# Could anti-healthcare reform rhetoric backfire on the Republicans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899 "2010-03-18T16:05:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/81 "2010-03-19T16:12:31Z")
I am still waiting for the answer of why that money isn’t readily available now? If there are 500b in cuts ready to be made, why hasn’t it been done before, why does it have to be a stipulation of this bill? ---
**Author:** ![Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/regallag_the_axe/32/445_2.png) [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Regallag_The_Axe)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/82 "2010-03-19T16:16:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > We don’t need Obamacare to make cuts in Medicare spending. And Obama is on record that the cuts necessary for his program not to balloon the deficit (even more than two trillion he has added to the deficit so far) are not intended to address all of the structural flaws of Medicare. > > Obama wanted to model his version of UHC on Medicare - which is going bankrupt, and costs ten times more as projected. But when Obama says his program will reduce the deficit, we are supposed to believe him. > > Uh huh. :rolleyes: > > Regards, > Shodan It’s not just Obama saying that this plan will reduce the deficit, [the CBO also says it will](http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=508). Are we supposed to ignore them too? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Facts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@The\_Facts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Facts)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/83 "2010-03-19T16:21:45Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > **Yog** , your quote > > is completely false, unless you got a cite, in which case, bring it. It’s a well-documented fact that conservatives are less educated and less intelligent than progressives. Ergo, they are more easily led by emotions. Nobody is going to give you a cite taht the sky is blue, either. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/84 "2010-03-19T16:22:09Z")
Again, the CBO is assuming that sweeping legislation follows (500b in medicare advantage cuts)and that medical costs go down, demand stays static etc Have they ever been right? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/85 "2010-03-19T16:23:12Z")
> [@The\_Facts](#): > > It’s a well-documented fact that conservatives are less educated and less intelligent than progressives. Ergo, they are more easily led by emotions. > > Nobody is going to give you a cite taht the sky is blue, either. Why even bother posting this drivel? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/86 "2010-03-19T16:30:15Z")
[Google is your friend.](http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945) But only if you use it. > [@](#): > > Liberals have the highest education level of any typology group 49% are college graduates and 26% have some postgraduate education. > … > Huge disparities in education also divide both Democratic and Republican typology groups. Just 13% of Disdvantaged Democrats have completed college (9% college grads, 4% postgraduate), compared with nearly half of Liberals. Educational differences between Liberals and Conservative Democrats are nearly as large (49% vs. 16%). > > Among Republicans, just 15% of Pro-Government Conservatives have completed college, compared with 45% of Enterprisers. There also are wide disparities in education among the three independent groups, with Upbeats (37%) far more likely to have completed college than Bystanders (13%) or Disaffecteds (11%). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/87 "2010-03-19T16:31:39Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Again, the CBO is assuming that sweeping legislation follows (500b in medicare advantage cuts)and that medical costs go down, demand stays static etc > > Have they ever been right? Just because they don’t give you the answer you prefer? Why do you hate America? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/88 "2010-03-19T16:36:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Just because they don’t give you the answer you prefer? > > Why do you hate America? Not at all, but as a proponent of the scientific method, those are an awful lot of assumptions to base a cost estimate around. Especially when the cost estimate is being touted as infallible. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/89 "2010-03-19T16:38:31Z")
So you’ve got something much more credible to offer instead, obviously. Why are you keeping us in suspense about what it is and why it’s more credible? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/90 "2010-03-19T16:49:35Z")
So because I lack a better means to fix a problem we should give up and go instead with a bad option? I find this most interesting. The “intellectuals” believing the government can’t possibly be wrong. Let’s assume I am right for the sake of argument. What say you to this plan increasing current costs across the board, is that enough of a price to pay for government intervention into UHC? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/91 "2010-03-19T16:57:36Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > So because I lack a better means to fix a problem we should give up and go instead with a bad option? A. Cite that it’s “bad” and B. If it’s the best thing realistically achievable at this time, then yes. Duh. > [@](#): > > I find this most interesting. The “intellectuals” believing the government can’t possibly be wrong. Cut the crap. Your “argument” is that the government can’t possibly be _right_. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Let’s assume I am right There is absolutely no reason to do that, considering your absolute lack of any relevant information or analysis to offer, much less any of a thoughtful, credible nature. > [@](#): > > What say you to this plan increasing current costs across the board, is that enough of a price to pay for government intervention into UHC? If you’re asking if you’d be right if the facts were exactly the opposite of what they are, then the answer would obviously be Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/92 "2010-03-19T17:13:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > A. Cite that it’s “bad” and B. If it’s the best thing realistically achievable at this time, then yes. Duh. > > Cut the crap. Your “argument” is that the government can’t possibly be _right_. :rolleyes: > There is absolutely no reason to do that, considering your absolute lack of any relevant information or analysis to offer, much less any of a thoughtful, credible nature. > > If you’re asking if you’d be right if the facts were exactly the opposite of what they are, then the answer would obviously be Yes. After explaining to you the obvious fallacies committed by the CBO (like I said before, the sweeping legislation (hasn’t happened yet and might not, right), assumption of static demand (hasn’t happened yet, right?), assumption of costs getting lowered (assumption…)), you still argue that it is infallible and the reason you won’t indulge me is that if you take it to it’s logical conclusion you have a plan that helps the people by giving them UHC but hinders the rest of America by costing more than it does currently. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/93 "2010-03-19T17:16:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The only component of the bill Americans are against is the cost, and the effect on the deficit. It will lower the deficit. The fact that you don’t believe it is irrelevant. You have no evidence for your position and believe it based on nothing more than blind, unthinking ideology. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, government already pays about half, or a bit more, of the total spending on health care in America ([cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#cite_note-content.healthaffairs.org-64)). Irrelevant. You are not making a point. > [@](#): > > Whereas, in taxpayer-funded health-care, they are insulated from the actual cost of HC by the taxpayer picking up the lion’s share. So? Try to stay focused. We are talking about people getting health care from their employers. They don’t realize that the actual costs are much, much higher than they see. They also don’t realize that those costs are depressing their wages and lowering the amount of other benefits. Just posting random things that relate to words that are being said isn’t debate. It’s evidence that you lack even the basic understanding of what is going on in the debate. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe you, and I have already read the report. I don’t care what you believe, because you are a blind ideologue. You have decided what to believe before you touched the report. No facts can sway you because you are perfectly willing to ignore facts to support your ideology. > [@](#): > > The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Congress, whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats, has not made the cuts necessary to keep Medicare solvent. I (and a majority of the American public) do not believe they will do it now. The HCR bill increases the solvency of Medicare. The HCR bill lowers the deficit. The HCR bill involves cuts in “Medicare Advantage” a private program that is much more expensive and no better than regular Medicare. Getting that revenue is trivial and will not impact services. The taxes to pay the balance will either be enacted or the future congress will be in violation of Paygo. > [@](#): > > And your statement that Obamacare will reduce costs overall is false - a large tax increase is not a cost cut. You don’t understand the basic elements of how the economy works. You should probably learn about that before embarrassing yourself further. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/94 "2010-03-19T17:18:25Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > In that case, there is a phrase about “life, liberty and the pursuit of…” and various other laws against murder. I also have a “right by natural law”, meaning that neighbor better be fast enough strong enough, and clever enough to make sure I don’t “get” him first. It’s the law if tooth and claw, so to speak. Well, _that’s_ incredibly tenuous. A document without legal authority, and even better an assertion of “might makes rights”, to turn a phrase. By this argument, if the government makes a _law_ with _legal standing_ (in a _document_ even!), saying that people have a legal right to health care, and then uses the prodigious might of their legal authority to supply that health care and arrest you if you attempt to evade paying the taxes that fund that health care, then you must consider that as ironclad a proof of a right as is humanly possible! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/95 "2010-03-19T17:19:42Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > you still argue that it is infallible No, I fucking don’t. Please try to read. Gawdammm … > [@](#): > > if you take it to it’s logical conclusion No, if you simply deny all the facts and analysis out there. You won’t provide any at all, of any credibility, just a “They’re wrong, nyah nyah nyah.” When come back, bring argument. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/96 "2010-03-19T17:29:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. There is a difference between believing that a course of action is poor for the group to take, and believing that it’s wrong to participate with the group. > > So a group of us get lost in the woods. You think we should try going left because you’re pretty sure you saw the lights of a town through the trees in that direction. I think we should go right because I think I saw lights that way. There is discussion amongst the group, and we agree to put it to a vote. The group votes to follow your suggestion, and starts off. > > Then you notice I’m also turning left and shriek, “Hypocrite!! Hypocrite!!” > > No, I’m not. I still think the best course would have been to turn right. But if the group has overruled me, deciding I’m going to stay with the group is not hypocrisy. Your analogy is laughable. I’ve already made my point and everyone can see that I’m correct. Reducing something over and over again to a convoluted hypothetical after convoluted hypothetical isn’t reason. It’s floundering and flailing for something that will obscure the issue enough that it isn’t plainly obvious you’re wrong. Well it hasn’t worked, it is plainly obvious you’re laughably wrong. Your position goes against the very dictionary definitions you posted. If you believe X is wrong and do X, you’re a hypocrite. You might be smart, it might be the most practical choice, it might be the best thing to do. But at the very least an honorable person should re-visit his beliefs if he’s compelled to betray them. > [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Thanks **Sho** , you saved me a lot of typing. He most certainly did not, you’re just not able to defend yourself so you want to hide behind Shodan’s irrelevant partisan chaff. I know you don’t have answers for my post, I knew it when I typed it. I would assume you would at least be decent enough to try. > [@](#): > > Thinking that Congress will suddenly become deficit hawks and make the hard choices shows niavete and ignorance of history. No, your comment shows ignorance about history. Clinton left bush with a surplus. It has happened, Bush was the one who didn’t care about deficits. Deficits are supposed to be for emergencies. You’re supposed to run them when you don’t have another choice, and use them to get over bad times (like now). But Bush and the Republican congress started spending like a college kid with his first credit card. So, Smashy, please address my post that tears your earlier post to ribbons, kay? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/97 "2010-03-19T17:30:22Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, I fucking don’t. Please try to read. Gawdammm … > > No, if you simply deny all the facts and analysis out there. You won’t provide any at all, of any credibility, just a “They’re wrong, nyah nyah nyah.” > > When come back, bring argument. I don’t say they are wrong (using their basis of analysis) I say they assume things that have yet or may never come to pass. (Prove to me that the cuts to Medicare will be made)(Prove to me that demand will stay static) (Prove to me that costs will be _allowed_ to go down) (Hell, while you are at it, prove to me that God exists) No one, NO ONE would be against UHC if it did all the wonderful things they are saying it will do (cost less, cover more, do a better job at health care than what we have currently) And again, it isn’t my position to change. It’s yours to convince. Try it your way, ram it down people’s throats, if it works out for you goody goody. The price to pay though if it goes awry isn’t simply to fall on JUST you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/98 "2010-03-19T17:37:46Z")
> [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](#): > > It’s not just Obama saying that this plan will reduce the deficit, [the CBO also says it will](http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=508). Are we supposed to ignore them too? No. we are supposed to ignore that Congress has not made these kinds of cuts for the last seven years. As mentioned, we don’t need Obamacare to reduce the deficit - we could have made all the easy cuts that **Kearsen** mentions. But we haven’t. But we will. If it is so easy to reduce the deficit with Medicare cuts, why haven’t they done that already? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/99 "2010-03-19T17:43:52Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I don’t say they are wrong (using their basis of analysis) I say they assume things that have yet or may never come to pass. And you, by way of rebuttal, are offering a rephrase of The Argument Clinic Sketch. > [@](#): > > No one, NO ONE would be against UHC if it did all the wonderful things they are saying it will do (cost less, cover more, do a better job at health care than what we have currently) But you are against it nonetheless, on the basis of something you can’t even explain. > [@](#): > > And again, it isn’t my position to change. It’s yours to convince. It’s your responsibility to honestly consider the arguments made to you, either way, not to do your John Cleese impersonation. > [@](#): > > ram it down people’s throats What is it with Republicans’ obsession with things rammed down throats, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/100 "2010-03-19T17:46:54Z")
And you wonder there is a lack of mature debate on this board, very nicely done Elvis I offered you plenty (all of which you dismiss) I’ll not be having this or many discussions with you henceforth. If it is so easy to reduce the deficit with Medicare cuts, why haven’t they done that already? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899.md?page=6)