Why are Repubs so against Obamacare?

[michal1980]

I'm pretty sure that everyone's well aware of Heritage's backflips in order to pretend that the individual mandate wasn't their idea. You have to remember that the Heritage Foundation has descended into complete hackery in the last few years.

I think we should DEFINITELY take the "architect"'s own words on the subject. Instead of asking him what he thinks now as he desperately tries to avoid his own ideas however, let's look at the actual heritage proposal.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/..._affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf



Yeah, so he didn't support an individual mandate, he just said that we should have a 'mandate on households to force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection'.


Lol. I'm not sure what is sadder, the desperate rewriting of history by Heritage or the fact that you guys are so easily fooled.

so you don't like the Heritage Foundation, yet you adopted what you claim is their plan.

 

[fskimospy]

Nice try to spin, but no.

When have the people chosen not to? When they burned up the phone lines
of Representatives telling them to defund the ACA?
Somehow the government "shutdown" got blamed on Republicans when they were doing the will of the people.
It's coming up for review now.
It's got to go;amongst other things.

Apparently you missed the results of the 2012 election where the party that explicitly ran on keeping the Affordable Care Act won the presidency and extended their majority in the Senate, and even captured the majority of House votes while picking up seats there.

Considering everyone knows that had the Republicans won that election that they would have repealed the ACA, the American people have a funny way of showing that they want it repealed.

 

[michal1980]

"So few sites I will accept". Give me a break. You're wrong and you know it.

What bill do you explicitly mean as the 'funding bill for Obamacare'? Please be specific. (and provide the HR # if possible).The Senate passed the House bill on 24 December, but that was 24 December 2009. Most of the funding for the ACA is not subject to appropriations bills and is contained in the body of the bill itself so it is unlikely that any 'Obamacare funding bill' was passed during a lame duck session, at least no bill that provided the bulk of the funding for it.

the senate never passed the house bill.

Unless you mean, they took a bill the house passed. Deleted everything. Added in their own crap.

 

[fskimospy]

so you don't like the Heritage Foundation, yet you adopted what you claim is their plan.

I don't like the Heritage Foundation; I think there were much better ways to improve the US health care system like a full single payer system that has a proven track record worldwide.

The Heritage Foundation plan was better than doing nothing, but that doesn't mean it's my preferred plan.

 

[fskimospy]

What if representative democracy WAS conducted that way? Would the ACA have been passed? NO

So your question is "what if representative democracy wasn't representative democracy".

/facepalm

 

[schmuckley]

They will make it known next election
I'm pretty sure a lot of people have realized they messed up last time.

 

[TerryMathews]

"So few sites I will accept". Give me a break. You're wrong and you know it.

What bill do you explicitly mean as the 'funding bill for Obamacare'? Please be specific. (and provide the HR # if possible).The Senate passed the House bill on 24 December, but that was 24 December 2009. Most of the funding for the ACA is not subject to appropriations bills and is contained in the body of the bill itself so it is unlikely that any 'Obamacare funding bill' was passed during a lame duck session, at least no bill that provided the bulk of the funding for it.

Well, I'm ready to admit defeat on this one. I can find a number of blogs stating that the funding portion was passed under a lame duck session of Congress, but nothing citing sources nor an actual resolution number.

I did find a few blogs that reference a bill around the same timeframe that accounted for gains from Obamacare as funding using baseline budgeting so that might be where the statment came from, either through a misunderstanding in the meaning or an intentional misrepresentation.

 

[fskimospy]

They will make it known next election
I'm pretty sure a lot of people have realized they messed up last time.

Well you never do know. I know that when the bill was up and available for repeal that the party vehemently promising to repeal it lost the popular vote in every single aspect of our federal government though.

Oh but you don't like the will of the people when they want things you don't like.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, I'm ready to admit defeat on this one. I can find a number of blogs stating that the funding portion was passed under a lame duck session of Congress, but nothing citing sources nor an actual resolution number.

I did find a few blogs that reference a bill around the same timeframe that accounted for gains from Obamacare as funding using baseline budgeting so that might be where the statment came from, either through a misunderstanding in the meaning or an intentional misrepresentation.

I'm quite sure that none of the significant events for the Affordable Care Act were passed during a lame duck session. Thanks for coming back to say that though, it's not easy to admit sometimes.

 

[BoberFett]

Obama is a Democrat. Republicans hate Democrats.
It may bring some benefit to the poor. Republicans hate poor people.
It may raise the living standard for a lot of Americans. Republicans hate America.

Just look at the average posts of the AT right-wing extremist Republicans.

How quickly we see the mental deficiencies of the left...

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm quite sure that none of the significant events for the Affordable Care Act were passed during a lame duck session. Thanks for coming back to say that though, it's not easy to admit sometimes.

You ready to admit you complain about biased sources before I dig through your post history?

 

[nephilim2k]

I am on an FB group and asked about this....it has dented a large volume of peoples wallets. 1 person i know had his premiums jump by 40%, and thats supposed to be affordable?. It if was a flat rate per person/family (say 8-9% of income per month, taken direct from salary) then it would be more palateable. The one person I am on about, his premiums went from $800 a month to nearly $1150 since this came in.

 

[fskimospy]

You ready to admit you complain about biased sources before I dig through your post history?

Of course I complain about biased sources! People on here frequently provide what they consider to be evidence from highly ideological sources with a history of dishonesty. Not only is there nothing wrong with doing that, but we should all be more discerning with where we get our information from.

I encourage you to call our biased sources more often.

 

[TerryMathews]

Of course I complain about biased sources! People on here frequently provide what they consider to be evidence from highly ideological sources with a history of dishonesty. Not only is there nothing wrong with doing that, but we should all be more discerning with where we get our information from.

I encourage you to call our biased sources more often.

"So few sites I will accept". Give me a break.

I'm having trouble figuring out which side of your face I'm arguing with.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm having trouble figuring out which side of your face I'm arguing with.

I'm not sure what the issue is here, I figured it was crystal clear.

There are biased sources that I call out regularly and do not accept, but they represent a small minority of available sources to cite. While they may be disproportionately used by people on here for obvious reasons, they are a tiny, tiny fraction of the information out there. Therefore it is very easy to both call out and dismiss biased sources while still rolling my eyes at the idea that I only accept information from 'so few sites'.

 

[Moonbeam]

"...Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders..."

Yeah, you changed the meaning in your head like misogyny gets called pro life.

 

[michal1980]

"So few sites I will accept". Give me a break. You're wrong and you know it.

What bill do you explicitly mean as the 'funding bill for Obamacare'? Please be specific. (and provide the HR # if possible).The Senate passed the House bill on 24 December, but that was 24 December 2009. Most of the funding for the ACA is not subject to appropriations bills and is contained in the body of the bill itself so it is unlikely that any 'Obamacare funding bill' was passed during a lame duck session, at least no bill that provided the bulk of the funding for it.

the senate never passed the house bill.

Unless you mean, they took a bill the house passed. Deleted everything. Added in their own crap.

In a way it was a lame duck session. The Mass seat held by Kennedy was about to be replaced by a republican. The democrats had to scramble to pass a bill before the republicans could filibuster.

 

[fskimospy]

In a way it was a lame duck session. The Mass seat held by Kennedy was about to be replaced by a republican. The democrats had to scramble to pass a bill before the republicans could filibuster.

It was in no way a lame duck session. The senate passed its version of the bill before Scott brown' election.

Words have meaning.

 

[charrison]

Of course by "shoved down the throats of an unwilling America" you mean "enacted by the popularly elected legislature and signed by the President".

Yup it was passed without a single vote from the other side and you remain surprised that a significant portion of the population still does not want it. Just because it was passed does not mean it is wanted.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yup it was passed without a single vote from the other side and you remain surprised that a significant portion of the population still does not want it. Just because it was passed does not mean it is wanted.

But it had to be passed so we could find out what was in it! Pelosi said so!

 

[michal1980]

It was in no way a lame duck session. The senate passed its version of the bill before Scott brown' election.

Words have meaning.

Because they knew Scott Brown would win. Are you really this lame?

or was there some other reason the senate voted on Christmas eve for this bill? And didn't recess for winter earlier?

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm not sure what the issue is here, I figured it was crystal clear.

There are biased sources that I call out regularly and do not accept, but they represent a small minority of available sources to cite. While they may be disproportionately used by people on here for obvious reasons, they are a tiny, tiny fraction of the information out there. Therefore it is very easy to both call out and dismiss biased sources while still rolling my eyes at the idea that I only accept information from 'so few sites'.

You say so, but you are talking about the overall political landscape. On certain issues however the demographics of coverage are not the same. I think you should have no issue agreeing with that.

I still stand behind my point, you won't accept just any site. It's not my fault you got your feathers ruffled over it. Maybe get a thicker skin?

 

[monovillage]

But it had to be passed so we could find out what was in it! Pelosi said so!

Democrats are saying that Yes, we know that no Republicans voted for it and Yes, we know we lied about who it would effect and Yes, we lied about how much it would cost and Yes, we lied about how many people would lose their plans and Yes, we lied about how many people would lose their doctors, but why can't you mean ole Republicans support it anyways?

 

[Zaap]

so you don't like the Heritage Foundation, yet you adopted what you claim is their plan.

It's amazing sometimes the lows the left will sink to in order to blame everything on Republicans. They basically dug up some obscure thing no conservative (or anyone else) ever heard of before, so now they can claim that Obamacare is all the Republicans' idea.

The thing that's funniest about it, is it gives their hand away that they know it's garbage that's doomed to failure. If they really thought it was all that, they wouldn't bother trying to construct an elaborate excuse to blame it on Republicans.

Leftists are always so predictable.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's amazing sometimes the lows the left will sink to in order to blame everything on Republicans. They basically dug up some obscure thing no conservative (or anyone else) ever heard of before, so now they can claim that Obamacare is all the Republicans' idea.

The thing that's funniest about it, is it gives their hand away that they know it's garbage that's doomed to failure. If they really thought it was all that, they wouldn't bother trying to construct an elaborate excuse to blame it on Republicans.

Leftists are always so predictable.

You have a strange idea of what low means. What kind of puss sack people would support a system where folk with medical preconditions are doomed to die on the street? The same kind of folk who out of one side of their mouths worship the military and allow veterans to languish for years and years waiting for benefits? You don't get a puss sack nation like that without Republicans.