Because those disagreeing with liberals are generally insane or liars or both. All your disapprovals about the failings of your ideology doesn’t equal reality. Reality equals reality, and it often doesn’t agree with conservative principle.
I think this is part of the basic disagreement. I think what the majority wants is pretty much the only way to judge good policy in a democracy. The Left, especially people like Gruber, seem to think it is the job of the benevolent philosopher-kings of the Democratic party to tell the plebians what is good for them, and our duty to knuckle our forelocks and simply accept the dicta of our betters.
[/QUOTE]
What the majority wants decides which policy is in force. It does not define whether it is good policy or bad policy.
We don’t have mob rule. We have representative (sort of) democracy. We hire, not philosopher kings, but politicians that we think will govern wisely (in theory). Do they always? No. Do some policies thought to be bad by the majority turn out well? Yes. Do some poicies thought to be good by the majority turn out badly? Also yes.
What is popular is not always right. What is unpopular is not always wrong.
And you still haven’t addressed the fact that individual provisions of the ACA are wildly popular. Does that mean they are good policy? Not on their own, it doesn’t. Only mandating coverage of pre-existing conditions would be, politically, hugely popular. Without a way to pay for it (can you say the hated words “individual mandate”), it would be extremely bad policy.
:rolleyes: From your own cite:
Emphasis added. Because, apparently, it’s needed.
Holy shit.
Republicans lost this argument after the ACA passed & Obama was reelected. Cut the fucking crap.
Which argument is that? Are you of the mind that a 2,400-page bill ceases being a 2-400 page bill because of who one an election?
You’ll be saying it when the repeal bill arrives on President Bush’s desk.
No, the argument that the US should broadly move towards a UHC system in the first place via the ACA. If the GOP had won this, the law wouldn’t have passed & Obama wouldn’t have been reelected.
Time to move on.
Yeah, right, because American Exceptionalism extends to the US becoming the first nation in human history to destroy its UHC system. Again, cut the bullshit.
If the bill didn’t get made law, what’s the purpose of pointing that out? Would it be accurate for me to say the ACA is a 200 page bill if one version that was never adoped was, in fact, 200 pages?
Your using FoxNews style semantic games to create a false narrative. The law ISN’T 2400 pages. It’s 900. Yes, people did have time to read it. The politicians spouting this line, like you, were just trying to obfuscate the issue by creating (false) strawmen to rile up their ignorant base.
It’s a UHC system now? Forgive me, I’m having a hard time remembering which ACA supporters call it universal and which don’t.
If it’s not universal, then it’s no more unusual than when Congress repealed the Medicare catastrophic coverage bill.
Especially if it’s called the Affordable Care Act.
In other news, those who receive oil company subsidies think the program is excellent.
The overall package, however, is wildly unpopular.
So either the popular parts could have been, or should be, separated out and passed separately, and the Democrats are idiots for not doing this because they would have won the recent elections. Or the popular parts can’t be separated out, and Obama and Co. shouldn’t have lied about them because now that the whole package is implemented, most people don’t think the good outweighs the bad.
Of course the part where you are going to save $2500 a year and keep whatever plan you want and so on are going to be wildly popular. But those parts can’t be separated out and passed because they are lies. So it wasn’t a question of selling the good points to slide the bad points past, because the good points aren’t real.
‘Are you in favor of a plan that saves the average family a significant amount on their premiums, covers everybody, and lets you keep everything you have now?’ Of course such a plan is going to be popular. The trouble being there is no such plan.
“Are you in favor of raising taxes and cutting $716 billion from Medicare and using the money to buy insurance for people who don’t have it now?” There is such a plan, but it is not so wildly popular.
Regards,
Shodan
About the RW talking point about the $2500 reduction. That was a campaign promise, right? I’d say those have a lot more leeway when you have rote, unthinking obstruction like Obama faced in the GOP.
No, you’re doing it wrong. Here, let me help you. When you inject yourself into a conversation by pointing out an error one of the participants made, you really want to be sure that that person is, in fact, in error.
Now, if you reach out to correct on of these participants and it is shown that the person was correct all along and that YOU are the one in error, you acknowledge your error and apologize. Multiply this time 1 billion if the cite you provided shows that the participant in question was correct and you were the one who is incorrect.
What you don’t do is not apologize for being wrong. And then you don’t try to sweep it under the rug as not being all the important. If it was important enough for you to climb down of your high horse and correct someone (even on a minor point, hell, especially if it’s on a minor point) it’s important enough for you to apologize for your error.
Hope that helps. Feel free to try again.
Bullshit. Let’s see, what’s worse than “FoxNews style semantic games”? Well, whatever it is, THAT is what you are guilty of.
Well, if anyone makes the claim that the law is 900 pages, you be sure to correct them now! Just out of curiosity, has anyone in the exchange that you felt the need to inject yourself into made that claim?
He made that claim while he was president.
When? It would matter, when during the process the claim was made.
It’s tough to get a program that everyone likes when one side of those making the laws have no interest in passing one, so if you have the votes needed and can get one passed on your own, you do it! With the way the healthcare cost were going it was only a matter of time before the cost increases we were seeing of up to 10% per year would have put the cost of healthcare out of reach for most Americans and bankrupted cities, counties, states and even the federal government as the cost became too high to provide. Since Obamacare went into effect I have seen the cost of my healthcare for myself and my family GO DOWN by almost 75%, so for me it’s been all good. Also this years increases are only going to be in the 2-3% range so something must be working because it’s the smallest increase in years.
The vast majority of people I have run into that are apposed to Obamacare are people who are covered with insurance through there employer, work in a government job, or are retired from a government job and still get basically free or almost free healthcare courtesy of the Federal Government or the state or local government agency they used to work for.
There won’t be a repeal because it would require the Republicans offer a workable alternative. Even if the ACA is the worst law passed in human history it’s still better than the Republican health care alternative.
What’s the problem? Sounds like the Republicans can (a) sell their alternative with a reassuring If You Like Your Plan You Can Keep It, and then (b) do something else.