They did it here. Defend a mandate with no real enforcement mechanism.
Huh? The enforcement was delayed. Maybe it shouldn’t have been. I think the mandate is necessary and should be enforced.
That’s the employer mandate. The individual mandate is supposedly in full effect, but since it’s not enforceable anyway except against suckers, there’s going to be little need to delay it.
Alright, maybe the individual mandate enforcement mechanism should be better.
So you’re gonna keep us in suspense a little longer, huh?
We’ll see what the CBO says about it. It’s called the Burr-Coburn-Hatch Act, or the Patient Care Act.
So you don’t even know what this *does *yet, only that it isn’t named Obamacare?
Dude.
Here is the sponsors’ announcement of Burr-Coburn-Hatch. Theres’s a link to a detailed summary (awesome oxymoron) at the bottom, written by the sponsors of course.
On a quick glance, I saw several potential yawning holes, but I’ll have to look at it in small doses so I’ll let the rest of you take over.
The focus is mostly on how Obamacare sucks and has to be repealed. Then it gets replaced with pretty much the same thing, minus most protections, of course. But no details, just breezy platitudes. It’s only 1 page there btw, not too much to take in at once for most of us.
So what’s there to support? Getting Obama’s name off it? That’s really the key point, right, adaher? :dubious:
Maybe there are more “Republican alternatives” still being generated that haven’t actually reached the point of committee debate yet, after all these years. Or maybe not, it doesn’t matter.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: All of these GOP ACA alternatives are complete and total jokes and should not be seriously considered by anybody.
Guys, the GOP has no desire AT ALL to ever address health care reform because they are ideologically opposed to the idea of universal coverage or government-facilitated health care, unless of course it’s for senior citizens. :smack:
Nothing will ever come out of the Burr-Coburn-Hatch proposal because it exists entirely in a hypothetical universe as a mechanism to criticize Ocare. That’s it.
What will emerge as “the” Republican alternative? Probably none.
When you figure it, let us know, okay, guys?
Elections are just 8 months away - they wouldn’t dare give up their number one campaign issue.
Or this campaign issue: Medicare Advantage benefits are actually getting cut, and the NY Times admits it, while complaining that it shouldn’t be a real campaign issue because the cuts are justfied:
I actually agree that the cuts are justified, but Democrats should get hammered for lying about it by denying beneficiaries would see reduction in benefits, and because savings in entitlement programs should be used to reduce the deficit, not fund other entitlement programs.
Democrats cut Medicare Advantage. There is no longer any denying it. Republicans will be awaiting an apology from the media, who called that a “lie” during the 2012 campaign.
Except they aren’t. The cuts are to reimbursements for overhead bloat, not to benefits.
In the same way, and by the same amount, as the Ryan budget proposal.
You do need to work harder on your grasp of facts, as well as on your coherence.
One-third of Americans say the Affordable Care Act has had a negative impact on them personally, while 14 percent say the law has helped them, according to a new Rasmussen survey.
…
The one-third of Americans who say they have been hurt by the law is a slight increase from the 29 percent who said the same in January, while those saying they had been helped by the law dropped 2 percent over the same period.
Remember the mantra of “just wait until Obamacare is in force, people will love it”? I wonder how those who feel they were hurt by Obamacare will vote…
If it was for overhead, benefits wouldn’t be getting cut, now would they?
You need to work harder on your grasp of the facts. As well as your reading comprehension. When even the Times editorial page has switched from denying the cuts in benefits to defending the cuts in benefits, you’ve got no more big guns on the denial side.\
You’re right that the Ryan budget also cuts Medicare Advantage. And uses the funds to strengthen Medicare, whereas the Democrats used it to pay for ACA.
But hey, the elderly turned on the Democrats, they deserve it!
How dare you explain the distinction! Obama apologists trod out that line and thing it magically gives them cover, trying to create an equivalence that’s not there. How dare you Elvis’s day, you meanie, you! 
Some patients developed very expensive ailments after they secured pre-Obama insurance and receive very expensive medicines because of the insurer’s covenant. Is it true that ACA has given insurers the ability to scrap such existing coverage, at least in some cases, as non-compliant? Will there be comparable and affordable plans available to those patients under Obamacare?
(Even if the answers are respectively yes and no, it may be that this was a necessary flaw in any national health plan.)
One Republican poster often seems intelligent, but made the bizarre claim that the “main” problem with Obamacare is a provision which is unenforcable and unenforced. Such a provision may be silly, but if an unenforced provision were the “main” problem, then Obamacare would be a clear success. 
iiandyiiii wins this debate. adaher, to retain any credibility you’ll need to take some deep breaths, gather your thoughts, and post a retraction.
And yet all the cases the GOP and fellow travellers keep putting forward have pretty much either been total bullshit or the insurance companies screwing their customers and blaming it on Obamacare. The actual negative impact of Obamacare has been much lower than the perceived detriment, due entirely to the GOP efforts to spread misinformation and stifle actual information.
It is the main problem if you’re looking to make people buy health insurance. According to the CBO and real world results we’ve seen, a very large portion of the uninsured are ignoring the mandate.
A “universal” health care program that leaves tens of millions uninsured has failed on its own terms.