This might just be an invitation for trolling, but I honestly don't know what the honest argument against Obamacare would be. Maybe some non-troll can explain it to me in a dispassionate way as if I were 5 years old. I've heard Reps say that "the American people are starting to understand" and that "we're finally having a good debate," etc, but I must have been left out of the loop because I've seen only smokescreens, unsubstantiated fear-mongering and other bs. There are a couple of things I see that are plainly problematic, like companies shifting employees to part-time, but not anything that can't be addressed with legislative tweaks. So, I'm left assuming that the opposition is fundamentally political. If anyone has a real policy-based objection, I'd really like to know what it is. Arguments I haven't managed to conjure any respect for: * impingement on personal freedom * too expensive for the taxpayer * badly-crafted law * unfair redistribution of wealth * it'll make employers afraid to hire full-time * it'll put doctors out of business * the insurance/penalty will be too expensive and burdensome for many
The only true arguments that have any merit are: 1.) This is not freedom. I should have a choice to not buy health insurance if I do not want too. This argument is a fairly good one, but crashes and burns the second the uninsured goes to the ER and is cared for under the tax payer bill. It would really only be a good argument if hospitals were not forced to treat everyone who comes in. 2.) The government is prone to corruption and it only takes one r****ded combination of republican congress, at some point in time, to insert some disruptive and self serving bylaw into the legislation.
Actually I posted a NY Times piece that really kind touched on it. They're afraid it'll work. It's the slippery slope into bigger government argument. Republicans hate government basically, anything that expands its scope even if it's just health insurance, which is all this is, is something they're against. It has nothing to do with to the benefits to the public and solving a real problem that exists. It's just an any government is bad philosophy. If this is successful then it hurts them dramatically because the modern version of the government is the problem Reagan mantra will have a gigantic hole in it called Obamacare. And since they've tried to kill it by labeling Obamacare, Obama stands to make out huge if it succeeds. Thirty years from now, there's your father of the health insurance for all movement, inevitably a single payer program, getting all the glory.
They (extremist wingers) have unsuccessfully tried to "starve the beast" for years. They now have found the vehicle that works. The tragedy is they don't care the consequence. Sequestration? Check. Government rolled back. Government shutdown? Check. Government rolled back. What many are missing is that these guys are getting what they want by being intransigent. When you're enemy is "big gub'mint" and you have shut it down, you have won. This becomes the new status quo. The only resolution is to rise up and vote these clowns out. It is time to organize: money or time.
I just can't believe that. How can a political party be so shortsighted? Barely holding onto ONE of the legislative branches as it is already. It's like the guy who bets a chip on every number on the roulette table thinking he'll never lose.
The second would make more sense if this was actually a single payer system or at least had a public option. As is the primary vehicle of ACA is private insurance and not the government.
Republican negotiating- <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Can I burn down your house? No Just the 2nd floor? No Garage? No Let's talk about what I can burn down. No YOU AREN'T COMPROMISING!</p>— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) <a href="https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/statuses/385468973971951616">October 2, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
