# what do the Republicans have to negotiate with? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 9, 2013, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768 "2013-10-09T13:47:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/541 "2013-10-16T19:04:02Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > That’s correct. If Republicans pass this, then they caved like Democrats’ little bitches, and I hope this will be remembered at election time. You’ve said this over and over. What I think you mean is that everyone will look at Republicans as someone that doesn’t deserve respect (you analogize this to “bitches,” presumably the first group that pops to mind when you’re thinking of who doesn’t deserve respect), and therefore think that Republicans, in an effort to maintain the respect of others, should continue acting like tantrum-throwing toddlers. I’m reminded of [Captain Mal](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9ZgnVb5Q7I). Republicans aren’t going to be viewed as weak-like-women because they gave up on their tantrum, except by a frankly contemptible minority of the country. Instead, they’ll be viewed as rational-like-adults for giving up on their tantrum. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/542 "2013-10-16T19:05:52Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Republicans aren’t going to be viewed as weak-like-women because they gave up on their tantrum, except by a frankly contemptible minority of the country. Also known as “their base.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/543 "2013-10-16T19:08:53Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Also known as “their base.” Indeed. One hopes that the decent Republicans (hush, Der Trihs, just hush) will see the words of **Terr** etc., folks who can’t stand to see manly men acting all womanly or whatever the hair-rending is about, and be appalled enough to leave the party. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/544 "2013-10-16T19:11:30Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m reminded of [Captain Mal](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9ZgnVb5Q7I). Republicans aren’t going to be viewed as weak-like-women because they gave up on their tantrum, except by a frankly contemptible minority of the country. Instead, they’ll be viewed as rational-like-adults for giving up on their tantrum. Well, no. They’ll be looked at as whiny babies for having the tantrum in the first place, with a dire need to re-earn their status as rational adults. This whole issue is just so fucking _dumb_. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/545 "2013-10-16T19:16:59Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well, no. They’ll be looked at as whiny babies for having the tantrum in the first place, with a dire need to re-earn their status as rational adults. This whole issue is just so fucking _dumb_. Yeah, I don’t mean that it’ll be an instant process (but knowing our country, in three weeks this’ll be old news and nobody much will care). But passing a budget will be the first step toward looking like adults, and I guarandamntee you that they’ll pass around the talking points–which in three weeks Terr will repeat word-for-word–that as the ones who compromised, THEY should be seen as the saviors of the country from the intractable Democrats. And at least 30% of the country will believe them. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/546 "2013-10-16T19:50:01Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Way to completely miss the point. :rolleyes: This is rich. You offer up a ridiculous analogy. I point out the problem with it and _you_ huff and roll your eyes. HA! > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yeah. Except that that had nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with people realizing that Obama was a politician rather than a visionary. But it doesn’t _matter_, because to repeal a law, you need to pass a law, and democrats are not on board for that. So, the elections that the Dems won are because those elections were in large part about Obamacare. But the one when the lost, well, a bunch of other stuff, as long as it’s not healthcare. Gotcha. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I don’t think you get it. I don’t give _two shits_ what they asked for. I literally do not give two shits. If someone offered to change their demands to something less stupid, I would literally not give that person two lumps of shit for that. They could have held the government hostage with the demand that each congressional meeting start with a public viewing of the day’s “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic” episode and I would be opposed to it (even though it would almost certainly make congress a more interesting place). It’s _not about the demands_. It’s about the methods. And I don’t give two shits that you don’t give two shits about it. Glad we were able to settle that. You want top thrown reasonable and unreasonable in the same box and view them the same, knock yourself out. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Because it is. Demanding the delay the individual mandate is at least close to as unreasonable as insisting on impeachment proceedings. It completely cripples the landmark achievement of the administration and turns the bill into poison for the health care industry, and there is _no excuse_ for republicans in congress not to understand that at this point. Which makes me wonder why they demand it in the first place. Probably because they _do_ understand it, and they probably understand that if they can force this, they can make the bill look incredibly bad. What you evidently miss is that some people think the bill is incredibly bad. And why not delay forcing people to do something until you see how it goes for a year. Obviously it will be underfunded, but we can still learn things. And if the funding is so critical, why offer so many exemptions to others? > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > But you know what? You’re _still missing the point_. Because it doesn’t matter what they demand; the objectionable thing is first and foremost _how they are demanding it_ - by holding the full faith and credit of the USA hostage, and by shutting down the government. As said above, it _does not matter what their demands are_. That their demands are utterly unreasonable, and it’s officially too dumb to chalk up to anything other than malice, is just the icing on the cake. The were using the leverage they had. Within the rules. It’s a dangerous game, as it’s who is going to blink first. And it looks like the Dems will be winning the showdown. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 1. There were _170_ republican amendments to the PPACA that made it into the final bill. The democrats bent and bent and bent trying to get _any_ republican support. But the problem is, the republican party wasn’t interested. But to try to use this partisan lineup as an excuse is ridiculous. “Backlash” would be the republicans playing hardball, trying to hold off on passing things the president wants. Not the republicans shutting down the government and putting the USA at risk of default unless they get their way. The former is reasonable and rational, the latter is _completely insane_ and utterly unreasonable. I find it completely possible that one could affect a couple hundred amendments could be made to legislation that applies to one sixth of the economy, written in over 2,000 pages, and still not feel the the overall legislation is a good idea. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yes. But that loophole is destroying American democracy. The fact that both houses of congress and the president need to agree for the state to continue functioning is okay right up until someone says “no”, at which point the whole house of cards falls apart. American government is _defunct_. It is broken. There is no way to fix it beyond plugging these loopholes. If you are defending the republicans using these loopholes, you are advocating the end of democracy or the end of government in the United States of America. There is no way around this conclusion. Shall I get you your salts? American democracy is more resilient than you give it credit for. In the grand scheme of things these things are little hiccups. We’ve been through them before, you know. Things that are MUCH more apt to ruin America as we know it is having a hyper-partisan, divisive Redistributor-in-Chief in the Oval Office. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And there is no way to give them bipartisan support when they’ve taken hostages. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. We saw this in 2011, where the republicans got exactly what they wanted from exactly this kind of hostage situation over the debt ceiling, and the democrats got nothing but the continued full faith and credit of the USA… Which is something the republicans wanted too. It’s like if your roommate threatens to burn your shared living accommodation to the ground in some bizarre land where such things are legal. It’s not a compromise if you get to keep your room and he gets to keep your CD player. Here you go with the bad analogies again. Again, Reps were, admittedly, in a weak position to demand negotiations. They went all in. Which is really bad strategy if you intend to fold before the other guy. As they appear to be doing. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > The sheer unmitigated stupidity of this statement really left me gobsmacked for a while. I’m sorry, setting up a precedent where one party can tell the other “do what I say or I blow up the economy” is _good_ for the governing bodies of future legislation? What fucking color is the sky in the universe you live in? Speaking of sheer unmitigated stupidity, perhaps you should take more care in parsing meaning. Here is the statement. Pay attention to what preceded it and what the “That’s” is referring to: [QUOTE=magellan01] What they’re supposed to do is negotiate to the point that they do get some bipartisan support. That’s good governance. Not only is it good for the governing bodies for future legislation, but it means that the final bill is not just one side imposing its will on the other. When you have at least some support from the other side, both sides own it. That’s a good thing. [/QUOTE] So the part you quoted was referring to the general notion that two sides should be negotiating to the point where they receive some minority support. And you think that’s a bad idea? :rolleyes: > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Do you even understand how democracy fucking works? I assure you I do. Yet I maintain that one side imposing it’s will on the other and getting zero votes from the minority is NOT good governance. Maybe that’s why that there has NEVER been a piece of major legislation passed which the opposing party supported to some degree. NEVER! Do you really think that this was the only time their was vehement disagreement? Nope. It’s just that the officials—both Dems and Reps—felt that it wasn’t right to impose their will and shove legislation through with some support from the other side. And Obama/Reid/Pelosi had done that, we wouldn’t be where we are now. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > But you’re _never_ going to get support from republicans for any such social health care reform, regardless of how sensible it is. And that’s part of the problem, isn’t it? I don’t think that’s right. For instance, they wanted to change the laws regarding buying insurance over state lines and and increase the amount of Medical Savings Accounts. True, those just address half the problem, about the costs associated with health care. But reducing the cost would, by definition, allow some people who cannot afford it to afford it. We’re then left with a smaller pool of people who we’d need to provide for. It would have made more sense to implement smaller changes and see the effects of them. Starting off with" let’s fundamentally alter one sixth of our economy and, and for the first time in the country’s history force people to buy a product" doesn’t seem prudent to me. And I say that as one who fully supports putting an end to recision and other disgusting tactics of the insurance companies. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > _No_, and if you say this again, I will call you a liar and be _justified_, because I have explained to you why this is not the case, and the only reason you would repeat it is because you are _lying_. :rolleyes: Funny that you don’t entertain the possibility that we simply disagree. So, feel free to start a pit thread and call me a liar, because this is a fact: [QUOTE=magellan01] Granting the exemption for one year would have been reasonable, due to all the other exemptions Obama has handed out. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/547 "2013-10-16T19:57:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is rich. You offer up a ridiculous analogy. I point out the problem with it and _you_ huff and roll your eyes. HA! Because you completely missed the point and I’m past explaining it to you. > [@](#): > > So, the elections that the Dems won are because those elections were in large part about Obamacare. But the one when the lost, well, a bunch of other stuff, as long as it’s not healthcare. Gotcha. Yes. _Actual policy analysis_. The democrats ran on health care and won. The republicans ran on health care and won because democratic turnout was lousy. > [@](#): > > You want top thrown reasonable and unreasonable in the same box and view them the same, knock yourself out. You just don’t fucking get it, do you? You seriously don’t understand that the issue here is not “I don’t want Obamacare defunded or delayed”, but rather “I don’t want policy debates to happen where the threat of harm to the country gives one side a unilateral advantage”. In other words, a hostage situation is not acceptable for policy debates! And if you can’t understand that, then there’s no point in continuing, because you’re not willing to debate honestly or you can’t _read_. > [@](#): > > The were using the leverage they had. Within the rules. It’s a dangerous game, as it’s who is going to blink first. And it looks like the Dems will be winning the showdown. Oh. I see. You see no problem with this. What. Even. The. Fuck. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/548 "2013-10-16T20:02:23Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What you evidently miss is that some people think the bill is incredibly bad. Those people are incredibly misinformed. _Mal_-informed, actually. > [@](#): > > And why not delay forcing people to do something until you see how it goes for a year. You want to \*keep \*something from being done until we see how it works. Really now. 😃 > [@](#): > > The were using the leverage they had. Within the rules. The rules involve having every chance to make your case in debate, and accepting the result. \*Not \*lying and pouting when We the People decide the other side’s case is better. > [@](#): > > And it looks like the Dems will be winning the showdown. As the party representing the will of the people, as our democratic processes work, yes, as they should. > [@](#): > > Redistributor-in-Chief 2008 called … > [@](#): > > So the part you quoted was referring to the general notion that two sides should be negotiating to the point where they receive some minority support. And you think that’s a bad idea? :rolleyes: Are you ever going to get around to saying what Republican proposals were made and should have been considered? Or are you even capable of recognizing that they were never ever going to vote for anything with Obama’s name on it? All they ever did was offer amendments that weakened the bill, but never had any good-faith intention of ever voting for the final thing. _Never_. And I think you know that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/549 "2013-10-16T20:03:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > So, the elections that the Dems won are because those elections were in large part about Obamacare. But the one when the lost, well, a bunch of other stuff, as long as it’s not healthcare. Gotcha. Without getting into whether or not someone else is being inconsistent: the ACA was a major issue, perhaps even the single biggest issue, in last year’s elections. Obama won. The shutdown happened because Republicans realized they could not get rid of it via the ballot box. > [@](#): > > What you evidently miss is that some people think the bill is incredibly bad. They lost the argument. They do not get to revive it at every conceivable opportunity by demanding crazy concessions in return for allowing the government to function. > [@](#): > > And why not delay forcing people to do something until you see how it goes for a year. Already explained… > [@](#): > > Obviously it will be underfunded, but we can still learn things. Such as? > [@](#): > > And if the funding is so critical, why offer so many exemptions to others? Offering exemptions to some people and businesses is not the same as _making the entire program operate without funding for a year._ Say it was delayed. Even if things worked well, do you think Republicans would say “we’ve been campaigning against Obamacare for four years and saying it’s the worst thing ever, but it’s time to let it go into effect.” > [@](#): > > The were using the leverage they had. Within the rules. Whether it was “within the rules” or not - whatever that may mean to you - it was without precedent and craven and disgusting. This was a maneuver that had a real effect on people’s lives and the economy. It’s satisfying that they lost so miserably, but that doesn’t really make up for it. > [@](#): > > Yet I maintain that one side imposing it’s will on the other and getting zero votes from the minority is NOT good governance. Doesn’t that also apply to shutting down the government for several weeks and threatening the country’s credit? I’m pretty sure the Democrats didn’t vote in favor of that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/550 "2013-10-16T20:04:15Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > _No_, and if you say this again, I will call you a liar Not in this forum you won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/551 "2013-10-16T20:09:29Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > What fucking color is the sky in the universe you live in? > > Do you even understand how democracy fucking works? > > _No_, and if you say this again, I will call you a liar and be _justified_, because I have explained to you why this is not the case, and the only reason you would repeat it is because you are _lying_. Budget Player Cadet, this is too far. You may disagree with the post, you may disagree with the argument, but you may not personalize your argument with another poster. Warning issued. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/552 "2013-10-16T20:24:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I assure you I do. Yet I maintain that one side imposing it’s will on the other and getting zero votes from the minority is NOT good governance. Maybe that’s why that there has NEVER been a piece of major legislation passed which the opposing party supported to some degree. NEVER! If in fact you are correct and there has NEVER before been a major piece of legislation passed entirely by one party (and I don’t know whether that’s true one way or the other), let’s use Occam’s razor: (1) Obamacare is such a monumentally terrible piece of legislation that every single Republican, independently and in good faith, decided to vote against it. But Democrats are either stupid or evil and the vast majority of them came to the other conclusion. (And this despite the fact that Obamacare basically started out as the Republican response to Hilarycare). (2) The 2010-era Republican congress, more than any similar group in the past, is incredibly disciplined and afraid to break ranks, so the fact that zero of them voted for it says more about them than it does about Obamacare Which seems more likely to you? Particularly in light of the rest of the political atmosphere recently, etc? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/553 "2013-10-16T20:39:08Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > If in fact you are correct and there has NEVER before been a major piece of legislation passed entirely by one party (and I don’t know whether that’s true one way or the other), let’s use Occam’s razor: > > (1) Obamacare is such a monumentally terrible piece of legislation that every single Republican, independently and in good faith, decided to vote against it. But Democrats are either stupid or evil and the vast majority of them came to the other conclusion. (And this despite the fact that Obamacare basically started out as the Republican response to Hilarycare). > (2) The 2010-era Republican congress, more than any similar group in the past, is incredibly disciplined and afraid to break ranks, so the fact that zero of them voted for it says more about them than it does about Obamacare > > Which seems more likely to you? Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the objection has no relevance anyway. Even if what he’s saying is correct, it’s still a law on the books. It doesn’t magically lose legitimacy based on the circumstances of its passage. Pretend the law got a few votes from Republicans. Does it make any less sense, then, for the Republicans to make its repeal a central piece of their agenda for years and use increasingly crazy tactics to try to kill it? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/554 "2013-10-16T20:58:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the objection has no relevance anyway. Even if what he’s saying is correct, it’s still a law on the books. It doesn’t magically lose legitimacy based on the circumstances of its passage. Pretend the law got a few votes from Republicans. Does it make any less sense, then, for the Republicans to make its repeal a central piece of their agenda for years and use increasingly crazy tactics to try to kill it? Oh, I agree entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/555 "2013-10-16T21:07:29Z")
I have no idea where Marley gets the patience. I really don’t. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/556 "2013-10-16T21:38:37Z")
Morphine drip. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/557 "2013-10-16T23:47:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What you evidently miss is that some people think the bill is incredibly bad. I wonder what they would say if it is mostly simple payer, like Medicare? And what would they say if said socialistic single payer system, like Medicare, costs an amount roughly equal to the budget deficit? Instead we have, in the Affordable Care Act,something that non-partisan raters say _decreases_ the deficit. Because of social security and medicare, a large portion of Americans no longer save for their retirement, and no longer have lots of children who could support them in their old age. Instead of each family taking care of its own, today’s oldsters often are wards of the state. This goes against an ethos of individualism to a vastly greater extent than Romneycare, excuse me, Obamacare. I don’t miss that some people think the Affordable Care Act is incredibly bad. But given that the bigger government health care plan is all but ignored, it seems to me to be partisan blatter. I don’t see how you can oppose the individual mandate and be OK with the medicare tax. This is perhaps more extreme than what you will read here, but sums up the nonsense: [The Medicare-Isn’t-Government Meme](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/08/the_medicareisntgovernment_meme.html) ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768/558 "2013-10-17T18:42:08Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Finally, someone has figured out a way around the whole mess. Just take Obamacare, don’t change a thing, call it [Reagancare](http://dailycurrant.com/2013/10/03/poll-republicans-support-obamacare-if-called-reagancare/?fb_action_ids=10151790808347701&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B485579531540344%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.likes%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D), and nearly 2/3 of Republicans would support it. Satirical news site. That would be pretty rich though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-the-republicans-have-to-negotiate-with/670768.md?page=27)