Can the Republicans Run on the Platform of Taking Away Healthcare?

1. 92

   Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years ago

   The Affordable Healthcare Act works toward everybody in the U.S. having healthcare insurance. Most Republicans are running on a platform of taking that away. Senator McConnell said there is no replacement on the agenda if they were to get their way in repealing ACA. Is is possible to successfullly run on an anti-universal healthcare platform and win Congress and the White House?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      They will try.  They will try to frame it like they are in favor of "freedom."  Unfortunately, their definition of freedom is the freedom for the rich to exploit us without any available recourse, and to go bankrupt or die if we can't afford costly medical bills.

      replyreport
2. 0

   screamingposted 10 years ago

   With so many people already having access to parts of the healthcare program, there's no way the Republicans want to stay on this subject. Romney in 2009 even stated "HIS" healthcare reform in Mass should be taken nationwide. And he was glad the parties agreed to keep the most valuable part of his program to keep insurance costs down. That part being the individual mandate.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      screaming, you may be right. I wonder if thoughtlessness and stridency will rule the election. Some people still think the Affordable Care Act is socialism--if so, then the Supreme Court has said that socialism is OK.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Mighty Momposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         They are running on a platform of taking away Obama.
         And have been since he took office.
         Nature abhors a vacuum. And Romney's just the empty guy to fill it.
         

         replyreport
3. 79

   alancaster149posted 10 years ago

   Could be a vote loser. Maggie T nearly lost her job as Education Secretary after knocking free milk for school kids. She did lose her job at No.10 after the 'Poll Tax' issue, forcing people on low incomes to turf out their over-16's onto the street. Might not be a good move unless the majority 'stateside' don't want healthcare. Maybe the Republicans are looking at our healthcare. It's in tatters at the moment with the extra demand on it from non-earning immigrants we have to take in according to the EU 'rights' pundits. It started off well enough, though, back in the '40's, but life-expectancy was lower then - about 65-70 for men, 70-75 for women - and the medics have got better at their job, keeping Uncle Tom Cobley & All alive for longer.
   If there's enough wage-earners putting in, the cost to contributors could go down, but you're probably right to oppose it. In times of a shaky economy the input goes up per contributor.
   So on the other hand it could gain votes unless the economy 'bucks up'. Which do you want, sound economy and high health bills for those who can afford to go into hospital, or failing economy and high health bills etc.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Good point. I did not think about the issue of the economy and changes in rates for healthcare. In the states, the cost is always high and going up 7% a year. It's twice what you pay and 40 million people get nothing. Now, I get the EU immigrant issue. You have to pay for them.
      
      The Affordable Care Act spreads the cost of care around a little more, charging the rich a pence or two. And the government kicks in a little more--might have to cut out building a few F-22 fighters at $300 million a copy. (we don't even use the F-22 because the oxygen shuts off sometimes.)
      
      No one seems to fight for the kids here, not to the extent that it might affect the president. This bill gives 10 million kids healthcare and people either yawn or call it socialism and want it repealed.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         alancaster149posted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Trouble is in your neck of the woods Socialism is linked to Commies and they're linked to atheists and godlessness. That doesn't go down too well in the Bible Belt, where thinking takes second place to the 'shoot first...' school of thought. Sort of gets you thinking about that Alan Arkin film about the Russians landing on the eastern seaboard somehere and setting everybody off in blind panic. The harsh reality is that a centralised economy works no better than a federalised one if there's no money in the kitty. 'Socialist' countries tend to bolster their economies artificially and 'capitalist' ones hamper their own growth with red herrings about the free market. A mixture of both might work. A healthcare system that can support itself is another myth, and needs to be supported from profits elsewhere in the economy..

         replyreport
4. 66

   innersmiffposted 10 years ago

   Well no, this is why the state always expands, despite any government-limiting constitution put in place. The USA is unique in that it had the smallest government in the world that turned into the biggest in an incredibly short amount of time. People saw the incredible wealth the freedom from government gave the population of the US and responded well to talk of getting a slice of that pie by force. Once people are given something and then become reliant on it, it is extremely difficult to take it away.
   
   This is the reason why things like Obamacare need to be nipped in the bud before they are implemented. That's basically it now: the only way Obamacare is going down is when the entire government collapses under its own weight. That wouldn't be such a bad thing.

   replyreport
5. 60

   JSChamsposted 10 years ago

   You know I have to wonder about teh Democrats as well. I keep seeing articles on and on about how many Democrats are not going to support ACA and how many will not be attending the Convention.
   I'm not just talking about rank and file Democrats. Governors and such saying this.
   
   So?????

   replyreport
   1. 92

      Dr Billy Kiddposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting point. I'm just aware of Democrats supporting anything that is sponsored by the NRA. But on Obamacare, all but one Democratic governor has put in place the "prior condition" insurance pool. That's been up and running for 6 months in some states. Lots of folks can now buy health insurance who couldn't before.

      replyreport