New name, old campaign as Republicans wage war on 'Obamacare'

World Jul. 11, 2012 - 06:49AM JST ( 20 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

20 Comments

1

paulinusaJul. 11, 2012 - 08:25AM JST

"On Tuesday they began debate on the 31st,..."

“That’s why we voted over 30 times to repeal it, defund it, replace it,” Boehner said.

I guess the Republican faithful need a minimum of 30 bills (or more) to comprehend the situation.
0

skipbeatJul. 11, 2012 - 08:55AM JST

paulinusa: I guess the Republican faithful need a minimum of 30 bills (or more) to comprehend the situation.

Last time I check America was govern under the Consitutiion which gives Republicans the right to repeal as many times as it will get the job done. The Republicans works for their constituents so they better repeal or they will lose their job.

Obamacare should have been on a state by state decision because each state should decides if they have the funds and the infrastructure to support such healthcare system.
3

LagunaJul. 11, 2012 - 09:15AM JST

The percentage of Americans supportin Obamacare depends on how the question is phrased: if as a flat-out question, support is evenly divided; but if as a question of individual components, it is widely popular even among Republicans. Provisions such as the ability of parents to keep their children on their policy until the age of 22; the prohibition of coverage denial for those with preexisting conditions; even the requirement that all have insurance itself - these are popular.

As the benefits of the ACA become more widely known, it will become increasingly popular. It won't be long until Tea Party get-off-my-lawn types start screaming, "Keep your government hands off my ACA!"
-1

bruinfanJul. 11, 2012 - 09:28AM JST

Why don't they "wage war" on out of control military spending. Does the US need to spend as much as 193 other countries combined?
-2

Bgood41Jul. 11, 2012 - 10:31AM JST

Obama survives through backroom deals and arm twisted all the way to supreme under the taxing provision. Now, Obama can not force Americans to eat broccoli; but it can be taxed if they do not eat enough healthy broccoli. Nothing is free, and where the money come from: taxes, borrowing from China, burden the next generations to come. There got to be a better way to resolve this issue and it will happen. The house has the right to modify or repeal as see fits. Obama and the liberal media practice the 3D's: distortion the truth, distraction from the real record, and division of classes. America can do better as a leading nation of the world. U.S. is not China or Russia and we are not perfect. Cheers.
-2

skipbeatJul. 11, 2012 - 10:35AM JST

Laguna: Provisions such as the ability of parents to keep their children on their policy until the age of 22;

You got the age limit wrong.

Why don't they "wage war" on out of control military spending. Does the US need to spend as much as 193 other countries combined?

This is one thing that many people lack understanding when it comes to foreign policy. People should have learned this stuff in high school. The US is envied for its military supremacy being a superpower nation. If the US didn't have military supremacy then other countries would not be looking to the US to help with disputes. Being a superpower comes with some responsbility. Why do you think Obama wants to expand military personnel in the Asia Pacific? Because China is expanding their military. As China becomes the next super power nation, the US will have less important roles, with less military present, and have less influences on the world stage. You and many others will get your wish. Will the country benefit from having less military power? The US economy is impacted by foreign policy. Obama healthcare may look and sound great for now, but what about five years, ten years, or twenty years from now when it comes to funding for Obamacare.

Eventually, Obamacare spending will replace the military spending. When companies dump health insurance for their employees those employees will have to shell out more than what the companies were offering for health insurance. As someone on JT says Obamacare is like car insurance. A single person would have to pay from $300-500 for a health insurance plan even if the person is healthy who may not used it until he/she get sick. In the mean time he/she is helping to fund those who uses their health insurance. If the economy doesn't get better, more and more people will be on medicaid. That is going to cause an increase on taxes.

Superpower @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A superpower is traditionally considered to be a step higher than a great power.
5

SuperLibJul. 11, 2012 - 10:51AM JST

On Tuesday they began debate on the 31st, the “Repeal of the Obamacare Act,” which is certain to win passage when the House votes on Wednesday and just as certain to go no further, since the Senate and White House are both in Democratic hands.

So what is it Republicans actually accomplish nowadays? Seems that they are just mouthpieces for the bombastic radicals in their party.
3

paulinusaJul. 11, 2012 - 11:23AM JST

"Must re-peal O-ba-ma Care", "Must re-peal O-ba-ma Care", "Must re-peal O-ba-ma Care", ...
-2

skipbeatJul. 11, 2012 - 11:27AM JST

SuperLib: So what is it Republicans actually accomplish nowadays? Seems that they are just mouthpieces for the bombastic radicals in their party.

Nothing now, but it is possible in the future. Calling Republicans radicals is one way of saying change because change doesn't happened without being radical. Look at history. Did change happened because people were being passive (not talking about hunger strike)?
1

LagunaJul. 11, 2012 - 01:06PM JST

You got the age limit wrong.

You're right - it's 26, the age by which even those pursuing advanced studies should have established themselves fully enough to afford their own insurance. (22 is the age by which dual-national Japanese citizens must choose one or another, a number recently on my mind recently.)

The United States government has been called a giant insurance company with an army. The Republicans would change it simply into a giant army. My point is that Americans will not accept this. If you think that they will, well, good luck with that. Romney apparently does not share your confidence, and that is why he refuses to elaborate even a little on what he intends to do. His campaign is by necessity entirely negative because he is well aware that what he wants to "construct" would be rejected by the majority of Americans.

Think of the Republican mantra against the ACA: "repeal, defund, replace." Replace? With what? Republican leaders of many types and at many times have clearly stated that they have no plan whatsoever with which to replace the ACA. They simply do not want the government involved in health care.
0

bruinfanJul. 11, 2012 - 02:08PM JST

I don't lack understanding in this. I agree with he need to counter China, but the US cannot do this unilaterally any longer. Currently the US needs to strengthen its military alliances with the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, India, Italy and other countries to do this. Right now the US is funding its military by borrowing money from countries like... China in order to counter countries like....China.
1

LagunaJul. 11, 2012 - 02:42PM JST

Texas as usual double-golds in callous indifference to needs and irrational self-justification. Gov. Perry maintained recently said,

Every Texan has health care in this state. From the standpoint of having access to health care, every Texan has that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/rick-perry-upholds-the-right-of-texans-to-have-the-worst-health-care-in-the-country/2012/07/10/gJQAblcTaW_blog.html

Certainly, crediting Perry with an original thought would not be fair; he simply recycles the worst of the far-right tripe, as in what GWB declared in 2007: "People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room."

It's also no coincidence that the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform this section on education:

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

In other words, knowledge derived from investigating concrete evidence and subjecting that to critical reasoning counts a hell of a lot less than your crazy dad wielding a dogma and a belt.

This background helps explain why the health crisis in the US is apparently waning as evidenced by the progressive (de?-)evolution of Republican plans. Today they number nearly 50 million. The ACA would likely cover 30 million of the 50 million uninsured Americans. Romney passed near-universal coverage in Massachusetts while governor under an almost identical system. Bush the First put out a plan in 1992 that would have covered 30 million of the then 35 million uninsured. Bob Dole joined Howard Baker and Tom Daschle in 2009 to offer a bipartisan plan that would cover every American at a cost of more than $1 trillion over 10 years, more than the cost of ACA. Yet the current Republican plan would cover just 3 million by 2019. 3 million versus 30 million. It's a stunning abdication of previous Republican positions.

If you lack insurance due to inability to pay, whether it is because you are poor or plagued by preexisting conditions, your disability or death is an act of a glorious patriotism! You have boldly stood for the principles of countering the socialist Obama agenda, formerly known as the Republican core healthcare policy! No wonder critical thinking is under Republican attack.
0

sailwindJul. 11, 2012 - 06:10PM JST

Laguna,

Just FYI on this:

It's also no coincidence that the Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform this section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority

In other words, knowledge derived from investigating concrete evidence and subjecting that to critical reasoning counts a hell of a lot less than your crazy dad wielding a dogma and a belt.

It wasn't a coincidence it was a mistake. From Talking Points Memo no less.

Contacted by TPM on Thursday, Republican Party of Texas (RPT) Communications Director Chris Elam said the “critical thinking skills” language made it into the platform by mistake.

“[The chairman of the Education Subcommittee] indicated that it was an oversight of the committee, that the plank should not have included ‘critical thinking skills’ after ‘values clarification,’” Elam said. “And it was not the intent of the subcommittee to present a plank that would have indicated that the RPT in any way opposed the development of critical thinking skills.”.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/texasgops2012platformaccidentallyopposesteachingofcriticalthinkingskills.php
-1

plasticmonkeyJul. 11, 2012 - 09:56PM JST

@sailwind--It's comforting to know that the RPT is not against critical thinking skills, they're just against the clarification of one's own (or parents' ) values. In other words, use you noggin for anything except questioning why you believe what you do.

Anyway, hats of to Laguna's excellent post. Much of the rabid opposition to ACA is stubbornly dogmatic, uncompromising, and nonsensical.
-1

SuperLibJul. 12, 2012 - 12:45AM JST

skipbeat: Nothing now, but it is possible in the future. Calling Republicans radicals is one way of saying change because change doesn't happened without being radical. Look at history. Did change happened because people were being passive (not talking about hunger strike)?

Working together and compromising from time to time also brings about change. It worries me that some Republicans have embraced labels like "radical" while they dish out "moderate" as an insult. Your candidate is a microcosm of your party: unworkable. Since the radicals believe that any compromise is untenable and since they don't have the numbers to back their platforms they've turned into government gridlock making machines. Their motto seems to be "If you can't beat 'em, destroy everything." Over 30 votes on healthcare when they know they cannot win? It's an utter waste of time and it's being touted as some kind of accomplishment.

Romney might be good in the the end. By trying to pander to his base (who will not compromise) while trying to get independents he's going to play both sides of the fence and the Republicans might become even more fractured. Probably no one but him would think he has a chance. He might be the one who finally exposes what we all know, which is that the Republicans are simply going to have to get control of their party if they ever want to see the White House again.
-1

MadvertsJul. 12, 2012 - 12:57AM JST

"He might be the one who finally exposes what we all know, which is that the Republicans are simply going to have to get control of their party if they ever want to see the White House again."

Or better still disband and split from the radical elements in a new party ending the stale two-party system. I'm sure it would be a good thing for the US, the GOP have swerved too far to the right. Humour writers couldn't invent this stuff, people like Sarah Palin are still out there being listened to by the faithful. Unbelievable.
1

skipbeatJul. 12, 2012 - 10:33AM JST

SuperLib: Working together and compromising from time to time also brings about change. It worries me that some Republicans have embraced labels like "radical" while they dish out "moderate" as an insult. Your candidate is a microcosm of your party: unworkable. Since the radicals believe that any compromise is untenable and since they don't have the numbers to back their platforms they've turned into government gridlock making machines. Their motto seems to be "If you can't beat 'em, destroy everything." Over 30 votes on healthcare when they know they cannot win? It's an utter waste of time and it's being touted as some kind of accomplishment.

Being a radical does not mean what you describe. Being a radical is someone who will not compromised their integrity and values etc. instead of being a sheep. The Republicans is not my party nor Romney as my candidate. the Republicans can vote as many times as the Constitution allow. Btw, 5 Democrats have jump ship to repeal Obamacare. The idea of giving up is sad by your standard. What happens to hope and change if one gives up? Are you for the Constitution or for Obama?

Obama have not compromised when he bypass Congress on Libya, on using the executive order, using the executive privileges. Obama will not enforce immigration laws yet he forces Obamacare on the states. Many of the people on JT don't see anything wrong with that. If this is Romney then you guys have a problem.
0

skipbeatJul. 12, 2012 - 12:24PM JST

bruinfan: I agree with he need to counter China, but the US cannot do this unilaterally any longer. Currently the US needs to strengthen its military alliances with the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, India, Italy and other countries to do this. Right now the US is funding its military by borrowing money from countries like... China in order to counter countries like....China.

That is what NATO and the UN is for. They comprises military personnel from all those countires. These two organizations along with the IMF and the World Bank are the new world order and have been since they were formed. The US gives billions of dollars to those organization. Under Obama, the role of the UN and NATO have superseded the US own military. Not sure why some people are afraid of China when China is just like any country that rises to being a superpower.

Reduced military spending wouldn't make a difference in Obamacare because military spending was not taken into account in regards to Obamacare. Under Obamacare, the provision was for everyone to buy health insurance and nothing about spending more money on the infrastructure of the healthcare system. Obamacare is all about tax and penalty. If the states don't have fundings then the federal government will have to fund Obamacare. Healthcare cost will be on the rise and disparities will also be on rise. None of these points matter to the many people on JT because Obama is their guy who have given people healthcare.
-1

bruinfanJul. 12, 2012 - 11:01PM JST

NATO perhaps, but not the UN. In any case NATO is more important than ever since the US will need to look at a more multi-lateral world in the 21st Century.