Stuff Republicans say.

[sun rise]

There are other places where ideology trumps sanity - communist countries like North Korea, for example. Today's Republican party has by and large become yet another example of so trapped in their own version of political correctness that they will very likely reward Democrats and blue states while punishing themselves:

Republicans want to generously subsidize Obamacare in blue states

The Wall Street Journal reports that "Congressional Republicans say they won't move to preserve consumers' health insurance tax credits if the Supreme Court strikes them down."


Another way of saying this: Congressional Republicans say they will spend billions of dollars generously subsidizing blue states if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell.


Or yet another way of saying this: the GOP's plan to stop Obamacare has slowly become a plan to rip themselves off. It would end not with Obamacare's repeal, but with a terrible financial deal for red states.
...
Rejecting the Medicaid expansion, however, doesn't exempt a state from the taxes and spending cuts Obamacare uses to fund the Medicaid expansion. A September analysis from McClatchy estimated that "if the 23 states that have rejected expanding Medicaid under the 2010 health care law continue to do so for the next eight years, they’ll pay $152 billion to extend the program in other states — while receiving nothing in return." That's a helluva gift from (mostly) red states to (mostly) blue ones.

Now the Supreme Court will take up King v. Burwell, in which the plaintiffs argue that the text of the Affordable Care Act makes it illegal for subsidies to flow through federally-run exchanges. If they're successful, then it will be possible for a state that opposes to Obamacare to withdraw from both the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies — that is to say, from pretty much all of Obamacare's benefits. But they will still pay all of its costs. They will still pay the law's taxes and their residents will still feel the law's Medicare cuts. Obamacare will become a pure subsidy from the states that hate the law most to the states that have embraced it. It's like a fiscal version of reverse psychology.

 

[esmith]

There are other places where ideology trumps sanity - communist countries like North Korea, for example. Today's Republican party has by and large become yet another example of so trapped in their own version of political correctness that they will very likely reward Democrats and blue states while punishing themselves:

Republicans want to generously subsidize Obamacare in blue states

I think if you read this it says that Congress will not do anything about the current law suite (subsidies only for State run exchanges) if the SCOTUS rules that only state run exchanges are eligible for subsidies. You seem to think that only "blue" states established state run exchanges; your assumption is wrong. If SCOTUS does rule this way it will open up the ACA to modification and Republicans control congress thus they have the say on what changes are to be made to the ACA. Who knows, maybe they will come up with something more workable than the ACA. Only time will tell.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If SCOTUS does rule this way it will open up the ACA to modification and Republicans control congress thus they have the say on what changes are to be made to the ACA. Who knows, maybe they will come up with something more workable than the ACA. Only time will tell.

They won't do what has to be done. The Democrats probably won't either, but the Republicans are further aligned with Big Business, and what needs to be done to fix our health care system is the politicians must leave their friends in the private insurance, pharmaceutical, and other for-profit organizations out of the discussion, or at the very minimum severely restrict their influence.

 

[metis]

For the Republicans to even attempt to help make the ACA more efficient is simply not going to happen because it would badly split the party.

 

[esmith]

They won't do what has to be done. The Democrats probably won't either, but the Republicans are further aligned with Big Business, and what needs to be done to fix our health care system is the politicians must leave their friends in the private insurance, pharmaceutical, and other for-profit organizations out of the discussion, or at the very minimum severely restrict their influence.

And you don't think that the Dems are not aligned with big business. What fantasy world do you live in? What party was in control of Congress in 2008? If you have a problem with remembering 2008 was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Yes a Republican was President but the Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress. I point you to the following article on Big Business Support Obama. Now take a look at the Democrats anointed Presidential candidate for 2016, Hillary Clinton, and tell me she isn't in bed with Wall Street. Need facts? Try this source Hillary and Wall Street
So as you can see both parties go where the money is. It is disingenuous to think that only Republicans are aligned with big business.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And you don't think that the Dems are not aligned with big business. What fantasy world do you live in?

You really don't pay attention, do you?

 

[esmith]

You really don't pay attention, do you?

Depends on the source.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Depends on the source.

I'm not referring to any source than myself. I've stated numerous times I have zero faith in, what I have dubbed the "R-tards" and "D-bags," to get anything done but you state that I don't think Dems are aligned with big business. I'm too much of a Marxist to think they aren't.

 

[esmith]

I'm not referring to any source than myself. I've stated numerous times I have zero faith in, what I have dubbed the "R-tards" and "D-bags," to get anything done but you state that I don't think Dems are aligned with big business. I'm too much of a Marxist to think they aren't.

One of these days I will attempt to remember the political leanings of various members on this forum. But after digging deeply into my "Senior Moments" , along with your reinforcement I do remember your political affiliations. I sometimes have a tendency to jump first and think last.

 

[sun rise]

I think if you read this it says that Congress will not do anything about the current law suite (subsidies only for State run exchanges) if the SCOTUS rules that only state run exchanges are eligible for subsidies. You seem to think that only "blue" states established state run exchanges; your assumption is wrong. If SCOTUS does rule this way it will open up the ACA to modification and Republicans control congress thus they have the say on what changes are to be made to the ACA. Who knows, maybe they will come up with something more workable than the ACA. Only time will tell.

I doubt it given how reflexive anti-Obama the Republican party is. He proposed national Romenycare and all I heard was 'no' and that's all I hear now (albeit it's muted).

Personally the Swiss system seems pretty good to me - it gives everyone basic health care and preserves choice. But the odds that either party would seriously look at reasonable alternatives to Obama/Romney care is close to zero.

I do think the Democrats would be open to such a discussion except that the Republican party is not really interested in that kind of discussion unless it benefits the very wealthy and big business.

 

[esmith]

I doubt it given how reflexive anti-Obama the Republican party is. He proposed national Romenycare and all I heard was 'no' and that's all I hear now (albeit it's muted).

Personally the Swiss system seems pretty good to me - it gives everyone basic health care and preserves choice. But the odds that either party would seriously look at reasonable alternatives to Obama/Romney care is close to zero.

I do think the Democrats would be open to such a discussion except that the Republican party is not really interested in that kind of discussion unless it benefits the very wealthy and big business.

So you really think that Democrats would be in favor of overhauling the ACA even if Obama threatened a veto. Take a look at the Keystone pipeline discussion and give a valid reason why Obama has threatened to veto it even though there was bipartisan support for it (62-36). This says that anything Obama objects to numerous Democrats will support him.

 

[metis]

Obama has gone on record stating that if both parties are willing to work out some of the snags that he's all for trying to do something together. However, the Republicans certainly are not really interested as this could seriously split the party.

 

[sun rise]

So you really think that Democrats would be in favor of overhauling the ACA even if Obama threatened a veto. Take a look at the Keystone pipeline discussion and give a valid reason why Obama has threatened to veto it even though there was bipartisan support for it (62-36). This says that anything Obama objects to numerous Democrats will support him.

I don't think he would veto a reasonable proposal that made it possible for more people to have health insurance, had at least as good provisions for cost control and so forth. If the Republicans in the house had done something other than repeating NO endless times who knows.

 

[sun rise]

Meanwhile back at looney bin, we have Rand Paul. It's hard for me to know if he really believes this bilge or is pandering to a certain set of voters but I don't care at all. The Republican primary is shaping up as a contest between the lunatic fringe and those owned by big business. There's probably not going to be any choice on the Democratic side but Hillary is 1000% better than any Republican alternative while being far from who I'd like to see.

Rand Paul: Vaccines can lead to ‘mental disorders’

 

[sun rise]

And another one - Jindal pandering to bigots. A few years ago I took a serious look at the Republican party because I don't like some aspects of the current Democratic party. The Republican party ensured that I stopped looking and started getting politically ill at what they're doing.

I don't like big bureaucracies in general although they're sometimes necessary. But nothing that the national Republican party has to say makes them at all attractive to me. Rather listening to what they say is like stepping in dog poop.

Bobby Jindal’s Anti-Muslim Jihad

Unfortunately on Tuesday, Jindal proved me right—and I can assure you I would’ve preferred to be wrong. Jindal went on the Family Research Council’s (FRC) radio program, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified as an extremist group for its vile anti-gay comments, to pander to its ultra right wing members. Apparently Jindal’s in the midst of touring the “Christian” right wing groups, because on Saturday he had given the keynote address to the equally hateful American Family Association.

While on the FRC’s radio show, Jindal repeated the baseless claim he first articulated a week earlierthat Muslims have set up “no-go zones” in Europe where non-Muslims are essentially barred from entering and Islamic law rules. How ludicrous is this claim? Well, Fox News apologized last week, not once but four times for making the same assertion and acknowledgedit was not true. Even the person who coined the concept of “no-go zones,” the well known anti-Muslim activist Daniel Pipes, admitted recently that no such Muslim only enclaves existed in Europe.

Anywhere Jindal shows up is quickly becoming a “no-truth zone.” But Jindal didn’t stop with simply talking about these dastardly Muslims in Europe. He added that “if we’re not careful, the same no-go zones you’re seeing now in Europe will come to America.”

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Meanwhile back at looney bin, we have Rand Paul. It's hard for me to know if he really believes this bilge or is pandering to a certain set of voters but I don't care at all. The Republican primary is shaping up as a contest between the lunatic fringe and those owned by big business. There's probably not going to be any choice on the Democratic side but Hillary is 1000% better than any Republican alternative while being far from who I'd like to see.

Rand Paul: Vaccines can lead to ‘mental disorders’

American anti-intellectualism strikes again! Someone really needs to remind Paul Jr. he studied eyes, not psychiatry. Hopefully no one is buying his mountain of bullcrap with vaccines causing mental disorders and over half of all people on disabilities having anxiety or back pains, but unfortunately, I know they are.

 

[sun rise]

I can't wait for a Muslim organization to require women to wear a niqab or to require employees to bow to Mecca 5 times a day. I just wonder how many who are voting for this start singing another tune. If someone is going to be in favor of this, they need to suck it up and be in favor when EVERY religion takes advantage of the law.

Ind. Senate poised to allow hiring based on religion

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can't wait for a Muslim organization to require women to wear a niqab or to require employees to bow to Mecca 5 times a day. I just wonder how many who are voting for this start singing another tune. If someone is going to be in favor of this, they need to suck it up and be in favor when EVERY religion takes advantage of the law.

Ind. Senate poised to allow hiring based on religion

Also in Indiana, and in that article:
Senate Minority Leader Tim Lanane, a Democrat from Anderson, Ind., tried Monday to add language to the bill that would have prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it was shot down 36-6.
That measure would have allowed any school, college, or religious institution affiliated with a church to make employment decisions based on religion, even if those organizations have a contract with the state.
Last year's measure came as Arizona lawmakers approved a measure that would allow businesses with strongly held religious beliefs to deny service to gays and lesbians, as well as two cases that were pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in which religious business owners wanted their companies to be exempt from providing employee insurance coverage for contraception.
I'm so glad I'm finally getting out and away from here. It's scary moving away, but it's so exciting knowing that some places don't require you to jump through hoops for health care and transgender people actually have some legal protections. And where intelligent design isn't trying to be worked into the school curriculum. And where politicians don't bend over backwards head over heals to roll out the red carpet for corporations. And where there is more to do than church, stare at corn fields, or do pot, pills, or meth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I doubt it given how reflexive anti-Obama the Republican party is. He proposed national Romenycare and all I heard was 'no' and that's all I hear now (albeit it's muted).

And their hypocrisy over all this is laughable considering they do in fact like healthcare subsidies and healthcare Exchanges. Their very own Paul Ryan, who now heads the Ways and Means Committee and who is totally against the ACA, has himself modeled his plan for Medicare to emulate the design structure of the ACA.....He touted it on his website back in 2014 and updated the site to reflect the new year (2015) and changing none of the proposed structure. He is the republican go to man on budget affairs and a tea party darling yet when we begin to have any discussion on the ACA, conservative sheeple tend to ignore his obvious copycat approach.

Medicare | U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan

For future retirees, the budget supports an approach known as “premium support.” Starting in 2024, seniors (those who first become eligible by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2024) would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior, depending on the plan’s cost. For those who were 55 or older in 2013, they would remain in the traditional Medicare system.

The Medicare recipient of the future would choose, from a list of guaranteed-coverage options, a health plan that best suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, directly to the plan or the fee-for-service program to subsidize its cost. The program would operate in a manner similar to that of the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums.

This approach to strengthening the Medicare program — which is based on a long history of bipartisan reform plans — would ensure security and affordability for seniors now and into the future. In September 2013, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed illustrative options of a premium support system. They found that a program in which the premium-support payment was based on the average bid of participating plans would result in savings for affected beneficiaries as well as the federal government.

Moreover, it would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.

While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible before 2024, all seniors would have the choice to opt in to the new Medicare program once it began in 2024. This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health security throughout their retirement years.

These reforms also ensure affordability by fixing the currently broken subsidy system and letting market competition work as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing health-care costs. Putting patients in charge of how their health care dollars are spent will force providers to compete against each other on price and quality. That’s how markets work: The customer is the ultimate guarantor of value.

Come on now. Don't tell me you don't see the irony in all of this......!

It's all there. Exchanges offering plans to choose from, Subsidies and Risk Pools all centered around the market approach to foster competition and make healthcare affordable. Yet when Obama does it.......eh!

 

[sun rise]

And their hypocrisy over all this is laughable considering they do in fact like healthcare subsidies and healthcare Exchanges. Their very own Paul Ryan, who now heads the Ways and Means Committee and who is totally against the ACA, has himself modeled his plan for Medicare to emulate the design structure of the ACA.....He touted it on his website back in 2014 and updated the site to reflect the new year (2015) and changing none of the proposed structure. He is the republican go to man on budget affairs and a tea party darling yet when we begin to have any discussion on the ACA, conservative sheeple tend to ignore his obvious copycat approach.

Medicare | U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan


Come on now. Don't tell me you don't see the irony in all of this......!

It's all there. Exchanges offering plans to choose from, Subsidies and Risk Pools all centered around the market approach to foster competition and make healthcare affordable. Yet when Obama does it.......eh!

Ah yes, another proof that it's not about principle but about "We win - you lose and we're against everything you stand for except that we're in favor of it if it has our name on it" This is not 100% true, of course, but the proof for me was how the budget deficit was no problem at all during the last President Bush's time in office and only tax cuts mostly benefiting the wealthy were important. Now of course they're singing the deficit song but that will end if and when there is a Republican president.

The Democrats do the same thing but in my judgement the Republicans are much "better" at political hypocrisy.