My advice to GOP: Let Obama have what he wants

[Reaganfan]

My mother and her husband are good representations of average American swing voters. She voted twice for George W. Bush, and twice for Barack Obama. Now she can't stand him. Her husband is a UPS employee, both him and her disapprove strongly of Obamacare and yet her questions to me of, "Can't the Republicans stop it?" are answered with my shrug. I smile and say in a smart-ass tone, "You voted for it." to which she gets angry.

I say to the GOP: Give up. Let Obamacare continue. Let people be up in arms about it. I think even with a gridlocked government 2014 won't be that bad a year for the GOP anyways, let alone if we compromise. Give up. Let the grassroots people pick apart Obama's left-wing agenda. We'll reap the benefits later. Let's not destroy ourselves.

[tik 🪀✨]

Hahaha, "left-wing agenda"

[7,052,770]

Obamacare will have 60% approval by November 2014.

[Paul Kemp]

What is their issue with Obamacare, Naso, and what is it that they "can't stand" exactly about the President?

Also, what are these "benefits" you believe will be reaped from letting Obama "have what he wants"?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Also, what are these "benefits" you believe will be reaped from letting Obama "have what he wants"?

Probably that Obama won't be re-elected, right? 

[Torie]

What is their issue with Obamacare, Naso, and what is it that they "can't stand" exactly about the President?

Also, what are these "benefits" you believe will be reaped from letting Obama "have what he wants"?

What do you think the odds are that Naso will actually respond to this?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What is their issue with Obamacare, Naso, and what is it that they "can't stand" exactly about the President?

Also, what are these "benefits" you believe will be reaped from letting Obama "have what he wants"?

What do you think the odds are that Naso will actually respond to this?

Not speaking for Mr. Kemp, but I'll say he'll shrug his shoulders and move on, like he does with his momma.

[Paul Kemp]

What is their issue with Obamacare, Naso, and what is it that they "can't stand" exactly about the President?

Also, what are these "benefits" you believe will be reaped from letting Obama "have what he wants"?

What do you think the odds are that Naso will actually respond to this?

Very little, as any Naso reader would know.

[The Free North]

Obamacare will have 60% approval by November 2014.

I'd put money against that pretty quick.


Especially once the loss of doctors really kicks in.


Thats the real kicker, the government destroys the system, were left with a shortage of doctors, and then were all in trouble.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Obamacare will have 60% approval by November 2014.

Yup, this.

Hahaha, "left-wing agenda"

and this.

[Keystone Phil]

Obamacare will have 60% approval by November 2014.

Wasn't it supposed to be popular by now?

[opebo]

Obamacare will have 60% approval by November 2014.

I'd put money against that pretty quick.

Especially once the loss of doctors really kicks in.

Thats the real kicker, the government destroys the system, were left with a shortage of doctors, and then were all in trouble.

Shortage of doctors?  What're they going to do? Become car salesmen?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I dunno... I've been seeing my doctor every few weeks lately... and I made an appointment with him for a couple weeks down the road... he didn't mention quitting due to Obamacare.

I'm glad Naso finally gets it.  Let Obama have what he wants.  And watch America benefit from it.

[memphis]

There probably will be a temporary shortage as lots of previously uninsured rush to get their long festering problems addressed. And FOX will have a field day. And the bottleneck will then clear. And life will go on. And FOX will find something new to conplain about. An attention whore celebrity will probably do something sexual suggestive. How novel and shocking!

[angus]

My mother and her husband are good representations of average American swing voters. She voted twice for George W. Bush, and twice for Barack Obama. Now she can't stand him. Her husband is a UPS employee, both him and her disapprove strongly of Obamacare and yet her questions to me of, "Can't the Republicans stop it?" are answered with my shrug. I smile and say in a smart-ass tone, "You voted for it." to which she gets angry.

I say to the GOP: Give up. Let Obamacare continue. Let people be up in arms about it. I think even with a gridlocked government 2014 won't be that bad a year for the GOP anyways, let alone if we compromise. Give up. Let the grassroots people pick apart Obama's left-wing agenda. We'll reap the benefits later. Let's not destroy ourselves.

I sort of understand them.  I voted for Obama in 2008 but was totally against the PPACA and did not vote for Obama in 2012.

I guess that the main problem with it is that it will increase medical costs, at least over the short term, according to a CBO study.  Mostly because many people will receive preventive care for the first time in their lives. This might also lead to a shortage of medical workers (physicians, nurses, PAs, etc.)  Most of the costs will be borne by individuals and businesses that are paying higher taxes.  Your folks may fit into that category as well.

Also, something like 5 million workers (CBO estimate) could lose their existing, company-sponsored health insurance if their company finds it more cost-effective to let them buy it on their own and pay the penalty.

The ultimate cost of the program is really known.  Estimates are all over the place, and we don't know where it will be five or ten years from now.  It may end up being a net savings, who knows?  Still, if you're really against it, then a public propaganda campaign to nip it early is, in my opinion, better than waiting till we're huge in debt and saying "I told you so."  I guess it depends on who you're for, the Republicans, the Democrats, or the people of the United States.  I'm for the people, so I can't agree with the idea of not fighting Obamacare, no matter how it affects the parties.

[opebo]

I guess it depends on who you're for, the Republicans, the Democrats, or the people of the United States.  I'm for the people, so I can't agree with the idea of not fighting Obamacare, no matter how it affects the parties.

Bullsh**t, angus.  You want them to die without healthcare. 

[angus]

I guess it depends on who you're for, the Republicans, the Democrats, or the people of the United States.  I'm for the people, so I can't agree with the idea of not fighting Obamacare, no matter how it affects the parties.

Bullsh**t, angus.  You want them to die without healthcare. 

yeah, that's me.  I sit around all day plotting the demise of the great unwashed masses.

[opebo]

I guess it depends on who you're for, the Republicans, the Democrats, or the people of the United States.  I'm for the people, so I can't agree with the idea of not fighting Obamacare, no matter how it affects the parties.

Bullsh**t, angus.  You want them to die without healthcare. 

yeah, that's me.  I sit around all day plotting the demise of the great unwashed masses.

Well buddy, if you're going to claim to be 'for them', their demise due to lack of health care can be laid at your door.  You brought it on yourself with that absurd claim.

[angus]

Okay, buddy, but I'm not for the poor going without medical services.  However, I am against exacerbating extant problems.  Some folks think that we're paying too big a share of our aggregate GDP for medical or health-related expenses.  It's something like 16 or 17%.  I think it has to do with inefficiencies, and to the extent that this bill deals with that problem, it's a good idea, but this bill will increase the share of aggregate GDP that we spend.  I hope that in the long run such issues don't always divide along party lines.  As it is now, a Democrat can serve up a warm, steaming bowl of shit and call it delicious, and all Democrats will say, "yes, this is good" and all Republicans will say, "No, it's horrible and it stinks."  Same for Republicans and vice-versa.  Shouldn't be that way.  

If you're into enacting a public medical system, it could be done, and I'd agree that socialized medicine has some advantages (although it also has some definite disadvantages as well).  In any case that isn't what the poorly-named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does.  The PPACA is a cluge of stopgap measures that will increase the budget deficit by $560 billion.  Or whatever.  The exact figure is a moving target:  Republicans put it a 700 billion over the first ten years and Democrats put it at 230 billion.  Obviously it depends upon what assumptions one makes.  I think it was meant to provide insurance to the uninsured, but even there it fails since it leaves 25 million people uninsured who are allowed to opt out of the mandate.  (Some, but not others can actually opt out.  Equal treatment for all?!)

Anyway, I'm all for its repeal.  What I'm not for is tampering with the economy that favors one political party over another.  If an idea is good for the people, I'll support it, but if it isn't I won't, regardless of how it may affect the Republicans or Democrats.  I think defeating Obamacare ex post facto is a less attractive alternative than never passing it in the first place, but it's a more attractive alternative than pretending that it's okay just to watch the economy sink in order to reward the Republicans at some future date.

[opebo]

So you actually think the implementation of health care will benefit the Republicans, and its elimination will help the Democrats?

[angus]

So you actually think the implementation of health care will benefit the Republicans, and its elimination will help the Democrats?

You talking to me?  I didn't post that.  I certainly don't think that.  I'm not in the business of predicting the future.  Whether Naso really thinks that or is just hoisting it up the flagpole to see if it flies, I can't say, but on the chance that anyone really thinks that this is the case, I say that it's not really a justifiable motivation not to act if you're really interested in the nation's interests.

[opebo]

So you actually think the implementation of health care will benefit the Republicans, and its elimination will help the Democrats?

You talking to me?  I didn't post that.  I certainly don't think that.  I'm not in the business of predicting the future.  Whether Naso really thinks that or is just hoisting it up the flagpole to see if it flies, I can't say, but on the chance that anyone really thinks that this is the case, I say that it's not really a justifiable motivation not to act if you're really interested in the nation's interests.

Yeah I was just referring to this:

I think defeating Obamacare ex post facto is a less attractive alternative than never passing it in the first place, but it's a more attractive alternative than pretending that it's okay just to watch the economy sink in order to reward the Republicans at some future date.

[angus]

Yes that seems to be Naso's advice to his parents.  I don't judge that advice on the basis of its connection to reality, but rather from a more Kantian point of view. 

Just my two cents, though. 

[Marnetmar]

left-wing agenda

Because providing affordable care through private insurance companies is left-wing socialism, right?

[All Along The Watchtower]

The hiilarioys/absurd thing about this is that the public option polls even better than the Heritage Foundation plan that Republicans are calling "socialism" (as if that's supposed to scare us).