Of course I've not yet seen an opponent of Obama that didn't consider
every situation "not the right way to do it" or "not the right time to do it"
Those are standard bullet points for the GOP.

*No period of study of the regulations (now at 10,000+ pages),
before the bill was passed. It was "Vote for it now, and we'll write up the regulations for it later".

Maybe we can agree that the regulations were probably not "read" by
every Congressman, but the overall plan was discussed for a long time,
with central features being made aware to everyone.
(You've listed a few in the paragraph below...)

Eliminating pre-existing conditions, allowing cross state competition
among health care providers, and passing the 85% efficiency rule,
along with Tort reform, would have been something both parties could have agreed to.

Pre-existing conditions and allowing cross state competition - obvious improvements

The 85% rule is simply one tool to force the insurance companies
and the health care providers to put their $ into delivery of care,
not advertising or CEO salaries or high MD payments or ultra-high cost hardware ?
I assume you are not opposed to all that; but if so, what are your reasons ?

Tort reform doesn't belong in this ACA legislation for several reasons,
Not only because it takes away the rights of patients to seek
recourse in the face of what courts determine to be negligence or malpractice,
but the health care insurer is not (usually) the same insurance carrier
as the "malpractice insurance company" for the medical personnel.
Tort reform did not fly previously, but it had little to do with the Democrats.
It failed to be enacted due to the lawyers in the crowd... many of whom were Republicans.

[Lamplighter]

Adak's predicted "kicker" has fizzled... as has his hero, the Texas Senator's attempt to sway his party...

WASHINGTON — Republican Senator Ted Cruz’s 21-hour, 19-minute verbal assault
on President Obama’s signature health care law ended Wednesday
when the Senate voted 100-to-0 to move to consider House legislation
that Democrats plan to use to keep the government open next week.

It doesn't happen very often for just 1 Senator to antagonize all 99 others.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

Show me how the Democrats have compromised, lately! <snip>

There was an interview on TV this morning that helped explain (to me anyhow) why
Harry Reid was so emotional yesterday during a news conference on the government shut down.

Reid believes that John Boehner reneged in their September agreement
on the upcoming budget and debt ceiling deadlines.
In such political agreements, your word is more than your bond... it's your entire reputation.

I found this article from yesterday that recounts some of Reid's remarks...

The Hill
10/3/13

<snip>Reid said Boehner could not deliver on a deal the two agreed to
after the August recess to fund the government because conservatives in his party
have pressured him to combine the delay or defunding of ObamaCare with government funding.

Reid was echoing similar comments he made earlier in the day.
He said leaders had already compromised on a deal to keep sequester-level funding
of $988 billion a year as the baseline for the continuing resolution.<snip>

Democrats have preferred a continuing resolution about
$70 billion higher than the current spending bill being debated.
“That is why we agreed to that lower number,” Reid said.
“That is one of the largest compromises since I’ve been in Congress.
That is a big deal, $70 billion just like that. And he couldn’t deliver.”

[Dagney]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Overheard today:

"My 6-year old is better at handling not getting her way than the Republicans"

There is much much love for this statement in my heart right now.

43 votes to overturn - and they still don't get their way - let's go for 44....because what the hey, we don't have anything REAL to do.

[Lamplighter]

How about every debt limit being raised since Obama came into office?

Ummm....





Of course, Obama had to pay for GW Bush's wars which were run "off budget"
Had Bush/Cheney paid for their own wars, the numbers would be quite different.