Does the left not realize that Americans dont want the ACA?

[Indy Texas]

I don't recall us yanking every single man, missile and tank out of Iraq the first time a poll came out showing a majority of Americans opposed the war there.

[7,052,770]

Obamacare will have 60+% approval in less than a year when low income whites realize that the Tea Party was openly lying about their bill going up and the economy crashing.

[King]

What would be the GOP's opinion if in 2007 the Democrats shut the government down until the Bush tax cuts were repealed?

Better yet, what if the Republicans weren't demanding the end of Obamacare but Medicare or Social Security?

[Lief 🗽]

The idea that a majority of Americans want to repeal Obamacare is a right-wing fantasy. About 40% "approve" of it. About 50% "disapprove" of it. But a significant percentage of that 50% disapprove of it because it doesn't go far enough. An even larger share of that 50% disapprove because they've been lied to about what's actually in the bill. When you ask them about all the specific things the law does, most of them approve it.

Ultimately it's only a tiny share of far-right sociopaths, who think that poor people should not be allowed to visit the doctor as a punishment for being poor, who are truly opposed to the law.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yeah most Anericans are sick of the Republican Party now. Sure, there will always be the 25-30% who think Obama is the anti-Christ and a reincarnation of Stalin, but no one outside the Republican/Tea Party alternate universe cares about validating far-right conspiracy paranoia.

[DC Al Fine]

Of course they do not care. The fact that photo voter ID is settled law hasn't prevented the screeching.

hey you know what else is settled law

obamacare

BAM

*Cough* Prop 8 *Cough*

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Of course they do not care. The fact that photo voter ID is settled law hasn't prevented the screeching.

hey you know what else is settled law

obamacare

BAM

*Cough* Prop 8 *Cough*

I don't recall Prop 8 being upheld by the US Supreme Court.

[ElectionsGuy]

Public opinion is notoriously unreliable. Most people contradict themselves. Public opinion also is subject to political manipulation.

Specific policy questions reveal, however, that Americans support what the GOP opposes, by and large-which includes the contents of "Obamacare."

So your actually saying that polling is wrong or people are wrong or manipulated to defend this? That is pathetic. If people support the individual bits and pieces of the law, why don't I see any polls on them?

Obamacare will have 60+% approval in less than a year when low income whites realize that the Tea Party was openly lying about their bill going up and the economy crashing.

Do you have anything to back this up? In less than a year approval will go from 40% to 60%?


Also, if I may add, Vosem is making intelligent and rational arguments, why in the hell is he getting so much criticism? Because he makes some center-right statements that make sense?

[krazen1211]

What would be the GOP's opinion if in 2007 the Democrats shut the government down until the Bush tax cuts were repealed?

Better yet, what if the Republicans weren't demanding the end of Obamacare but Medicare or Social Security?

The great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 had a built in expiration date.

If Barry agrees to put a built in expiration date on Obamacare of 2019 that would certainly be a valid comparison.

[krazen1211]

Of course they do not care. The fact that photo voter ID is settled law hasn't prevented the screeching.

hey you know what else is settled law

obamacare

BAM

*Cough* Prop 8 *Cough*

DemocracyDemocracyDemocracyDemocracy.


Of course, partisan redistricting has also been upheld by the US Supreme Court. That has yet to stop the squealing.

[Sbane]

Public opinion is notoriously unreliable. Most people contradict themselves. Public opinion also is subject to political manipulation.

Specific policy questions reveal, however, that Americans support what the GOP opposes, by and large-which includes the contents of "Obamacare."

So your actually saying that polling is wrong or people are wrong or manipulated to defend this? That is pathetic. If people support the individual bits and pieces of the law, why don't I see any polls on them?

Do I really have to bring up polls showing how many people supporting not discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and keeping kids under the age of 26 on their parent's plan? You can't find that on your own? I need to do your research for you?

[7,052,770]

Obamacare will have 60+% approval in less than a year when low income whites realize that the Tea Party was openly lying about their bill going up and the economy crashing.

Do you have anything to back this up? In less than a year approval will go from 40% to 60%?

Because people have literally been scammed by Tea Party lies, guarantees that Obamacare will skyrocket premiums and destroy the entire economy.

People who pay close attention already know those are false, and everyone else will slowly realize over the next year that their bill either only went up a little bit (like it does every year anyway), or went down noticeably thanks to subsidies.  Ironically, the poor whites who make up the majority of the Tea Party are going to be benefiting the most from Obamacare, and many of them will change their tune when they realize they were duped.

Objectively, Obamacare is good policy, and America will realize that after they've had it for a year.  And at that point, Republicans will almost certainly start campaigning on "Of course it worked -- it was always a Republican/conservative policy!!"

[bullmoose88]

wharrgarbl.

ACA is the law until its opponents get enough votes to amend/repeal.

Green eggs and ham fcukas!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What would be the GOP's opinion if in 2007 the Democrats shut the government down until the Bush tax cuts were repealed?

Better yet, what if the Republicans weren't demanding the end of Obamacare but Medicare or Social Security?

The great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 had a built in expiration date.

If Barry agrees to put a built in expiration date on Obamacare of 2019 that would certainly be a valid comparison.

The reason that the Bush tax cuts had a built in expiration date was because they need to have them in order to hold down the heavily increased deficits the government occurred. By contrast the great PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT was scored by the CBO as reducing the Federal deficit and extending the period before the Medicare trust fund goes empty.  Not only that, but with the Supreme Court ruling that States did not have to go along with the Medicaid expansion, and many GOP led States choosing to opt out that, reduced the cost to the government even more, at the expense of creating a donut hole that means some of the working poor most in need of assistance won't get as much of it.  While they'll be getting subsides because the law assumed they'd be under Medicaid,  they do at least benefit from the guaranteed issue and the generally lower individual insurance premiums.

So why do you want to increase the deficit by repealing Obamacare krazen?

[ElectionsGuy]

Public opinion is notoriously unreliable. Most people contradict themselves. Public opinion also is subject to political manipulation.

Specific policy questions reveal, however, that Americans support what the GOP opposes, by and large-which includes the contents of "Obamacare."

So your actually saying that polling is wrong or people are wrong or manipulated to defend this? That is pathetic. If people support the individual bits and pieces of the law, why don't I see any polls on them?

Do I really have to bring up polls showing how many people supporting not discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and keeping kids under the age of 26 on their parent's plan? You can't find that on your own? I need to do your research for you?

No you don't need to show it to me or anything, I didn't mean to imply it like that. What I meant was, with the massive amount of time that I look at polls and studying them, why haven't I seen any individual parts of the law polled? Maybe I'm just not looking right, or blind, but I haven't seen any polls on different parts yet. And yes, some obvious parts will be approved of, others won't.

Because people have literally been scammed by Tea Party lies, guarantees that Obamacare will skyrocket premiums and destroy the entire economy.

People who pay close attention already know those are false, and everyone else will slowly realize over the next year that their bill either only went up a little bit (like it does every year anyway), or went down noticeably thanks to subsidies.  Ironically, the poor whites who make up the majority of the Tea Party are going to be benefiting the most from Obamacare, and many of them will change their tune when they realize they were duped.

Objectively, Obamacare is good policy, and America will realize that after they've had it for a year.  And at that point, Republicans will almost certainly start campaigning on "Of course it worked -- it was always a Republican/conservative policy!!"

Since we can't predict the future, I can't argue against this. I'll take your word for it and we'll see...

[SteveRogers]

Public opinion is notoriously unreliable. Most people contradict themselves. Public opinion also is subject to political manipulation.

Specific policy questions reveal, however, that Americans support what the GOP opposes, by and large-which includes the contents of "Obamacare."

So your actually saying that polling is wrong or people are wrong or manipulated to defend this? That is pathetic. If people support the individual bits and pieces of the law, why don't I see any polls on them?

Do I really have to bring up polls showing how many people supporting not discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions and keeping kids under the age of 26 on their parent's plan? You can't find that on your own? I need to do your research for you?

No you don't need to show it to me or anything, I didn't mean to imply it like that. What I meant was, with the massive amount of time that I look at polls and studying them, why haven't I seen any individual parts of the law polled? Maybe I'm just not looking right, or blind, but I haven't seen any polls on different parts yet. And yes, some obvious parts will be approved of, others won't.

Because people have literally been scammed by Tea Party lies, guarantees that Obamacare will skyrocket premiums and destroy the entire economy.

People who pay close attention already know those are false, and everyone else will slowly realize over the next year that their bill either only went up a little bit (like it does every year anyway), or went down noticeably thanks to subsidies.  Ironically, the poor whites who make up the majority of the Tea Party are going to be benefiting the most from Obamacare, and many of them will change their tune when they realize they were duped.

Objectively, Obamacare is good policy, and America will realize that after they've had it for a year.  And at that point, Republicans will almost certainly start campaigning on "Of course it worked -- it was always a Republican/conservative policy!!"

Since we can't predict the future, I can't argue against this. I'll take your word for it and we'll see...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/us-usa-campaign-healthcare-idUSBRE85N01M20120625

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/obamacares-most-popular-provisions-are-its-least-well-known/

[krazen1211]

What would be the GOP's opinion if in 2007 the Democrats shut the government down until the Bush tax cuts were repealed?

Better yet, what if the Republicans weren't demanding the end of Obamacare but Medicare or Social Security?

The great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 had a built in expiration date.

If Barry agrees to put a built in expiration date on Obamacare of 2019 that would certainly be a valid comparison.

The reason that the Bush tax cuts had a built in expiration date was because they need to have them in order to hold down the heavily increased deficits the government occurred. By contrast the great PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT was scored by the CBO as reducing the Federal deficit and extending the period before the Medicare trust fund goes empty.  Not only that, but with the Supreme Court ruling that States did not have to go along with the Medicaid expansion, and many GOP led States choosing to opt out that, reduced the cost to the government even more, at the expense of creating a donut hole that means some of the working poor most in need of assistance won't get as much of it.  While they'll be getting subsides because the law assumed they'd be under Medicaid,  they do at least benefit from the guaranteed issue and the generally lower individual insurance premiums.

So why do you want to increase the deficit by repealing Obamacare krazen?

Of course, CBO scores beyond a decade are of notorious unreliability, which is why Democrats' legislation like the disastrous Social Security Act of 1965 and the disastrous Food Stamp Act of 1964 continues to leech from the treasury and accumulate perpetual billions of dollars of deficits. Despite accumulating such deficits they were not subject to a 9 year expiration. A 9 year expiration would solve much of the US deficit problem.

Of course, merely subjecting Obamacare to a 9 year expiration is not demanding repeal. It is merely offering the same courtesy that the Congress of 2001 and President George W. Bush offered Barry. The democratically elected Congress of 2010 then had a choice to evaluate the great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 on the merits, and it did. The Congress of 2019 merely deserves the same courtesy.

Social Security, thankfully, has a self-limiting clause preventing it from adding to the deficit, and portions of that clause will come into play soon. Barry and Nancy didn't even bother to place such a clause in Obamacare. Wonder why.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I can't tell if half the posts in this thread are serious or not.

[Badger]

Ro

What would be the GOP's opinion if in 2007 the Democrats shut the government down until the Bush tax cuts were repealed?

Better yet, what if the Republicans weren't demanding the end of Obamacare but Medicare or Social Security?

The great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 had a built in expiration date.

If Barry agrees to put a built in expiration date on Obamacare of 2019 that would certainly be a valid comparison.

The reason that the Bush tax cuts had a built in expiration date was because they need to have them in order to hold down the heavily increased deficits the government occurred. By contrast the great PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT was scored by the CBO as reducing the Federal deficit and extending the period before the Medicare trust fund goes empty.  Not only that, but with the Supreme Court ruling that States did not have to go along with the Medicaid expansion, and many GOP led States choosing to opt out that, reduced the cost to the government even more, at the expense of creating a donut hole that means some of the working poor most in need of assistance won't get as much of it.  While they'll be getting subsides because the law assumed they'd be under Medicaid,  they do at least benefit from the guaranteed issue and the generally lower individual insurance premiums.

So why do you want to increase the deficit by repealing Obamacare krazen?

Of course, CBO scores beyond a decade are of notorious unreliability, which is why Democrats' legislation like the disastrous Social Security Act of 1965 and the disastrous Food Stamp Act of 1964 continues to leech from the treasury and accumulate perpetual billions of dollars of deficits. Despite accumulating such deficits they were not subject to a 9 year expiration. A 9 year expiration would solve much of the US deficit problem.

Of course, merely subjecting Obamacare to a 9 year expiration is not demanding repeal. It is merely offering the same courtesy that the Congress of 2001 and President George W. Bush offered Barry. The democratically elected Congress of 2010 then had a choice to evaluate the great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001l on the merits, and it did. The Congress of 2019 merely deserves the same courtesy.

Social Security, thankfully, has a self-limiting clause preventing it from adding to the deficit, and portions of that clause will come into play soon. Barry and Nancy didn't even bother to place such a clause in Obamacare. Wonder why.

So people would stop needing health insurance in 9 years? Or food assistance? Or disability payments? Obaamacare has definite issues in need of improvement, but none of them would be addressed with a 9 year sunset law.

Clumsy, clumsy ducking of the ACA's measured reduction of the deficit, old chap.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why my friend Badger do you keep responding to a certified troll like krazey?
Haven't you heard the proverb that "when you fight with a pig you both get dirty - but the pig likes it"?

[krazen1211]

Ro

What would be the GOP's opinion if in 2007 the Democrats shut the government down until the Bush tax cuts were repealed?

Better yet, what if the Republicans weren't demanding the end of Obamacare but Medicare or Social Security?

The great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 had a built in expiration date.

If Barry agrees to put a built in expiration date on Obamacare of 2019 that would certainly be a valid comparison.

The reason that the Bush tax cuts had a built in expiration date was because they need to have them in order to hold down the heavily increased deficits the government occurred. By contrast the great PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT was scored by the CBO as reducing the Federal deficit and extending the period before the Medicare trust fund goes empty.  Not only that, but with the Supreme Court ruling that States did not have to go along with the Medicaid expansion, and many GOP led States choosing to opt out that, reduced the cost to the government even more, at the expense of creating a donut hole that means some of the working poor most in need of assistance won't get as much of it.  While they'll be getting subsides because the law assumed they'd be under Medicaid,  they do at least benefit from the guaranteed issue and the generally lower individual insurance premiums.

So why do you want to increase the deficit by repealing Obamacare krazen?

Of course, CBO scores beyond a decade are of notorious unreliability, which is why Democrats' legislation like the disastrous Social Security Act of 1965 and the disastrous Food Stamp Act of 1964 continues to leech from the treasury and accumulate perpetual billions of dollars of deficits. Despite accumulating such deficits they were not subject to a 9 year expiration. A 9 year expiration would solve much of the US deficit problem.

Of course, merely subjecting Obamacare to a 9 year expiration is not demanding repeal. It is merely offering the same courtesy that the Congress of 2001 and President George W. Bush offered Barry. The democratically elected Congress of 2010 then had a choice to evaluate the great ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001l on the merits, and it did. The Congress of 2019 merely deserves the same courtesy.

Social Security, thankfully, has a self-limiting clause preventing it from adding to the deficit, and portions of that clause will come into play soon. Barry and Nancy didn't even bother to place such a clause in Obamacare. Wonder why.

So people would stop needing health insurance in 9 years? Or food assistance? Or disability payments? Obaamacare has definite issues in need of improvement, but none of them would be addressed with a 9 year sunset law.

Clumsy, clumsy ducking of the ACA's measured reduction of the deficit, old chap.

Congress would decide whether it is interesting in shelling out the people's precious taxpayer dollars for such programs, just as it does for the Childrens Health Insurance Program and all other national priorities. SCHIP is wisely structured as a program with capped funds, unlike the other disastrous health care government programs that ravage the treasury.

[Badger]

Congress did decide.

Your implicit desire to repeal Social Security Disability and food stamps does not bode well for your offering any rational inputt towards compromise on this issue. Nor does your your largely non sequiter of an answer.

[Badger]

Why my friend Badger do you keep responding to a certified troll like krazey?
Haven't you heard the proverb that "when you fight with a pig you both get dirty - but the pig likes it"?

In fairness to krazen, this isn't one of his attempts to simply troll for angry reactions.

[Link]

Does the left not realize that Americans dont want the ACA?

Really?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Does the left not realize that Americans dont want the ACA?

Really?

Yeah, but this third are the Real Americans, the hardworking makers. The other 2/3 are obviously communists, moochers, welfare queens and atheist muslim illegal gay aliens that want to take over the country, establish concentration and reeducation camps and continue their War on Whites.