Can we trust the GOP with the ACA in 2016?

[Phi for All]

Republicans have shown contempt for federal programs they think cuts into private sector earnings or makes the government bigger, like FEMA, OSHA, the EPA and others. Typically, they'll put a political appointee in charge who has no credentials for the job, or remove the program's ability to regulate, and then later point to how bloated and worthless the program is. They don't believe in them so they don't try to make them work (which they magically do when the Democrats take them back).

 

Since Reagan, Republicans have been responsible for the biggest deficits as well, cutting taxes to make the deficits even bigger. They push spending where it means large private sector profits (aka war & crime) and when the Democrats gain the Executive branch, Republicans call for spending cuts in the kind of social programs that work best when funded publicly (aka health, recreation & welfare).

 

Democrats certainly have their own special interests to satisfy, don't get me wrong. The cost of presidential elections for both parties was under $100M in 1976 and it's estimated that it will cost $5B in 2016. Someone has to pay the piper when you do business politics business politics business like this.

 

Given that the GOP is willing to screw up US credit (again) to block the ACA, and what they've done historically with programs they don't believe in, can we trust them not to turn the ACA into yet another overfed beast they will then try to starve if a Bush or a Cruz or a Ryan gets elected? We're talking about a costly program that has a chance at being great if people who believe in it can help to make it work. We're also talking about a costly program that can cost a whole lot more and still fail if the Republicans are willing to screw it up on purpose (again) just to say "I told you so".

[Unity+]

Republicans have shown contempt for federal programs they think cuts into private sector earnings or makes the government bigger, like FEMA, OSHA, the EPA and others. Typically, they'll put a political appointee in charge who has no credentials for the job, or remove the program's ability to regulate, and then later point to how bloated and worthless the program is. They don't believe in them so they don't try to make them work (which they magically do when the Democrats take them back).

 

Since Reagan, Republicans have been responsible for the biggest deficits as well, cutting taxes to make the deficits even bigger. They push spending where it means large private sector profits (aka war & crime) and when the Democrats gain the Executive branch, Republicans call for spending cuts in the kind of social programs that work best when funded publicly (aka health, recreation & welfare).

 

Democrats certainly have their own special interests to satisfy, don't get me wrong. The cost of presidential elections for both parties was under $100M in 1976 and it's estimated that it will cost $5B in 2016. Someone has to pay the piper when you do business politics business politics business like this.

 

Given that the GOP is willing to screw up US credit (again) to block the ACA, and what they've done historically with programs they don't believe in, can we trust them not to turn the ACA into yet another overfed beast they will then try to starve if a Bush or a Cruz or a Ryan gets elected? We're talking about a costly program that has a chance at being great if people who believe in it can help to make it work. We're also talking about a costly program that can cost a whole lot more and still fail if the Republicans are willing to screw it up on purpose (again) just to say "I told you so".

The only reason why the deficit got so large was because the government spending got out of control, which is both partially the Republican and Democrat's fault.

 

Putting all the blame on Republicans, which users on here seem to do, means people ignore the problems that the Democrats caused.

 

 

 

and still fail if the Republicans are willing to screw it up on purpose (again) just to say "I told you so".

Well people keep putting blame on the Republicans, so I don't blame if they are doing this to say "I told you so." And unfortunately, your response only gives them more motive. If people are going to continue putting their heads up their butts and continue to support the policies that the Democrats put forth, our nation is most likely going to fall.

 

 

 

Given that the GOP is willing to screw up US credit (again) to block the ACA

And you assume ACA will do any better?

 

 

 

Typically, they'll put a political appointee in charge who has no credentials for the job

And somehow putting a President who has no credentials in the Presidential seat is any better. Also, Romney had much experience in the business field(and actually owned a business and knew how to keep it economically stable, unlike Obama).

Edited September 30, 2013 by Unity+

[Phi for All]

The only reason why the deficit got so large was because the government spending got out of control, which is both partially the Republican and Democrat's fault.

 

Putting all the blame on Republicans, which users on here seem to do, means people ignore the problems that the Democrats caused.

 

Please, let's not key on the deficit here. I gave my parameters for the question. I never said the responsibility for the deficit lies with a single party and I conceded that both parties have to seek special interest money to get elected. Please don't lead this thread into a Dem/Rep standoff.

 

My concerns are real. Obama and his predecessor (if he has one in 2016) will work very hard to make the ACA work. Can you tell me that a Republican administration would work as hard on it, seeing as how they hate it enough to threaten a shutdown?

[Unity+]

 

Please, let's not key on the deficit here. I gave my parameters for the question. I never said the responsibility for the deficit lies with a single party and I conceded that both parties have to seek special interest money to get elected. Please don't lead this thread into a Dem/Rep standoff.

 

My concerns are real. Obama and his predecessor (if he has one in 2016) will work very hard to make the ACA work. Can you tell me that a Republican administration would work as hard on it, seeing as how they hate it enough to threaten a shutdown?

You brought up the deficit problem, not I.

 

ACA is already a lost cause and was from the start(and it is a pretty badly formed government healthcare policy). I don't see why the Democrats are trying so hard to put it through, besides for political motive. The Republican administration wouldn't have begun ACA to begin with because of the questionable constitutionality of it and the large spending and deficit will cause. I am glad they are shutting down the government, though it probably won't do much.

 

EDIT: The fact that now people are against the ACA just shows that the Democrats are doing it for political motive. Most people who support Obamacare never really had a glance over the bill itself and relied on government here-say to make their decision when they had the chance to read the thick-book the policy was.

 

"Don't read it, just sign it"

Edited September 30, 2013 by Unity+

[Moontanman]

You brought up the deficit problem, not I.

 

ACA is already a lost cause and was from the start(and it is a pretty badly formed government healthcare policy). I don't see why the Democrats are trying so hard to put it through, besides for political motive. The Republican administration wouldn't have begun ACA to begin with because of the questionable constitutionality of it and the large spending and deficit will cause. I am glad they are shutting down the government, though it probably won't do much.

 

EDIT: The fact that now people are against the ACA just shows that the Democrats are doing it for political motive. Most people who support Obamacare never really had a glance over the bill itself and relied on government here-say to make their decision when they had the chance to read the thick-book the policy was.

 

"Don't read it, just sign it"

People are against the ACA? Which people, how many, can you give us some figures?

 

Don't label me with a political party, I am not supporting a side here...

 

[Bignose]

The fact that now people are against the ACA...

Maybe not surprisingly but 'people' are more against 'ObamaCare' than they are against the 'Affordable Care Act', polls show. By not a small margin, either, despite the two things being the same thing. My main takeaway from that is the vast majority of people on both sides only recognize it as something political and have very little understanding of what it actually does.

 

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/8159-poll-more-people-against-obamacare-than-affordable-care-act

 

There is also a humorous quote in this Slate article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/09/john_boehner_and_a_government_shutdown_what_will_the_house_speaker_do_by.html)

 

There was talk among some in the House about attaching the so-called "Vitter amendment" to another funding bill and sending it back to the Senate. That measure, named after the Louisiana senator who sponsored it, would eliminate government subsidies for health care of members of Congress and their staff. According to one GOP aide the measure is losing some support because members have staffers and family who have pre-existing conditions and special needs and would benefit from the law—proof that members of Congress, like the public, like elements of the law even while they may not like the whole thing.)

To answer Phi's question, I think that there would be almost no hope at all that ACA would be administered well should a Repub win the Oval Office in 2016. Though the Repubs are doing their best to ensure that doesn't happen. Just like 17 years ago under Gingrich, the Repubs have no concept of how much people will blame them for a gov't shutdown. Sure, everyone will take some blame, but it is easy to see just how childish and foolish the Repubs in the House are acting right now.

[Phi for All]

Unity+, if you're done pissing all around my question just to mark it up real good, could you please try to piss right on it instead? I'm sorry, I know we haven't had many good political venting threads lately, but again, I don't want this to be a catchall thread for unfocused frustration.

 

Since the ACA is going to be here, and since there are a lot of experts who say it's a good first step, and since we need to make it work in order NOT to waste the resources we've already spent on it, can we trust Republicans in 2016 to do their best to help the country succeed in its administration?

[Unity+]

Unity+, if you're done pissing all around my question just to mark it up real good, could you please try to piss right on it instead? I'm sorry, I know we haven't had many good political venting threads lately, but again, I don't want this to be a catchall thread for unfocused frustration.

 

Since the ACA is going to be here, and since there are a lot of experts who say it's a good first step, and since we need to make it work in order NOT to waste the resources we've already spent on it, can we trust Republicans in 2016 to do their best to help the country succeed in its administration?

And there are a lot of experts who say it isn't a good idea.

 

I can trust the Republicans in 2016 to do their best to help the country succeed in its administration. Now, please if you want to continue your unnecessary commenting, then do so, but it merely makes you sound unprofessional.

[Phi for All]

And there are a lot of experts who say it isn't a good idea.

* sigh * And their arguments were NOT enough to keep the ACA from being reality. Honestly, debating the ACA's merits are not on topic, and I really resent your trying to hijack this thread.

 

I can trust the Republicans in 2016 to do their best to help the country succeed in its administration.

Thank you for this answer.

 

Do you think by that time they'll have a fix they can make to the ACA that will make it "theirs" so they have an interest in helping administrate it? I don't think we can afford to scrub it and start from square zero again. And it would be worse if they treated it like they have FEMA and the EPA.

 

Now, please if you want to continue your unnecessary commenting, then do so, but it merely makes you sound unprofessional.

Ditto, dude. Stay on topic.

[Unity+]

* sigh * And their arguments were NOT enough to keep the ACA from being reality. Honestly, debating the ACA's merits are not on topic, and I really resent your trying to hijack this thread.

 

Thank you for this answer.

 

Do you think by that time they'll have a fix they can make to the ACA that will make it "theirs" so they have an interest in helping administrate it? I don't think we can afford to scrub it and start from square zero again. And it would be worse if they treated it like they have FEMA and the EPA.

 

Ditto, dude. Stay on topic.

Wait...what?

 

I'm not hijacking this thread. You brought up the topics in the first place.

 

I think they will have a fix by that time unless the Democrats begin trying to find loop holes to stop them. I think we can afford to scrap it. The more we scrap from it, the more money that is saved.

[waitforufo]

If the republicans keep the house and or win the senate in 2016 it will be because they fought ACA. Of course they will kill it if they have the chance. That will be why people voted for them. The voters will expect it from republicans.

[Phi for All]

Wait...what?

 

I'm not hijacking this thread. You brought up the topics in the first place.

I guess I should be glad you didn't start ranting about OSHA since I brought them up too.

 

I think they will have a fix by that time unless the Democrats begin trying to find loop holes to stop them. I think we can afford to scrap it. The more we scrap from it, the more money that is saved.

Years into the program and you think we should scrap it after a Rep takes office in 2017?! "The more we scrap it, the more money that is saved" works for EVERYTHING, you know. Subsidies, military, etc.

 

If the republicans keep the house and or win the senate in 2016 it will be because they fought ACA. Of course they will kill it if they have the chance. That will be why people voted for them. The voters will expect it from republicans.

At what cost though? Me, I'd rather they just offered Medicare to everyone as an alternative insurance and let the market handle that one. But I'd rather do something than nothing, and I'm very concerned that all the resources we'll have spent will be for nothing if the GOP decides to treat the ACA like they do FEMA.

[iNow]

The fact that now people are against the ACA just shows that the Democrats are doing it for political motive.

Actually, people support the vast majority of the individual components of the bill, and by a large margin. They have just been fed a bunch of nonsense and propaganda and have been soured against the word "Obamacare," but not what's in it. The public mandate is the only part that doesn't enjoy massive public support.

 

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/public-opinion/news/2012/04/02/11388/public-opinion-snapshot-what-the-public-thinks-of-obamacare-by-component/

 

The chart shows the public is favorable toward every component of the act except the mandate, with ratings of at least 69 percent for a majority of the components tested.

 

 

 

The more we scrap from it, the more money that is saved.

Citation needed. The data I've seen suggests the opposite.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/why-obamacare-could-be-holding-down-costs-97354.html

 

Obamacare may also be contributing to the slowdown in costs. Proponents of the law say it is helping to control costs because the cost- containment provisions of the law are working as advertised. These include new limits on how much insurance companies can charge for administration and profits (with rebates to consumers if they charge too much), and state review of rates proposed by insurance companies.

 

There is solid evidence that these provisions are working as intended, but they mainly apply to the individual and small group markets, just a small slice of the overall health care marketplace. Obamacare also reduced the rate of increase in future payments to providers for Medicare. These reductions are projected to take more than $700 billion out of health spending over the next 10 years, but they haven’t had much effect yet. Other provisions of the law, such as the Medicare experiments in payment and delivery, are still just getting started. Critics of Obamacare, of course, dispute that the law is having any effect on costs because, well, there is basically nothing they like about Obamacare.

EDIT: More here - http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/an-obamacare-cost-explosion-hardly-gop-distorts-cbo-report

 

Indeed, CBO still holds that the law reduces the deficit by billions of dollars over 10 years. That's just not in this report.

 

Phi - Sorry for acting on my compulsive need to correct bullshit assertions and lies and for responding to the off-topic stuff above. In hopes of making up for it, I will answer your OP.

 

No, I am downright certain that Repubs cannot be trusted to keep health reform in place, or even to work hard to make it better if they take office in 2016... at least not if current repubs remain in power. Right now, the extremists in the party have the most control, and they are the ones who are opposing healthcare on Ayn Randian purist grounds. If they had their way, Medicare would be dismantled, too. There's no way they'd do anything but try to rip ACA to shreds. After all, they've already voted 43 times to repeal it (and failed each), used it as the pivot for their entire 2012 presidential election run (and lost), and are now threatening to blow up the global economy unless it's repealed.

 

I would like to note, however, that IMO there are quite a few Repubs out there who would likely govern quite well and actually take steps to try making the law better. It's just that the moderate voices with the R beside their names are quiet right now or not taken seriously by the base, but hopefully they will begin speak up more forcefully and support our laws and try making them better like true patriots. Of course, they'll probably get killed during their primaries, but maybe some will be courageous enough to fall on that sword for the greater good.

Edited September 30, 2013 by iNow

[GiantEvil]

Well, the ACA will lower the premium average, and improve access to health care for almost everyone. This should take some subsidy burden off employers, and healthier workers will increase productivity. Of course none of theses savings will reach consumers or the workers, they will be absorbed as corporate profits. If the republicans actually bother to note this, then they might be inclined to properly administer the ACA. Of course they (the republicans) will find a way to eliminate certain social classes from the program roles.

[Moontanman]

I don't trust either side, both will do what ever their owners want them to, we, the 99%, do not own any of them...

 

[Phi for All]

I would like to note, however, that IMO there are quite a few Repubs out there who would likely govern quite well and actually take steps to try making the law better. It's just that the moderate voices with the R beside their names are quiet right now or not taken seriously by the base, but hopefully they will begin speak up more forcefully and support our laws and try making them better like true patriots. Of course, they'll probably get killed during their primaries, but maybe some will be courageous enough to fall on that sword for the greater good.

They are out there all right. I was very glad to hear Chris Christie say that threatening to shut down the government should be anathema to any politician.

 

Both parties are using conservatism for stupid, short-term reasons. I'd love to see a smart progressive Republican step up and defend the concept of affordable healthcare for every American because we deserve it. I'd vote for a Dwight Eisenhower tomorrow, in fact.

 

I loved this Will McAvoy quote from the season finale of The Newsroom:

 

“No, I call myself a Republican because I am one. I believe in market solutions and I believe in common sense realities and necessity to defend itself against a dangerous world. The problem is now I have to be homophobic. I have to count the number of times people go to church. I have to deny facts and think scientific research is a long con. I have to think poor people are getting a sweet ride. And I have to have such a stunning inferiority complex that I fear education and intellect in the 21st Century. Most of all, the biggest new requirement-–the only requirement-–is that I have to hate Democrats.”

 

I hope the hatred doesn't undo any good that comes from the ACA.

[GiantEvil]

IMO, in the contemporary political arena an Eisenhower could only run as an independent because the leadership of both parties would view him as too liberal. I would certainly vote for an Eisenhower today, tomorrow, or yesterday.

[Phi for All]

IMO, in the contemporary political arena an Eisenhower could only run as an independent because the leadership of both parties would view him as too liberal. I would certainly vote for an Eisenhower today, tomorrow, or yesterday.

 

Interestingly, Ike proposed a universal health plan that would have extended coverage to all Americans. He even set it up as a subsidy to cover private insurers, which was good market strategy at the time (remember, pre-Nixon health insurance was based on your age and the actuarial tables). The Senate leader (William F. Knowland, R-CA) said he couldn't fit it into the agenda, since they were already filibustering the proposed Atomic Energy bill.

[iNow]

They are out there all right. I was very glad to hear Chris Christie say...

I actually had Jon Huntsman in mind when typing that, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't even able to get above 7th place in 2 of the 3 primaries in which he ran. Christie would probably do better in a presidential run, even though the extremists think he's a traitor and have begun a massive attack campaign against him for... I don't even know... for not punching Obama directly in the throat when he saw him, maybe?

[EdEarl]

Trustworthy politician is an oxymoron.

[GiantEvil]

There is one Republican incumbent I voted for in Washington State.

Sam Reed; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Reed

Despite his party affiliation, Mr Reed was instrumental in creating an open primary system in Washington State. We also have Vote by Mail and a distinct lack of voter restriction.

[WWLabRat]

There is one Republican incumbent I voted for in Washington State.

Sam Reed; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Reed

Despite his party affiliation, Mr Reed was instrumental in creating an open primary system in Washington State. We also have Vote by Mail and a distinct lack of voter restriction.

This is my problem with American politics. Just that one line that I highlighted. So many people dictate their votes, their views, etc on whether a politician is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Tea Party. What happened to people voting for the best possible candidate and not the beliefs of the party? I don't care what party someone designates themselves as, individual views will be different from at least 90% of the other people who belong to that party. Yes, I get that many of the people who assign themselves to an individual party share many views with them, but to say with absolute certainty that something is in favor of the people because it's "the (insert political party here) way" is just ignorant.

 

/rant

 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/public-opinion/news/2012/04/02/11388/public-opinion-snapshot-what-the-public-thinks-of-obamacare-by-component/

 

The chart shows the public is favorable toward every component of the act except the mandate, with ratings of at least 69 percent for a majority of the components tested.

 

 

What this poll doesn't show, that it really should is how much of the remaining percent either A) Doesn't care (Neutral), B) Opposed, or C) Has no Bleeping idea what it's about. Polls like this show sensationalism that can either help or hinder the progress of various tasks that the government puts forth. Even the secondary poll on the linked website doesn't indicate that these other views were even asked. The only thing it shows is that a percentage of the people in favor know that it's part of the ACA. This is intentionally misleading and is nothing short of propaganda. I'm not blaming you, obviously, but this is something that journalists need to leave to the lobbyists. Journalism needs to be unbiased and this is clearly in favor of "ObamaCare". I hate that phrase... It's as bad as saying Reaganomics.

[overtone]

What happened to people voting for the best possible candidate and not the beliefs of the party?

One possibility: They had the experience of seeing Republican Party affiliation trump every other concern once their Republican "best candidate" got to Washington - and faced the penalty of being primaried by a Party endorsed candidate with big money backing, and none for them, if they didn't toe the Party line.

After Nixon's disgrace, when many of the "best candidates" who happned to be Republican betrayed their Party and helped force him out, the "best candidates" were slowly purged, deliberately and overtly, from the Republican Party. And it worked - it created a unified and coherent Party designed and employed as a political tool for lowering the taxes on the upper class, that could nevertheless win elections on a national level.

 

With a Party of tools you cannot actually govern, however. At least, not well. One cannot predict how the Reps will screw up US health care when they get the chance, but one can be fairly certain they will - whether they actually intend to or not. Even if everybody likes it so they rename it Romneycare after its original proponent and source, they won't be able to manage it.

 

As Gore Vidal put it near the end of his life, in explaining one of the most astonishingly prescient assessments I have seen from a political analyst (stating immediately after the 2000 election that W would end his tenure as the least popular President in American history), zookeepers know that when you have monkeys loose, you are gong to have trouble. You don't know what will happen exactly, but monkeys won't clean your house and make supper: monkeys are trouble.

 

 

 

Journalism needs to be unbiased and this is clearly in favor of "ObamaCare".

How does being "in favor" of something necessarily indicate a journalistic bias?

 

I hate that phrase... It's as bad as saying Reaganomics.

It's a term, not a phrase. And it's misleading - unlike Reaganomics, which is a suitable label. Edited October 1, 2013 by overtone

[WWLabRat]

One possibility: They had the experience of seeing Republican Party affiliation trump every other concern once their Republican "best candidate" got to Washington - and faced the penalty of being primaried by a Party endorsed candidate with big money backing, and none for them, if they didn't toe the Party line.

After Nixon's disgrace, when many of the "best candidates" who happned to be Republican betrayed their Party and helped force him out, the "best candidates" were slowly purged, deliberately and overtly, from the Republican Party. And it worked - it created a unified and coherent Party designed and employed as a political tool for lowering the taxes on the upper class, that could nevertheless win elections on a national level.

 

With a Party of tools you cannot actually govern, however. At least, not well. One cannot predict how the Reps will screw up US health care when they get the chance, but one can be fairly certain they will - whether they actually intend to or not. Even if everybody likes it so they rename it Romneycare after its original proponent and source, they won't be able to manage it.

 

As Gore Vidal put it near the end of his life, in explaining one of the most astonishingly prescient assessments I have seen from a political analyst (stating immediately after the 2000 election that W would end his tenure as the least popular President in American history), zookeepers know that when you have monkeys loose, you are gong to have trouble. You don't know what will happen exactly, but monkeys won't clean your house and make supper: monkeys are trouble.

This is what I mean though, Yeah, the republican party may have purged themselves, thanks to Nixon, but individual members will still have their individual beliefs about what is in their own best interest and will push those objectives in such a way that will get other people in the party to view it as a benefit for them as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to abolish parties, but when having a discussion about politics, it should be the policy, not the party itself that is under scrutiny. Of course that's only if the discussion is on policies rather than the party that is supporting it. The Democrats are just as susceptible to screwing up Health Care, regardless of what name it's under, as the Republicans. As are the Libertarians and Tea Party too.

 

How does being "in favor" of something necessarily indicate a journalistic bias?

 

It's a term, not a phrase. And it's misleading - unlike Reaganomics, which is a suitable label.

And being in favor of something does indicate bias. To be unbiased they need to show all standpoints. Unbiased means that they would present the data in such a way as to not indicate things being for one side or another. This isn't just with politics, though it seems to happen more often. This is one of the reasons why Fox News is considered by many to be Right-Wing. They have consistently portrayed their views to support Republicans and Libertarians. They wouldn't be viewed as such if they presented both sides of a policy on equal ground and with equal coverage.

[overtone]

 

 

but individual members will still have their individual beliefs about what is in their own best interest and will push those objectives in such a way that will get other people in the party to view it as a benefit for them as well.

Not if a tendency to such behavior has been largely purged. It is in almost no individual Republican congresscritters independent interest to throw the US government into default, for example.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to abolish parties, but when having a discussion about politics, it should be the policy, not the party itself that is under scrutiny.

The Republican Party has purged itself of almost all members willing to adhere to policy (ore even reason) in the face of Party requirements - most individual Republican congresscritters do not have actual "policies" on most significant or contentious areas of US governance.

 

The Democrats are just as susceptible to screwing up Health Care, regardless of what name it's under, as the Republicans.

You need some evidence for that. It appears to be false - there are some competent and reasonable Dems with solid groundings in physical reality and records of sound assessments of consequences, and one would ordinarily expect such people to be less likely to screw up a reality-contingent system such as health care.