GOP Obstructionism and the Constitution and SCOTUS

Great Debates
101

It was not clear to me, but I believe you are right about that.

Unfortunately, your link does not provide average prices.

I find $2,500 hard to believe for my area. At the discounted Blue Cross price, sure. But at the often ten times higher list prices I see on our Blue Cross statements, this does not ring true. Partly that’s because the hospital we tend to use (University of Pennsylvania) has list prices that are outrageous even by US standards. But people with broken legs, as I’ve said, cannot often shop around.

And even if it is $2,500: Given today’s economy, I am thinking of the hard-working retail clerk, juggling several part time jobs paying just over the minimum wage in order to hopefully paste together a 40 hour week. This person can afford, with sacrifice, to pay $55 a month for Obamacare. But they are almost surely living from paycheck to paycheck and will not actually pay that $2,500. So if the GOP does actually get his or her affordable $55 a month premium reduced, so it doesn’t include treatments in the $2.500 price range, we are back to the freeloader problem.*

I can’t remember how many conservative articles I’ve read over the past couple years saying that if the 2014 Obamacare rollout isn’t stopped, it will be too late. For example:

DEFUNDING OBAMACARE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE

Therein lies the problem. Voters had the opportunity to repeal ObamaCare by essentially repealing Barack Obama himself in the 2012 election. Instead, voters gave Obama another four years, essentially guaranteeing that ObamaCare will take effect. Once that begins in 2014, it becomes much more difficult to roll back.

As Senator Ted Cruz has pointed out, no major entitlement in American history has ever been repealed, and this one will be no different.

Now you are telling me that people aren’t even going to like it. Then it can be reversed. Then there is no irreversible problem justifying the ruination of the credit of the United States. If you really believe the Affordable Care Act will prove unpopular, you should be disgusted with GOP sore losers. If typical retail clerks prefer to pay less than $55 a month in return for non-coverage of supposedly $2,500 fractures, the GOP will have a winning campaign issue. Problem solved.

  • By the way, most people do not want to be freeloaders! I use the word freeloaders to show the absurdity of the old system, not to criticize the lower middle, or middle, class. Getting calls from bill collectors, and then going bankrupt, is no one’s idea of fun.
102

The bill is good, therefore I support it. I’m cynical enough to not take lying for GOOD personally. Its when people lie for evil that it bothers me.

103

You shouldn’t take any of it personally. But you also shouldn’t defend the truthfulness of politicians when they have history of doing this, because then that reflects on the one sticking up for the politicians.

In the past, I questioned Obama statements and the response was basically, “If you can’t prove he lied, then he’s telling the truth.” Except politicians don’t deserve that benefit of the doubt. NOTHING a politician says should be assumed to be true, because every single thing they say is self-serving.

104

No, we shouldn’t defend Republicans of this because they’ve been lying for evil. If health care is good, then I don’t care if we were lied to in order to pass it (lets keep the ‘means to an end’ generic responses to ourselves, k?), we are better off with it than without it. Plus, if it makes you feel better, though I know it won’t, think of it as balancing out the universe. The GOP has been lying about health care constantly for as long as we’ve had this discussion. They’ve lied about how much it costs, they’ve lied about how it will damage other government programs like Medicare, they’ve lied about death panels, they’ve lied about how its socialism, they’ve lied about where it originated, etc. So what if Obama lied to get it passed if that’s indeed what he did? Unless you, I don’t think Obama was self-serving because he already has health care and can afford it privately. He wants the tens of millions of Americans that don’t have it to have it so we can live. And he knew he’d exact a price from both the Democrats and Republicans for pushing it through and he’s paid that price

105

I’m not going to moralize about means and ends, but I am going to point out that lying damages credibility, and every time a Democratic promise about ACA proves to be untrue, it damages the credibility of ACA as well as the Democratic Party and makes ACA more likely to be repealed in the future.

I don’t take the lies personally either. There are opportunities in nearly everything. The Democrats’ propensity to lie to sell new entitlements gives Republicans good opportunities to repeal them.

106

I agree.

It’s hard to be completely truthful while making a case. So there never will be a President who fact check web sites rate as completely truthful. But the closer a politician can come, the better.

My problem with some of the GOP rants against the Affordable Care Act: They aren’t the truth with the occasional stretcher, but rather an attempt to confuse listeners into having no idea what the Affordable Care Act is all about.

One lie is the ugly term Obamacare, since embraced by the President. During the Congressional struggle for passage, Mr. Obama gave in on most of the features that made his plan different from prior Republican proposals, and so hardly deserves such name-in-lights credit. See:

Republicans hate ‘Obamacare,’ but like most of what it does

Pelosi left out the word “most” when it came to premium reductions. That was a mistake which lessens credibility. But the GOP speeches on this tend to be distortions from beginning to end.

107

I expect a bit of a used car salesman job. Where I think Democrats crossed the line was in the character assassination of critics. The way these debates are supposed to go is that the supporters cite all the benefits, the critics cite all the drawbacks, and they debate the finer points from there. What happened instead is that Democrats basically labelled all the criticisms lies and scaremongering and used Sarah Palin’s idiotic “death panels” statement as an attempt to discredit all critics of the act. That’s now how Republicans handled criticism of their health care proposals, either in 2008, or 2010. It was dirty, and it makes them look all the worse. Lying to sell something is one thing. Lying and trying to deceitfully discredit your opponents as well goes way too far.

The mistake doesn’t damage credibility, anyone can make an error. What damaged her credibility is that she didn’t just say she meant to say “most”. Well, that and the fact that she says a lot of dumb things that would get her compared to Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann if she was in the other party.

108

And in your opinion, Democrats do this more than Republicans?

109

I don’t think it’s ever been done until now. I’ve seen a lot of robust, heated debates in my 40 years, but this is the first time I’ve seen a party seize on a strategy of calling pretty much all criticisms of their bill lies.

That’s known as “doubling down”, which means that if the most important Republican criticisms do turn out to be true, Democrats will pay a big price for going all in like that.

110

Lucky that here in the real world that’s not likely to happen.

111

Four Republican criticisms are coming true:

  1. You won’t be able to keep your current plan if you like it. It might not be “qualifying insurance”.

  2. Many people will pay higher rates.

  3. The law is too complicated. Democrats fear that it’s a “train wreck” and key provisions have been delayed.

  4. You won’t get to keep your doctor. Smaller networks means your doctor is less likely to be in network and you’ll have to find a new one.
    In a complex debate like the one over health care, I’d naturally expect supporters to get some things right and critics to also get some things right. But I think the Democrats hurt themselves by categorically rejecting any and all criticisms of the bill(except for some nitpicking from the left).

The fact that Democrats were wrong about the first four raises questions about the next four big issues:

  1. Are the Medicare cuts going to affect beneficiaries?

  2. Does ACA threaten union negotiated insurance plans?

  3. Will IPAB result in denial of care to seniors?

  4. Will ACA reduce or increase the deficit?

Given that Democrats were wrong about the first four, how likely is it that they are wrong about the next four? And what consequences should Democrats face for calling those who predicted the first four liars?

112

Nope, in this thread and in other discussions there is evidence that what you are pushing is just FUD. The “liars” (and you are getting very close to insulting there) are reporting that as Massachusetts and developed countries show, the problems are there but they not reach the deal breaker levels you are assuming.

And the first #3 point is pure Republican propaganda.

113

You’re misunderstanding. I said that Democrats called the other side liars. I’m not sure who I’m insulting by saying that. I’d think that’s something we all agree on.

As for the four items I listed, those are either/or propositions, since Democrats insisted on taking an absolutist stance on each one and made categorical promises. In a fair world, that tanks their credibility.

114

Hard to make a case for lies (and #3 once again relies on a lie from Republican sources of information).

It is the misleading information from Republican sources of information what is driving the discussion, this is just a perfect example of misinformation leading people to get the wrong conclusions and use that wrong info. Just like in many issues of science, the current Republicans in the health care issue are rejecting good information and reality and replacing it with ideological points.

115

Actually, #3 comes from Democrats trying to get more information about implementation from the administration and getting stonewalled. We’re what, 2 days from rollout and there’s almost no news about their progress? This isn’t freakin’ war preparations, where’s the transparency?

116

Another major problem is the utter failure to provide information. In Florida, for example, this law, ostensibly to help the poor, is an intractable mess–you have to pull teeth just to find information about it–the county health services won’t tell you about it (they might give you information about the program but you’ll have to know who and what to ask for), and the people who are experts in the transition won’t talk to you at county health service offices. They won’t even show up at the offices, someone will have to find their way across town to talk about option. That will often mean a second day off a minimum wage job (unless they’re freeloading off the welfare teat, but given Florida’s lack of surfable waves there aren’t all that many moochers).

These headaches in finding information will likely upset a lot of people, proving the law’s unpopularity and the administration’s incompetence in its implementation. I bet the first day of the rollout will include delays and server crashes, too–completely proving that the government is not set up and can never be capable of controlling and completely running the country’s healthcare system.

117

You don’t judge it by the first day. You judge it by how well they are on top of things, and whether they can even implement it at all. Removing the fraud protections is a pretty big deal, and the information you give to them doesn’t seem to be in very safe hands given that they aren’t doing background checks on the people handling the information.

No background checks. HHS is not requiring Navigators and Assisters to go through fingerprinting or background checks, even though they are gathering information that could instantly lead to identity theft of the victims. The workers will be collecting Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses, email addresses, and information about employers, income, and health habits, such as tobacco use. All of this can be written down on a paper form that will then have to be transcribed into a computer, possibly by yet another person who hasn’t gone through a background check

Taking shortcuts on crucial items is proof of executive incompetence.

118

The Navigators and Assisters should be going through the exact same process that every other government field worker (with any access to social security numbers and address information) goes through. Reading through the opinion piece based on a report by that stalwart of truth, Issa, should make people shake!
(with laughter)

119

Its a good thing that the Republicans have been the ones lying about it more often, and with more severity. The ACA won’t be repealed. Pretending that Senor Rafael Cruz and his filibuster has a snowball’s chance in hell is both ignorant and delusional. The law is here to stay and that will not change next week when enrollments start, next Jan when it is implemented, or 20 years from now when Republicans finally embrace it and call it a Republican plan :smiley:

The lies and obfuscation by the Republicans are the only thing that is actively making the law “unpopular”, and it is only through the lack of info and misinformation that people are frustrated. Everybody wants health care, even the 20 something that thinks he’s invincible, because everyone can get into a car accident or get an infectious disease hand sparring with a poison monkey.

120

Hard to get around this big fat whopper: 'If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what."

I’d say that lie is bigger and more significant to the public than anything Republicans said.