Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, my first question was, “If the GOP retakes congress, would you support cutting off the funds needed to implement health care reform?”
Boehner, Cantor, and Pence all answered in the affirmative while McMorris Rodgers essentially punted on the question. Still, 3-out-of-4, including the top 3 members of leadership, isn’t bad.
John Boehner: "We are going to fight to repeal this government takeover of health care and start over with solutions that focus first on lowering costs. Cutting off funding for ObamaCare is absolutely something I support. For example, I would support moving as soon as possible to deny any funding for the estimated 16,500 IRS employees that will be needed to implement ObamaCare. House Republicans will continue to stand with the American people against this unconstitutional government takeover of health care."
Eric Cantor: "Yes, without question. Republicans will use every tool available to us to repeal the harmful law. Even in the minority, House Republicans have forced votes to immediately repeal some of the most egregious provisions of the law, including a vote to repeal the individual mandate."
The problem the GOP faces here is that they stand to lose loads of donations from the financial services sector where insurers are, because Republicans are on record promising to safeguard ACA's Guaranteed Issue provision (some ridiculously misinformed or outright lying RWNJs even erroneously claim that the provision existed prior to ACA), but also supporting rescinding the way insurance companies would pay for Guaranteed Issue, i.e., the individual mandate. It's just another example of the egoistic greed-mongers of the right wing stepping in it, because they're blinded by avarice and the lust for power they're not morally suitable to hold.
What I find absurd with the {R} argument is the part of gvt taking over health care, too me that would be single payer. What we have coming with Obamacare is
everyone has to purchase HC insurance from the private sector. But they are half right when you consider that those who can not afford get Medicade. Sometimes I wonder if there is just fake outrage considering the {R}s like the private sector in some cases taking over what the gvt does.
What I find absurd with the {R} argument is the part of gvt taking over health care, too me that would be single payer. What we have coming with Obamacare is
everyone has to purchase HC insurance from the private sector. But they are half right when you consider that those who can not afford get Medicade. Sometimes I wonder if there is just fake outrage considering the {R}s like the private sector in some cases taking over what the gvt does.
The principle of government forcing you to buy anything from private industry is just as important as the unworkable mess that ObamaCare itself represents. There is NOTHING about ObamaCare that deserves support from people with a functional brain, and a modicum of intelligence. It's a bad deal for the people, and a great deal for this medical tyranny to which our current sick-care system has become.
Furthermore, this isn't simply isolated to "government taking over healthcare" .... this is government taking over ... PERIOD, because the close ties between government and the corporate interests which government now serves exclusively, can only spell disaster for the common people. The moment you lose the right to say NO .... you no longer have any rights whatsoever. This is such a simple concept, that it is inexcusable for anyone not to understand this.
The principle of government forcing you to buy anything from private industry is just as important as the unworkable mess that ObamaCare itself represents. There is NOTHING about ObamaCare that deserves support from people with a functional brain, and a modicum of intelligence. It's a bad deal for the people, and a great deal for this medical tyranny to which our current sick-care system has become.
Furthermore, this isn't simply isolated to "government taking over healthcare" .... this is government taking over ... PERIOD, because the close ties between government and the corporate interests which government now serves exclusively, can only spell disaster for the common people. The moment you lose the right to say NO .... you no longer have any rights whatsoever. This is such a simple concept, that it is inexcusable for anyone not to understand this.
The Supreme Court already ruled on your objection. Just like requiring you to pay Medicare and Social Security taxes, the government can require you to pay for the ACA.
The idea that requiring private individuals to buy private insurance contracts from private insurance companies is "a government takeover," is absurd on its face.
Perhaps you also feel that it's tyranny that government forces you to pay to make your home comply with fire, electrical and sewage codes. It's tyranny! Tyranny, I tell you!
The problem the GOP faces here is that they stand to lose loads of donations from the financial services sector where insurers are, because Republicans are on record promising to safeguard ACA's Guaranteed Issue provision (some ridiculously misinformed or outright lying RWNJs even erroneously claim that the provision existed prior to ACA), but also supporting rescinding the way insurance companies would pay for Guaranteed Issue, i.e., the individual mandate. It's just another example of the egoistic greed-mongers of the right wing stepping in it, because they're blinded by avarice and the lust for power they're not morally suitable to hold.
Every last one of the socialist-feel good programs created by leftists have become black hole disasters. Government intervention in healthcare is THE WORST CASE example, with Medicare and Medicaid representing the best argument possible to ELIMINATE government from anything associated with healthcare. But that's not the only examples by a long shot ... the FDA, all by itself provides enough evidence that government cannot be trusted with healthcare decisions. The corruption factor is THE BEST argument against centralized control of ANYTHING ... and the ties between the Pharmaceutical Industry, the various healthcare entities and corrupt government agency bureaucrats and the revolving door between high level officials at the FDA who routinely mover back and forth between executive level positions at Pharmaceutical corporations, and then to high positions responsible for oversight at the FDA is so blatantly corrupt .... what needs to happen is these agencies need to be shut down, not granted greater power.
Every last person in this country needs to watch the following film .... your damned life may depend upon learning the truth about the fantasy world you've been living in:
Every last one of the socialist-feel good programs created by leftists have become black hole disasters.
Tell that to the folks who live on Social Security and rely on Medicare. I think that's really the issue: Your perspective fails to exhibit adequate caring about those who aren't in your position. It's apparently focused only on what's good for you and you alone, and doesn't actually express any superior approach, except from the standpoint of folks worried about affording that third television, or that more luxurious vacation.
The Supreme Court already ruled on your objection. Just like requiring you to pay Medicare and Social Security taxes, the government can require you to pay for the ACA.
The idea that requiring private individuals to buy private insurance contracts from private insurance companies is "a government takeover," is absurd on its face.
Perhaps you also feel that it's tyranny that government forces you to pay to make your home comply with fire, electrical and sewage codes. It's tyranny! Tyranny, I tell you!
Having a home pass fire code directly benefits me and my family. Having my insurance/healthcare costs skyrocket by 50% directly harms me and my family.
Tell that to the folks who live on Social Security and rely on Medicare. I think that's really the issue: Your perspective fails to exhibit adequate caring about those who aren't in your position. It's apparently focused only on what's good for you and you alone, and doesn't actually express any superior approach, except from the standpoint of folks worried about affording that third television, or that more luxurious vacation.
I don't know a single individual who lives on Social Security. Every person I know who relies on Social Security barely survives at a subsistence level. So go ahead, talk to some people on Social Security and see if they're happy with the government controlling their retirement.
I've noticed something with you, bUU. Every time someone argues against the ACA - and let's face it, there are plenty of problems with the ACA that deserve to be criticized - you bring up this whole selfishness perspective and dismiss the valid points of criticism. Is it really selfish to ask that the ACA do what is was supposed to do and make healthcare affordable? Not just for the poor, but for everyone across the board. For example, those like myself and my family who don't take vacations and don't have a luxurious lifestyle (unless you consider saving for our children's college and our retirement to be a luxurious lifestyle) but have already seen our insurance premiums double over the past 2 years and are expecting to see them rise again. Considering that the name of the law is the "Affordable Care Act", it seems that expecting health care to be affordable is justified.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that's really the issue: Your perspective fails to exhibit adequate caring about those who aren't in your position. It's apparently focused only on what's good for you and you alone, and doesn't actually express any superior approach, except from the standpoint of folks worried about affording that third television, or that more luxurious vacation.
