Stop Lying Republicans, The Majority of The American People Are IN Favor of Obamacare

[Brain357]

The facts show that 161 GOP amendments were included in the final version of the ACA. In addition there were at least 30 bipartisan meetings on the content of the bill.

Fact Check: How the health care law was made | America's Health Care



More facts on the ACA;

Republican Ideas Included in the President's Proposal | The White House

Granted, the whole thing was a "Republican idea". I'm certainly not disputing that. Mitt Romney was first on the block to push this shit. The point is, no Republicans voted for it. If the Democrats included Republican amendments it's because they wanted to, they didn't do it as a compromise to Republicans.

The Democrats own ACA outright.

But you are conceding that it was a "Republican idea", right?

So what happens if the GOP cannot stop the ACA from taking effect in 2014 and instead of it being a "train wreck" it turns out that people actually like the idea of having affordable healthcare?

Will Republicans still campaign on the "Democrats own ACA outright"?

Are the republicans trying so hard to stop it because people might like it? Certainly if they don't it guarantees many election wins for them. Yet they are fighting it even after it has been passed. Makes you wonder why.

 

[Derideo_Te]

DBlac : As far as what Republicans will 'campaign' on, I don't know and don't care. My concern is for the future of the nation.

What concerns you about the "future of the nation"?

 

[dblack]

DBlac : As far as what Republicans will 'campaign' on, I don't know and don't care. My concern is for the future of the nation.

What concerns you about the "future of the nation"?

We're in the midst of a radical transformation, away from liberal democracy, toward authoritarian corporatism. Corporatism contrasts with democracy in its preference for group rights and special interests politics and its rejection of individual rights and equal protection.

In short, the world is in for another ugly bout with fascism, and we're leading the charge.

 

[Derideo_Te]

DBlac : As far as what Republicans will 'campaign' on, I don't know and don't care. My concern is for the future of the nation.

What concerns you about the "future of the nation"?

We're in the midst of a radical transformation, away from liberal democracy, toward authoritarian corporatism. Corporatism contrasts with democracy in its preference for group rights and special interests politics and its rejection of individual rights and equal protection.

In short, the world is in for another ugly bout with fascism, and we're leading the charge.

I agree that corporatism in it's current format has taken over the 3 branches of government and that is a major concern. If We the People can eliminate corporations from funding elections we stand a chance in changing the direction. Right now I don't see anyone championing that cause on the political front.

 

[dblack]

What concerns you about the "future of the nation"?

We're in the midst of a radical transformation, away from liberal democracy, toward authoritarian corporatism. Corporatism contrasts with democracy in its preference for group rights and special interests politics and its rejection of individual rights and equal protection.

In short, the world is in for another ugly bout with fascism, and we're leading the charge.

I agree that corporatism in it's current format has taken over the 3 branches of government and that is a major concern. If We the People can eliminate corporations from funding elections we stand a chance in changing the direction. Right now I don't see anyone championing that cause on the political front.

I'm not talking about corporate influence over government. I'm talking about corporatism as a mode of government: Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Derideo_Te]

We're in the midst of a radical transformation, away from liberal democracy, toward authoritarian corporatism. Corporatism contrasts with democracy in its preference for group rights and special interests politics and its rejection of individual rights and equal protection.

In short, the world is in for another ugly bout with fascism, and we're leading the charge.

I agree that corporatism in it's current format has taken over the 3 branches of government and that is a major concern. If We the People can eliminate corporations from funding elections we stand a chance in changing the direction. Right now I don't see anyone championing that cause on the political front.

I'm not talking about corporate influence over government. I'm talking about corporatism as a mode of government: Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand the difference but why be blatant about it when you can hide behind a facade of "democracy"? What we have is de facto economic corporatism in my opinion. The French were correct that it is incompatible with individual rights and should not be allowed.

 

[dblack]

I agree that corporatism in it's current format has taken over the 3 branches of government and that is a major concern. If We the People can eliminate corporations from funding elections we stand a chance in changing the direction. Right now I don't see anyone championing that cause on the political front.

I'm not talking about corporate influence over government. I'm talking about corporatism as a mode of government: Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand the difference ...

If your suggestion for combating corporatism is to focus on the funding of elections, I suspect you don't. Corporatism is not a problem of unrestrained economic power. It's a problem of misguided government. What drives corporatism is the establishment of power structures like those created under the ACA - programs that serve to broker power among organized interest groups. That's what we must fight to avoid the perils of corporatist fascism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm not talking about corporate influence over government. I'm talking about corporatism as a mode of government: Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand the difference ...

If your suggestion for combating corporatism is to focus on the funding of elections, I suspect you don't. Corporatism is not a problem of unrestrained economic power. It's a problem of misguided government. What drives corporatism is the establishment of power structures like those created under the ACA - programs that serve to broker power among organized interest groups. That's what we must fight to avoid the perils of corporatist fascism.

Citizens United ring any bells? How about the Federal Reserve? The Energy special interests? Big Pharma? What do they all have in common? They control how legislation is written and which politicians are elected to office. That is the root cause of the problem. Everything else is merely a symptom. If you want to "avoid the perils of corporatist fascism" you need to deal with the cause. You are wasting your time and energy if you believe that the ACA is the problem.

 

[dblack]

I understand the difference ...

If your suggestion for combating corporatism is to focus on the funding of elections, I suspect you don't. Corporatism is not a problem of unrestrained economic power. It's a problem of misguided government. What drives corporatism is the establishment of power structures like those created under the ACA - programs that serve to broker power among organized interest groups. That's what we must fight to avoid the perils of corporatist fascism.

Citizens United ring any bells? How about the Federal Reserve? The Energy special interests? Big Pharma? What do they all have in common? They control how legislation is written and which politicians are elected to office. That is the root cause of the problem. Everything else is merely a symptom. If you want to "avoid the perils of corporatist fascism" you need to deal with the cause. You are wasting your time and energy if you believe that the ACA is the problem.

No, the root of the problem is government structured to distribute power to interest groups. What you're describing are the symptoms of that structure. The problem is constitutional. You are wasting your time if you think dinking around with election financing will solve anything. ACA is a perfect example of corporatism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If your suggestion for combating corporatism is to focus on the funding of elections, I suspect you don't. Corporatism is not a problem of unrestrained economic power. It's a problem of misguided government. What drives corporatism is the establishment of power structures like those created under the ACA - programs that serve to broker power among organized interest groups. That's what we must fight to avoid the perils of corporatist fascism.

Citizens United ring any bells? How about the Federal Reserve? The Energy special interests? Big Pharma? What do they all have in common? They control how legislation is written and which politicians are elected to office. That is the root cause of the problem. Everything else is merely a symptom. If you want to "avoid the perils of corporatist fascism" you need to deal with the cause. You are wasting your time and energy if you believe that the ACA is the problem.

No, the root of the problem is government structured to distribute power to interest groups. What you're describing are the symptoms of that structure. The problem is constitutional. You are wasting your time if you think dinking around with election financing will solve anything. ACA is a perfect example of corporatism.

In which case you need to prove that the "root of the problem is government structured to distribute power to interest groups". Then you need to describe how you intend to remediate this problem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He did run on Obamacare in 2008.

If you found yourself surprised that he pursued a universal health plan once in office, perhaps you should've paid attention during the campaign.

In 2008, he said that a mandate would be wrong. He did not run on Obamacare in 2008.

Foxfyre is correct.

To be fair it was impossible to predict what form the ACA would finally take when it was passed into law. There are always compromises and 166 Republican amendments were included. How much that altered what he campaigned on and how many other aspects were excluded because of objections that would have meant that the votes to pass it weren't there is probably difficult to ascertain.

Obama kept his healthcare reform promise but the reality turned out to be different from the rhetoric. So the question should be must we start over again from scratch or simply modify the existing plan towards a compromise that is more acceptable?

To be honest, he was lying. He never had a problem with the mandate, and only came out against it because Hillary was for it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Our premiums are up though not excessively yet--but our carrier (who happens to be a good friend) advises the increases are not on the books yet but they are coming.

Mostly we have noticed hospitals--three different ones--racheting back on staff. Waits for patient care are longer for the hospitalized. It is taking longer to see a specialist. The hospitals--all not for profit in our area--are scaling back in anticipation of much reduced revenues when they are forced to take hundreds/thousands of new patients at much reduced Obamacare dictated fees while there will be fewer privately insured patients paying the full costs.

One of my friends was forced to wait to have knee surgery until she could make a down payment and set up a payment plan. In the past she would have been able to have the surgery and then would have been able to pay whatever her insurance didn't cover. But the hospital has changed things to make sure they get their money up front from people who have jobs so that they don't risk not getting paid afterward because their operating margin will be so small in the future.

That makes sense. Not for profits are supposed to have smaller operating margins that for profit hospitals. Having to make the "Co-Pay" upfront is also logical and to be expected given that a major aspect of heathcare reform was to make patients "better, more cost aware consumers". That was probably one of the Republican amendments that were included.

You need to get something straight before you post again, there were no Republican amendments in the final version of Obamacare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There were no republican amendments included in the ACA bill that was passed by the dems in the house and senate. That bill was written in a sealed room by dem staffers. No floor debate was allowed in either house, no republican amendments were allowed to be debated or voted on, it was passed on a dems only vote in the dark of night.

the terrible bill known as obamacare belongs solely to the democrats and obama.

Indeed. Democrats only compromised with their own lobbyists. The 'debate' over ACA was essentially the Democrats negotiating with the 'vested interests' in the healthcare/insurance industries.

The facts show that 161 GOP amendments were included in the final version of the ACA. In addition there were at least 30 bipartisan meetings on the content of the bill.

Fact Check: How the health care law was made | America's Health Care

Despite the partisan vote on the bill, the fact is that the Affordable Care Act was a product of exhaustive bipartisan compromise. Indeed, some of the most important provisions in the bill were actually GOP ideas:

A high-risk pool for uninsured people with preexisting conditions

Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines

Pools where the self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance

In February, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein described in detail how all four health care planks on the GOP's Solutions for America website were incorporated into the bill. In fact, even the individual mandate itself has a strong history of support within the Republican Party, including from the Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley.

Media Matters reported the following numbers about Republican involvement in the Affordable Care Act over the past 18 months:

According to a HELP Committee document about bipartisan aspects of the health reform bill the committee passed July 15, 2009, its final bill included "161 Republican amendments," including "several amendments from Senators [Mike] Enzi [R-WY], [Tom] Coburn [R-OK], [Pat] Roberts [R-KS] and others [that] make certain that nothing in the legislation will allow for rationing of care," and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009 as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009 [HELP Committee document, 7/09]. And according to the Senate Finance Committee's September 22, 2009, document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in the bill.

More facts on the ACA;

Republican Ideas Included in the President's Proposal | The White House

Republican Ideas Included in the President's Proposal

It’s clear that the American people want health insurance reform. They aren’t interested in Democratic ideas or Republican ideas. They’re interested in the best ideas to reduce costs, guarantee choices and ensure the highest quality care.

They’re interested in ideas that will put them back in control of their own health care.

Throughout the debate on health insurance reform, Republican concepts and proposals have been included in legislation. In fact, hundreds of Republican amendments were adopted during the committee mark-up process. As a result, both the Senate and the House passed key Republican proposals that are incorporated into the President’s Proposal.

Review a few of the Republican initiatives included in legislation passed by Congress:
Includes personal responsibility incentives: Allows health insurance premium to vary based on participation in proven employer wellness programs

(Sources: H.R. 3468, “Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act” (Castle bill); H.R. 4038, “Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act” (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3400, “Empowering Patients First Act” (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act” (Kirk bill), "Coverage, Prevention and Reform Act")

Advances medical liability reform through grants to States: Provides grants to States to jump-start and evaluate promising medical liability reform ideas to put patient safety first, prevent medical errors, and reduce liability premiums.

(Sources: S. 1783, “Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act” (Enzi bill); H.R. 3400, “Empowering Patients First Act” (Republican Study Committee bill); H.R. 4529, “Roadmap for America’s Future Act” (Ryan bill); S. 1099, “Patients’ Choice Act” (Burr-Coburn, Ryan-Nunes bill))

Extends dependent coverage to age 26: Gives young adults new options.
(Sources: H.R. 4038, “Common Sense Health Care Reform & Accountability Act” (Republican Substitute bill); H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act” (Kirk bill))
Allows automatic enrollment by employers in health insurance: Allows employee to opt-out.
(Sources: House Republican Substitute; H.R. 3400, “Empowering Patients First Act” (Republican Study Committee bill); “Coverage, Prevention, and Reform Act” )
Mechanisms to improve quality.

(Sources: H.R. 4529, “Roadmap for America’s Future Act;” S. 1099, “Patients’ Choice Act;” H.R. 3400, Republican Study Group bill; S. 1783, “Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act” (Enzi bill))

Community Mental Health Centers. The President’s Proposal ensures that individuals have access to comprehensive mental health services in the community setting, but strengthens standards for facilities that seek reimbursement as community mental health centers by ensuring these facilities are providing appropriate care and not taking advantage of Medicare patients or the taxpayers.
(Source: H.R. 3970, “Medical Rights & Reform Act”)

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no.

The site is full of shit.

They took some ideas proposed by Republicans in the past and stuffed them into the bill themselves. No amendment to the bill that was actually proposed by a Republican during the debate over Obamacare even got close to being in the bill.

 

[Pasco08]

A Bunch of Polls recently have reinforced this thought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The facts show that 161 GOP amendments were included in the final version of the ACA. In addition there were at least 30 bipartisan meetings on the content of the bill.

Fact Check: How the health care law was made | America's Health Care



More facts on the ACA;

Republican Ideas Included in the President's Proposal | The White House

Granted, the whole thing was a "Republican idea". I'm certainly not disputing that. Mitt Romney was first on the block to push this shit. The point is, no Republicans voted for it. If the Democrats included Republican amendments it's because they wanted to, they didn't do it as a compromise to Republicans.

The Democrats own ACA outright.

But you are conceding that it was a "Republican idea", right?

So what happens if the GOP cannot stop the ACA from taking effect in 2014 and instead of it being a "train wreck" it turns out that people actually like the idea of having affordable healthcare?

Will Republicans still campaign on the "Democrats own ACA outright"?

No, parts of it were proposed by Republicans, but that doesn't make the whole thing a Republican idea. The Republicans had nothing to do with this, and that is coming from a guy that only defends politicians when he is forced to by egregious lies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Citizens United ring any bells? How about the Federal Reserve? The Energy special interests? Big Pharma? What do they all have in common? They control how legislation is written and which politicians are elected to office. That is the root cause of the problem. Everything else is merely a symptom. If you want to "avoid the perils of corporatist fascism" you need to deal with the cause. You are wasting your time and energy if you believe that the ACA is the problem.

No, the root of the problem is government structured to distribute power to interest groups. What you're describing are the symptoms of that structure. The problem is constitutional. You are wasting your time if you think dinking around with election financing will solve anything. ACA is a perfect example of corporatism.

In which case you need to prove that the "root of the problem is government structured to distribute power to interest groups". Then you need to describe how you intend to remediate this problem.

He has to explain to you why Microsoft, after declaring openly that it would never lobby the government, and being lectured to about that attitude in a Senate hearing, decided to play along and throw money at the government?

 

[Greenbeard]

They took some ideas proposed by Republicans in the past and stuffed them into the bill themselves. No amendment to the bill that was actually proposed by a Republican during the debate over Obamacare even got close to being in the bill.

Odd that people have been bitching about the fallout from a Grassley amendment for about six months now then, isn't it?

 

[dblack]

Citizens United ring any bells? How about the Federal Reserve? The Energy special interests? Big Pharma? What do they all have in common? They control how legislation is written and which politicians are elected to office. That is the root cause of the problem. Everything else is merely a symptom. If you want to "avoid the perils of corporatist fascism" you need to deal with the cause. You are wasting your time and energy if you believe that the ACA is the problem.

No, the root of the problem is government structured to distribute power to interest groups. What you're describing are the symptoms of that structure. The problem is constitutional. You are wasting your time if you think dinking around with election financing will solve anything. ACA is a perfect example of corporatism.

In which case you need to prove that the "root of the problem is government structured to distribute power to interest groups".

Ok, I can give that a try.

When we allow government to expand its role to interfere in the economy, and more broadly into other private decisions, it creates far greater incentive for special interest groups to lobby government. With ACA, for example, we now face a situation where the fortunes of everyone affected by health care (essentially, that's all of us) will now depend, to a far a greater degree on federal policy. Anyone with a vested interest in that policy will now be confronted with the need to go to their representatives, hat in hand (or, in the case of wealthy interests, checkbook in hand), to plead their case. This will radically amplify the corrupting influence of lobbyists and those who can offer financing for the election of politicians favorable to their interests.

This is always the dynamic when government expands beyond its core role of protecting equal individual rights. When, instead, it attempts to cater to the interests of organized power blocs, which includes not only private industry, but labor, religions, and all other special interest groups with a stake in public policy, it sets itself up as the central 'power broker' in society. That's the kind of government we're moving toward. That's corporatism.

All of the problems you cited involve interest groups attempting to control government interference that shouldn't be allowed in the first place. That's why I'm saying they are symptoms of the more fundamental problem of the unrestrained expansion of government's scope and reach.

Then you need to describe how you intend to remediate this problem.

If I could answer that question confidently, I'd probably be running for office or at least leading some thinktank or something.

My best guess is that, ultimately, it's going to take some significant changes to the Constitution. We need to reaffirm the general concept of constitutionally limited government, as well as create a solid 'wall of separation' between economic and political power. And it will have to go both ways. The only way to keep financial interests from having too much influence in government is to keep government from having so much influence on our economic decisions. It's the same dynamic we faced with teasing apart religion and government. And like with religion, it will never be a perfectly clean separation - but we've managed to prevent a theocracy and have a good general foundation of freedom of religion. I think we can do likewise with economic freedom.

But before we can even begin to pursue these Constitutional changes, we need to make people aware of the problem. However vain and pathetic it may be, that's the impetus for my ranting about the problem here on the boards. I'm hoping to raise the issue with smart people who will consider it and perhaps pass the word along.

I dunno. I'm not hopeful really. I think history may just be done with the US in general. We'll survive, but our 'exceptional' position as a leader in the development of enlightened government may just be coming to an end.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They took some ideas proposed by Republicans in the past and stuffed them into the bill themselves. No amendment to the bill that was actually proposed by a Republican during the debate over Obamacare even got close to being in the bill.

Odd that people have been bitching about the fallout from a Grassley amendment for about six months now then, isn't it?

Daily Kos: Chuck Grassley exempted Congress from Obamacare?

 

[MarcATL]

Congress is NOT exempt from Obamacare.

No ?Special Subsidy? for Congress

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.—
(i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle,
the only health plans that the Federal Government
may make available to Members of Congress and
congressional staff with respect to their service as a
Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be
health plans that are—
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment
made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established
under this Act (or an amendment made by this
Act).

To read it in the actual law, see page 81.

Read it and weep.

Stop lying Republicans. Stop... MFing... LYING!!!