Are you for or against the Republican stance on the project Obamacare?

1. 36

   Prakash RnPposted 11 years ago

   Are you for or against the Republican stance on the project Obamacare?
   
   I don't approve of the Republican stance in regard to what is known as Obamacare on the following grounds.
   1. I think the project Obamacare is meant for the well-being of the American people.
   2. The Republicans have to date failed to propose any better substitute for the Obamacare.
   3. The Republican position is indefensible simply because it doesn't help find an answer to any problem. It's like, as I view it, beheading you in order to cure your headache.
   Do you agree with me on these points. I should like to learn your views and your reasons for them.

   replyreport
2. 81

   Credence2posted 11 years ago

   Hello, the first 3 points are valid, but let me add number 4, that is bringing the entire Government to a halt over a position on a single issue held by a minority of radicals and reactionaries is irresponsibe on its face.
   
   Yes, I am furious with the GOP and give 95% of the blame for the crisis we are now in.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The entire government is not at a halt at all. Only about 17% of the government is actually shut down. You believe it is more because this Administration is barricading open air monuments(never done before)&closing bus. that don't take federal fu

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      None of this is necessary, if the GOP have problems with the ACA, use the legislative process to amend or change, and compromise, don't throw molotov cocktails bringing the Government to a halt.

      replyreport
3. 74

   AlexDrinkH2Oposted 11 years ago

   I strongly disagree with your 3 points as well as the comment by Credence2 (ironic name) - Obamacare is a huge mess and is going to cost the American people big time and the GOP put forth several alternatives but were basically ignored by Obama and company.  The GOP-led House has passed several bills (by huge margins in some cases including Democrat votes) to fund various programs and Harry Reid has blocked them coming to the Senate floor for a vote.  In addition, Obama's administration has deliberately closed down parts of the government in such a way as to cause major inconvenience and pain just to score political points.  This administration, if such it can be called, is disgraceful and it still boggles the mind to think that he was actually reelected.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Alex , if you believe all that nonsense from the GOP you have to be drinking something much stronger than H2O

      replyreport
   2. 0

      SassySue1963posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Credence, do some research. All the mini-spending bills are available at the .gov webiste for your perusal. The Senate refuses to even bring them to the floor.

      replyreport
   3. 81

      Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So why don't you tell me why your party persists in the piecemeal there is enough of the government shutdown for many services to be at risk just because the reactionary wants its cake and eats it too? The GOP as always will be blamed, as it should B

      replyreport
   4. 36

      Prakash RnPposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      But what convinced you the 'alternatives' and 'several bills' referred to by you were better substitutes for Prez Obama's new healthcare project?

      replyreport
4. 73

   Inventuristposted 11 years ago

   For your presumption to be acceptable, the aforementioned ACA should, upon it own, provide the intended relief you anticipate. Unfortunately the entire product is built on a lie, actually multiple lies. So for the republicans to propose alternative lies would be just as bad if not worse.
   
   The concept of Affordable Health Care sounds good on its surface. Not unlike programs for feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and providing education to the uneducated - all for free. But there is a big difference between charity - where people who find themselves with more than what they determine they need (keep in mind charity was just a popular during the real great depression when it was much worse for more than it is or has been since) and share it with those who are without.
   
   When the government, at the point of a gun, remove what the government bureaucrat determines is excess for one individual and giving it without any regard or demand to another individual, that is not charity. When the government intentionally removes wealth from one race and gives it to other races intentionally, that is even more incorrect, I hope you would agree. 
   
   Back to what you want to call Obamacare. Republicans wanted to offer individuals the ability to buy insurance across state lines providing more competition, something in the great economy that brings down prices and improves competition for that next dollar in sales. Government health care removes any competition and only increases the cost to administer by design, The government is not the most efficient way to handle anything.
   
   The intention of Obamacare was sold to insure the uninsured and not affect those of us with insurance. It is failing miserably an is causing pain way beyond the lies that sold it. You will not keep your doctor. You many get insurance with a pre-existing condition, but you could have bought that before at the same extremely high deductible and cost. You would have kept your 40 hour work week and your employer would have been able to keep you on your job. You could keep your family insured through your job and not be forced to lose their coverage.
   
   The real intention of Obamacare is to fail. It is first to kill the entire insurance industry as we know it in the United States, then it is intended to become the single payer system where all of us regardless of ability are under the same sorry government system. No I disagree with you and your premise.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      AlexDrinkH2Oposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Outstanding, cogent analysis.  Well done.  May I share this on my Facebook page?

      replyreport
   2. 36

      Prakash RnPposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You Republicans seem unaware of the very basic truth that capitalism can't survive without welfarism. The amassing of wealth by a few people, which is coupled with the pauperisation of the masses, is bound to lead to the collapse of capitalism.

      replyreport
5. 74

   someonewhoknowsposted 11 years ago

   Being a Republican in the strictest sense of the term - No matter what laws are passed ultimately the law should be judged by those who have to live by the law.Even though Obama care or what they call the Affordable Care Act is so complex that it should have been thoroughly read by those who are supposed to represent the people.Not some congressional assistant who was not elected.Maybe a consultant who is an expert in a particular field of study such as Economics etc...
   But, we all have to live according to our means including the federal government.

   replyreport
   1. 36

      Prakash RnPposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The accumulation of wealth in a few people's hands, which means the pauperism of the multitude, expresses a basic law of capitalism. Thus, it's just impossible for you to live within your means in a capitalistic system. You have missed this point.

      replyreport