The left wants Republicans to cave on ObamaCare

For some time now, many defenders of ObamaCare have stridently asserted that its opponents should, well, do virtually nothing to attempt to stop it. One frequent mantra, repeated ad nauseum by the left, is that it won the presidential election in 2012, and gained a few Senate seats--and besides, the Supreme Court placed its imprimatur upon ObamaCare last year--so it ought to be considered settled doctrine.

CBS's Bob Schieffer, however, has now formalized this position, with his recent remarks on the subject.

From NewsBusters:

Here is the link to the entire article: Cranky Bob Schieffer: Anti-ObamaCare GOPers Are Like Japanese WWII Vets Who Don't Know Fight Is 'Over' | NewsBusters

 

Perhaps the Democrats will have to completely rewrite the legislation, keeping the good parts, and jettisoning the objectionable parts. I think everyone could agree that some form of preventative treatment could save money.

 

I agree that there are some aspects of ObamaCare that represent an improvement. The prohibition against pre-existing-condition exclusions, and the end to annual (or lifetime) caps, are improvements upon the status quo ante, in my opinion. And many people seem to like the provision that allows families to keep their adult offspring on the plan, up to age 26.

But ObamaCare, as it is currently constructed, is encouraging many employers to drop coverage altogether; and many physicians are retiring prematurely.

Moreover, the requirement that all Americans must have healthcare insurance (or else face a fine) is antithetical to the principles of freedom and liberty, which I hold dear...

Indeed.

But it should be up to each individual, in a free society, to seek that preventative treatment. To decline to do so, because one has made a conscious decision--actually two conscious decisions: (1) to refuse to purchase healthcare insurance; and (2) to refuse to pay, out-of-pocket, for preventative treatment--is the individual's responsibility, not society's collective responsibility...

 

Preventative treatment is quite cheap, relatively to all the other health costs. I would not have so much of a problem if the federal government subsidized preventative treatments, perhaps through some type of partnership with the states. In fact, preventative treatment was one of the main selling points of the Affordable Care Act. Is this like a nanny-state? Yes, but I do not see it as so horrible.

But I do believe there should be allowed to be lifetime caps. Some people are just too expensive, it is not worth it. This is not a contentious point, I believe both the Democrats and Republicans recognize this (if you remember the Republicans complaining about "Death panels").

 

Well, let us just agree to disagree, then. I do find the nanny state to be a horrible thing. (In fact, I find it horrible for the state to be in any way authoritatively superior to its citizenry, a la Thomas Hobbes.)

Actually, my own plan (through Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Tennessee) has no limetime (or annual) cap. And I very much like that feature.

Although the term, "Death Panels" (as popularized by Sarah Palin) is probably an unfortunate construction--I think it tends to generate more heat than light--it is, in fact, probably rather accurate. After all, the most effective way to save healthcare dollars is to ration healthcare--especially among seniors, who are the greatest consumers of healthcare services--so the current fetish for cost savings is very likely to lead to less expensive (and correspondingly less effective) treatments being approved, and to palliative care supplanting curative care for the elderly in many cases.

 

I'll tell you something else--the Republican Party will take a huge hit in the next congressional elections. The Tea Party idiots may just have marginalized the entire party. And it has no chance of electing its presidential candidate in '16, so we had better find a Democratic candidate that we can live with.

 

It is true that just about every poll shows that more Americans blame the GOP for the shutdown than blame the Democrats for it. But one probably ought to bear in mind a couple of things, viz.:

(1) The poll least congenial to GOP interests--a CNN poll, I believe--shows a 10-point margin, in this regard; but that is only about half of the 19-point margin that existed during the last previous government shutdown, about 17 years ago.

(2) In any case, by November 2014, most Americans who are affiliated with neither major political party--i.e. independents--will probably have forgotten about this little shutdown...

Although Hillary Clinton could prove to be a fairly formidable candidate, if she chooses to run in 2016, it strikes me as unlikely that the Democratic Party will retain the White House, for a third consecutive term. That is rare, in modern American history. (For the record, I was born in 1948; and it has happened only once, within my lifetime, that the same party won the White House in three consecutive elections. That was in the elections of 1980, 1984, and 1988.)

 

But there is a difference the GOP are full of wackos and the one decent one Bush is stuck with the family name his older brother ruined. You need a strong, MODERATE very long term, centrist very long term Republican that is backed by the party 100% and will do what he or she want if that means a real national health care law alternative then fine they follow and pass it. As I see it no one in the running would get the vote of the people of color, women, low income and working people enough to win. And the Democrats can clearly get people to the polls in key areas to win states and do that very well.

 

What a load of crap. The ACA was debated almost 7 years ago and the TeaPublicans DEMANDED and got over 200 amendments to the program...AND THEN REFUSED to vote for it. They had their chance, they disingenuously participated and lost. TOO EFFING BAD.

The ACA was ruled Constitutional and became the law of the land....IT"S A FRIKKEN LAW!

Obama ran on the ACA and was re-elected by an overwhelming majority of Americans and now the TeaPublicans want to stomp their feet and do an end run around the law because they didn't get their way....TOO EFFING BAD!...Sit down and (*)(*)(*)(*)!

 

Obama was only re-elected because of his skin color and not his ability to be a POTUS or have any knowledge of healthcare.

 

Why dont the Republicans just let it crash and burn, pick up the pieces and be in power for a generation

- - - Updated - - -

Well it sucks to be in a democracy doesn't it

 

Actually, that is not a bad strategy, in my opinion.

But this helps to illustrate the fundamental difference between those who are thinking strategically and those who are taking a more principled stance. The latter do not wish to see the American people be hurt, for awhile, by a terrible law--even if that would result in the Republicans' scoring some political points at the ballot box.

 

And putting Americans through the current round of uncertainty is okay? And whether it is a good or bad law is really a matter of opinion. As much as some on these forums would like to think otherwise Democrats are not stupid. If the health act fails to deliver, they are going to be in a world of hurt. Would the majority of Democrats support it - with an eye to their own future - If this thing is going to be anywhere as bad as some claim

 

Yes . . . because those same Democrats twice voted for a fellow who [after he became president] turned out to be just as bad as the Right said he would be. This is probably because the Left chronically confuse 'wishing' for something to be good for that item automatically and inevitably turning out to be good.

 

We just want the Republicans to wake up.

 

The left wants the government to work. The ACA was approved byt the House, the Senate and the White House. It's law. The health insurance market must be fully funded by January 1st regardless of any government shutdowns.

 

Good job at address everything but the actual point. So are you admitting Obama is such a genius that he wrote all 2400 pages of the act, without talking to anyone else?

 

I am saying that your geniuses Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid sent the bill along and then Obama signed the bill without reading it and that leftwingers were ecstatic over Pelosi, Reid, and Obama doing just that. I am saying that this is their established pattern to substitute wishful thinking for reality and then whine and cry once they get brought up short. Um . . . whine and cry and then point a trembling finger of blame rightward -- gasp! -- just like, in fact, Obama himself does -- as in fact ALL that Obama ever does.

 

So the bill just appeared on his desk one day. Nobody wrote it? This story is just getting better and better with each post

 

Many people wrote it but Pelosi and Reid sent it along without reading it and Obama signed it without reading it. Does the concept of many people working separately and often at odd go -- zip! -- over your head for some reason?

 

So lets see - A bunch of people wrote the worst law in the history of mankind (Republican words not mine) With the express purpose of hurting Americans as much as possible and it was passed into law without anyone reading it. Then got re-elected in 2012

 

He got re-elected because -- again -- the media campaigned for him, because the IRS damaged the Tea Party Movement for him, and because Hurricane Sandy allowed that same pro-Obama media to portray Obama as a dynamic hands on loving and caring leader. The combination was just enough to barely get Obama re-elected. It helped that Romney was nothing but a more accomplished and competent version of Obama [sans the socialist background and intimate connections with nation hating radicals], but still the combination working for Obama is what really made the difference.

 

So in essence the Republicans could not actually explain what was wrong with Obama - just trust them and believe when they tell you "He is bad" Seriously Sponge Bob Square Pants could have come up with a better plan

 

It is the Democrats who appear to believe that shutting down the government is "okay," since the Repulican-controlled House has passes several bills to fund different portions of the budget--in fact, just about everything except ObamaCare...

I believe most Democrats are happy to march in lockstep with President Obama; and that he anticipates the failure of the law--but hopes that there will be a groundswell of support for nationalized healthcare (such as the UK and Canada have), once it becomes obvious that ObamaCare is not going well. (Of course, he really needs for the Democrats to retake control of the House in the 2014 midterms, in order for this strategy to have any chance of success...)

 

While your statement is laughable, I'm willing to bet you're one person who voted against him because of his skin color. Me personally, in 2008 Obama could have been the color of vomit and blood, and been covered in it in all his public appearances, and I still would have voted for him over a Republican. He could have been the whitest guy in the world for that matter.

Fact is, Obama won because of what he isn't, a Republican, and not for what he is, a black man.