Republicans Please Explain to Me . . .

[Anonymous]

Many republicans back these lawsuits against the federal health care bill requiring people to purchase health insurance policies. Yet, many of the people who support these lawsuits are also the same people who argue that people on welfare, the uninsured, and illegal immigrants are taking advantage of the system by expecting/demanding health care and then not paying the bills - which leads to higher health care costs.

I would think you'd support the part of the health care bill that requires people who are financially able to buy insurance. Otherwise, when they go to the ER, YOU will be footing the bill anyway, which is something you don't like.

I'm not looking for arguments about what different kind of health care system you prefer - just someone to explain what I see as a total contradiction.

[Anonymous]

I am in favor of the health care reform bill... or, more specifically, health care form in general. Not so sure about THIS bill.

That being said, I think you are conflating different groups. There were a LOT of different reasons people opposed the bill, some more legitimate than others IMHO. Some people felt that the mandate was an unfair restriction of freedom and was the first instance that the federal government required the purchasing of a product for all people.

Others took issue with health care reform (or existing health care) because of what they perceived as abuse or the potential abuse of the system. These groups likely weren't coming from the same ideological standpoint, but likely DID come from the right/conservative/Republican side of the aisle AND ultimately both opposed the bill or certain aspects of the bill. But I don't know that there are many individuals who thoughtfully hold both positions at the same time.

I personally am in favor of health care reform, but was bothered by the mandate.

[Anonymous]

Note: I'm PP and I certainly wouldn't identify as Republican, but that is my understanding of the situation. There may be people better equipped to handle the question, but that is my 2 cents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Note: I'm PP and I certainly wouldn't identify as Republican, but that is my understanding of the situation. There may be people better equipped to handle the question, but that is my 2 cents.

We've been giving opinions for two cents since the days of "Shave and a haircut: two bits." Isn't it time we held out for at least a buck or two? That's my dollar's worth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many republicans back these lawsuits against the federal health care bill requiring people to purchase health insurance policies. Yet, many of the people who support these lawsuits are also the same people who argue that people on welfare, the uninsured, and illegal immigrants are taking advantage of the system by expecting/demanding health care and then not paying the bills - which leads to higher health care costs.

I would think you'd support the part of the health care bill that requires people who are financially able to buy insurance. Otherwise, when they go to the ER, YOU will be footing the bill anyway, which is something you don't like.

I'm not looking for arguments about what different kind of health care system you prefer - just someone to explain what I see as a total contradiction.

because they talk out of both sides of their mouth.

[Anonymous]

Republicans don't like the government forcing citizens to purchase a specific product. It is a direct infringement on personal liberties.

Individuals have to buy car insurance if they drive a car --- but they don't have to drive a car. It is "apples and oranges" to compare the two.

Please keep in mind that the individual mandate is really only addressing the small portion of the uninsured population that is uninsured by choice -- the "young invincibles." Those who cannot afford insurance get it through Medicaid, which by 2014 will go up to 133% of the FPL. Taxpayers do not pay for a young invincible's health care when he/she ends up getting hit by a bus. That gets written off to bad debt at the hospital, after the hospital tries to get what resources they can from that individual and their family. The insured indirectly pay for that care because the hospital then has to jack up its charges (wonks, I said charges, not costs) to insurers to make up for that loss, and the zero margin business of caring for Medicaid patients.

As a republican, I am more incensed over the expansion of Medicaid than I am the individual mandate. Even more people at the government trough...yadda, yadda, yadda...

[Anonymous]

The op-ed piece below details exactly why I am against the current healthcare bill.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/18/AR2010071802733.html

[Anonymous]

I don't think the R position on the health care bill was logical at all. They demonized the Dems for any cost cutting or even rational care models (death panels, anyone?, "gutting" of Medicare when payments were squeezed) and at the same time talked about how the bill was going to cost tons of money and not tackle the root of the problem - which apparently can be magically fixed by simply addressing tort reform.

[Anonymous]

That op-ed piece doesn't really help explain the apparent hypocrisy. The writer claims the government needs to do more to control prices... but isn't that type of regulation exactly what Republicans are opposed to? Aren't they the free market junkies?

[Anonymous]

No what the writer is saying that the claims that the health care bill will lower costs are false because the health care bill in MA is the exact same bill as the Federal bill.

The implication is that the only way MA and ultimately the Federal govt will have to control costs is to ration care which we have been "promised" won't happen. This is the big lie.

[Anonymous]

Here is how this needs to work, you have insurance and go to the doctor or ER, it is covered, if you don't you get a bill, if you don't pay, you have it on your credit report until you pay it off or you end up serving time.

if a person does not value their own health enough to get insurance, forcing them to get insurance is not going to fix it. I am all in favor of reforming the system but it can't be a band aid, it need to be fixed.

Everyone has a chance to get insurance, everyone has a chance to get an education, there are ones that have parents that make sure they get one and some who have parents that fail to be good parents. As a matter of fact, I think our President often talks about how his mother made sure he didn't end up like that and made him get up at 5 am every morning to do his homework.

If more parents took advantage of the education system for their kids, they would be able to afford insurance down the road.

[Anonymous]

I'm in favor of the mandate even though I consider myself a conservative. It's one thing to be poor and unable to afford insurance and quite another to choose to buy a new car, expensive electronics or clothing over decent health care insurance. Trust me, I know plenty of people who do this. People need to get their priorities in order.

[Anonymous]

The lawsuits get to the constitutionality of the bill. Regardess of its impact on costs, service, etc. the basic question is does the government have the power to compel you to buy a private product?

Obama initially said this was not a tax. Now he and the Justice Department want to claim this is a tax. Otherwise, they have no grounds for it.

What Republicans know is that this program will be like Social Security and Medicare. The real costs were way over initial estimates and once the government got it's foot in the door, they were in your wallet for good.

[Anonymous]

To Wit: a recent e-mail on

Your Social Security

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this. It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became
convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed.[9]

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

No longer Voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so.

But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

[Anonymous]

The lawsuits get to the constitutionality of the bill. Regardess of its impact on costs, service, etc. the basic question is does the government have the power to compel you to buy a private product?

Obama initially said this was not a tax. Now he and the Justice Department want to claim this is a tax. Otherwise, they have no grounds for it.

What Republicans know is that this program will be like Social Security and Medicare. The real costs were way over initial estimates and once the government got it's foot in the door, they were in your wallet for good.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Republicans are incensed that the government is "compelling" taxpayers to buy a private product, but then plenty of them voted in congress to use taxpayers $$$ to bail out private companies - the auto companies. WTF?

I just don't get it. Like some Republicans claim to be all about small government, they don't want government meddling in their daily lives. Yet these same republicans want the government to define marriage and regulate who can and can't get married. That's ok, though, because they happen to agree with that type of meddling in personal lives??