jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (33 posts)

Obamacare and The Republicans Greatest Fear

  1. Don W profile image83
    Don Wposted 3 years ago

    I get the feeling the nightmare scenario for Republicans would be that Obamacare turns out to be a raging success, and goes down as one of the most courageous, enlightened pieces of legislation in the country's relatively short history. I think the Republicans are currently engaged in an existential struggle, rather than a political one. Or at least a political one that has some serious implications for the party. By getting this health care reform through, the President has inadvertently threatened the very core of the opposition party's existence. Not hard to see why. Obamacare fundamentally undermines the ideological principles of the Republican party, especially in relation to the role of government. If it works, what does that say about those principles, other than they are BS. Only by Obamacare completely failing can Republican ideology be salvaged. I suggest Republicans are not fighting because they fear Obamacare will fail. It seems far more dangerous to the Republican party if it succeeds. They can't afford to let it, not financially, but ideologically. Republicans do seem to be fighting Obamacare like their very survival depends on it. I wonder, is that because it does?

    1. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Are you from Washington, Colorado, on a prescription, or smoking that illegally?

      Sorry to seem flippant, but it is difficult to believe anyone doesn't see how poorly thought out and executed this is/has been, how much trouble it is already causing, how much more it will, and above all how it has been forced upon us.  Do you really not see any of that Don?

      I have a family member dependent on uninterrupted, affordable health care, and I am extremely worried about what I am seeing unfold, so this one is very personal.

      1. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You don't like the law. You don't think it will work. I get that. But this is about more than one law. It's about how the country changes and repeals laws. What if the Democrats refused to agree the next budget unless an assault rifle ban was introduced? Would that be acceptable? Or would it be a flagrant disregard for the democratic process?

        1. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It would be a more appropriate comparison to say what if everyone was taxed and forced to buy an Obamagun, (use your Obamaphone and order now and you can get a second one free, (additional shipping charges apply)).  So if they were refusing to fund the implementation of a forced tax making people buy guns, but would fund every other part of the government, would that be okay with you?

        2. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why do they have control of the purse, if not for the purpose of controlling the purse?

        3. profile image60
          AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The Constitution is the highest law of the land.

          There is no such thing as a tax on inactivity. They just made that up. Just because the SC says it's ok doesn't make it ok. If the SC said people don't have free speech, that wouldn't make it true. The Constitution trumps all.

          Besides the tax on inactivity, it's also a tax that didn't originate with the House, and all tax bills are supposed to originate with the house.

          There are other, minor issues with it, but that is two constitutional problems with the law, so it is technically invalid. It's going to be enforced, but it's still invalid.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The constitution is not a text book. It has gray areas that can be interpreted one way or another. So who should have final say over what is deemed constitutional if not the Supreme Court? You? Me? The President? Popular vote? Bob the taxi driver? To solve the issue (and stop fights) perhaps we could agree to entrust that determination to an institution that was itself founded within the constitution, and is the highest court in the land. That would seem appropriate. Oh hang on that's already happened. The institution is called the Supreme Court and it has become the final arbiter of what is deemed constitutional or not. That prevents you, me, the President and Bob the taxi driver from having to fight about it. Sorry you don't like that, but you are fully within your rights to use all the democratic processes available to you to change it. I assume seeing as you do not consider the Supreme Court fit to judge that you will deem every determination from the Court as invalid, not just those ones you disagree with.

            1. bBerean profile image61
              bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So your okay with the whole "tax in order for it to be legal" thing then?  Will you at least give credit where credit is due and add this to the calculations of what our taxes are because of and/or under Obama?  Isn't that true and fair, at the very least?  Let's not just call it a tax when finding a way to slither it in place over and against the will of the folks, (unless you deny the vast majority have always opposed it), let's call it a tax all the time.  It is what it is.



              Finally.  Good to know you are okay with the perfectly legal and constitutional effort underway to not fund Obama(demo)care.

            2. profile image60
              AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, but there are some very clear parts to it as well. As I pointed out, if the Supreme Court said that people don't actually have the right to free speech, would you just say "Well, they are the Supreme Court"? No, because the Constitution trumps the Supreme Court, it trumps everything. When it becomes clear to the populace that the government is destructive to the ends of liberty... well you know the rest.

              These are clear violations of the Constitution. They had to invent something that doesn't exist to try and squeak by.

              1. Don W profile image83
                Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                In your opinion Obamacare is unconstitutional. In my opinion it is not. Agreeing to lay our arguments out before a third party and defer to their judgement, makes sense in that circumstance. But of course there is an expectation that the third party will make a reasonable decision. So what if we think a Supreme court decision is egregiously wrong?

                Firstly I don't agree the Obamacare ruling is egregiously wrong. However, there are cases in history where the Court was clearly wrong. And once again there are established processes in place to remedy that situation. 1) the Court can overrule itself by ruling differently on a case about the same thing. This effectively reverses its previous decision.  2) a ruling can be overturned by an amendment to the Constitution, which of course requires those wanting change to go through the process required for amending the constitution, and 3) (in the most extreme example) Congress has the power to impeach Supreme Court Judges.

                These processes act as checks and balances needed to maintain stability. It should not be easy to get a Supreme Court decision reversed, or to make an amendment to the Constitution, but it should not be impossible either, and that is exactly the case.  The important point in my opinion is that for all historical decisions that have been reversed or overturned, those wanting the change needed to overwhelmingly win the public and political debate, and have done so. Those changes were not brought about through threatening the economic standing of the country, or by threatening to hurt millions of ordinary people by shutting down the government.

                So if you and the Republicans don't like Obamacare, and think the Supreme Court was wrong in its ruling that Obamacare is constitutional? Fair enough. There are established processes you can go through to remedy that. But they all involve winning the political and public debate. You have not done that. If you had, Mitt Romney would be President. Trying to circumvent established democratic processes because you have not been able to win the debate needed for change, is an irresponsible and dangerous way to govern. As I said, I think the Republicans have been driven to that because they know if Obamacare succeeds it will utterly invalidate their ideological framework. If (when) Obamacare succeeds, the centralists in the party will see a need for some changes. At that point I think there will be a split between the Republican right, and those in the center. Too simplistic a view? Perhaps, but I think Boehner is struggling to keep two different factions within the party happy right now. Personally I don't think he will succeed.

  2. profile image60
    AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago

    If Obamacare worked, I would change my mind and support it, even though it forces me to buy a service against my free will.

    But it won't work, because it doesn't address the problems that cause healthcare to be so expensive. It's a feel-good "we're doing something!" piece of nothingness that's hurting a lot of people.

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That's your opinion, and that's fair enough. But like it or not (clearly not in your case) it is a law passed by the House and the Senate and ruled to be constitutional. If we start disregarding the established democratic process because we don't like a particular law, then we run the risk of derailing the democratic process altogether. Threatening to harm the economic standing of the country is not the way to get a law amended or repealed. Winning the debate is. And if all else fails you can go to the electorate and try to convince them of your case. The Republicans did that in 2008 and 2012, and on both occasions the electorate were not convinced. That sucks if you really don't think this legislation will work, but that's democracy. Selectively circumventing the democratic processes to fit your own views, and threatening the rest of the country if they don't share those views is not in any way, shape or form democracy. Unfortunately people seem to be so wrapped up in their dislike of Obama and/ or Obamacare they are not seeing the wider implications of what is happening. This is anarchism not conservatism.

      1. bBerean profile image61
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's a TAX.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Just noticed you mentioned you have a family member dependent on health care. I'm sorry to hear that. I appreciate how this must be of particular concern to you. My concern is that the same tactic used in relation to Obamacare could be used (by either party) in relation to ANY legislation. It's setting a dangerous president (pardon the pun) which I think people should be concerned about.

          1. bBerean profile image61
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I do appreciate that Don.  Here is the thing, if you really research Obama and what he stands for in regards to right to life issues on both ends of life, you too would be scared to death at his ilk having control of health care.  The "death panel" concern is legitimate, and for me, personal and all too real.  Eventually prevailing in a legal battle wouldn't matter if your loved one can't survive the fight.

            Also, the tactics utilized to oppose Obamacare are legitimate...they have control of the purse for a reason.  If you believe in the system, this is part of it.

      2. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Eh...nope.
        Forcing people to pay a fine if they don't buy healthcare is what's wrong with "Obamacare".   
        Do you not even realize that the IRS will be basically your "judge" and jury if you owe fines that you don't pay?
        Matter of fact........I think I'm gonna try to go look up some info about the IRS and it's responsibilities and duties.
        Originally, that is, not after the stupid Supreme Court made such an unConstitutional decision as to uphold the piece-of-tyranny legislation that is called "Obamacare".    Very successful President, isn't he?   He has succeeded in taking control of the Census, almost everything in between, then the Supreme Court, and now finally the IRS.
        I do hope people are proud of that, because their pride won't last long after they really realize what's been done to them.

        The nightmare for Republicans is that so many people are blinded by the Democrats' political agenda and refuse to look at the facts right in front of them.    I could almost swear that if the man stood up naked in front of the White House in full view of all of America,  he could just say nah I'm not naked and a good portion of Americans would say no he's not naked.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's not just about Obamacare. It's about how government does business. Don't like Obamacare? Okay. Then go through the same process everyone else has to go through to get laws changed.  You don't get special treatment because you say you really really don't like it and think the President is a very bad man. Neither do the Republicans. You follow the democratic process like everyone else. That's called civilized society.

          As for it being unconstitutional. Either you scrap the SCOTUS altogether or you abide by it's rulings. But you can't pick and choose which ruling to abide by based on whether you like it or not. That goes against the rule of law, which is also fundamental to a civilized society.

          As I said, you sound terrified that Obamacare might actually work, because it seems to be fundamentally antipathetic to your worldview. If it succeeds (which I think it will) it could mean you have to critically reevaluate that worldview. Never a comfortable prospect. I suspect that may be why some people are rooting for it to fail, regardless of what that will mean to millions of individuals.

  3. bBerean profile image61
    bBereanposted 3 years ago

    Define "raging success".  Your correct in that my greatest fear is that Obama(demo)care will "work" just as it was intended.  I don't believe such a looming disaster could be orchestrated or perpetrated by accident, so I must conclude nefarious intentions are behind it.  So yes, if it "works" and folk's health costs go way up, quality and choice go down, employment is down as employers are forced to cut back and only offer part time work, our economy is driven further down as our debt is driven further up, people are forced into one health care option, run by government, all privacy is lost and power to decide who lives and dies is in the hands of the IRS, this is my greatest fear.  That Obama(demo)care is  a "raging success" at basically enslaving the US populace.  Bit dramatic?  You better hope so.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The only thing forcing businesses to cut hours and lower quality is corporate greed. Are you really blaming the President because multibillionaire Conservative business owners are greedy? Because that sounds more like the fault of those multibillionaire Conservative business owners to me.

      1. bBerean profile image61
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds like someone who believes that those who work the hardest (e.g. construction workers, ditch diggers, stockmen, haulers) should make the least amount just because their job didn't require a degree, and that CEOs are entitled to make 380x the amount his average worker makes.

          Or more succinctly, sounds like someone who sees nothing wrong with this.

          1. bBerean profile image61
            bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I believe people should have opportunities to be productive, be rewarded based on that productivity, and that we should take care of those who through no fault of their own cannot be productive.

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And, clearly, the CEO who chats with his buddies over a game of golf is 380x more productive than his overworked, overstressed accountant.

              1. bBerean profile image61
                bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You must have no idea of the real business world.  Do token examples of your caricature exist?  Perhaps.  Do they represent the average business owner being negatively impacted by all the regulations and laws, and who provides the vast majority of jobs?  Not even remotely close.  You clearly have no idea. 

                Hurting that small businessman who for the most part does not make much for all his hard work and risk, hurts everyone.  Without them, there are no jobs or economy, or social programs to give money to whoever you think should get it. 

                It is not unusual to see a union force pay and benefits for an employee that combined, exceed the hourly compensation the small business owner clears.  It's not hard to see why so many choose to close or have no choice in it at all.  Most fail, primarily because of the burdens placed on them by government in terms of taxes and regulations, and when applicable, by modern unions.

                1. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I assure you that stereotype is based on real people.  The "boss" who is so busy playing golf you can;t get hold of him is a pretty common problem.

  4. Credence2 profile image84
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    The GOP will pay dearly for their obstinancy, If the rightwingers have a problem with Obamacare, shutting down the Government instead of responsibly discussing and compromise is irresponsible

    1. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not paying attention? Obama is the one refusing to compromise, or even talk. Gop has been trying hard to fund the rest of government.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Compromise by letting GOP hold the budget hostage even though a majority would pass it if it was introduced?  Good.  Because democracy should be allowed to run it's course, not be hijacked by special interests.

  5. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    1. Social Security was not fully embraced when it was introduced way back when, either.
    http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/8128/

    2. Let's not forget the model for Obamacare is Romneycare in Massachusetts which includes an INDIVIDUAL MANDATE and is doing very well there.

    3. Name a country in the world that has a fully free market healthcare system that ranks well for health outcomes. Don't even bother researching. You won't find one. All the countries with good health outcomes spend a lot less than the U.S. does and have some form of government regulation.
    Our system has been badly in need of reform for decades.

    AnalogousMethod. You say it won't work because it doesn't address the things that make healthcare so expensive. Do you even know what those things are? And what ideas would you have for lowering healthcare costs? Just curious.

    1. Reality Bytes profile image95
      Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is well known, the rest of the United States is not Massachusetts.

    2. profile image60
      AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      They are costs of business. When you go to the doctor, you have to pay for the land, the power, the building. You have to pay for the student loans for the nurses and the doctor. You have to pay for their time spent complying with regulations. You have to pay for the equipment they own. You have to pay for their malpractice insurance. You have to pay for all of the high expenses for any service they contract as well, like testing. It's really a very big list, but it's never going to get addressed on the political level. It's too complicated, and politicians can't boil it down to 'We're going to fix the problem by insuring everyone!'.

      Oh, and Social Security is about to fail horribly.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And yet countries that pay for it using tax income rather than private income have far more efficient systems with equal or better health outcomes.  Go figure.

        1. profile image60
          AnalogousMethodposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ok, you missed the point, by quite a lot.

          All of these costs are different in every country. In the US, these costs are astronomical compared to other countries. Whether the costs are paid out of pocket or out of taxes doesn't change how much the costs are.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            How many of those other countries have to factor in company profits and shareholder dividends?

 
working