# 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:** 6
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/101 "2010-03-19T17:47:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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 Honestly, you need to read up on this stuff. Medicare Advantage is what is being cut. Medicare Advantage is private insurance public funded. It is much less efficient than off-the-shelf Medicare. Cutting it and putting those people on Medicare will save the money. It hasn’t been done in the last seven years because Bush and the Repub congress get sopping fucking wet over the idea of government money going to private businesses. It is a market based approach, so according to their objectively stupid ideology, is the superior choice. ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/102 "2010-03-19T17:52:31Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > And you wonder there is a lack of mature debate on this board, very nicely done Elvis I’m not the one pulling the “No it isn’t” shit. > [@](#): > > I offered you plenty Nope, nothing beyond “Assume they’re wrong”. > [@](#): > > If it is so easy to reduce the deficit with Medicare cuts, why haven’t they done that already? As has already been pointed out to you, what is being moved to the main Medicare program is a federally-funded program operated by private insurance companies with much higher overhead than Medicare. What is being cut is a corporate welfare program, IOW, not any actual coverage to patients. Why not before now? You do know how much power the insurance companies have over Congress, don’t you? Including when the Republicans could have done something so easy and obvious when they were in control? ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/103 "2010-03-19T17:59:16Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > 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) That’s utterly not true. UHC does a better job in all ways than our system. It is cheaper, it offers much much better health results for less money it covers whole populations. People in America are against it for ideological reasons, not logical ones. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/104 "2010-03-19T18:10:15Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. > […] > 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. Leave the personal remarks out of the debate, please. They’re not allowed in this forum. If anyone is wondering, statements to the effect of ‘you have been mislead by lies’ are not equivalent to calling another poster a liar. The latter is against the rules here, the former is not. ---
**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, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/105 "2010-03-19T18:13:01Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s utterly not true. UHC does a better job in all ways than our system. It is cheaper, it offers much much better health results for less money it covers whole populations. > > People in America are against it for ideological reasons, not logical ones. I’m pretty sure I understand my motivations and those around me. Maybe I shouldn’t have said “no one” I honestly would love to be firmly convinced that this is a good thing. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/106 "2010-03-19T18:20:30Z")
Short list: Guaranteed coverage. No exclusions for pre-existing conditions. No lifetime total limits. Much less fear of total ruination in case of catastrophic injury or disease. Treatment of problems earlier and less expensively than in emergency rooms (which you’re already paying for). Reduced deficits due to partial cutoff of parasitic insurance companies from Medicare Advantage. Ultimately, if we expand Medicare into a single-payer program: Much less cost due to further reductions in nonproductive overhead / profit-taking / parasitism by the insurance companies. If all your remaining objections are based on “The government can’t do anything right”, then you need to drop the partisan goggles. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/107 "2010-03-19T18:28:38Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > **Yog** , your quote > > is completely false, unless you got a cite, in which case, bring it. Have you been paying attention to the “debate” coming out of the conservative side? Have you listened to one Senator PRAYING FOR THE DEATH OF ANOTHER? Do you know who Joe Wilson is? Waving around a 4 page “health care reform” bill with no numbers in it and just trying to look good on TV is not a rational, logical course of action. Go to a Tea Party gathering and take a drink everytime someone gets emotional, you’ll be dead within 5 mins. The conservatives are nothing but emotion. It is a fact, it is easily observable on any 30 min period of FOX News. They are much much more susceptible to this kind of emotional manipulation than Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/108 "2010-03-19T18:39:16Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Here you go, I had to sift through a lot of crap to find this gem. > > [url=[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246)] > [@Oakminster](#): > > Well I’ll be damned. It’s not an exact match, but it is reasonably close. Objection withdrawn. I would direct your attention to this post, further down the thread: > [@Dispelling US Health Care Myths: Part 1](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/268): > > All of us (_including_ the liberals) have all answered like **Bricker** did – at least implicitly – through our actions. We all assign a “cost” to helping people. All of us do it. > > You are sitting there at your computer typing your post is consuming electricity that could warm a homeless person on this cold winter’s night. We could certainly tax all citizens more to the point that they can no longer afford to turn their thermostats up as high. Big deal, they can just wear sweaters so that the homeless and poor can stop shivering. We take away a little comfort from the people in heated homes to give warmth to poor folks that have no heat at all. I see no liberals volunteering for such an arrangement. There’s a word for that type of inconsistent behavior: it starts with an “h”. > > There are infinite ways we can help society that can be reworded into gotcha questions of selfishness and morality. > > For example, we could propose to post guards at all bus stops to prevent child abduction. If someone dares to raise the issue of cost, we can just use the weapon of emotional appeal, _“the cost estimations are irrelevant because us moralists on our high-horse believe it is our societal duty to prevent a child from being kidnapped.”_ > > You can use that technique for _everything_. So, I reiterate: it is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford health care. And if you don’t agree with that statement, you haven’t thought it through. The only question is: where is the line drawn? Is it acceptable for any single person to die because he can’t afford whatever health care measures are necessary to save his life? Yes, it is. Is it acceptable for everyone who can’t afford any type of health care to die, even if the cost of that health care is relatively low? No. Now, where in between those two extremes do we draw our policy line? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/109 "2010-03-19T18:42:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The context of this was an observation that the fundamental difference between the pro and anti-HCR sides is not economics, or the quality of the healthcare system, or even socialism, but rather the question of if society should allow people who cannot afford adequate medical care to die without it - in other words, if a right to some at least minimal health care exists. I put the question explicitly, but no one except **Bricker** answered. I’d like to hear answers from other conservatives - I suspect that all liberals would say this right did exist. The hell you did. Go back to that thread and find me where you said “minimal health care” was the issue. I answered as I did precisely because your statement was an absurdity; taken at face value it claimed something that no system can provide. ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/110 "2010-03-19T18:47:48Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I’m pretty sure I understand my motivations and those around me. Maybe I shouldn’t have said “no one” > I honestly would love to be firmly convinced that this is a good thing. What would it take to convince you? Doesn’t the fact that countries with UHC pay less, get better health results and cover more of their population than us count as evidence? The (non-partisan) CBO says the bill will cover 30 million more people, lower costs\*, reduce the deficit and get rid of pre-existing conditions, yearly caps, lifetime caps and dropping people when they get sick. It costs money, it’s not magic, but the money is gotten from a failed Medicare Advantage program (Not Medicare itself, which the right lies about daily) and some increased taxes. What would it take, what stars could align that would make you think this might be a good idea? The arguments from the right are about the process, ramming throats, government takeovers, socialism… they aren’t about the merits. \*people who purchase single policies may pay more, but they will get much, much better policies for their money. Currently most people on the single market get dumbed down plans with huge deductibles. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/111 "2010-03-19T18:51:11Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Do you not see the hypocrisy of what you’re saying? > > If it’s wrong/unhealthy to eat meat, that statement needs to stay true whether you’re hungry or not. Such that if there is a point where you either die of starvation or eat meat, I would expect a vegetarian to follow through with their beliefs and die. > > Otherwise you’re left with the opinion of “eating meat is wrong, unless you’re hungry and there’s nothing else in the fridge.” My point in this digression is that “hypocrisy” is a word with a specific meaning. It is not synonymous with “BS.” A person acts hypocritically when he acts in opposition to his stated beliefs. You can’t craft his stated beliefs for him. I’ve given enough examples already, and I doubt providing any more will make the point clearer. So let’s take yours. You craft the vegetarian’s belief as “It’s wrong/unhealthy to eat meat,” as though “wrong” and “unhealthy” were similar enough that distinguishing them made no difference. In fact, it’s key. The person who says, “It’s unhealthy to eat meat,” has expressed no opinion about the morality of it. He’s saying it’s an unhealthy practice. If starvation is the alternative, clearly that’s even MORE unhealthy than eating meat. Such a person does NOT ACT HYPOCRITICALLY by eating meat, because his beliefs are not contrary to his actions. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/112 "2010-03-19T19:07:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …Now, where in between those two extremes do we draw our policy line? Where is the line drawn now? You are insisting on a fine point of definition that doesn’t currently exist, save as a function of health insurance company profits. Of course, that is wholly unacceptable, as I’m sure you realize. The house is burning, the water to douse the fire will cost $2.87. May we put the fire out now and then later argue about whether that bill should fall to the homeowners or to the municipal water board? You said something pretty dumb, there, counselor. Now you are compelled to stretch rationalization and sophistry to the breaking point, to find some crumb of justification for a position I very much doubt you actually believe. You want to take care of yourself and yours? That’s a fine, shiny principle. And you might…just might…be willing to sacrifice your own health and well being for that principle. But you don’t belong to yourself anymore, you’re a Dad, you belong to them now, the _Brickeritos_. You might be willing to sternly adhere to your principles for your own sake. But when it comes to _them_, if need be, you will kiss the socialist ring of Obamacare within microseconds. Abstract principles are for bachelors and maidens. Parents are pragmatists. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/113 "2010-03-19T19:08:27Z")
Since this thread is really about healthcare, those interested in learning the proper definition and use of the word “hypocrite” are cordially invited [to join me here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=556452) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/114 "2010-03-19T19:18:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You want to take care of yourself and yours? That’s a fine, shiny principle. And you might…just might…be willing to sacrifice your own health and well being for that principle. But you don’t belong to yourself anymore, you’re a Dad, you belong to them now, the _Brickeritos_. You might be willing to sternly adhere to your principals for your own sake. But when it comes to _them_, if need be, you will kiss the socialist ring of Obamacare within microseconds. Yes, you’re right. I would. But that doesn’t mean it’s the right decision for society. I oppose the death penalty. If my family were murdered, I might well be so overcome with rage that I seek death for the murderer. This is not right, but it’s understandable, and it’s why the victims of violent crimes are not in charge of deciding punishments for their attackers. The right decision for society is to end the death penalty. And that’s true even if I, personally, were to change my mind after a tragedy in which my family were the victims of a murderer. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/115 "2010-03-19T19:21:49Z")
Indeed it could backfire on the GOP – just as the rise of radical libertarianism in general could backfire. [Michael Lind writes:](http://www.salon.com/news/politics/republican_party/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/03/15/ayn_rand) > [@](#): > > What we are seeing now, in the second decade of the 21st century, is the rise of the libertarian right, at the expense of the neocons and social conservatives. > > \ > > All of this is great news for American progressivism. In the last third of the 20th century, many liberals who supported New Deal economic policies defected to the right on the basis of the Cold War or the culture war. Now that the Cold War and the culture war are over, what remains is the class war. And in the class war, the libertarians are on the side of the classes. > > Consider Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future.” As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has pointed out, it would raise taxes on middle-class Americans while dramatically lowering them on the über-rich. Ryan would use a national value-added tax (a good idea) to replace income, capital gains and estate taxes (a terrible idea). He would privatize Social Security and replace Medicare with vouchers, and then allow inflation to eat away at the value of the vouchers. Oh, and despite his claims, his Rand-inspired redistribution of income upward to the virtuously selfish rich would not eliminate the deficit. > > The media is building Ryan up as a serious thinker. Build him up even more, I say. Give him a Nobel Prize, like Obama’s. Make him the face of the Republican Party. Progressives should want Ryan and Paul and the Cato Institute to define the next American right. That will ensure its minority status for decades. > > Before Buckley and the movement conservatives took the right in another direction in the 1950s, this country had a libertarian, isolationist right, the right of Robert A. Taft and Alf Landon. Thanks to their opposition to the New Deal, U.S. entry in World War II and the Cold War, the libertarian isolationists turned the Republicans into the minority party between 1932 and 1968. The only Republican to be elected in that era, Dwight Eisenhower, ran for the presidency in 1952 to save the GOP from Taftian isolationism and dismissively rejected suggestions that the Republicans try to repeal New Deal programs like Social Security. > > Richard Nixon, like Ike, was a modern Republican whose formula for a Republican majority was big government on behalf of the middle class plus a hawkish foreign policy and moderate social traditionalism. The neoconservative writer David Frum has argued that this is the only possible combination that can produce an enduring Republican majority. I agree, and it is therefore with delight that I observe the rise of radical libertarianism in the GOP. > > True, thanks to the popular backlash against the bailouts and the unpopular healthcare bill, the Democrats will suffer losses in the midterm elections. The Randian right will claim that Republican gains in Congress are proof that the American people share their goal of abolishing Social Security and Medicare. They should be encouraged in that belief. > > After all, the public has repeatedly rejected any attempts to privatize Social Security or slash Medicare benefits. Reagan denounced both entitlements, but as president he raised taxes to support Social Security and refused to touch Medicare. Under George W. Bush, a Republican Congress passed the Medicare drug benefit, which, for all its concessions to the pharma lobby, was the biggest expansion of socialized medicine in the U.S. since Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law. > > \ > > So bring it on, geeky disciples of Ayn Rand. Gird thy loins and put on thy Spock ears. Demand the abolition of Social Security and Medicare! Call for reducing the U.S. military to the Coast Guard! Insist on tolling every highway and street in America and selling America’s infrastructure assets to foreign corporations and foreign sovereign wealth funds! Go Galt! > > Bring it on! Even confined to a wheelchair, Franklin Roosevelt can defeat Ayn Rand. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/116 "2010-03-19T19:24:14Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Better yet, maybe all those mean old Republicans will just die or go away, and Obama can lead us all to the Land of Milk and Honey, where there are no conservatives and every child gets a puppy. :rolleyes: all you want, but generational change really **is** leading the country leftward – very slowly, but steadily. Tiiiiiiiime is on **my** side Yes it is! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/117 "2010-03-19T19:26:15Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > 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? Exactly. If it were such a slam dunk, it would have been done already. I suspect that those who argue that the $500b from Medicare and $200b from DocFix are no-brainers are either a) not being realistic about the way Congress tends to operate, especially in light of the pushback they will get from the docs (not the AMA) once it’s time to pay the piper b) have convinced themselves that socialized healthcare is such a good thing that they are fooling themselves about the likelihood of those cuts happening c) fail to take into account the unintended consequences of this bill. For example [45%](http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=506199) of doctors say they are considering retiring early if this passes. That’s 360,000 doctors. How can that not have an effect on healthcare delivery? How can that not make for very long waiting lists for procedures? At the end of the day, as most people realize, it’s impossible to cover another 30-40m people (depending on illegals getting coverage) with both less cost and better care. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/118 "2010-03-19T19:27:53Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Why even bother posting this drivel? It’s the only round in their gun ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/119 "2010-03-19T19:32:11Z")
> [@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. You’ll have to show some evidence that intelligence level is correlated with emotion if you don’t want to look like a fool. Otherwise that’s a pretty big logical fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/120 "2010-03-19T19:34:23Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So, Smashy, please address my post that tears your earlier post to ribbons, kay? I already have, many times. You continue to ignore the obvious, what momst reasonable people see clearly. Which is fine, that’s what partisans do. Perhaps you’d like to get your ‘facts’ from somewhere besides Kos and HuffPo. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899.md?page=7)