Quasimodo wrote:I believe (there's that word again) that ACA was the best Obama could accomplish, given the mindless opposition he faced. I would have much preferred a single payer program or Medicare for all. You know, just like every other mature country in the world.
Quoted since it bears repeating.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Mindless opposition is right. Time and again current Republican leadership adamantly opposes anything Obama advocates, even things they themselves advocated and proposed before finding out that Obama also supports them.
Just so we’re clear, there’s nothing else driving the shifts. Republicans endorse an idea, then they learn Obama agrees with them, then they reject the idea they’d just endorsed.
With this sentiment prevailing in Congress and with rank-and-file GOP voters, one starts to understand how and why compromise is quite literally impossible – if Obama expresses support for his own proposals, Republicans say no, and if Obama expresses support for GOP proposals, Republicans still say no.
It creates an environment in which the two sides can’t even negotiate, because one side won’t take “yes” for an answer.
Is the moral of the story that the president should simply say nothing, and make his positions on issues a national mystery?
It becomes ever more apparent that they will mindlessly and adamantly oppose anything that Obama advocates--no matter how good an idea it is--even if Republicans themselves were the first to advocate it. I am convinced that the better the idea or policy, the more adamantly they will oppose it if they know that it comes from or is supported by Obama because they simply can't stand the very idea of Obama and Democrats getting credit for anything good. It is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that serving the public good is secondary to their goal of enhancing their own selfish self-interests and their lust for political power and wealth.
In other words, they are far more concerned about blaming their political opponents for whatever they perceive (or can convince others to perceive) is wrong, than honestly striving to make things right.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
I agree with what you said, Gunnar, but I think it goes farther than that for some, namely the "freedom caucus" which isn't really Republican, but Libertarian Anarchists. Anyone who feels that shutting down the government is a decent negotiating option must be a little anarchist. This is without mentioning their unwillingness to actually do anything constructive when the government's running.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:I agree with what you said, Gunnar, but I think it goes farther than that for some, namely the "freedom caucus" which isn't really Republican, but Libertarian Anarchists. Anyone who feels that shutting down the government is a decent negotiating option must be a little anarchist. This is without mentioning their unwillingness to actually do anything constructive when the government's running.
I think you are probably right. I don't know a whole lot about the "freedom caucus", though. I'll read up on them and better inform myself. The whole thing seems so childish to me. It's like a few obstinate children who insist that everyone play the game they want to play or in the way they want to play it, or they will do their darnedest to make sure no one else gets to play at all.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Except that ajax didn't really state that Obama had a 'Supermajority' in Congress for Two Years.
cinepro wrote: Obamacare might not have been the best answer, but the existing system was ineffective and unsustainable, so I honestly can't begrudge Obama for trying to do something. But until Republicans actually step forward with a solid, realistic plan to address the healthcare issue, conservative whining about Obamacare (of which I have and will do plenty) is going to accomplish nothing.
Well stated, cinepro!!!
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Quasimodo wrote: I would have much preferred a single payer program or Medicare for all. You know, just like every other mature country in the world.
I'd love to see the principles used in Singapore's system implemented in the US (granted, Singapore is much smaller, but hopefully the principles could be applied). I would have hoped the Republicans would have moved towards something like this...but no.
Singapore is tiny in comparison, with roughly the same size population as Massachusetts, and its government intervenes in the economy and society much more so than the U.S. government. But there are still lessons to learn from Singapore “that are pertinent, that are relevant, that are completely on point with the issues that America is struggling with today,” Jha said. He cited, for example, Singapore’s emphasis on both the value of a free market system and the value of a strong government role in the marketplace to ensure a well-functioning health care system.
Singapore has a range of policies that support health care, Haseltine said. For example, Singaporeans are required to have a health savings plan, called Medisave, that works like a 401K retirement savings plan in the U.S; the government sets both policies and prices for private insurance companies; health care costs for services and procedures must be completely transparent; there’s a minister of “wellness” who emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet and exercise and works to curb smoking; there are high health care subsidies for those with low incomes; and the government invests heavily in medical education.
There’s also a compulsory savings program for workers called the Central Provident Fund that can be used to pay for housing; as a result, 85% of Singaporeans own their own home. “That is a big social stabilizer, and a big stabilizer of health,” Haseltine said.
Haseltine acknowledged that the Singapore government’s heavy hand in the marketplace and in society wouldn’t go over well in the U.S. But he thinks that some health care ideas from Singapore could work here, such as mandatory health savings accounts, greater transparency about costs and prices, and more regulation of insurance company prices and policies.
There is not a single Republican in the freedom caucus that is a libertarian anarchist. That is an actual thing (normally called "anarcho-capitalist") and no one in Congress actually holds that position. Threatening to cut off appropriations in a government shutdown as a congressional negotiating tactic is not anarchist. It was a common tactic of liberal Democrats for a period of time starting in the mid-70's. It doesn't mean they were anarchists either.
Quasimodo wrote:I believe (there's that word again) that ACA was the best Obama could accomplish, given the mindless opposition he faced. I would have much preferred a single payer program or Medicare for all. You know, just like every other mature country in the world.
Ah yes, let's put more government bureaucrats in charge. The EPA's done such a wonderful job in Colorado. Socialized medicine works poorly (the Brits are a classic example). The ACA has managed to make physicals much less useful. My doctor apologized in my last physical, but he was having to concentrate on typing up the notes of what I said in order to get paid. As a result, the physical was much less personal and he could easily miss things. That's 100% due to the turd called the ACA passed with a boatload of lies from Obama (if you want your plan you can keep your plan; if you want your doctor you can keep your doctor).
richardMdBorn wrote:My doctor apologized in my last physical, but he was having to concentrate on typing up the notes of what I said in order to get paid. As a result, the physical was much less personal and he could easily miss things.
You chose to live in Great Britain rather than the land of the free, where no paperwork is ever required and we are free to have guns rather than eat bangers and mash!
What? Not in Great Britain? Well, perhaps another reality that did not have the same insurances practices of paperwork verification for quite some time. The U.S.A of Earth Prime has been doing voluminous verification requests since capitation entered the picture.
Donald Trump uses a concierge physician who most likely asks Mr. Trump what prognosis he would prefer. Now that is something a Republican administration could strive for.