Could anti-healthcare reform rhetoric backfire on the Republicans?

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.

I’m not the one pulling the “No it isn’t” shit.

Nope, nothing beyond “Assume they’re wrong”.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I would direct your attention to this post, further down the thread:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Indeed it could backfire on the GOP – just as the rise of radical libertarianism in general could backfire. Michael Lind writes:

: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! :smiley:

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% 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.

It’s the only round in their gun

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.

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.