By Jason Sattler

5 Republicans Calling BS On Ted Cruz’s Plot To Defund Obamacare

September 18, 2013 4:01 pm Category: Memo Pad, Politics 90 Comments A+ / A-

tedcruz

Let’s start with a reminder: Defunding Obamacare won’t stop Obamacare.

For President Obama’s signature legislative achievement to go away, both houses of Congress must pass a bill… that he agrees to sign. Or the president will have to refuse to enforce the law completely, using a tactic like the waivers for all 50 states that Mitt Romney promised during the campaign.

In short, to stop Obamacare, you need Obama’s help. And that’s never going to happen.

Ted Cruz (R-TX) — with some help from Mike Lee (R-UT) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) — has been lying to the GOP base for months, saying that a grassroots “tsunami” could convince Republican leaders to shut down the government or default on our debt for so long that the president will give in and abandon the law that now bears his name… a law he likely considers the greatest accomplishment of his presidency.

Cruz hasn’t triggered a tidal wave. His repeal effort is far less popular than Obamacare — but it’s extremely popular with the one group that matters most to House Republicans: primary voters.

Thus this suicide pact has become one hell of a fundraising scheme.

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein describes the GOP’s predicament in two sentences: “It would be a disaster for the party to shut down the government over Obamacare. But it’s good for every individual Republican politician to support shutting down the government over Obamacare.”

That’s why House Republicans — with less than two weeks to go before a potential government shutdown — are embracing Cruz’s tactics completely.

Well, not every individual Republican is pretending to buy into Cruz’s plot. Some rational Republicans — or the “surrender caucus,” as Cruz calls them — see that the plan is doomed and are saying so. Here are five Republicans who are calling BS on Ted Cruz’s very profitable “Defund Obamacare” gambit.

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.com

Pages →  1 2 3 4 5 6

5 Republicans Calling BS On Ted Cruz’s Plot To Defund Obamacare Reviewed by on . Let's start with a reminder: Defunding Obamacare won't stop Obamacare. For President Obama's signature legislative achievement to go away, both houses of Congre Let's start with a reminder: Defunding Obamacare won't stop Obamacare. For President Obama's signature legislative achievement to go away, both houses of Congre Rating:

More by Jason Sattler

5 Ways Republicans Could Still Lose The House

This should be the Republicans’ year. Democrats need to defend 20 U.S. Senate seats, seven of which are in states Mitt Romney won, even as he lost to President Obama by nearly 5 million votes. The GOP only needs to win six of those seats to take control of the upper house of Congress. In 2012,

Read more...

Rand Paul Can Try To Be His Party’s Bill Clinton, But He’ll Never Be President

This post originally appeared at Eclectablog.com. Rand Paul continues to fling any turd he can find at the Clintons for pretty obvious reasons. The first-term senator from Kentucky has to do something to show the GOP establishment he can be competitive in a general election, and he’s trying to keep the former president out of

Read more...

5 Reasons It’s Time For The GOP To Dump Sarah Palin And The Tea Party

Conservative columnist Matt Lewis seems relieved. “We may have finally reached a tipping point: Conservatives, it seems, are finally safe to criticize Sarah Palin (without fear of being written out of the movement, that is),” he wrote on Tuesday. A flurry of criticism from the right has swarmed around the one-time Republican nominee for vice

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • gmccpa

    At this point, the only reason they want to defund the ACA, is to stick it to Obama. And to say to their constituents ‘look what I did’. And let’s face it…most of those constituents wont be affected by the ACA anyway…and most of them still don’t even understand it. They still hear ‘death panels’.

    BTW…Marco Rubio came out today telling the Pres to ‘stop threatening a government shutdown’. Obviously he’s fully aware of the intellectual capabilities (or lack thereof) of his own constituents.

    • Jim

      It has nothing to do with sticking it to Obama. We fundamentally believe that the government has far too much intrusion into our lives. The government being involved in healthcare suddenly gives them the rational to regulate everything in our lives.

      • Lynda Groom

        There are always claims coming from the anti-ACA crown that the government is getting between patients and their health care providers. To start with the law does not set up a government-run system. In fact the law comes between you and your insurance company, forbidding them from capping your insurance coverage or charging more for pre-existing status. The law greatly expands private business for private insurance, by approximately 12 millions new customers. You will choose your own doctors, just like now. Of course employers can switch coverage, but they have always been able to do that. The law does not forbid such action.

        • sigrid28

          Great post!

      • darkagesbegin

        if those who keep repeating the mantra that government is too big would sit down and compose a list of the government services they would be glad to do without, i would sure like to see it.

        but what is really happening is that the big polluters would like to go back to fouling our air, water and land without having to be bothered to pay for any cleanup or recompense to those they hurt, so that they can increase their profits without responsibility or obligation. And they want to sneak that in under the radar by lumping it in with “the government is too big.” don’t be fooled. The big boys will take away all the things that protect you, but it won’t make your life any better.

        • Jim

          When will you realize that with Big Government, it is the big boys that run it to their advantage. Government does not protect the little guy, but enables the big guy to steal from you. Eliminate most of what the federal government does and let states decide what they want to do. That is what the Constitution dictates. Then you can pick a small government state or a big government state.

          • darkagesbegin

            if you think it is bad now, wait until you take the big government away completely, and depend on the states, then the big boys will be in complete control. they have already bought most of the little state government officials they can. Me casting my one vote is outweighed by the big boys spending millions of dollars on a congressional race in one small part of one small state telling me that election of candidate “A” in my district will be the end of world as we know it, when what they want to do is elect candidate “B” so they can use him to further their interests in a state 3 hours away from me.

          • Jim

            The answer is to shrink government. The big boys will always control government whether federal or state. You want to give them less ability to do anything. At the state level, there are some limits on the governments ability to screw people over because the people can vote with their feet. The point of a Constitution is to limit what government can do and to give the people rights. We have let the government do whatever it wants and we have almost no rights remaining. You have to get permission from the government just to exercise a first amendment right. (Free speech zones?) You no longer have any rights of privacy from the government. The government thinks it can regulate everything that you buy and do. They can throw you in jail, not charge you with anything, deny access to representation, and not tell anybody by simply using one word to describe you.

          • darkagesbegin

            sounds like your cure might just be what kills the patient

          • Leota2

            So you are for states rights huh—Jim?

            I suppose you are not African American? Hispanic? Gay? A woman? Disabled? Some states tend to treat the aforementioned pretty badly when the feds don’t step in. Maybe you live in a state with a republican governor who claims not to want the federal government involved but sends emails and letters out to get that federal money when it is out there?

            And as far as privacy goes—Facebook, Google and VISA impeded your privacy long before the government did.

          • Jim

            This country was setup as a loose collection of states bound together for a common defense. We have left that model completely and need to head back in that direction.

            I am absolutely for states rights above federal government intrusion in our lives. And even better, I hope that states will leave most things to the individual. But federal involvement in anything not listed in Article I Section 8 is not Constitutional.

            No group should have any rights. Only individuals have rights and those should be protected by federal and state constitutions. Take slavery. Many states fought to stop it long before the federal government became involved. Some will be ahead on issues and some will be behind. If we can get rid of most federal laws and regulations, you are welcome to go live in a socialist leaning state while I can choose to live in one where the people actually understand the concept of Liberty.

            I think there should be the lowest tax rate possible which means no deductions. But if I am eligible for a deduction according to the law when I do my taxes, I will take the deduction. The states shouldn’t be sending a bunch of money to Washington and hoping to get some back. I will be completely in favor of the governor doing whatever he can to reduce the amount sent to Washington. But we have been sending it and we would be crazy not to take back what we can get.

            Facebook, Google, and VISA are choices that we make and we can stay out of if we like. But they are each little pieces of our lives. The government uses the color of authority to get everything about it us and combines it all into their databases. In addition to all of our electronic communications, cameras everywhere, and access to our financial records; they are about to gain access to our health histories.

          • sigrid28

            I read recently that in the small government state of Texas, roads that have deteriorated are not being returned to gravel. Is that the kind of thing you have in mind?

          • Jim

            There are some very rural roads used by a few ranchers and big oil trucks that were very difficult to keep up because of the very heavy oil rigs constantly traveling on them. Given the light traffic and high maintenance costs, they have decided to leave them gravel. That is smart government as far as I am concerned. So yes.

          • Jim

            And that is the beauty of leaving things to the states. You that tend socialist can live in your big government states. The rest of can choose small government states. You really do not need to force your big government ways on all of us.

  • sigrid28

    REPUBLICANS: THIS IS NOT A GAME.

    • Jim

      It absolutely isn’t a game. Why don’t you learn to mind your own business and stay out of my life. Why do you think you should get to force others to live by your rules. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. The United States in not a democracy. It was setup as a Republic with Constitutional limits on the government.

      • sigrid28

        When you turn on the radio to listen to Rush Limbaugh, who is responsible for bringing his programs into your life? You are. You bought the radio, plugged it in, turned it on, and dialed up Rush.

        When you go to National Memo online, who is responsible for bringing any of its articles or posts into your life? You are. You bought the computer or went to a public library to log on, you typed in “National Memo,” and you decided what to read and what not to read.

        These are what we like to call on the National Memo comment thread FACTS. Your statement–”Why don’t you learn to mind your own business and stay out of my life”–indicates a failure on your part to understand where your volition begins and ends. It is a novitiate error–in baseball talk, a rookie mistake. You might think about that.

        From reading your posts I would conclude that you enjoy repeating extremist talking points that you have heard on talk radio and Fox News. Have at it. It just has nothing to do with anyone else or the topic at hand.

        • Jim

          I have believed in Liberty before Fox News existed. And if you look back at our founding fathers and most people during the first century of our country, they did too. While government should be there to protect our liberties, it exists for the most part to take them away. Why are you so willing to let the government tell you what you can and cannot do? Government should only be there to protect us from violence of other, not to protect us from out own decisions and choices. I believe in letting people make their own choices. You believe in taking choices away from people. I definitely do not believe most Republican talking points. I am a Libertarian and often Republicans are as bad as the democrats.

  • howa4x

    I don’t think the House or Ted Cruz know anything about healthcare financing. The reason the insurance companies agreed to go along with this plan was that there would be an individual mandate. Since the insurance companies are there to make a profit they don’t only want to only cover sick people that they can’t drop or deny coverage too. They need healthy people to buy insurance. This is what Governor Romney did in Mass. and how his plan worked and what Obama modeled his after. Since it is all based on individual responsibility which is a bed rock republican mantra, what plan could the house come up with if they defund their own plan? Seems like it’s happening in an alternative universe doesn’t it?

    • Jim

      Mandating what is in insurance and all of the regulation being added has nothing to do with Republican mantra. Big subsidies to some is not personal responsibility. Neither is forcing the young to subsidize the old. The government being involved in our healthcare decisions is anti liberty.

      • charleo1

        So, what do you want to do? How would you expand coverage,
        lower rates, make health insurance available to those with a pre
        existing condition? Want universal coverage, Medicare for all?
        It would certainly save a lot of money. But, that’s not possible
        right now, due to the power of the healthcare lobby. But to do
        nothing at all, is not an option here. Each year out of the last
        twenty, the sky rocketing rates of health insurance has left
        thousands of employers with no choice but to drop their
        company’s health plan. And because of that, tens of thousands
        more join the rolls of the uninsured, and the uninsurable,
        each year. Without the discounts of company plans, plus, the
        unwillingness of insures to accept people with health problems
        on individual policies. We have now millions receiving medical
        care in the most expensive, and inefficient delivery system
        there is, local emergency rooms. And with less than a third of
        those uninsured ever paying their full bill. So, the hospital may
        remain open, the 2/3s of the bills not paid for by the patients,
        are subsidized by both insurance cos. who pass these costs on
        to policy holders, and the State, and Federal Governments.

        • Jim

          Get government out of it. Healthcare rates started going up at very fast rates when the government got involved and started throwing money at the problem. Education costs started soaring when the government got involved trying to make it cheaper. The housing market took off and then tanked when the government tried to make housing ore affordable. See the pattern yet? Read the Constitution, Article I Section 8, and you will see that the federal government has no Constitutional role in these markets.

          • charleo1

            Well, we could try to get government out of healthcare.
            Do you think Seniors will need a replacement policy,
            before they send their Medicare cards back in to be
            destroyed? Or, they’d trust their Republican politicians,
            and private ins. cos. to come up with something not so
            tyrannous? How about Senators Ted Cruz, and Mike
            Lee? Have they opted out of their government provided
            healthcare yet? Well, maybe they are waiting until the
            unfettered free market they are always touting for every
            one else, offers a better deal. They I’m sure are working
            on a replacement to ObamaCare, for the 50+ million
            uninsured, and uninsurable. I wonder what that gonna
            look like? I remember the Sainted Ronald Reagan, warning
            his fellow Americans about the destruction of freedom, if
            Medicare was ever adopted. I guess he either changed his
            mind, or he was just BS-ing for the corporate set. Because
            as President, he didn’t try to repeal something he said people
            would look back on, as the day freedom in America died.
            Look, I don’t disagree the costs have gone up a ridiculous
            amount. Is that the government? Or, the government married
            to a for profit system? As I’m sure you’ve heard, we pay 3X
            the costs, and rank no where near the top in outcomes.
            As compared to Countries that spend much less. You claim
            the government has no Constitutional role in healthcare.
            But, that’s not what the Supreme Court found. But more
            important, Americans don’t want a lecture on the Constitution. They want affordable healthcare so they are not bankrupted when they become sick, or injured, or one of their kids does. Perhaps if Republicans like Ted Cruz would work
            on am alternative solution, instead of using the debate to raise funds, and raise his profile, I’m sure most of us would
            love to hear it. But, I don’t think people are buying the
            argument, that doing nothing is better.

          • Independent1

            Sorry Jim but you’re very mistaken – insurance rates have infact increased over the past 4 years, since ACA was enacted at 1/3 the rate they were going up before it was enacted. Rates over the past 3 years have gone up slower than at any time in the past 50 years. What does this mean to you if you in fact do purchase insurance for the family and are now paying $600/mo for it? Since an insurance group has estimated that had ACA not been enacted, insurance rates would be now 25-45% higher than they are, this person would now be paying at least $800/mo. (That’s a current savings of about $2,500/mo for people that are now insured – just because ACA was enacted)

            And have you seen the latest projections from the CBO? The CBO is now projecting that many families earning around $35,000/yr will be able to purchase insurance coverage for the family for about $100/mo out of their pocket; because of the government’s subsidy. You sir are WAY OFF BASE!!!

            And I forgot to mention – that BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT GOT INVOLVED- not only will people be paying a much lower rate than had ACA not been enacted – people buying insurance will be getting A LOT BETTER COVERAGE: like the insurance company not being able to deny cover a medical procedure your doctor says you need; like not being able to refuse you coverage should you lose your job and need to get new insurance after you’ve been diagnosed with something like diabetes; like covering any kids you may have until they are age 26; like working to eliminate over the next few years the donut hole for seniors on Medicare that has already saved my mother-in-law more than $2,000 alone; like covering you for wellness exams and a number of other common procedures WITH NO COPAY. And More!!! Wake UP!!!

          • Jim

            There is no paying a lower rate here. You have taxpayers paying more to subsidize the insurance of other people. Sure some individuals pay less because they get others to pay for them, but we are not really paying less overall. A family pays $100 a month because others are required to pick up the tab. This is all smoke and mirrors to pretend that we are no longer have people paying for other peoples medical care.

          • Independent1

            You don’t read very well do you Jim? Do you need a remedial reading program. I my previous response I mentioned that EVERYONE is paying less for insurance today because ACA has reduced the rise in premiums over the past 3 years by 2/3. And NO One is paying more!! The subsidies being given to low income people are coming from savings in the Medicare program. This years EVERYONE who has insurance is saving hundreds, even thousands of dollars because the premiums they’re paying each month or hundreds less than they would have been paying if ACA hadn’t been enacted. IT IS NOT SMOKE AND MIRRORS IT IS ACUTAL SAVINGS IN HARD MONEY!!!

            And just think about it, THE PART OF ACA THAT WILL REALLY BRING DOWN PREMIUMS HASN’T EVEN TAKEN EFFECT YET!! WHEN EVERYONE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE INSURANCE IN 2014!!!!

          • Jim

            Learn some math. A decrease in the rate of increase is still an increase. Add in the continued increases in government spending on medical care which is not included in your “insurance” calculations also. Don’t hold your breath waiting for those premium decreases because it is not going to happen.

          • Independent1

            You’re not much of a realist are you Jim? Prices always go up due to inflation – unfortunately, because there’s no single source that can negotiate healthcare prices, us consumers don’t have much bargaining power with hospitals, doctors, labs, etc., so we have to pay the sometimes greedy price increases they demand, which has been driving healthcare costs up faster than inflation.

            BUT, you’re definitely wrong about premiums not going down. You obviously don’t keep up with the news much; a number of states that have done an honest job of creating the insurance exchanges, have published revised healthcare rates that in a number of situations will allow families to purchase the insurance coverage for up to 50% LESS THAN THEY ARE PAYING TODAY!! These people will be SAVING COLD HARD CASH!! And these rates will be available through the private sector starting in less than 2 weeks – on 10/1/2013 for insurance coverage that will take effect on 1/1/2014.

            Here’s just one example from an excerpt in a Bloomberg publication about the premium DECREASES IN NEW YORK:
            (Notice that some people will be saving almost $700/month – those aren’t smoke and mirrors – those are REAL SAVINGS!!)

            Bloomberg – July 17, 2013

            Health insurance premiums will drop by about 50 percent on average for consumers in New York who buy new plans through a state-run marketplace created by the U.S. Affordable Care Act.

            The state approved plans to be sold by 17 insurers, including UnitedHealth (UNH) Group Inc. and WellPoint Inc., the industry’s two biggest carriers, according to a statement today by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The lowered rates mean that starting Oct. 1, a New York City resident who now pays at least $1,000 a month for insurance will be able to buy coverage for as little as $308, according to rates posted by governor’s office.

          • Jim

            And I imagine that those premiums to the resident do not include the subsidies. I am the realist without these misguided notions that the government is successful at making everything bright and cheery. They regulate and tax everything heavily and transfer income from one group to another (with only a tiny fraction of that being to the needy.) If government was so good, they wouldn’t need to force people to follow its policies.

          • Independent1

            You’re absolutely right – that $308 premium has nothing to do with building in subsidies. Keep on being clueless. You’re proving you’re self more and more clueless with every response you make!!!!!!!!!!

          • Jim

            “For years New York has had one of the most heavily regulated insurance
            markets in the country. The 1993 reforms not only required insurers to
            accept all customers; they also mandated that insurers charge everyone
            the exact same price. Young or old, healthy or sick, it doesn’t matter
            in New York: Everyone gets the same deal.” Why can some people buy insurance much cheaper than before? Some young healthy people can now have access to a rate based on their risk rather than being forced to subsidize less healthy people.

          • Jim

            Creating a website that lists all of the insurance companies available to make shopping easier is not a problem. But that is a tiny part of Obamacare. It is primarily a lot of regulation raising costs, eventual service reductions to reign in costs, and huge subsidies and penalties to people to try to get them to do what the government thinks is best for them. We used to have a country where we let people choose what was best for them.

          • Independent1

            I guess you’re right – those were the years when people lived to be around 50-55 years old because they made dumb decisions. And actually we have a bunch of states where some of that is still true, where they fight for small government and try to run things with “less government”. There are about 24-25 of those in America – they’re called “Red States”. And do you know a couple things that are true about Red States? They have the highest incidents of infant mortality in America – all 20 of the states with the highest infant mortality are GOP governed States. They also have the highest incidents of traffic deaths: all 25 of the states with the highest rates of deaths due to traffic accidents are Red States. And people in these states also have shorter life spans: All 20 of the states with the lowest life expectancy are once again, Red States. For 20 of the red states, the highest life expectancy is 78.1 years with a low of 75 years in Mississippi. Oddly, in those Blue States that have more government regulations, people tend to live longer – of the 10 States where the life expectancy is 80 or over, 9 of them are Blue States – only Utah of the red states has a life expectancy of over 80.

            You seem to forget that even in games, like baseball and football and everything else, THERE HAVE TO BE RULES TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE PLAYS THE GAME FAIRLY!! Too bad you’re so clueless that you don’t seem to understand that !! Whether you like it or not, the government has to sometimes establish rules to ensure that EVERYONE PLAYS THE GAVE FAIRLY!!! And in a way that’s really best for them, EVEN WHEN LIKE YOU, THEY’RE TOO CLUELESS TO REALIZE IT!!!!!!!!!!

          • Jim

            Isn’t freedom great? You could choose to remain in your blue states that you think are better and many of us can choose to live in our red states that we prefer. Stop trying to force everyone to live with your bloated governments. The life expectancy has been increasing because we are wealthier and have better living conditions. Life expectancies increase in all counties as they develop. Of course when we get fat and lazy they can decrease somewhat too. Exploitation of workers decreases drastically as we have the ability to be more mobile and not be stuck in company towns. Pollution decreases as countries reach a decent standard of living because they can finally afford to worry about such things rather than just eating. You want to know the main difference between red and blue ares of the countries? It is urbanization. States with higher population densities are more democratic. Find the red blue maps broken down by counties and you will find that cities are more blue, rural areas typically more red. the overwhelming majority of the area of the United States is red. A lot of the people are in the areas that are blue. Move government to be more local and it can be more responsive and representative of the local population increasing satisfaction in general. Federal government is completely unresponsive and forces the same things on everybody.

          • Independent1

            More BS – YOU ARE NOT LIVING LONGER TODAY BECAUSE YOU’RE WEALTHIER!!! People are living longer today because of all the guidelines and regulations THAT GOVERNMENT has instituted with respect to our food supply and the people that practice medicine; and the industries t hat can have a negative affect on the air we breath and the water we drink.

            It’s because of the rules and regs that the FDA has set with respect to the food supply – like requiring that all makers of cereals have to ensure that they include a certain level of nutrients like vitamins; and all the RULES AND REGS, that the EPA has mandated that ensures people are breathing cleaner air today and drinking cleaner water. SEE, you’re so clueless you really don’t even understand why people are living longer today – although I will concede that on average wealthier are generally able to take more advantage of the advancements that the medical profession has come up with and to a life style that promotes a little more longevity – BUT the basic reason the world’s people are living longer is because of the rules and guidelines THAT THEIR GOVERNMENTS have established for food suppliers, healthcare providers and industries that can negatively affect the air, water and food that people take in to stay alive.

            I know you’re so clueless that you’re going to come up with some other NONSENSE COMMENT. So I’m not going to get suckered in again down to you’re level of stupidity!!!!

          • Jim

            Wow, you really have drunk the government kool-aid!I don’t want your FDA regulations, etc. Please keep them to yourself.

          • James Smither

            Jim, asking someone to buy their own insurance rather than suck my tax dollars away visiting a charity hospital funded by the government is not about losing freedom….its about spending less of my taxes on people that refuse to buy insurance.
            Which would you have….what we have NOW, which is all these poor uninsured people going to local charity hospitals paid for for by YOUR taxes….or ask these people to go get their own insurance?
            You are not thinking through the facts AT ALL, my friend, which is what most conservatives fail to do.

          • Jim

            There is no elimination of subsidies here. Obamacare is providing huge subsidies for insurance while changing the rules for everybody and messing up our entire medical system. Far better to simply provide medical care for those truly needy than changing everything for everyone which Obamacare is doing. This is a unconstitutional governemnt overreach.
            Obamacare is absolutely about losing freedom, privacy, and efficiency.

        • Jim

          So why is exactly that you think that you have the right to tell people what they must buy and tell others what they must sell? Hasn’t anyone ever heard of Liberty anymore?

          • charleo1

            It’s called indemnifying the innocent party aganist loss.
            We do it all the time. As businesses bond employees,
            we have to purchase car insurance that pays for the
            other guys expenses, if we are at fault. We are, by the
            law, in most circumstances, obligated to hold harmless
            others, form the liabilities we create. Why would this be
            any different? If a young fellow, or young lady, or a not
            so young 50 year old, without significant assets, creates
            a $100,000 hospital bill. Now, why are you, the responsible
            person with insurance, now, “forced,” to pay higher
            premiums, and higher taxes? The answer is you shouldn’t
            be. Freedom doesn’t include doing as one pleases, at the
            unfair expense of others.

          • Jim

            Obamacare doesn’t really solve this problem. People still aren’t paying their way. Instead of subsidizing the medical care, we are subsidizing the cost of the insurance to these people. In the meantime, we are messing up things for the vast majority of the population.

    • Jim

      What industry wouldn’t be tempted by the government forcing everybody to buy your product!

  • http://www.freewebs.com/compuaid/index.htm Ather

    You know you’re doing things wrong when your own party start turning against you.

  • http://www.freewebs.com/compuaid/index.htm Ather

    If they shut down the Gov (taking away vital life saving services) or deny people medical insurance they need to live, that must be treated as premediatted murder. As such, the GOP members responsisble must be tried and convicted for treason. If they want to play with our lives, let’s play with theirs. Let’s show these men in their high castles we won’t tolerate their using us as pawns for their machinations. By putinig them in check, then mate.

    To do otherwise is to give them permission to keep doing this. Which means no more complaining. Only thanking them for giving you what you want.

    Just remember who’s pulling their strings. The Corporations who are funding them and their political careers. Welcome to The United Corporations Of America.

    • Jim

      Read the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 enumerates the powers of the federal government. The tenth amendment states that everything else is left to the states or individuals. Any regulation of healthcare is unconstitutional. Doing so is treason and violating the oath that all members of congress took.

      • Lynda Groom

        Have you forgotten that the Supreme Court has already blessed the ACA as the law of the land?

        • Jim

          The Supreme Court is people appointed by those that favor big government. Have you read the Constitution? IT is fairly clear, but some people play all kinds of word games and build upon previous bad decisions. Everything in the Constitution is designed to protect us from a big federal government and it has been ignored.

          • Lynda Groom

            Todays Supreme Court leans to the right, not the left. Look who put them on the court. Do you really believe that Reagan and the Bush’s favor big govenment? Seriously? BTW, indeed I’ve read that document written by a bunch of white land owners hundreds of years ago. It was brillant as far as it went. It was imperfect which is why we have two dozen amendments so far.

          • Jim

            You are fooling yourself if you think the Republican Party establishment is small government. The establishment players are big government. Not much changes between Republican and Democrat leadership. The same big players contribute to both parties. Government growth was huge through Bush. FDR threatened to pack the supreme court is they didn’t go along with his New Deal and those precedents stuck. We should never look at a previous Judges decision before we look at the actual Constitution and legislation. We have drifted for a century all in the direction of big government.

          • Independent1

            You’re right about this point – The net change in the size of the federal government under Reagan and the two Bushes was to increase the size of government by about 261,000 workers; while in contrast, the net change under Carter, Clinton and Obama was a decrease of almost 345,000.

      • HistoRet

        As it happens, TREASON is the only crime defined ~ in detail ~ in the Constitution of the US. The charge of treason has been employed recklessly by essentially every tyrant and political extortionist in history. That’s WHY it’s so closely defined in that document. Only a fool blinded by ideology could consider support of the ACA to fit that constitutional definition. Your mind is on CRUZ control, and no honest person could take your raving, no matter how decorous, as serious discourse. Get some sleep and take a course in rational thinking. Spare the rest of us such dangerous drivel.

        • asiaman496

          Thank you…

      • Independent1

        Here’s a few of the power that Article 1 Section 8 gives to the federal government:

        The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

        To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

        To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

        It’s this last one, to regulate Commerce between the states that gives the Feds great power in being able to dictate that people must buy insurance in order to prevent them from foisting their inability to pay for their own healthcare onto citizens such as you and me.

        Here’s one of the latest rulings from SCOTUS that gives the feds quite a bit of control:

        In contrast to United States v. Lopez , the powers defined in the Commerce Clause have been elastically re-interpreted to cover non-commercial activity not just between but within the states. In 2005, the Supreme Court controversially ruled in Gonzales v. Raich, that the Commerce Clause granted Congress the authority to regulate Cannabis plants grown, processed, and consumed within the state on private property. The court reclassified the plant as a commodity even though it was not sold or exchanged in any transaction.

        You can complain all you want, but until you attain the level of Constitutional scholar that lets your opinion override that of SCOTUS, you’re just whistling into the wind.

        • Jim

          It is true that big governemnt people have claimed for years that everything is “interstate commerce” as a charade to expand the federal government. Note that doctors and insurance companies are licenses by state and are not interstate commerce. If you look at what things meant at the time they were written instead of the twisted view recently pushed upon us, regulating interstate commerce meant that the federal governemnt was going to ensure that there was free trade between the states.

          And thanks for making the point with the cannibus cases that the SCOTUS is absolutely fraudulent in saying that something that is grown and consumed locally is interstate commerce. People put ion the supreme court have a political agenda and that is how they get there. It has been extremely messed up since FDR extorted them to approve his new deal or he would suddenly increase the size of the supreme court with his picks in order to get a majority. Once the precedent of accepting the new deal was in their opinions, we completely left the Constitution behind. Go look at cases before that and you will see a huge difference in how people understood the Constitution. The Constitution did not change, but people simply made up their own new interpretations.

          The Constitution is a “living document” in that it can be amended. It dos not mean that you can pretend it says whatever you want it to say.

          We can return to Constitution or continue the way we are going which is towards another revolution. The government today is more onerous than King George was.

  • Lynda Groom

    I would have thought that even in these strange times more the 5 GOPers would step up and accept reality. It is way past time to grow up and begin to work on the real issues facing America today. JOBS first as promised, but yet to be acted upon would be a good place to prove ones bona fides. Continuning to put party before country is a receipe for disaster

    • Jim

      Killing Obamacare will help jobs. It is one of the major elements of uncertainty for business and the reason that there are so few full-time jobs being created.

      • Lynda Groom

        It would be wonderful if the employment problems in this country could easily be dismissed as the fault of ObamaCare. It isn’t. The survey of 500 chief financial officers done by Duke University and CFO Magazine does not seem to follow your point of view.

        Those executives expect to boost fulll-time hiring by nearly 1.8% next year. The trend of increased part-time hiring over full-time is changing. To quote John Graham, the Duke finance professor and director of the survey stated ‘The expected two percent growh in employment is solid, given the context of long-run shifts away from full-time employees largely because of concerns about health care reform and economic uncertainty.’

        Indeed there has been a very long time trend to part-time replacing full-time workers. This did not state under this President. Yes a full 60% of businesses have increased their proportion of part-time workers, however just 38% say the change is due to ObamaCare.

        It is only fair to point out the obvious that a lack of demand is the major driver in our countries employment woes.

        • Joyce

          Thank you for an intelligent response to those who refuse to get the facts.

      • Lynda Groom

        One of the most common myths being pushed is the ObamaCare is a job killer. If one takes the time to read the Bureau of Labor Statistics there’s no evidence from the numbers that the law has had an impact on workers. Actually there were more ‘part-time for economic reasons’ in March of 2010, when the ACA was singed into law (9.1 million). The latest figure from August 2013 is 7.9 million.

        Additionally the CBO says the decrease in labor will be one-half of 1%. The Lewin Group, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group says estimated a 150K to 300K job loss of minimum wage positions. Lewin Group says the effect of ACA will be ‘small net job loss.’

        The US Chamber of Commerce in an online opt-in survey found that the GOP claim of ’74% of small businesses will fire workers, cut hours under Obamacare’ to actually be only 13%.

      • Jim Myers

        So, when the massive job losses started during the Bush II administration, it was because of Obamacare?

        • Jim

          We did have a recession that started under Bush. (I am not one to defend Bush since Obama policies are mostly Bush policies on steroids.) But the economy generally fairly quickly recovers and expands at greater than the average rate when pulling out of the recession. This economy has not even returned to the normal growth rate and is the slowest/longest recovery from any recession. The Labor Force Participation Rate is way down. Most jobs being created are part-time jobs. Recessions do not cause the economy to slow five and six years later. It is time to find a different excuse besides George W. Bush.

          • Jim Myers

            The right wing has stopped every attempt at creating decent jobs that have been proposed by the President and the left.

            The low wage jobs and part time positions are a result of the corporate stance that if there are so many people who are out of work, why pay them decent wages with benefits, when they are willing to work part time for minimum wages?

            The good jobs with benefits, decent retirement expectations, decent healthcare, etc. are the things needed in order to build up the middle class again. The very things the right wing is hell bent on destroying.

            This will not change until the actual workers are willing to unite and take a stand against the corporations.

            History is repeating itself.

            As much as I don’t like it, the future will likely become more turbulent because the haves are not willing to do anything to support a strong middle class.

            In fact they are doing everything they can do to protect their positions, at the expense of everyone else.

          • Jim

            The president hasn’t had any plans to create jobs. Everyone was an
            increase in regulation or a reward to not having a job. Government
            spending does not create jobs. It just takes money from the private
            sector crowding out other jobs. It leaves less productive activity out
            there to tax and fund government on top of it. All of the financial
            bailouts benefit the super-rich at a cost to the rest of us. Business
            that makes poor decisions need to lose not be bailed out.

          • Independent1

            What utter crap!! The House has been sitting on two of Obama’s jobs bills for over 2 years. The clueless GOP legislators in the House have kept millions out of work in their effort to see that Obama doesn’t succeed. You can view the American Jobs Act that would have created millions of jobs by just going to White House dot gov.

            Explain to me if you can, how the private sector would create jobs in a recession environment:

            Would companies all get together and give their employees a raise so they had more money to spend in order to spur buying??

            Would companies all get together and make drastic cuts in their prices at the expense of profits so people with limited money could afford to buy things??

            Would companies maybe agree to pick up all or part of their employees Soc. Sec. taxes to give them more money to spend in an effort to get spending going again??

            Just what would private companies be able to do to spur the economy when millions of people are out of work and no one is buying???

            THERE IS NO WAY!!!

            Herbert Hoover (the Mitt Romney of his day) and the Republicans in office near the end of the 1920s thought the private sector could get the economy going again. They said to themselves: we can cut budgets and actually raise the max tax rate and let the private sector get the economy reved up. And that’s exactly what they did. And since Hoover had the notion that once the economy got rolling, one way for the government to really bring in revenues was to raise the max tax rate – so he did, to around 65%. This was in 1929, when the country was in a recession similar to what Bush experienced when he first took office. WELL, we know exactly what happened with that wild GOP idea – it fell flat on its face and ended up with a stock market crash followed by a world-wide depression.

            Do you even realize that virtually every economist with any common sense has agreed that it was only Obama following through on the auto-bailout together with the 889billion stimulus that kept the country from falling into the GOP’s second created WORLD-WIDE DEPRESSION!! Yep! the only true way to get an economy reved up is for THE GOVERNMENT TO INJECT MONEY INTO THE ECONOMY THAT WILL CREATE JOBS AND STIMULATE SPENDING!!

            George Bush proved without question that the GOP notion that tax cuts will spur the economy is a FAIRYTALE. George signed to unwise/unwarranted tax cuts that gave the Rich the biggest tax breaks they’d seen in decades, and the economy during his 8 years in office was not only the most dysmal job creation economy since the Big Depression, it was the most dysmal economy since then ANY WAY YOU WANT TO MEASURE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • MarkInOhio

            “The president hasn’t had any plans to create jobs.”

            This is simply false. Where on earth are you GETTING all this crap?

          • sigrid28

            And plus, the president has proposed raising the minimum wage, apart from creating millions of jobs through the American Jobs Act that Congress refuses to take up. Combined with lowered costs brought about the health insurance exchanges mandated by the ACA beginning October 1st, the Obama administration stands for a whole range of initiatives that substantively improve life for those who are unemployed and underemployed in this country.

          • Jim

            He has plans that he claims will create jobs. But he does not have any plans that will really create jobs. He has plans to stimulate investment in less productive industries and plans that will help unionionized industries. But any government money used to do these things pulls money from other private sector industries. There is no net creation of jobs and actual increases in unemployment as resources shift from one industry to another. All of the hair brained schemes of government actually increase unemployment in the shortrun as resources adjust in the economy and the economy does not get the chance to recover from the continual shocks introduced by government.. He continues to add more regulation which stifles productivity and jobs.

          • MarkInOhio

            It’s “hare brained”.

      • charleo1

        In that case, doesn’t it seem the old employer based system has run
        it’s course. It’s not a very good way to obtain insurance coverage
        anyway. A person gets too sick to work, and can’t afford Cobra.
        Then, they lose their coverage just at the very time they need it most.
        Then, they lose their savings, and their house, maybe. And all along,
        they have done the right thing, the responsible thing, and they still
        get wiped out. So, let’s free the start up businesses. The person
        that has a great idea, but is afraid if he quits his job to start his
        business, he can’t get coverage with his non debilitating, but chronic
        pre existing condition. Let’s not have millions of people tied to jobs
        they hate, because of the insurance factor.

        • Jim

          I agree. Insurance should not have been something provided by an employer. The primary reason we went to that system was that the government made it deductible. An employee would rather have $100 in insurance than $100 in cash because it would save a lot in taxes. Eventually we have ended up with bloated insurance plans We need to go back to simple major medical plans which cost far less and are actually insurance rather than pre-paid medical plans. Obamacare goes in the wrong direction by mandating more and more coverage which is why insurance costs are going up even faster. Employers should pay you and you decide how you want to spend the money and not work about duplication when your spouse has insurance, etc.

          • charleo1

            I would say the more likely reasons insurance plans have
            been traditionally offered through employers, is the insurance
            cos. found they could sell a lot of insurance that way. And,
            insure an overall healthier group, (they are working.) And
            by selling to the entire staff of a business, young people were
            a part of the mix, offsetting older employers with health issues. Plus, it probably was not a tough sell to politicians. Who do want to incentivize more employers to extend insurance. And, as a by product, employers found providing coverage was a great way to retain employees. The demise of this system is really a symptom of a much broader problem associated with the overall deterioration of wages as we went from an economy with a much larger manufacturing base, with jobs that tended to pay more. To a service economy where wages tend to be lower, profit margins smaller, and jobs with benefits, much harder to find. While on the service end, advances in medical technology, not available even a decade ago, are commonplace, and expensive. And in
            every case, billings for the insured, also come with billing
            for the uninsured built in. So, as premiums increase for the
            insured, with every additional uninsured. And with every premium increase, there are more employers that decide they can no longer carry coverage, you can see, the
            current system is failing to sustain itself. Not because of
            too much coverage, but the case of too many uninsured
            presenting problems that have gone untreated, and are
            more expensive to treat. And millions in emergency rooms,
            using the most expensive care, then not paying, or being
            able to pay.

          • sigrid28

            Charleo1, you not only understand the insurance business but have a true gift for making it comprehensible to the Common Man, who is usually, like Winnie the Pooh, a bear of very little brain. Most of us can hardly understand the fine print when we read insurance documents (which most avoid at all costs), but your commentary and perspective allows us–though kicking and screaming–to understand enough about this complicated field to see many of the benefits of the ACA.

          • charleo1

            Well, thank you Sigrid! And yes, the actuarial nuts and bolts,
            and the necessary legalese associated with the business of
            insurance, and contract law, are daunting to all, save for the
            lawyers specializing in the field. But, the premise of all insurance is based on spreading the risk of a particular occurrence among a group. Then attaching a rate to sub-
            sets of that group, based on the likelihood of those members
            actually experiencing the occurrence. For example, the
            actuarial base of all life insurance is computed on the age
            100. That is to say, the actuarial table predicts all of the group
            will die before age 100. And rates are assessed, all things
            being equal, for simplification. The further one is from the
            chronological age of 100, the less he or she will pay in
            premiums. And all kinds of insurance, including health, are
            formulated on more or less this idea. Of course, the probability of one being sick, or injured in one’s lifetime is much greater than dying, or being killed. And when our
            friend, “Jim,” noted it wasn’t fair for the young people, he
            was simply describing a part of what allows the group in
            total, to acquire the insurance much more cheaply than
            would be possible for any singular individual, including
            the youth. But more important to young people, as they
            start raising their families, buying a home, and saving for
            their kids college, or their own retirements. To protect
            those assets from being destroyed in a health emergency,
            they are going to need an affordable healthcare plan.
            And that was just not going to happen, unless there were some real reforms in the current system. And that’s why
            I’m a big proponent of ACA. It doesn’t solve all the problems.
            But it’s a much needed start, in what will be an ongoing
            process for many years to come.

          • sigrid28

            Thanks for such a generous reply.

          • sigrid28

            Jim, all of us on this comment thread have a lot to learn from Charleo1, who not only understands the insurance business but has a true gift for making it comprehensible to the common man. You and I could try harder to understand the fine print when we read insurance documents, but we need people with Charleo1′s perspective to really UNDERSTAND this complicated field.

    • James Smither

      Killing Obamacare will only force the government to spend BILLIONS more on charity hospitals! Thats the system we have now. Where do you think the uninsured go, Jim?

      People like Jim dont understand that….that the uninsured are paid for in billions of medicaid dollars shipped to local charity hospitals. where do you conservatives with your tiny brains think uninsured people go when they get sick? the street? No, they go to high dollar medicaid hospitals YOUR TAX DOLLARS SUPPORT. So……would you rather pay through high taxes or as people to buy their own insurance. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

      • Jim

        Instead we are going to have BILLIONS in insurance subsidies going to the insurance companies. Many will lose their insurance from their employers because it is cheaper to pay the penalties than provide the insurance coverage with all of the increased mandates. Many more people will have part-time positions instead of full time. All of our medical and financial data will be in big government database and we will lose privacy. (And any rogue healthcare employee across the country will have access to it.) Government panels will decide what care is and is not cost effective for us. We will pay a lot of bloated government bureaucrats thinking that it is somehow cheaper than paying private insurers. The relatively young and healthy will be forced to subsidize the older people on insurance. Drug companies will do quite well for a while because of the back room deals in creating Obamacare but will be hurt eventually when the government cuts back funding on drugs. More and more healthcare providers will be paid a fraction of their costs and start turning away new patients like they do currently for medicare. And the government will finally have the grandest excuse to regulate everything we do because after all they are providing for our healthcare.

    • MarkInOhio

      Today’s republicans appear to put themselves first, their party second, and the welfare of their constituents a distant third.

      • sigrid28

        This is the hierarchy, in a nutshell. The hidden component is big money funding elections for the republicans who put themselves first. No wonder republicans do the bidding of the 1%, who underwrite their campaigns.

  • Jim

    It is just a matter of who is willing to hold out the longest. If Republicans in the house stick together and refuse to pass a bill that funds Obamacare they can win. Eventually the democrats will want to fund all of their government goodies and could cave. But history has shown that Republicans have no balls and will cave first. They have to be prepared for Obama’s spin and blame but they could do it. They have to prepared to argue their point with the American people that hate Obamacare.

    • bandrulz

      You do realize, of course, that shutting down the government will also shut down the military, essential government services, congressional funding, homeland security, air traffic control and on and on? Think you can do that for a year dumb ass?

      • Jim

        The military is considered an essential service and stays in operation. I would love to have the TSA shut down since they are an impediment to this country. There is no reason the government needs to be involved in air traffic control (look at Canada.)

        • Leota2

          So this is what delusion looks like. No wonder sane republicans are finally disgusted. You guys would strap a bomb on a puppy if it didn’t bite who you wanted.

          • Jim

            And why is it that you think that you decide what is right for everybody? Government is about force. You are forcing people to do what you think you would like. I prefer freedom. You have the ability to contribute to any cause that you like voluntarily. Government is about forcing others to back what you would like.

            Government is one of the most inefficient wasteful institutions. They rarely follow their own rules. And it is typically corrupt. You want to understand policies, just follow the money. The way to end corruption in governemnt is to take most of the money out of it.

          • nirodha

            Jim- after reading all of your posts on this thread, and understanding the fact that you believe in the absolute least amount of government intrusion in your life, I have a modest proposal for you. Why not convert most of your assets to cash, buy a large tract of rural land, and live there without any government interference whatsoever? No taxes, no electricity, no municipal water or sewer services, no roads, no police or fire departments, no schools, no mail service, no waste, no corruption; totally off the grid and on your own! You could buy a large number of guns, lots of ammunition, raise your own food (no pesky FDA to ensure the safety of your food and water supply), and enjoy total freedom! You wouldn’t have to pay for insurance of any kind, because would not have to receive any services in case of loss. The possibilities go on and on! You wouldn’t have to worry about who to vote for, because you’d be absolutely independent! Sounds like paradise, no?

          • Jim

            First of all, the government won’t let you do that because they still insist on regulating you wherever you are in the county. They will come up with some agricultural laws if nothing else. Many of those services that you list are easily provided without government so there is no need to do without them. (Have you heard of wells, water cooperatives, private fire companies, fedex and ups, private garbage companies, private utilities, etc.) The government has some very legitimate roles. The federal government’s primary role is national defense. They should be protecting our borders from invasion (and not meddling in the business of other countries.) State and local governments should be providing law enforcement. That means going after murders, rapists, thieves, etc. It does not mean harassing some individuals for what they wish to consume. It does not mean searches and seizures without a warrant from a judge based on an oath of criminal activity. It does not mean preventing free speech or expression (The entire country is a free speech zone.) Government can provide very basic infrastructure such as roads. It should not be going around telling everyone what they can and cannot due in general. It doesn’t need to license or approve everything. Individuals can decide what they want to produce, what they want to buy, and what prices they wish to exchange at. The federal government does not need to be involved in most of these things at all (except for the national defense.) We need to stop sending money to Washington and hoping to get some back. Most taxes should be raised and spent at the state and local level. What we have no is every jurisdiction trying to outspend the other jurisdictions hoping to get more money back then they send in taxes. We need to end that game. Government has some very important duties, but it should only do those duties because frankly it is a horribly inefficient monopoly institution that relies on force rather than choice.

    • John Kruger

      Threatening not to pay government employees, which includes every single member of the military, just to try and overturn something that was passed completely legally, has public support, and has been clearly re-endorsed by the last presidential election, is as disgusting a tactic as I can imagine. I have no idea how anyone who thinks this obvious blackmail is a good idea can sleep at night.

      Keep trying to hold a gun to the head of the economy and blame those who do not give in to your demands for killing it. Nobody is stupid enough to believe it.

      • Jim

        Don’t be so proud of legislation that wasn’t read or available to be read and didn’t receive one vote from the opposing party. Policies of such magnitude should not be adopted without seeing the light of day and at least some bi-partisan support.

    • MarkInOhio

      This is pure nonsense from beginning to end. Turn. Off. Fox. “News”.

  • asiaman496

    So nice to be able to read sensible post…I put in so much time at the Republican controlled sites that I forget how posting should be done…
    The sites I fish on I can tell how I am doing by the thumb/arrow downs I get…

scroll to top