Posted on 02/28/2013 9:46:36 AM PST by justiceseeker93
It’s really simple, folks. Everything boils down to Obamacare.
Do we really believe that Obamacare will make private health insurance unaffordable?
Do we really believe Obamacare will bankrupt the nation and relegate the next generation of Americans to a dimmer future of less freedom and opportunity?
Do we really believe Obamacare will create incorrigible dependency?
Do we really believe that Obamacare will lead to a deterioration of healthcare services and rationed care?
Are we really serious about balancing the budget and reforming entitlements?
If the answer to the aforementioned questions is a resounding yes, which is presumably the case for all conservatives, then the following statements from House conservatives regarding funding Obamacare in the upcoming budget CR are incomprehensible: (via The Hill)
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Don’t have to repeal the law. Neuter it. Don’t fund any line item for any agency that is in any way connected with Obamacare.
There are thousands of “dead laws” on the books that never get funding so you never hear too much about them.
If the Republicans were truely serious about doing away with Obamacare, simply de-fund it. The Senate can’t do anything about it except bolt back on to an HR, so the House can take it back off.
ObamaCare is all about single-payer.
Medicaid is the “doorway” that single-payer is going to be implemented through.
Governors are enabling that transition. Obama will have the states implement single-payer for him through state Medicaid programs.
No fight will be needed at the federal level.
Incrementalism. It’s what’s for dinner.
Ping!!!
The Republicans are basically a spineless bunch of typical politicians. I'm ashamed of them and I am a conservative Constitutionalists and voted Republican.
Medicaid is the “doorway” that single-payer is going to be implemented through.
Governors are enabling that transition. Obama will have the states implement single-payer for him through state Medicaid programs.
No fight will be needed at the federal level.
Incrementalism. It’s what’s for dinner.
Yup... great post, headstamp 2.
God help us all...
Medicaid is the “doorway” that single-payer is going to be implemented through.
Governors are enabling that transition. Obama will have the states implement single-payer for him through state Medicaid programs.
No fight will be needed at the federal level.
Incrementalism. It’s what’s for dinner.
Yup... great post, headstamp 2.
God help us all...
Crap... sorry about the double post!
Yes, the ultimate goal of the left is to have private insurance fail by design by putting so many mandates on the private carriers so that their policies will become priced out of the general marketplace. Then Big Brother will come to the rescue and offer an "affordable" plan, one size fits all, i.e., single payer. Problem is that everywhere it's been tried, the quality of care deteriorates, yet the expense to taxpayers is prohibitive.
Medicaid is the “doorway” that single-payer is going to be implemented through.
Governors are enabling that transition. Obama will have the states implement single-payer for him through state Medicaid programs.
I don't necessarily agree with that. I'm aware that some states, even with GOP governors, have opted to participate in the Medicaid part of Obamacare, at least for now. But there will be some holdouts that will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it. That would require even more federal legislation. But it's difficult to foresee the entire population accepting Medicaid or something like it, because it's a poverty program with all the attendant problems in obtaining access to quality care.
Unless we can get 41 solid senate votes in 2014 Obamacare is funded for the next fours years and I would say that it might be impossible after that to get rid of entirely.
With stimulus in 2009, roughly $1T, that became part of the baseline budget. Because the Senate will not vote on a budget that $1T stays in there. This was the plan all along! How to increase the budget by $1T 101!
What would happen if everyone in America took 2 days off, from work, shopping (food, fuel etc) didn’t use any thing like t.v’s, radios, lights, etc...didn’t drive anywhere, didn’t use the internet, cell phones, land lines, etc....what would this do to our ecomony? Would it show the man in washington d.c. ( I can’t call him President, he doesn’t know what leadership is)?
Yes, incrementalism is the modern commie’s best friend.
OK, let's say hypothetically your plan is put into effect and, amazingly enough, the majority of Americans cooperate with it. The economy is hurt even more. But what's that to Obama? At best, he wouldn't care; at worst, he'd be happy. His ultimate goal is to shrink the private sector and grow government.
And as far as Obamacare is concerned, I would presume that your scenario would result in hospitals closing down and medical care becoming just about unavailable. That would present a perfect situation for him to declare an "emergency" and unilaterally declare Homeland Security as the sole provider of medical care around the country. That's how a tyrannical mindset works. What's going on now with Obamacare is, in the left's way of thinking, a more deliberate way of achieving essentially the same thing.
If you're talking about the Republicans in Congress, I would agree in general, especially the current House and Senate GOP leadership. But there are some exceptions that shouldn't be lumped together with the rest.
Thank you for your reply. I wondered if that is really how he would think, but needed to see someone else thinking the same way to answer the question.
We just need to get rid of obamacare, now rather than later, its going to kill this Nation along with so many other things he’s doing.
Bonehead even said it during the last campaign, they will fund it because its the law of the land.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
“But it’s difficult to foresee the entire population accepting Medicaid or something like it, because it’s a poverty program with all the attendant problems in obtaining access to quality care. “
I can see your point but it can morph into something else and be shoved on the public at large. How many times has that happened before with a government program. Social Security wasn’t supposed to be a retirement program either but that’s what it has become to millions of Americans.
SSI/SSD wasn’t supposed to be a catch all for disability but that has what they have become. Including kids.
A historical note: Social Security was a cleverly designed and packaged name for a program instituted by the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, sold on the false premise that workers would be buying an "insurance policy" that would provide them with supplemental income for their retirement years to allow them to be "secure". (Of course, in no other insurance policy agreement could the "insurer" make unilateral changes in the terms and conditions without the policyholder's consent.) The true purpose of it, as admitted to later by some politicians who were in on its start, was to lock in the senior vote for the Democrats forever via a monthly government check. On that alone, they turned out to be wrong, but they gradually added a whole spate of "entitlements" for selected demographic groups, in return for which the recipient is expected to reciprocate at the voting booth. Problem is, as life expectancy increased dramaticaly, SS and other entitlements became actuarially unsound and unaffordable in their existing state - hence the debt and deficit situation the government is facing now.
Rates are going up, no doubt. They're on an unsustainable path and the government exchanges are being created to eventually provide universal care aka socialized medicine to all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.