Should the gop be willing to shut down nonessential govt functions to stop obamacare?

Should the GOP stand their ground and defund O'care despite any possible ramification


  • Total voters
    64
"Repeal ObamaCare...AND THEN WHAT?!?!?"

Repeal all laws that tie healthcare insurance to one's employer. That's a ridiculous idea.

Repeal all laws that force healthcare insurance providers to cover certain things that many of their customer do not need or want, which will allow for cheap 'bare bones' policies that all those young/poor people can't currently afford.

Wind down the overreaching power of the FDA and other federal agencies that make participating in the healthcare industry an incredibly expensive undertaking that only large corporations can compete in.

Create a tax-free incentive for people to own a healthcare savings account, so when medical services are needed, people will actually care about the price they're being charged.

That's a start.
 
I have listed several ideas that answer "and then what?" many times myself.

The point is...the GOP does not. The GOP is dead in the water. The GOP is weighed down by retards, psychos, liars, and hypocrites.

And most particularly by cowards. Cowards who only know how to attack the other guy's ideas but are too afraid to put their own out there and fight for them.

So they do the stupidest, most cowardly fucking thing of all: Threaten a shutdown.
 
If the Republicans don't like the law they should change it, but until they change it, it is the law of the land, and they like the rest of us should obey the law. Wasn't too long ago that the Republican party advocated a policy of law and order, but now they don't like the law so the new GOP policy is, don't obey the law. They are indeed a shifty bunch.
I remember a story about the shifty bunch. Seems Teddy Roosevelt wanted to sent the Great White Fleet around the world and other Republicans did not so they would not appropriate the oil money. Teddy sent the fleet anyway since they had enough fuel to get half way. TR said let the Congress get em back.
 
The GOP needs to get their heads out of their asses and stop acting like a bunch of 3 years throwing a pissy fit because they didn't get their way (even though the individual mandate was a republican plan to begin with)

The affordable care act is the law of the land, deal with it.

So was slavery at some point....
 
Should the gop be willing to shut down nonessential govt functions to stop obamacare?

False choice. Congress is capable of fully funding government except for Obamacare. No shut down would be necessary. Of course, the Senate will likely add Obamacare funding back in and send it back to the House. Nothing says the House can't remove Obamacare funding again and sent it right back.

Point is, no govt functions need stop to de-fund Obamacare. It would be on Reid and the Dem controlled Senate if they refused to vote for a funding bill that kept the government going ex Obamacare. Why the establishment RINOs think they'd be blamed is beyond me. As you say, they have no backbone!

Because that's where the public will place the blame.
 
It may not always be a conscioius thought, but here is what is in the backs of the minds of Americans which is causing the GOP to catostrophically fuck up and not even realize it:

"Repeal ObamaCare...AND THEN WHAT?!?!?"

What is it with you big government fools? We can repeal this clusterfuck and make minor tweeks to the system we already had THAT WORKED like tort reform and cross state sales. Why do we need to replace a disasterous bill with another economy killing monstrosity?

The existing system didn't work, hence the strong support for reform and your proposals would either do nothing to help (tort reform) or actually make the problem worse (cross state sales).
 
It may not always be a conscioius thought, but here is what is in the backs of the minds of Americans which is causing the GOP to catostrophically fuck up and not even realize it:

"Repeal ObamaCare...AND THEN WHAT?!?!?"

What is it with you big government fools? We can repeal this clusterfuck and make minor tweeks to the system we already had THAT WORKED like tort reform and cross state sales. Why do we need to replace a disasterous bill with another economy killing monstrosity?

The existing system didn't work, hence the strong support for reform and your proposals would either do nothing to help (tort reform) or actually make the problem worse (cross state sales).

Care to elaborate as to why tort reform and cross state sales would make things worse?

This oughtta be good...
 
Go look at the voting record for the patriot act renewals. Only about 1/3 of the democrats supported it, but virtually all of the GOP and "pro constitution!" teabaggers voted for it.

If it wasn't for the america hating right wingers, the patriot act never would have been created in the first place, let alone would have been done with years ago.

Obama signed it, dipshit. He could have vetoed it, but he signed the extension. So now I guess you hate obama as much as you hate Bush for the patriot act-------if not, then you are a disengenuous liar and have no right posting with adults who can actually think for themselves.

Terrible deflection. If there was no W and GOP, there would be no patriot act. If there was no GOP voting almost unanimously for it, it would have been killed in congress on it's renewals.

The GOP owns this monstrosity, and continue to support it, showing off once again how much they hate freedom and the constitution.

are you crazy? obama and his dems could have repealed it in 09 or 10 when they had complete control. Your ignorance of that fact is either the result of abject stupidity or a form of obama love that borders on islamic religious ferver.

you also ignore the fact that many dems voted for it originally when it was passed under Bush.

you are the worst kind of obamabot, one that is so blinded by the "first black president" that you are unable to see that which is right in front of your eyes.
 
What is it with you big government fools? We can repeal this clusterfuck and make minor tweeks to the system we already had THAT WORKED like tort reform and cross state sales. Why do we need to replace a disasterous bill with another economy killing monstrosity?

The existing system didn't work, hence the strong support for reform and your proposals would either do nothing to help (tort reform) or actually make the problem worse (cross state sales).

Care to elaborate as to why tort reform and cross state sales would make things worse?

This oughtta be good...

Tort reform hasn't had an impact in the jurisdictions where it has been enacted. As for sales across state lines, what makes you think that would improve the system? It's a great system if you love dealing with credit card companies, but not otherwise.
 
Yes or no and what do you believe the ramifications would be? And I don't mean lost elections. Individual political seats are not more important than the health (not medical) of our nation as a whole.
The dems screamed the sky was falling when the thought of sequester wasmentioned. Reality showed different.

Im sick of the gop being forced to "go along" just to keep the gun away from their heads. This is a bipartisan mess overall and im sick of the dems getting a free pass. If the govt shuts down it will be because BOTH sides refused to compromise. BOTH

Congress is there to fulfill the will of the people not FUCKING KING OBAMA.

I say fuck these stupid games and play hardball. Sadly I don't think Boehner has the spine required to do what's right.

They should have been shut down already.

decades ago

actually, if it's not needed, the Fed shouldn't have it.
 
The existing system didn't work, hence the strong support for reform and your proposals would either do nothing to help (tort reform) or actually make the problem worse (cross state sales).

Care to elaborate as to why tort reform and cross state sales would make things worse?

This oughtta be good...

Tort reform hasn't had an impact in the jurisdictions where it has been enacted. As for sales across state lines, what makes you think that would improve the system? It's a great system if you love dealing with credit card companies, but not otherwise.

untrue, where states have passed tort reform on malpractice suits premiums have gone down.

allowing interstate competition will increase competition--------what happens when there is more competition? prices go down. its called supply and demand--and it works.
 
Care to elaborate as to why tort reform and cross state sales would make things worse?

This oughtta be good...

Tort reform hasn't had an impact in the jurisdictions where it has been enacted. As for sales across state lines, what makes you think that would improve the system? It's a great system if you love dealing with credit card companies, but not otherwise.

untrue, where states have passed tort reform on malpractice suits premiums have gone down.

allowing interstate competition will increase competition--------what happens when there is more competition? prices go down. its called supply and demand--and it works.

Tort reform was never sold on decreasing malpractice premiums as an end. That was part of the argument of why tort reform would reduce costs, which hasn't happened.

Interstate competition under the pre-ACA status quo would cost prices to go down... but mostly because of a greatly reduced quality of product. Insurance companies would just jurisdiction shop for whichever state gave them the best sweetheart deal.
 
Tort reform hasn't had an impact in the jurisdictions where it has been enacted. As for sales across state lines, what makes you think that would improve the system? It's a great system if you love dealing with credit card companies, but not otherwise.

untrue, where states have passed tort reform on malpractice suits premiums have gone down.

allowing interstate competition will increase competition--------what happens when there is more competition? prices go down. its called supply and demand--and it works.

Tort reform was never sold on decreasing malpractice premiums as an end. That was part of the argument of why tort reform would reduce costs, which hasn't happened.

Interstate competition under the pre-ACA status quo would cost prices to go down... but mostly because of a greatly reduced quality of product. Insurance companies would just jurisdiction shop for whichever state gave them the best sweetheart deal.

Damn, you libs are thick headed. it was not targeted to decrease malpractice premiums (although it did), it was to decrease medical costs and medical insurance premiums, and it did.

you obviously failed econ 101. when there is competition people buy the best product at the lowest price, a shoddy product does not sell at even the lowest price.

I do not understand why you libs think that the govt can manage your health better than you and your doctor--------because, rest assured, you and your doctor will be out of the equation under full blown obamacare. your healthcare will be administered by someone at a phone bank in Bangladesh.
 
untrue, where states have passed tort reform on malpractice suits premiums have gone down.

allowing interstate competition will increase competition--------what happens when there is more competition? prices go down. its called supply and demand--and it works.

Tort reform was never sold on decreasing malpractice premiums as an end. That was part of the argument of why tort reform would reduce costs, which hasn't happened.

Interstate competition under the pre-ACA status quo would cost prices to go down... but mostly because of a greatly reduced quality of product. Insurance companies would just jurisdiction shop for whichever state gave them the best sweetheart deal.

Damn, you libs are thick headed. it was not targeted to decrease malpractice premiums (although it did), it was to decrease medical costs and medical insurance premiums, and it did.

you obviously failed econ 101. when there is competition people buy the best product at the lowest price, a shoddy product does not sell at even the lowest price.

I do not understand why you libs think that the govt can manage your health better than you and your doctor--------because, rest assured, you and your doctor will be out of the equation under full blown obamacare. your healthcare will be administered by someone at a phone bank in Bangladesh.

It did not decrease medical costs.

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

New study: Tort reform has not reduced health care costs in Texas | www.statesman.com

As for interstate sales, you're making the assumption that there are a variety of products in the market. Insurers offer the most minimal amount of coverage they can under state law. Our health care is managed by a third party today: insurers.
 
The existing system didn't work, hence the strong support for reform and your proposals would either do nothing to help (tort reform) or actually make the problem worse (cross state sales).

Care to elaborate as to why tort reform and cross state sales would make things worse?

This oughtta be good...

Tort reform hasn't had an impact in the jurisdictions where it has been enacted. As for sales across state lines, what makes you think that would improve the system? It's a great system if you love dealing with credit card companies, but not otherwise.

Well, I don't think anyone is claiming that tort reform alone will fix things.. but I can't imagine why increasing competition wouldn't help.

I will tell you this, a new, bloated government program certainly isn't the answer. Never has been.
 
Tort reform was never sold on decreasing malpractice premiums as an end. That was part of the argument of why tort reform would reduce costs, which hasn't happened.

Interstate competition under the pre-ACA status quo would cost prices to go down... but mostly because of a greatly reduced quality of product. Insurance companies would just jurisdiction shop for whichever state gave them the best sweetheart deal.

Damn, you libs are thick headed. it was not targeted to decrease malpractice premiums (although it did), it was to decrease medical costs and medical insurance premiums, and it did.

you obviously failed econ 101. when there is competition people buy the best product at the lowest price, a shoddy product does not sell at even the lowest price.

I do not understand why you libs think that the govt can manage your health better than you and your doctor--------because, rest assured, you and your doctor will be out of the equation under full blown obamacare. your healthcare will be administered by someone at a phone bank in Bangladesh.

It did not decrease medical costs.

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

New study: Tort reform has not reduced health care costs in Texas | www.statesman.com

As for interstate sales, you're making the assumption that there are a variety of products in the market. Insurers offer the most minimal amount of coverage they can under state law. Our health care is managed by a third party today: insurers.

And it is about to be managed by government bureaucrats...
 
Care to elaborate as to why tort reform and cross state sales would make things worse?

This oughtta be good...

Tort reform hasn't had an impact in the jurisdictions where it has been enacted. As for sales across state lines, what makes you think that would improve the system? It's a great system if you love dealing with credit card companies, but not otherwise.

Well, I don't think anyone is claiming that tort reform alone will fix things.. but I can't imagine why increasing competition wouldn't help.

I will tell you this, a new, bloated government program certainly isn't the answer. Never has been.

Because there won't be any competition. It would just be a flight to the jurisdiction with the lowest standards.
 
Tort reform hasn't had an impact in the jurisdictions where it has been enacted. As for sales across state lines, what makes you think that would improve the system? It's a great system if you love dealing with credit card companies, but not otherwise.

untrue, where states have passed tort reform on malpractice suits premiums have gone down.

allowing interstate competition will increase competition--------what happens when there is more competition? prices go down. its called supply and demand--and it works.

Tort reform was never sold on decreasing malpractice premiums as an end. That was part of the argument of why tort reform would reduce costs, which hasn't happened.

Interstate competition under the pre-ACA status quo would cost prices to go down... but mostly because of a greatly reduced quality of product. Insurance companies would just jurisdiction shop for whichever state gave them the best sweetheart deal.

Interstate competition is a Red Herring. The Companies who don't operate in certain States usually don't operate there because they don't want to.

Besides, Insurance Rates are "Area Rated".

If you live in New Yawk Shitty and are paying $5k a year for your auto insurance and your brother tells you that he's only paying 2$k a year in Albany New York where he lives.... So you jump in your car and drive to Albany and guess what? Same car, same driving record, same age and marital status...

The second they type your Zip Code into the Company Computer, the rates change to what you were paying ($5k).

It doesn't matter where you BUY the Insurance, it matters where you live, where you're domiciled and where you work.

Insurance is complicated.

And I'm not being condescending here, but trust me when I tell you..... It's too complicated....

No, not too 'complicated' it's too (what's the word I need) , it's too proprietary, too inbred, too unique, too convoluted, too --

Complicated, frankly, for the individual who hasn't spent YEARS in the Industry.

After twenty-five years in the business, I still got lost every now and then on some of the more sophisticated products.

And Health Insurance isn't all that 'sophisticated' it just changes every other week. Although I was licensed to sell it, I didn't mess with it, not worth my time.

We NEED something like obamacare, but NOT obamacare.

For one thing.... Ahh, nevermind. It's too complicated :dunno:

Oh, Tort Reform.

Tort Reform works.

It's just that dimocraps aren't nearly bright enough to understand how it works.

Very, very, very seldom will you EVER see a premium DECREASE from an Insurance Company. It's not how they role. They just don't hardly ever do it. Hardly ever. Unless the gubmint makes them. Even then..... It just very, very rarely happens

But what you do see, is a lack of big increases in Premiums where Tort Reform has been introduced.

Instead of that 10% Increase in premiums you were gonna get....? You might only get a 2% or 3% or 4% increase. Over a period of five, ten, fifteen years, that's a helluva difference.

Like I said, Insurance is complicated and.....

Nevermind
 
Last edited:
Increased local cost of services can increase premiums, but it doesn't change the fact that insurers would flock to the less restrictive jurisdictions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top