Senate The Future of the Republican Party

I would gladly accept a repeal of the Affordable Care Act...if the repeal was part of Universal Single-payer healthcare option.

 

The problem with that is it's called transference. "Small sampling that it is.." plus a dollar still won't get you a Starbucks. The "wealthy" comprise who to you? The Hollywood liberal types who have so much health care they have private spas for even elective procedures? Or maybe you're referring to the democratic party members in Congress who voted themselves a waiver for their own health care because they didn't want to give up their own right to better access? I know, I know, you must be referring to Andrew Cuomo, current Governor of New York, who gets health care coverage completely free to him. Oh wait.

All of those above examples sure seem like a small sampling to me as well, and none are republican or libertarian.The immediate question then becomes in light of the above, why are you not bothered by the exact same thing you just mentioned as long as one "team" does it over the other? But that's not the question that should be asked. The issue is that your post precisely represents the problem, because your focus shouldn't be not one side vs the other, but rather its a debate based on what the facts are, and what the goals should be.

 

The GOP has had only two things on its agenda for the past 20 years as far as I'm concerned:

Hate anything that takes Jesus away from everyday life
Hate anything the Democrats do

 

Because you supplied only a basic anecdotal statement without much else. Basically, in your opinion, you said since you knew only a couple of people who called themselves "republican," and they somehow wanted only rich people to have better health care, it was supposed to be evidence of....something.... So, just as strong anecdotal evidence was supplied which showed that just as many rich democrats want better healthcare for themselves. In other, words, as I mentioned, anecdotal statements plus a dollar won't even get a cup of coffee. Also, you didn't define what it is to be "wealthy," and who you knew, so the statement is filtered through multiple layers of bias. My issue is- that knowing this to be true, you indicated that you were only bothered by the republicans who did this, not the democrats, or as you said "you can't ever take one party (and only one) seriously because of the issue.

What you overlooked is that the ultra-wealthy on either side of the idealogical spectrum, or belonging to either political party, will simply find a loophole, or as the democratic members of Congress just did, give themselves an exemption. It's easy to vote for something if you have a subsidy that the rest of the general public doesn't. Which highlights the other issue. I think, to a degree, what you are illustrating is how much "Obamacare itself is unbalanced. Again, it's not going to affect Matt Damon, liberal as he is, because Damon's situation relating to Obamacare isn't dependent on which political party he self-identifies himself with. So he can pander for all the votes he wants, because he's insulated from the results. Where I think the impact is most negatively felt is the regular business owner or franchisee member who are beholden to market forces. Stereotypically, such entrepreneurs probably identify themselves as republican, which might be forming the basis of your anecdotal observation. But yeah, tell the owner of a tire shop who employs 51 people how the government is forcing him to absorb costs or get fined, as opposed to a truly universal health system. And then label that same store owner who works 60 hours a week, "wealthy," regardless of what party he votes for.

Again, right now, no other proposals can be put forth, because the executive would simply veto any and all alternatives to the current flawed legacy issue. The affordable care act has to be scrapped first, and then both sides have to come up with an alternative that is more universally single-payer based, and not so market dependent like Obamacare is.

 

Well, honestly, I'm not sure what you mean. The current opposition has all sorts of proposals.

Kevin Brady(R), chairman of the House Joint Economic Committee, has an alternative.
John McCain (R) has his well known tax voucher proposal.
Tom Coburn(R) has a variation on McCain's plan, which sometimes intersects with Paul Ryan's(R) plan.
Rand Paul has his more libertarian leaning plan, which he comes and goes with how strongly he calls himself a republican vs being more libertarian.
Romney had an alternative during the election, but since he doesn't have an active role in government, it's not focused on anymore that I know of.

There might be more proposals, I don't know. Basically though, the alternatives revolve around taking the focus off of penalizing businesses which don't provide coverage like Obamacare does, to giving each individual a tax credit which is used to purchase their own insurance. The GOP plans offer positive reinforcement vs the negative penalties under Obamacare. However, from what I've seen the idea of "tax credit" is a dirty word among democratic politicians. Of course, the various GOP proposals have their own strengths and weaknesses as well. They would have to be worked out.

Unless you're trying to equate the idea that because you don't agree with them, they don't exist at all? You very well might like some of the alternatives. What I'm saying is that none of this is acknowledged by simply pitting one party against the other. Or by dismissing the issue by using broad strokes such as "I know some republicans and they only want rich people to have it..."

Ironically, McCain's plan is closest to the idea of universal coverage (much, much more than Obamacare is) that is so sought after by those who criticize McCain in the first place. Not because of the details, but simply because he has an (R) after his name.

 

What is McCain's health care plan? I haven't heard anything from him re: an alternative since 2008. And a quick search on Google only returns results from 2008 as well. Maybe it's just a communications failure on the GOP's part, but I heard a lot of defense coming from their supports that they do have an alternative replacement program to Obamacare if they actually ever repeal it (maybe the 41st time will work!) but I've seen 0 substance promoted by them (probably just the liberal media, though).

 

Whenever I say "Republicans" I typically do not mean "every single member of the Republican Party." You tend to cling to semantics like that and make a show when really it means nothing. There is a significant portion of the GOP caucus that is willing to shutdown the government if they can't get Obamacare defunded (the GOP tried this under Newt, remember? It's not like it's unheard of from you guys). Rubio, Cruz, and Paul along with many in the House are pushing for it. The more establishment (and sensible) members are admitting it will do nothing (McCain, Coburn).

From a National Journal article: "[Rubio has joined] [...] Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky at the forefront of a drive to shut down the government unless Obamacare is defunded."

Here is an interview with Tom Coburn and Sarah Kliff from WonkBlog where she asks: "What do you think of legislators who say that they’re willing to shut down the federal government over Obamacare funding?" His reply: "If you’re actually going to do that, and hold it, that’d be fine. The problem is that I know the strength of the backbone of the Senate and House, and as soon as the heat gets hot they’ll fall like wet suits."

From the Hill: "ObamaCare is at the center of a rapidly escalating fight that threatens to shut the government down this fall. Senate Republicans, including two members of the leadership, are coalescing around a proposal to block any government funding resolution that includes money for the implementation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act."

So how is my opinion a conspiracy-based exaggeration?

 

Well no.

Yes, it is rather annoying when you make statements like "republicans want to shut down government." Because, as you said, it's not all republicans, nor is it an official platform. So why say it all? Or why make a post like that in the first place?

See, the problem with the way you make such statements is that they do start off very, extremely conspiracy-laden. Through discussion, although its a bit like pulling teeth, you always come back with "you know I didn't mean (blanket X)...rather here are the specifics. .." Yes, there is some discussion on holding up funding for Obama-care. But that's all there is.

Kind of like how during the previous administration, a couple of democrats discussed the defunding of the Iraq war-while their were still troops overseas fighting in it. My point is that 2 or 3 democrats throwing out the idea of defunding a war 1)does not represent ALL democrats, 2)nor does it represent any final plan ANY MORE SO than a couple of republicans bantering about the idea of holding up Obamacare funding equate to any kind of idea that "The republicans want to defund government!!!!!1111!!!!111"

Personally, I think if you just skipped the initial sensational statement, and went right to the actual discussion, things would be better off. But that's me.

 

Well, you have your 3 leading candidates for 2016 pushing it in the Senate. Some of the leadership is as well. Most of the ones pushing back against defunding/shutdown are doing it because they say it has no chance of passing or simply don't want the blame ala 1995. Then there have been multiple videos of Congressmen getting yelled at by constituents at town halls because they won't defund it. Not to mention major players on the right - Heritage, FreedomWorks, Club for Growth, Red State, Americans for Tax Reform, ForAmerica - are all calling for it as well.

So, yeah, I still stand by my initial statement.

Let me guess - they aren't actually willing/threatening to not raise the debt limit again but that's just another conspiracy of mine, huh?

 

Not that I would oppose a "more universally single-payed based" solution to the health insurance problem, but you do realize what you're saying here kind of sounds like you live in a fantasy land? What evidence is there that, if Obama repealed Obamacare, the Republicans would compromise (unlike last time) around a system more to the left than what he already passed?

Obamacare is based around the individual mandate/exchanges/tax credit system that Republicans favored for 20 years, Dole ran on, and Romney implemented it. And now you're suggesting that they'd be willing to compromise over a single-payer system??

 

An intelligent Republican party would flank Obama on his left, but then they'd be total hypocrites and could never quite sell themselves to the public on their change of heart. I do think Obama is vulnerable, but you'd have to be to the left of him and not his right--politically, because he's already been a pretty rightward leaning president.

 

They don't seem to be able to read the political winds outside of the base.

One interesting rumor I've heard from some friends down in DC is that Roberts upheld the ACA as a gift to Obama because he is planning to use one of the new super-strict state anti-abortion law cases to overturn Roe v Wade. Scuttlebutt is that this happens right after the 2014 midterms, to give passions a chance to cool before 2016 on the left and help galvanize religious voters on the right.

Not sure how such a ruling would play out; instict tells me it would come back to bite Republicans on the national level, but timing is key.

Peace,

V-03

 

Damn I must be on the wrong website.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

This quote from Politico is damning and rather sums up the core of the Republican problem: "Republicans tell us privately that pressure from conservative media only encourages their public voices to say things that offend black audiences."

The GOP has created an echo chamber of conservative groups of Rush Limbaugh, Drudge, Fox News, the Daily Caller, Breitbart, Hannity, and Glenn Beck where any deviance means they will support a primary against you and it will be backed by Heritage, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Americans for Tax Reform...

 

While effectively knocking down Medicaid expansion in states with slimeball Republican governors like mine?

Such a gift.

For some reason, they don't seem to think they have to worry about black votes.

 

Their handling of the Latino vote is actually more dumbfounding to me - and how it's gone from comparable under Bush to one-sided under Obama. And yet they try to burn Rubio at the stake for compromising on immigration and make the anecdotal-but-too-common dumb comments (wetbacks and cantaloupe calves just recently).

 

I hear that's http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/317179-tea-party-groups-tell-alexander-to-quit]treason[/url] to the conservative cause.

I really wish I were joking, but these supposedly non-partisan teabaggers actually said this:

These people are animals and quite clearly insane.

 

the real Ronald Reagan wouldn't be nominated by the Republicans today (as opposed to the fake "Saint Ronnie" of myth).

 

I always feel that saying, 'Ronald Reagan wouldn't be elected today,' as a sort of reverence for the man that's undue. He was a horrible president and a horrible person. In any era that you elect that man he'd be crappy. And the teabaggers would follow him because he spoke their language as well, even if he was for big government. So to say he wouldn't be nominated is a fallacy just because the right these days seems more extreme than they did back then as they've always been pretty nutty. And he spoke to that. Remember the Moral Majority?

So yeah...Ronald Reagan would be nominated today on the idea of his message alone. And likewise he'd lose horribly as well.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/tom-coburn-obama-impeachment-95822.html?ml=po_r]Look[/url] who's at it again.

Seriously? I mean, really? Because it worked out so well for the GOP last time.

I'm trying to figure out how to manage assets in the case of default, because I really think it's going to happen this time. I can't see a faster pathway to ruin for the GOP than to go this route....except breaching the debt ceiling, of course.

Then again, there are probably some who have a political calculus that has the GOP taking back the Senate, and having enough votes after the 2014 midterms to remove Obama in a trial. Sheesh.

Peace,

V-03

 

Despite the disaster that would occur, I somewhat hope they actually cause a default this time so we can get it over with. I'm entirely sick of having to watch the GOP circus that occurs every other year when this comes up for a vote.

The most amazing part is that although nearly all Republicans are threatening to default, there are two camps. There are those that are doing it for show/get what they want/appease the Tea Partiers (Boehner, who has to secretly plead to Wall Street that they aren't being serious) and then those who are serious actually want to default (the Tea Partiers).

 

Yeah, it's like watching a car crash about to happen. You know it's going to be ugly, you know you can't stop it, but you're unable to look away.