# I may be able to explain the Republicans
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 11, 2011, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602 "2011-07-11T07:53:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 6
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/101 "2011-07-15T19:29:13Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> :rolleyes: wow, you haven’t listened to a single thing I’ve said. I could spend $8000 on a policy similar to my companies, or I could spend $2800 for a policy with a $5,000 deductible.
What was the deductible on the company policy?
---
### Author:  [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/102 "2011-07-15T19:32:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> There is no advantage to bulk purchase.
It is true that there is no advantage for a youngish healthy male individual, and you can include females only if the policy excludes coverage of child bearing. You can’t even compare the group rate to the average of individual rates because a number of the employees covered under the group policy will not be able to purchase individual policies at ANY price.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/103 "2011-07-15T19:38:25Z")
> [@Kevbo](#):
>
> It is true that there is no advantage for a youngish healthy male individual, and you can include females only if the policy excludes coverage of child bearing. You can’t even compare the group rate to the average of individual rates because a number of the employees covered under the group policy will not be able to purchase individual policies at ANY price.
The healthcare bill addressed problems with people who had problems getting insurance. My rates went up because of it.
---
### Author:  [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/104 "2011-07-15T19:39:11Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> And I’ve never seen a sign or notification saying they love submitting the same paperwork 5 times to get paid.
You’re right. By your stupendous logic doctors have the same preference for cash that they have for submitting the same paperwork 5 times to get paid.
Whew, that was a relief. Thanks for making it clear.
-Joe
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/105 "2011-07-15T19:42:00Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> What was the deductible on the company policy?
it was an HMO with co-pays. So my savings example would improves in my favor as the deductible is met but I didn’t include that for discussion.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/106 "2011-07-15T19:43:40Z")
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> You’re right. By your stupendous logic doctors have the same preference for cash that they have for submitting the same paperwork 5 times to get paid.
>
> Whew, that was a relief. Thanks for making it clear.
>
> -Joe
um what? do you not understand that cash payments save Doctors money in comparison to the labor spent collecting it from insurance companies?
---
### Author:  [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/107 "2011-07-15T19:48:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> um what? do you not understand that cash payments save Doctors money in comparison to the labor spent collecting it from insurance companies?
No, I think that if my doctor wanted cash and accepted cash there would be some sort of notification making that clear.
There isn’t. Since you seem to think it is a mutually beneficial situation that only a fool wouldn’t post it, I wonder why that is?
Maybe I have no the only doctor in America who isn’t interested. That must be it. Feel free to post something intelligent next or I’m done with you.
-Joe
---
### Author:  [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/108 "2011-07-15T19:51:57Z")
> [@Kevbo](#):
>
> It is true that there is no advantage for a youngish healthy male individual, and you can include females only if the policy excludes coverage of child bearing. You can’t even compare the group rate to the average of individual rates because a number of the employees covered under the group policy will not be able to purchase individual policies at ANY price.
Or to families. Sure you can cover the 5K should something catastrophic happen. However, a family of 5 getting in a car accident? You have 25 grand sitting around?
---
### Author:  [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/109 "2011-07-15T19:58:42Z")
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> No, I think that if my doctor wanted cash and accepted cash there would be some sort of notification making that clear.
>
> There isn’t. Since you seem to think it is a mutually beneficial situation that only a fool wouldn’t post it, I wonder why that is?
>
> Maybe I have no the only doctor in America who isn’t interested. That must be it. Feel free to post something intelligent next or I’m done with you.
>
> -Joe
I think it’s more likely that so very few people pay with cash, that it’s not generally considered. About 80-85% of the population has insurance. The rest probably rarely, if ever, go to the doctor.
---
### Author:  [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)
#### Post date: [July 15, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/110 "2011-07-15T20:25:39Z")
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> No, I think that if my doctor wanted cash and accepted cash there would be some sort of notification making that clear.
>
> There isn’t. Since you seem to think it is a mutually beneficial situation that only a fool wouldn’t post it, I wonder why that is?
I actually posted a website discussing the preference of doctors to get cash. I’ve also posted my costs and what my company paid. You’ve posted nothing. When you get laid off and are faced with paying Cobra you’ll understand. I hope that never happens but here is some free advice if it does: you should sign up for Cobra (but not buy it) so that you have uninterrupted insurance because insurance companies do not like to see gaps in coverage. That is true whether it’s health insurance or house insurance. After you’ve purchased your own policy you can drop Cobra without incurring any cost because there’s usually a 60 day waiver period.
> [@Merijeek](#):
>
> Maybe I have no the only doctor in America who isn’t interested. That must be it. Feel free to post something intelligent next or I’m done with you.
>
> -Joe
Maybe you do have the only doctor who isn’t interested. I doubt it. You could take the trouble to ask like I did.
I survived 3 1/2 years of unemployment because I know how to handle my money. I still have my house, car, airplane and 96% of my retirement. I’m not hugely interested in your opinion on insurance because you’ve clearly not dealt with it in the real world. I posted my real world experiences for the benefit of discussion.
Best of luck with all your financial transactions and I mean that sincerely but I don’t see the point of discussing it unless you’ve actually been involved in it so I think were done here.
---
### Author:  [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)
#### Post date: [July 16, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/111 "2011-07-16T00:42:54Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> … Grinding poverty, bloody confrontations, … and the rise of a revolutionary left. These are not good things.
You’re such a gloomy [del]Gus[/del] [del]Charlotte[/del] **'luci** , is weariness dragging you down?
Think of the up side to it all, guillotines would become a growth industry and the need for tumbrel drivers would lower unemployment to nothing!
… The gutter’s deep and red
Climb up climb up and ride along with me
the tumbrel driver said …
… I only go one way
Climb up climb up and ride along with me
There’s no gold coach today …
CMC fnord!
---
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2011, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/112 "2011-07-17T02:21:39Z")
My impression is the lack of cooperation is due to how motivated, activist and conservative the current GOP base is. Large percentages of GOP primary voters believe Obama is a Kenyan, Al Qaeda manchurian candidate, Marxist, who wants to intentionally destroy the US economy and military so Muslims can conquer us. Views along those lines are not really unpopular among the dedicated base who make up a large % of primary voters.
I don’t know if releasing the long form birth certificate made a difference, but in February 2011, 51% of GOP primary voters believed Obama was not born in the US. Another 21% were not sure. Only 28% of GOP primary voters know Obama was born in the US, the other 72% either think he wasn’t are are not sure.
[http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP\_Release\_US\_0215.pdf](http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0215.pdf)
A 51% majority of national GOP primary voters erroneously think President Obama was
not born in the U.S. 28% know that he was.
What incentive is there for a GOP politician to cooperate with someone when 72% of your primary voters think he is a traitor who shouldn’t legally be president?
However even though the GOP is acting tough they did tell Wall Street that they would pass the debt ceiling increase.
---
### Author:  [@gravitycrash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gravitycrash)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/113 "2011-07-17T03:26:20Z")
Look, I think the Republicans are probably taking the no new taxes thing to the extreme but they do have a point about the deficit and national debt.
It’s only going to get worse if only because of the changing demographics in the U.S, way too many people are going to be retiring soon and if nothing is done to at least reign in spending and/or waste in social programs and all discretionary spending including the military this country will soon be going the way that Europe is going.
Actually I think the problem in Europe is still being minimized and has a good chance of becoming much worse.
I’m even considering withdrawing my cash from my money market fund because of the instability of the usually safe bond market and I’m usually not one to panic when it comes to investing.
It will be considerably easier to make significant changes now then wait until after the elections in 2012 but that’s probably what will happen anyway.
---
### Author:  [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/114 "2011-07-17T04:47:00Z")
> [@gravitycrash](#):
>
> Look, I think the Republicans are probably taking the no new taxes thing to the extreme but they do have a point about the deficit and national debt.
>
> It’s only going to get worse if only because of the changing demographics in the U.S, way too many people are going to be retiring soon and if nothing is done to at least reign in spending and/or waste in social programs and all discretionary spending including the military this country will soon be going the way that Europe is going.
>
> Actually I think the problem in Europe is still being minimized and has a good chance of becoming much worse.
>
> I’m even considering withdrawing my cash from my money market fund because of the instability of the usually safe bond market and I’m usually not one to panic when it comes to investing.
>
> It will be considerably easier to make significant changes now then wait until after the elections in 2012 but that’s probably what will happen anyway.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think social security or medicare is part of the federal budget (unless you count interest payments on t-bills bought with the social security trust fund). Therefore I don’t think the deficit getting worse would be due to social programs for the elderly. In fact, I can’t see the deficit getting worse unless the economy does. I think the deficit will continue to decrease as the economy gets better and cuts to the budget outlays will only accelerate this. That’s not to say it isn’t a big problem, it is, but it will get better if the economy improves.
---
### Author:  [@dukette71](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dukette71)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2011, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/115 "2011-07-17T05:13:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> (This OP is adapted from [a post on my blog](http://theblogthatwasthursday.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/i-can-explain-the-republicans/), which includes visuals.)
>
> Lately a lot of people have been wondering about the strange behavior of Congressional Republicans. I do not mean their belief that lower taxes and less government spending are good. This is an entirely defensible set of beliefs, regardless of whether one happens to agree with it. When I say “strange behavior”, I mean the tactics that they’ve been using in the past six months or so. Not compromising in even the smallest degree, offering a budget that’s political suicide, and seriously suggesting the idea of defaulting on federal debt.
>
> I think that to understand what the Republicans are doing, you have to look at a game theory scenario called ‘[The Battle of the Sexes](http://www.science20.com/brain_candyfeed_your_mind/game_theory_solves_datenight_dilemma_battle_sexes_puzzle)’. We can set up the current budget negotiations as a game theory scenario. The players are the Republicans and the Democrats. Each side can choose to either hold strong to its position or cave in. We determine payoffs as follows:
>
> If both sides hold strong, there’s a debt default, catastrophic for both sides but slightly worse for the Republicans because the public will blame them more. Republicans: -100 Democrats: -80
>
> If the Republicans hold strong and the Democrats cave in, the Republicans get what they want, namely big spending cuts with no tax hikes. Republicans 5, Democrats -2
>
> In the reverse scenario, payoffs are reversed. Republicans -2, Democrats 5
>
> If both sides cave in, both sides get some but not all of what they want. Republicans 0, Democrats 0
>
> It’s much easier to visualize if you read the blog post, but the end result is that this ‘game’ becomes a version of the Battle of the Sexes scenario in game theory. Now, one interesting facet of that scenario is that from a psychological perspective, it’s to each player’s advantage to be seen as unwilling to change one’s mind. If the other player thinks that you won’t even consider caving in, they’ll be more likely to cave in rather than risk the outcome where both sides hold strong. In the particular game based on the budget negotiations, the consequences of a ‘double hold strong’ are so severe that nobody could sanely consider the possibility. Hence, if the Republicans want to play the game with the appearance of being totally obstinate, they also have to appear to be nuts. And if we assume that they’ve had this moment in mind ever since the last election, the thesis that they’re trying to make others think that they’re nuts would account for their behavior this year.
>
> Admittedly the scenario I’ve outlined is crude and the payoffs I used are arbitrary, but I believe that in general principle it captures what’s happening in the present political moment.
It’s kind of like going to work and convincing everyone that you are needed even though you never do the work that your boss actually hired you to do. I get it!
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2011, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/116 "2011-07-17T14:22:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#):
>
> There is no other side of the equation when balancing a budget. That’s the definition of a balanced budget. Living within your means.
That’s great, but you can live within your means by increasing your means.
I know people don’t like to get into the math on this, but reducing spending alone will not eliminate the deficit. It is a flat out impossibility; the difference is simply too great. The things the GOP cannot and has quite openly stated will not reduce are, by themselves, vastly higher than tax revenues.
That is not to say that spending cuts aren’t necessary; they certainly are. But what the GOP will inexplicably not admit is that tax increases are ALSO necessary, and that one of the cuts needed is to defense.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/117 "2011-07-17T17:02:50Z")
The likely outcome is that we try to default (just like Portugal) and find we can’t (just like Portugal) but then owe more interest on the new bonds sold as old bonds are paid off.
And some of the GOP know this (like Cantor, most likely) while some will actually be surprised when it happens.
---
### Author:  [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/118 "2011-07-17T17:10:06Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> The likely outcome is that we try to default (just like Portugal) and find we can’t (just like Portugal) but then owe more interest on the new bonds sold as old bonds are paid off.
>
> And some of the GOP know this (like Cantor, most likely) while some will actually be surprised when it happens.
If you take the realpolitik view of it, if that does happen then they can use it as an opportunity to push for further cuts to social programs and infrastructure since hte deficit will be even higher.
---
### Author:  [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2011, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/119 "2011-07-17T17:26:42Z")
Sadly, the most likely possible outcome is that we will keep borrowing until the free market kicks in and the rating of US bonds is downgraded until people stop buying them. This is known as “reality kicking you in the balls”.
Is the US a latter-day Rome? Possibly not, but it’s looking more and more like a latter-day Spanish-Habsburg Empire every day. ☹
---
### Author:  [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)
#### Post date: [July 17, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602/120 "2011-07-17T17:29:35Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> The likely outcome is that we try to default (just like Portugal) and find we can’t (just like Portugal) but then owe more interest on the new bonds sold as old bonds are paid off.
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#):
>
> If you take the realpolitik view of it, if that does happen then they can use it as an opportunity to push for further cuts to social programs and infrastructure since hte deficit will be even higher.
If we ‘try to default’, that does indeed show that the U.S. is a poor credit risk and interest rates will rise. Not as much as actually defaulting, but still not a good thing. (Recall the $120 million default in 1979 that cost the U.S. around $6 billion in increased interest payments.)
In the realpolitik view of it, trying to use the outcome as an opportunity to push for further cuts might backfire. I think that it would provide a greater opportunity to point out that no, the budget cannot be balanced without tax increases.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-may-be-able-to-explain-the-republicans/588602.md?page=5)