Why do Republicans want to kill the Healthcare Exchanges

[Dante]

I have still not received a reasonable response

Healthcare Exchanges allow the uninsured to create a pool of insured to compete as a group rather than as an individual. This pooling of applicants allows them to demand better insurance rates.

Republicans once proposed this as the solution to our healthcare problems and now are shutting down government to block Americans from using them

Why do Republicans oppose Exchanges....Not Obamacare...but the exchanges?

I guess the wingnuts haven't heard any talking points they can reguritate on this point? You know it is against their ideological dogma to stray too far from the talking points for fear of being thrown under the proverbial bus with shouts of Rhino! - Traitor! - and worse in their minds 'liberal!'

You are no better than a common crook. You are a coward. You are lazy. You are worthless piece of bird shit. Get a frigging job looser.

Coming from a weirdo wingnut like you, Dante accepts this flame of a post and will cherish it as a badge of honor

 

[candycorn]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

The greatest fear of the GOP...people liking Obamacare. My assistant sure does like it. Instead of spending many thousands of dollars out of pocket in care for her special needs kid, she simply pays her insurance premium as she always has and the kid is good for another 7 years or so.

Having known her since before Obama was elected, I knew she was dreading when she/he turned 18 and would be turfed off the insurance. The ACA is saving her thousands of dollars per year--thousands I assume she doesn't have.

 

[ron4342]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

Its popular with the people? The entire ACA bill was passed against the will of the people, that's why the Democrat Congress that passed it got booted out of the house in historic numbers.

The Republicans still retained the house even with Obama getting re-elected.

And yet you claim you are concerned what the people want?

Ahhhhh..... But republicans lost seats in both the Senate and House. And as for people not wanting the Afordable Care Act, they could have easily had it repealed if they wanted it repealed. One of romney's stated goals was that he would repeal the ACA. romney lost in a landslide.

 

[RKMBrown]

i guess the wingnuts haven't heard any talking points they can reguritate on this point? You know it is against their ideological dogma to stray too far from the talking points for fear of being thrown under the proverbial bus with shouts of rhino! - traitor! - and worse in their minds 'liberal!'

you are no better than a common crook. You are a coward. You are lazy. You are worthless piece of bird shit. Get a frigging job looser.

coming from a weirdo wingnut like you, dante accepts this flame of a post and will cherish it as a badge of honor

yw.

 

[emilynghiem]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

Why not let Supporting Party members and leaders pay for it?
For just their members?

(and let Opposing Party members and leaders pay for their own
systems for just their members?)

Is that too simple?

If the Baptist church members pay for their own policies, programs and institutions
while the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists pay for theirs,

Why not with POLITICAL PARTIES?
Can't they manage their own MEMBER BENEFITS ANY WAY THEY LIKE!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

Why not let Supporting Party members and leaders pay for it?
For just their members?

(and let Opposing Party members and leaders pay for their own
systems for just their members?)

Is that too simple?

If the Baptist church members pay for their own policies, programs and institutions
while the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists pay for theirs,

Why not with POLITICAL PARTIES?
Can't they manage their own MEMBER BENEFITS ANY WAY THEY LIKE!!!!

Kind of like war....if you don't support a war, you should not have to pay for it

Same goes for anything else we pay taxes on....schools, police, fire, roads
You don't like it....withhold taxes

 

[BlindBoo]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

Why not let Supporting Party members and leaders pay for it?
For just their members?

(and let Opposing Party members and leaders pay for their own
systems for just their members?)

Is that too simple?

If the Baptist church members pay for their own policies, programs and institutions
while the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists pay for theirs,

Why not with POLITICAL PARTIES?
Can't they manage their own MEMBER BENEFITS ANY WAY THEY LIKE!!!!

Because the Constitution wasn't written that way.

 

[kaz]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

I got my quote for next year. My health insurance (wife, two dauthers and me) is going from $410 a month this year to $1,066 a month next year. I hope two things.

1) Obama rots in hell

2) John Roberts is his roommate

 

[kaz]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

Why not let Supporting Party members and leaders pay for it?
For just their members?

(and let Opposing Party members and leaders pay for their own
systems for just their members?)

Is that too simple?

If the Baptist church members pay for their own policies, programs and institutions
while the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists pay for theirs,

Why not with POLITICAL PARTIES?
Can't they manage their own MEMBER BENEFITS ANY WAY THEY LIKE!!!!

Because the Constitution wasn't written that way.

The Constitution also didn't give the Federal Government the power to regulate private transactions like health care between individuals and businesses either, but that one doesn't phase you. Why does it suddenly matter?

 

[Yurt]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

they are not popular...CNN's recent poll showed most americans oppose obamacare

 

[thereisnospoon]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

Stop it...
The ACA law is a nightmare. 900 pages of even Congress doesn't know what.
Premiums for those not going to the exchanges or are ineligible for the exchanges will skyrocket.
And of course this is intended. The goal of Obamacare is to get as many people groveling to the government as possible.
This is not about the uninsured. This is not about medical care. It's POLITICS..
The ACA is designed to create dependency on government.
Popular? With whom? Non one has Obamacare yet. How on earth could it be popular?
Let's face the truth. The people who want this are bleeding heart low information libs and those who will receive subsidies.
For example..A family of 4 just under the Threshold for 400% of poverty will receive a subsidy of over $12,000 which will have them paying LESS than 25% of their bill.
Guess what? That means this guy's next door neighbor who makes just a little over the threshold will be paying ALL of his bill and helping top pay his next door neighbor's bill.
How the SCOTUS overlooked this unequal protection under the law is a mystery.
Anyway, this battle is far from over.
You wanted to know why this needs to be killed? If someone who performed a service at your house demanded you write them a blank check, would you?

 

[Seawytch]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

they are not popular...CNN's recent poll showed most americans oppose obamacare

Misrepresentation of the poll. 38% support and 57% oppose, but of those that oppose the law, 11% don't think it is liberal enough. Most DO NOT support repeal nor do a majority support a shutdown.

 

[rightwinger]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

The greatest fear of the GOP...people liking Obamacare. My assistant sure does like it. Instead of spending many thousands of dollars out of pocket in care for her special needs kid, she simply pays her insurance premium as she always has and the kid is good for another 7 years or so.

Having known her since before Obama was elected, I knew she was dreading when she/he turned 18 and would be turfed off the insurance. The ACA is saving her thousands of dollars per year--thousands I assume she doesn't have.

As can be seen from this thread, Republicans have no reason to object to healthcare exchanges. They just make sense

They fear that the public will sign up next month and figure out that they like the exchanges and get good value

At that point, the Republucans FEAR OBAMACARE campaign disappears

 

[emilynghiem]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

"Why do Republicans want to kill the Healthcare Exchanges?" - Because if and when they are set up they will succeed...succeed in enslaving a free people by keeping them happy and healthy and goddamnit, we are Americans and we can't have that kind of German and Swiss socialism succeeding here in America!

Dear Dante: You miss the point.
What I find among my fellow Democrats and liberal progressives, where I stand out as one of the exceptions who actually puts the Constitution before party politics of either bias,
is the FAILURE to distinguish "government authority" between "state level" and "federal level."

There is a big difference Constitutionally between mandating policies
statewide vs. through federal govt and taxation.

Even the "best idea in the world" such as "mandating Christianity where everyone goes through spiritual healing to get rid of cancer, crime, addiction and other sickness"
HAS TO BE CHOSEN BY FREE WILL AND CANNOT BE MANDATED BY FEDERAL GOVT.

We would drastically cut costs of disease and crime, and thus health care for ALL,
if "everyone magically decided to participate in FREE spiritual healing"

DANTE: would you REALLY impose that on people without free choice?
No, because (1) it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND (2) it doesn't work without free choice.

So GIVEN FREE CHOICE
YES we can reform health care

but not by pushing it down people's throats who want to pursue it in other ways

same with Christianity and religion
if you are so for religious freedom under the Constitution
why can you respect political freedom to the same degree?

Laws as social contracts must be based on 'consent of the governed'
to be legally binding. Otherwise "taxation without representation is tyranny."

-- From a fellow liberal progressive, and a pro-choice Democrat who
believes that religious freedom should be "all inclusive" of political views

 

[rightwinger]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

they are not popular...CNN's recent poll showed most americans oppose obamacare

Did the poll ask if they oppose Healthcare exchanges?

I think you would see different results

 

[bucs90]

If the exchange is meant to allow people better access to purchase their own healthcare (you know, be self reliant), I don't know why the GOP is trying to prevent it?

 

[BlindBoo]

Why not let Supporting Party members and leaders pay for it?
For just their members?

(and let Opposing Party members and leaders pay for their own
systems for just their members?)

Is that too simple?

If the Baptist church members pay for their own policies, programs and institutions
while the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists pay for theirs,

Why not with POLITICAL PARTIES?
Can't they manage their own MEMBER BENEFITS ANY WAY THEY LIKE!!!!

Because the Constitution wasn't written that way.

The Constitution also didn't give the Federal Government the power to regulate private transactions like health care between individuals and businesses either, but that one doesn't phase you. Why does it suddenly matter?

But yours, or mine for that matter, on the Constitutionality of that law doesn't change the fact that that is the minority opinion.

We the People....., not we the Catholics......or We the Buddhists.......

 

[emilynghiem]

They will help people who need insurace, they are popular with the people....why are Republicans so intent on blocking peoples access to exchanges?

The greatest fear of the GOP...people liking Obamacare. My assistant sure does like it. Instead of spending many thousands of dollars out of pocket in care for her special needs kid, she simply pays her insurance premium as she always has and the kid is good for another 7 years or so.

Having known her since before Obama was elected, I knew she was dreading when she/he turned 18 and would be turfed off the insurance. The ACA is saving her thousands of dollars per year--thousands I assume she doesn't have.

As can be seen from this thread, Republicans have no reason to object to healthcare exchanges. They just make sense

They fear that the public will sign up next month and figure out that they like the exchanges and get good value

At that point, the Republicans FEAR OBAMACARE campaign disappears

RW if they make such good sense then why are all the people supporting it either
A. exempting themselves and going with better options at taxpayer expense
B. depending on "other people" to pay for it, including opponents

Why can't they be run by voluntary compliance and participation?
If they work so well?

Even Obama's cousin who is a doctor in DC pointed out that reform needs to focus
on developing SERVICE PROVIDERS. Insurance companies don't provide any health care.

Why not reward taxpayers and business groups for investing directly into
medical education programs, teaching hospitals and internships to cut costs
of both health care and education at the same time?

What? Are liberal Democrats AFRAID of people becoming self-governing
and financially independent? Where they won't need to depend on govt officials
to scare them into voting for them? Why not invest the billions in campaign
funds DIRECTLY into solutions? or is that TOO SCARY for politicians?

 

[emilynghiem]

Why not let Supporting Party members and leaders pay for it?
For just their members?

(and let Opposing Party members and leaders pay for their own
systems for just their members?)

Is that too simple?

If the Baptist church members pay for their own policies, programs and institutions
while the Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists pay for theirs,

Why not with POLITICAL PARTIES?
Can't they manage their own MEMBER BENEFITS ANY WAY THEY LIKE!!!!

Because the Constitution wasn't written that way.

The Constitution also didn't give the Federal Government the power to regulate private transactions like health care between individuals and businesses either, but that one doesn't phase you. Why does it suddenly matter?

Hi KAZ: Yes I DO believe Federal Govt should be reined back in and only
govern the Constitutional capacities that ALL PARTIES agree it governs.

And shift the rest back to States, People and Parties if necessary to
get it out of government bureaucracy and conflict. Yes, I do believe that
same policy should apply to ALL AREAS of conflict where it is not
AGREED that federal govt has Constitutional authority.

I believe most would shift to the Parties first, and use those ranks of representation
and democratic process to sort out the federal, state and local levels of policies.

I also believe states might benefit from having a third level of laws besides
only criminal and civil, and have health and safety ordinances similar to OSHA,
in order to make and enforce policies LOCALLY.

In order to convert the given mish-mash of Constitutional with Unconstitutional
policies into agreed law and order, I would recommend setting up an official
"third house" of Congress where issues are represented by PARTY affiliation.
Any issues that can be resolved through this body of all groups collaborating
to write out policies by CONSENSUS would then be
recommended as positions or points to REFER to the real Congress to craft and pass laws.
But conflicts like prochoice or prolife, gay marriage, etc that can't be resolved because of people's beliefs
would either kick back to states or to parties to work out privately and keep OUT OF GOVT.
That's a big sign that religious differences are involved over which Govt has no mandates.
Only the PEOPLE can consent to give Govt authority over religious matters, as
we do with marriage, death penalty, etc. So you are right that there has been
major inconsistency in the past; so people who didn't complain about marriage
being religious before are suddenly complaining etc. That still doesn't make it right,
it just shows that it was crossing the line between church and state all this time but wasn't questioned until now.
If people consent, you can justify anything as Constitutional if you want.
But if people don't consent, that is in violation of social contracts to pass or impose any law without the consent of the governed.
People are just now figuring this out, but it's been the underlying problem the whole time.
They just don't complain until their consent is violated, but it has been going on much longer! You're right, and it is wrong!

 

[emilynghiem]

If the exchange is meant to allow people better access to purchase their own healthcare (you know, be self reliant), I don't know why the GOP is trying to prevent it?

See other replies.

Same reason why prochoice advocates want to CHOOSE whether or not to have an abortion and don't want govt punishing them for wanting free choice.

And why nontheists want to CHOOSE whether to believe or use expressions involving a "personified God" and not be discriminated against or punished for wanting free choice

There's something inherent in human nature where we want laws, government,
social contracts, and taxation to REPRESENT what we freely CHOOSE
and not have to pay for things we disagree with.

If these exchanges and mandates were so great, then people would fund them voluntarily.
And politicians, union lobbies, and corporate interests wouldn't be exempting themselves.

If over half the nation dissents, then something is wrong with how the bill was written.
If the Parties/Supporters really believe it is well-written, why not have them pay for it?

Clearly there are better ways.
Why not let singlepayer advocates fund that. And let people who want to invest in charity hospitals and vet campuses pay for that, etc. If people believe in better ideas, why not reward taxpayers for funding and developing the best solutions? And offer those options?