From Heroes to Zeroes; GOPer to DOPers in Two Short Years

NoRINOsThumbby Geoph2
What a shame GOPer, following Boehner’s lead, sold out all of America in 2011.

Have you noticed the uptick in articles bemoaning ObamaCare as its “implementation” draws closer? I really haven’t either. Sure the article still pops up telling us how unworkable, intrusive, and evolving this law is, but the collective silence that is responding to this “news” is deafening.

Ya know, I have to take that back. Just last night, I received a recorded phone plea from Mike Huckabee asking for money to buy airtime in “key states” to promote repealing ObamaCare. (Sorry, I could not find a link to the specific message, but you probably heard something very similar already.)

It wasn’t the recorded message that got me irritated, but the conversation I had with the poor volunteer who spoke to me afterwards. It started innocent enough, with a question if I was aware that signing up for the exchanges begins in two months. Well, it happens we own a private practice – and are well aware of “more than anyone wants to know” about ObamaCare.

Anyhow – Mr. Huckabee’s plan was to flood the airwaves and raise the public’s opposition to ObamaCare. Now, it is my understanding that the public is already quite opposed to ObamaCare.

If public opinion is not the hurdle to overcome for getting rid of this law, why focus on it? I wondered if Mr. Huckabee was aware that just last week Mr. Cantor already conceded to passing another CR (not a budget) and gave away any leverage “we” had towards dealing? Wasn’t it clear to Mr. Huckabee (who, by the way, if seriously wanted to make a change – would not have bowed out of the race for president) the problem rests squarely with John Boehner and House leadership?

I have the same questions for all the pundits writing their pieces on who’s exempted, who’s ready to implement, what the effect is, and who’s changing the law. If this is as disastrous for, not only medicine but the Country (it is!), why are we ignoring the problem? Why is Boehner and leadership getting a pass? Why are the stories not being written about how Republicans have a responsibility to end the implementation of this seizure of freedoms, control, power, and money; the destruction of the world’s most envied healthcare system; and the collapse of provider access?

The poor pollster didn’t have the answers, and was unsure if Mr. Huckabee did. One thing we did establish was, if Mr. Huckabee wants a donation from me, he’d need to change his target priorities. I doubt he will because I was convinced by Congressional votes in 2011 – no one really seems to care. Boehner doesn’t care now that he’s not frozen out of the process, and that apparently is good enough for GOPer.

So march on towards the disaster’s implementation, but let’s be clear that Republicans are now as responsible for this as the Democrats – and have lost their “they passed it without one single Republican vote” argument. Its time we face the facts that O’BoehnerCare would have disappeared two years ago if it wasn’t for “DOPer” support. • (2316 views)

Share

About jeph

Home is the Detroit suburbs, though I spent some years in Rochester, NY. Thus, I'm quite familiar with what a fiscal, societal, and governmental failure looks like.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to From Heroes to Zeroes; GOPer to DOPers in Two Short Years

  1. CCWriter CCWriter says:

    Could you please explain what you mean by “GOPer” and “DOPer”?

    • Jeph says:

      Sure,
      GOPer (rhymes with gopher – not each letter name as traditionally pronounced) is what we in my TEA Party group refer to the generic, useful idiot, party line toting, blind to reality Republican as.

      DOPer (a fool or idiot, as in a dope) was just a typo I made once, but it struck my fancy.

      I sometimes forget our local slang is just that, local.
      I occasionally fall into referencing a TCon (TEA Party Conservative) as well.

      • CCWriter CCWriter says:

        Thanks.

        I’m a little uncomfortable with name-calling. Maybe that’s just me.

        • Jeph says:

          Don’t think of it as name calling – its more of an adjective application exercise to more accurately define an action or belief that is being misrepresented in the general perception of a populace.
          😀

          • CCWriter CCWriter says:

            You’re free to think of it however you want.

            My concern (and something I hope to elaborate more on this site) is that some attention has to be given to the effect on people we hope to persuade–not the incorrigible opposition leadership but that significant pool of undecideds and independents and skeptics as well as those who assume they are liberals but are realizing that it makes less sense than they used to think. I have sparred with Brad over this and not entirely convinced him, but I still believe I have a point. Why else the continued refrain “How does the left get away with its brainwashing and smearing? Why, oh why, can’t we make them see reason? Stupid people!” Answer IMHO is: You can’t make anyone do (or even think) anything, short of physical force. And even psychological force can backfire. What you can do is try to make them think it was their idea by making it more attractive. The left has mastered this; we keep blowing it. You may not like it, but you better take it into account if you want to get anywhere.

            When people feel your barbs are aimed at them, they’re going to cling more stubbornly and defensively to whatever narrative they’ve already bought into. I’m about helping people feel they have permission to re-evaluate, to think independently, to consider that maybe our side has been unfairly slandered, to think about ways in which they can identify with us instead. Anything we are heard to say will either help or hurt this strategy. I’m not saying never blow off steam, any more than I’m saying “be namby-pamby happy-talk coddlers” etc. (which I happen to think is a bunch of BS, sorry Brad). I am saying, do consider whether your emotional catharsis comes at the expense of the real goal.

            • Jeph says:

              If I knew I struck a nerve, I wouldn’t have been so flippant in my response to you – sorry.

              You make some interesting points I’ll have to take some time and assess.
              It will be an interesting exercise as I mull over how our Republican State Senate here in Michigan just passed Medicaid expansion in a chamber “we” control 26 – 12.

              http://m.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan-senate-votes-to-expand-medicaid/-/16732600/21675798/-/bdq5j2z/-/index.html

              Is it really worth it to have members on your team who are not committed to “your” cause?
              My instincts are to say your method’s time has passed; not because civility is dead, but because lethargy and time don’t permit it. Its the pride in the betrayal and the (legitimate?) assumption of ignorance or capitulation that irks, and then brings out terms designed to clarify just where black ends and white begins. Those shades of grey are no friend to many a TEA Partier. We have learned that to cross a line and enter the grey only moves us away from our ideals. We’ve lived it too long and have voted too often to put too many who oppose our ideals in charge of our voices.

              The fiscal end is near. If not in our lifetimes, certainly in our children’s. If there is to be any hope for the future, it is making it perfectly clear with whom and how things went so wrong. America has already flunked the test. All some of the more “conservative” Conservatives are doing is reviewing the errors and posting them in public. That way, if someone is presented a similar problem, the same mistakes (hopefully) won’t be made.

  2. faba calculo says:

    If anyone has a serious, responsible way for stopping Obamacare now, I’d like to hear it.

    P.S. No, shutting down the government or defaulting on the debt ISN’T a responsible plan.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Start a new party, get a majority in the House and Senate, elect our candidate for President, and then just repeal it.

      Short of that, we’re going to get to the point where individual states will just have to nullify the law as unconstitutional. I believe it is past time for states to assert that authority. The problem is, most of the people living in the various states have voted for socialism.

      So we’re up shit creek without a paddle. Idiot Americas are throwing away their inheritance of a great republic for “free stuff.” For some reason, they can’t, or won’t, see through the demagogues.

      And that includes seeing through waste-of-space frauds (or just weak dumb-asses) such as Paul Ryan. Oh…he as a plan to balance the budget…in about 25 years. He’s not a serious person.

      Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul are arguably the only sane and serious persons in the national government. There are surely a couple more Congressmen that I’ve missed, but there can’t be many.

      The American people have been dumbed-down. They are morally confused and are no longer fit to be a self-governing people. So one can say that the long-term plan of the Left is working. Obamacare is top-down government-take-care-of-you stuff. And the America public re-elected this evil man and his party. These dumb-asses are going to get what they deserve. But unfortunately they’re going to take down a lot of good people with them.

      • faba calculo says:

        “Start a new party, get a majority in the House and Senate, elect our candidate for President, and then just repeal it.”

        By “serious” I meant more than wishful thinking. No new party has come to that kind of control since the times of Lincoln. Could it happen again? Of course. But looking at the body count of small parties that have tried it since, I’d say the percentage chance of this happening is well to the right of the decimal place.

        “Short of that, we’re going to get to the point where individual states will just have to nullify the law as unconstitutional. I believe it is past time for states to assert that authority.”

        That’s an authority they DON’T have. Whatever the backlash against a party so dumb at this point to threaten to shut down the government or default on the debt would be, it would pale in comparison by the result of attempting to bring the issue of nullification back.

        “Oh…[Paul Ryan] as a plan to balance the budget…in about 25 years. He’s not a serious person.”

        The delay in balancing the budget in his plan was, in no small part, because it also cut taxes. Here’s a fact of life: cutting taxes from their current rates will increases the deficit. We can try to balance the budget through new taxes and spending cuts or by spending cuts alone, but any new tax cuts just pushes our goal that much farther away. At this point, no plan that involves major new tax cuts is a serious plan.

        “The American people have been dumbed-down. They are morally confused and are no longer fit to be a self-governing people.”

        What they’re doing is moving somewhat away from freedom and towards security in the form of (near) universal healthcare, which is a move every single other country in the developed world has made. So I guess you think that there is now no country that is fit to be self-governing, but that’s a little too rich for my blood.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Mr. Calcula, instead of asking for answers to your questions that you seem to enjoying shooting down just for the sport of it. You need to offer your own.

          We have a saying here at StubbornThings (and if we don’t, we’ll start it now): You need to assert what you are for instead of just naysaying someone else’s ideas. Take that bold step. Put your own ideas on the line. What do you think should be done about Obamacare?

          • faba calculo says:

            Learn to live with it.

            There was a battle.

            We lost.

            We may be able to eventually clip off some of the more offensive features (forcing Catholic institutions to offer contraceptives through their plans), but the rest is now hardcoded into the system.

            We can choose among plans least likely to fail at over-turning Obamacare, just as we can choose how to maximize our chances of surviving a fall from 20 stories, but the odds of success are similar.

            What we can do, and what we MUST do is to not do something so irredeamably stupid as threatening to shut down the government or (worse yet) default on the debt. That would likely destroy the Republican Party for years to come. And, whatever you may feel about the party, it’s the ONLY defense we have against the next three of four SCOTUS justices being liberals. Not an absolute defense, certainly. But if you don’t like how things are going now, wait until you see how things are once the Democrats again have control of the Supreme Court like they did before.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              So, when a law is passed, that’s it? Never to be changed, even if the law is unconstitutional?

              I realize that changing it could be difficult, but we give up on America itself if we accept defeat.

              As for defunding Obamacare, that is in the purview of the House of Representatives. When we make the actual workings of our republic “unthinkable” in regards to repealing Leftism, then you have accepted the assumptions of the Left. I don’t. If garbage can be added, garbage can be taken away.

              And why not shut down the government? What use is there to keep the Republican Party going if it never actually does anything? Oh, but at least they won’t have that awful stigma attached to them of actually combatting socialism.

              We need to grow a spine and see what kind of absurd corners we so easily talk ourselves into.

              • faba calculo says:

                I’m not saying “give up”. I’m saying “20 stories”. If you find yourself in such a fall, by all means, don’t give up. Go for landing on your side. Not your head. Not your feet. Your side. Who knows? It might just work.

                How do we “land on our side” for Obamacare? Strengthen the Republican Party, as they’re the only ones with a non-trivial shot at obtaining the kind of political control that would be needed to pull of a repeal. It’s going to mean getting a super-majority, and the post-Reagan party has never gotten there, or even all that close. But it’s our best shot.

                But, more importantly, don’t do anything stupid. Don’t threaten to shut down the government, and don’t threaten to bring about a default on the debt. That’s just holding the gun to your own head and threatening to shoot. What could you possibly do to please the liberals more?

                Bottom line: on Obamacare, we’re in a bad position, with little prospects of a major reversal of fortune, so let’s follow the doctor’s oath and “first, do no harm”.

            • Kung Fu Zu says:

              “What we can do, and what we MUST do is to not do something so irredeamably stupid as threatening to shut down the government or (worse yet) default on the debt.”

              Words have meanings. The only people using the term “to shut down the government” are the media and the left.

              The Reps I have heard have consistently said they want to de-fund or not increase funding for Obamacare. One action which has been discussed is to not further fund the specific administrative costs which were already included in the original bill and have already been used up much faster than the left expected. That actual amount would be very small, but would hurt Obamacare badly.

              As to “threatening to default”, I am sure no Rep, even in Florida, has made or insinuated such a statement. That is simply another straw man i.e. lie made by the left.

              However, let’s say there is a government shutdown, of which there have been quite a number over the last thirty years. It is the President who would decide where the government monies would go. Only he would decide not to pay off existing government debt. Not the Congress. Do you think he would do it? If you do, then why? In fact, there would be plenty of funds to continue servicing the debt for a long time, if the President decided to cut elsewhere.

              This whole cataclysmic, doom and gloom from the left is merely propaganda. As mentioned, there have been many government shutdowns over the last thirty years and none have lasted very long. The parties are in a pre-negotiation stance so why would the Reps roll over and play dead before the real negotiations get started? Of course, the establishment Reps have been rolling over before negotiations for a long time.

        • CCWriter CCWriter says:

          “Here’s a fact of life: cutting taxes from their current rates will [increase] the deficit.”

          I’m not so sure this is a fact. I recall something called the Laffer Curve which accounts for the effect of tax rate cuts stimulating economic growth by leaving more money in the private sector where it can be invested (not frittered away on politically-determined beneficiaries). The resulting growth in the economy (productivity, generation of wealth) increases tax revenues over what they would have been, even at a lower tax rate. JFK did this. Reagan did this.

          Obama resists it, because he doesn’t want to admit that it’s only the private sector, left to respond to market forces, that actually produces growth in the economy. That’s why we’re still in, what is it, the 5th “recovery summer”?

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Yes, cutting taxes (up to a certain point….which is what the Laffer Curve is all about) will increase revenue. But I’ve never been one to give a squat about increasing government revenue. I want to increase freedom. I don’t want some dumb-ass government do-gooder bureaucrat trying to play god in the marketplace. They don’t know better.

            You can measure the amount of corruption in both government and the populace by the resistance to the idea that government doesn’t know best, that government cannot “run” the economy.

            It’s become somewhat a scary and foreign notion to the modern wimp-i-fied American to suppose that government doesn’t know best. The uncertainty in a prosperous marketplace is heads and tails a better thing than the impoverished certainty of central planning via government. But “known impoverishment” trumps “ vibrant uncertainty” in far too many people’s minds these days.

            But the uncertainty of the free market is better. We might not know who will invent the next iPhone. But we know that it will be invented and that it will eventual be available to all at a reasonable price. But this requires moving past the superstition that government knows best. And for those already sucking off the teat of government, they’re not going to be amenable to this message, usually for very selfish purposes.

            But even beyond this, we Americans have become a somewhat risk-averse culture. Rather than our Master in government forcing us to become sheep who live inside their pens, we are walking through the gate voluntarily. Remember always, we re-elected a Marxist America-hating president who doesn’t know his ass from his elbow in terms of either American history or basic economics.

            But we liked the idea of “free stuff” or some stupid liberal conception that somehow electing a black man would free us from the white guilt being placed upon us by the very people who use this guilt as a means to power. We are often some very stupid sheep indeed.

            Americans have to wake up and stop acting like sheep or else that safe little green pasture that we imagine ourselves being put into will turn out to be not the path to a meadow but to an abattoir.

            The question is whether we will live free as Americans or make excuses for why we think we need so much government. The Laffer Curve is certainly a useful economic fact. But the larger fact is that government is too big and is suffocating our freedoms and the free market. I’m actually for reducing government tax revenues. And we need to keep reducing them.

            • faba calculo says:

              “I’ve never been one to give a squat about increasing government revenue. I want to increase freedom. I don’t want some dumb-ass government do-gooder bureaucrat trying to play god in the marketplace. They don’t know better.”

              Problem: the do-gooders are already there; we just aren’t paying the associated costs, funding them instead via borrowing. I realize your preferred route to fixing this is to cut spending, but I’d like to suggest a hierarchy:

              1) Getting all your own way (i.e., spending cuts sufficient to close the long-term deficit)
              2) Compromising (i.e., some spending cuts, some increased revenues)
              3) Not getting your way at all (i.e., long-term deficit closed purely through tax increases)
              4) Things stay the way they are, and we wind up bankrupting the country.

              And, note, historically speaking, the getting everything your way scenario rarely pans out.

            • Jeph says:

              I agree, any increase to “revenues” to government only increases the government.

              Borrow a dollar, spend a dollar.
              Tax a dollar, spend a dollar.
              Reap a dollar from economic growth and deregulation, spend a dollar.

              Nearly 17 trillion times the borrow and spend has been done, and yet we still plan to raise the “limit” on how often we will do THAT!

              I believe every working American must devote 4 months, one entire quarter of the years workdays, directly to the government. That’s before the SCOTUS defined taxes of ObamaCare are considered. That is before Medicare and SocSec become insolvent (last I looked, in less time than I’d pay off my mortgage if I bought a house today!)

              Its the spending that killed us, as not one penny ever goes to retire some of our debt.

          • faba calculo says:

            That’s why I specified “from their current rates”. Yes, at a high enough level, cutting taxes increases revenues. But there’s no reason to think that we’re above the peak of the curve.

    • Jeph says:

      I don’t know Faba,
      Shutting it down and fixing our entire governmental/fiscal situation sounds like the responsible thing to do when compared to living on credit, continually borrowing more and increasing spending automatically, allocating every tax dollar received toward new spending instead of debt reduction, perpetuating the lies of a “safety net” that no longer exists, and completing our transformation to a socialistic society.

      I guess it depends on where our responsibilities are.

      • faba calculo says:

        If shutting down the government would achieve those things, I’d be right there with ‘ya, and unlike (probably) everyone else on this board, that could cost me a couple of packcheck. (Or, it could just wind up being extra vacation…it’s a crapshoot.)

        But I see little prospect for such an action having any good effect. I have no doubt the Dems would be happy watching government workers stew in a bad situation which they can blame on the Republicans, thereby hurting their chances in the next round of elections.

        • Jeph says:

          Oh no doubt there would be extensive pain, but its a pain better born by those who’ve caused it and benefitted from its creation, rather than those who have yet to dirty their hands in complicity to the perpetuation of the environment.

          Being from the Detroit area, its easy for me to see the parallels between a defunct city bleeding a State to sustain a boondoggle and a Nation/government supporting itself artificially and projecting an illusion of stability.

          The dire straits we find ourselves in, was masked when political pressure coerced our debt rating agencies NOT to follow their fiduciary responsibilities, and follow S&P’s downgrading of our credit (still AA+, but stable rather than negative). We can go on whistling past the graveyard, or kick the can down the road – but closing our eyes as we plummet off the cliff doesn’t prevent the spectacular crash as the ground races up towards us.

          There is no “fixing” this, only rebuilding. If we do it now, we may have more say in what we are in the future, but we are a “dead nation spending”, “the taxing dead”, or any other of a “dead already” tweaked saying you choose.

    • Black JEM says:

      Thankfully, the law is so poorly written, it is going to stop itself.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Strengthen the Republican Party, as they’re the only ones with a non-trivial shot at obtaining the kind of political control that would be needed to pull of a repeal

    Calcula, I think the Republican Party, at least on the national level, is now worse than useless. They are an active obstruction to fixing these things. Before we can reform America, we must reform the Republican Party.

    And that is a long-shot. As I’ve said before, the elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about is how the government has turned into a “dealer” and much of the rest of America has been turned into crack whores. Bill Whittle does this idea justice in his video, The Vote Pump.

    Americans have become addicted to “free stuff” and entitlements. Their favors have been bought. The message to get from this is that Big Government, in conjuction with socialism, corrupts both people and government.

    There is no way out of this unless and until the people of America have a sort of “come to Jesus” moment in regards to their own country. For now, they’re flying blind, more concerned about what the Kardashians are doing than what Obama is doing.

    As Archie Bunker said, Meat-head: dead from the neck up. That’s us.

    • faba calculo says:

      “Calcula, I think the Republican Party, at least on the national level, is now worse than useless. They are an active obstruction to fixing these things. Before we can reform America, we must reform the Republican Party.”

      And yet that HAS been done before, and recently (at least to people over the ago of 40) as well. Compare the pre-Reagan and the post-Reagan party. Again, you’ve got to go back to before the Civil War to find an example of the “start over” strategy working.

      But, again, whether you go with reforming the party as is or starting over, just don’t drive the party into a cliff wall before you’ve got something to take its place, because I don’t even want to think about what things are going to look like should the Dems regain a full control of the Supreme Court. There are vital issues, such as school choice, gun rights, and free speech, just to name a few, that we’ve made real progress on recently, and which many on the left would just love to shut down.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        just don’t drive the party into a cliff wall before you’ve got something to take its place

        This is what I don’t get. We’re going over the cliff now — the entire country. Whatever cliff we throw the Republicans over is irrelevant.

        To not act because one might receive bad publicity is to never act. That’s where we are now.

        • faba calculo says:

          If you truly believe that we have nothing to lose from the death of the Republican Party, please address my points concerning SCOTUS.

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            That is my main reason for voting Republican in presidential elections.

            My analogy is the Republicans are double pneumonia and the Democrats are lung cancer. Which would you rather have?

            Until we can get the body healthy, I would have to say double pneumonia.

          • Jeph says:

            They have effective control over the SCOTUS now.
            Neither the Court nor Congress is taking up the cases of Constitutional breaches nor Executive over reach.

            When the Liberals abuse is allowed to progress unchallenged – what need is there of a SCOTUS?
            When National policies are allowed to stand (correctly or not) with the caveat from the Cheif Justice that “elections have consequences” – it is a decree an elected political party can do no wrong; that we no longer function under a guiding document or a system of precedence in legislation or enforcement.

        • Jeph says:

          We have something to take its place. Its called the Democrat Party, and until GOPer (see early definition to CC) realizes they are not supporting Republicans nor even vaguely non-liberal ideals.

  4. Kung Fu Zu says:

    The following link shows why all this talk about the impossibility of repealing Obamacare is nonsense.

    http://www.askheritage.org/can-obamacare-be-repealed-in-the-senate/

    Process matters and you need to chase your Senators, if they are Republicans to get on board. You also need to kick Boehner’s ass and get the Reps in the House to do something about this.

    • faba calculo says:

      I read your article. It still sounding like ending up needing to get 60 votes in a Democratic Senate to work.

      • Black JEM says:

        Yep – legislatively, we are screwed. Creating pain for the democrat enablers is our best hope.

        Everyone is worried about the delay of the employer mandate being a sop to the dems in trouble for next year’s election. Well employers are ignoring the delay and are still working to implement – and cutting coverage wherever they can.

        Landreau and Pryor are probably done in the senate. What ObamaCAre is doing is flipping the Senate and making a democrat president after 2016 a less likely proposition. Then A GOP president just gives everyone a permanent waiver.

  5. Kung Fu Zu says:

    It will not take a super-majority to effectively repeal Obamacare. It will take the Presidency and majorities in both the Senate and House.

    The repeal is technical, but has to do with reconciliation in the Budget. The tax code is covered in the budget and a majority of 51 is all that is needed to pass a budget. It cannot be filibustered. By reducing the mandatory spending in Obamacare, something like 90% of the total bill would be dead.

    Since the Supreme Court changed the definition of funding of Obamacare to a tax, I believe the above process would be even easier today than when it was recommended as a strategy in 2012.

    • faba calculo says:

      That’s an invitation to game of chicken. Reconciliation can’t be used to repeal the mandates. All it can be used to kill is the money that is meant to soften the blow to individuals affected by that mandate. It would amount to Republicans taking away money from many who are truly too poor to afford healthcare while they are still be required to buy healthcare. So who blinks first, the party being pounded for its heartlessness on TV every night or the one holding up the kids for the cameras?

      It MIGHT work. You might be able to threaten enough of a mess that the Dems would fold and agree to vote the mandates out. But it’ll take the super-majority to really guarantee victory.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        Hey, I didn’t say it was perfect. Nothing is, but I certainly do not think accepting Obamacare until the Reps get a super majority is smart or good for the country. I should be fought anyway possible.

        As to the where the mandated moneys would go, the poor are already covered by Medicaid. I do not believe this is substantially changed under Obamacare. The question is where all that new funding would come from?

        As to a game of chicken, much of life is a game of chicken. If you simply accept what is deemed reasonable or what others expect of you, you will more often than not be screwed. Sometimes one has to stand up for what one believes in. And maybe learn how to articulate one’s position a bit more clearly. The Reps could certainly use help there.

        To paraphrase G.B. Shaw “reasonable men adapt to the world, unreasonable men expect the world to adapt to them, therefore progress is made through unreasonable men”

        Maybe not a slogan to live by, but certainly something to think about in dire times.

        • faba calculo says:

          “As to the where the mandated moneys would go, the poor are already covered by Medicaid. I do not believe this is substantially changed under Obamacare.”

          Up to the poverty line. Obamacare moves that up to 130% of the poverty line. And it provides subsidies for privately purchased healthcare for those marginally above that point. That’s what you’re going to have to think about taking away from people.

          “Maybe not a slogan to live by, but certainly something to think about in dire times.”

          But how dire are we really talking here? Maybe I’m going to be forced hand over my conservative decoder ring for writing this, but what is Obamacare doing to us beyond marginally extending some bad trends AND which repealing the law will cure? The worst of it has been SCOTUS giving the thumbs up to the individual mandate, thereby grossly extending federal control over our lives, but that can’t be taken back short of an amendment.

          Beyond that (here goes that ring for sure now), there were some good parts of it, especially IPAB. If ANYTHING is dire around here, it’s the long-term rising costs of Medicare and what that’s going to do our budgets. And Congress is no more brave enough to fix this problem than they were to deal with base closings. They should fix this problem the way they did with that one: having someone else present a plan they had to vote up or down on. Frankly, if anything, IPAB is too weak, as it is blocked from doing much more than regulating physician fees (as I recall).

          Now the people who get cut off of federal subsidies and Medicaid but still required to buy healthcare? Many of them are going to be in some pretty dire situations indeed. And these are the people who will be strapped in the cars while we and the Dems play our remote control game of chicken.

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            Increasing the waste in an already wasteful system is certainly one way to kill the system. Maybe it is better if the whole thing blows up, bankrupts the country faster. Nothing too dire. Hummmm?

            Do you think Obamacare only effects the medical profession and things medical?

            It is clear thousands have already been laid off or their hours are being cut back because of the new costs resulting from Obamacare. Do you think this will get better? Do you think the delay of the employment mandate is going to slow down the growth in unemployment or under employment in any significant way?

            What will these people who now do not have jobs or who have part time jobs do to make up the difference in their income? Can you say welfare, food stamps,etc? Are these the people who will be cut off from the subsidies you mention? One of the biggest problems with Medicaid is not the subsidy, it is finding a doctor to take Medicaid.

            The argument that it’s not so much worse than we already have does not help much. And I haven’t even gone into the phony arguments made of how it is going to save money in the long term. How many government programs save money?

            By the way, I don’t have a conservative decoder ring, can you tell me where to get one?

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/26/retiring-doctors-mean-problems-for-newly-insured-under-obamacare/

            A brief introduction as to the shortage of physicians we can expect, largely, due to Obamacare. This was predicted by honest commentators, but the media didn’t do much with it.

            Perhaps the Republicans ought to use it to try and defund Obamacare.

      • Black JEM says:

        Yes, reconciliation will work – and the majority sets the rules.

  6. Kung Fu Zu says:

    but let’s be clear that Republicans are now as responsible for this as the Democrats – and have lost their “they passed it without one single Republican vote” argument.

    I don’t see how this can be maintained. Not one Republican voted for this.

    Notwithstanding my posts on what the Republicans can do to hinder things, it is clear that they cannot completely stop Obamacare with today’s alignment of power. It is true they gained the House after passage of Obamacare, but the best which can be done with such power is to work together with the Senate Republicans in a campaign to harass Obamacare until the Republicans have more power.

    Now I agree that the Reps are not doing enough to hinder implementation, but at this moment, they can probably only eat away at the edges as mentioned in the other posts I have mentioned.

    Again, if you want any movement on this you must stay on top of your Republican Senators and Reps.

    And as to a new party, let’s keep the country from dying before we set off on the new adventure.

    • Jeph says:

      Kung Fu,
      They lost their absolution for ObamaCare by their continual capitulation on it, by their participation in passing re-toolings (med equip tax), and not drawing the line when Obama alters the law from his office.

      To be credited for integrity, one must have integrity.

      • Kung Fu Zu says:

        Jeph, I didn’t say they had integrity. I have very low expectations regarding a politician’s honesty, especially those on the national stage. And I do hold most of the party responsible for not putting up more of a fight, but not for passing the Obamanation in the first place.

        As to Obama altering his law with a stroke of his pen, there is simply no recourse other than impeachment (and there is not a snowball’s chance in hell of that being successful) and taking him to court. But in order to take him to court you have to have standing and I am not sure what standing congressmen would have to sue on most of these presidential decrees.

  7. Jeph says:

    Ok, maybe on passing it, but again – the actions since passage has shown (to me and other like minded people) nothing but support, though im sure Mr. Boehner wouldn’t even admit to being resigned to implamentation.

    I would believe any congressman could bring suit based on Seperation of Powers, but there in lies the rub; An increase of power is the goal, and whomever wields it has become what our elections have deteriorated to.

  8. Kung Fu Zu says:

    Ted Cruz just made a good point about the funding of Obamacare. Obama has given hundreds of special wavers which push back the date those granted such wavers. He has delayed implementation of the employers’ mandate. If wavers are necessary for so many, why doesn’t Obama push back the implementation of mandates for everyone? Why would he threaten to shut down the government since it is clear the legislation is such a mess that it cannot be implemented properly?

    Of course, we know why. But why don’t the Reps run with this info as a reason to de-fund Obamacare?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *