Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Woobie]

I'm really not trying to point fingers at anyone. Just noting a trend that some have taken towards blanket statements that belittle INGOers overall.

I've been guilty myself in the past. When a local ND gets reported in the news, I've rushed to be first to get out the witty , "what's their INGO username." I'm trying to do better.

You're right. I hate it when other people do it.

 

[Twangbanger]

You don't need me to show my work, you need a history lesson if you think Obamacare is viable in the long term.

Ok, I will accept history instruction from you: name one federally-subsidized, court-upheld federal mandate or program that ever collapsed? We're all ears. And I really want to learn. I'm eager to see Obamacare go away. And I'm eager for you to show how it will happen. (Or provide an example of a similar program that did so). I've already stated my reasoning for how it won't, earlier in the thread.

History shows us that "bad" federal subsidy programs tend to survive, not collapse, no matter how bad we think they are. For example, in the area of agricultural subsidies, we still have federal subsidies in place, decades after the industries they were designed to protect have largely left the country. That would be "failure" in my "logical" book; yet history doesn't care about my definition of "failure." Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty failed to eliminate poverty. Yet all these laws, regulations and subsidy programs still remain. They may not have "succeeded;" none of them are "viable" in the logical sense. But they still _remain_; they certainly didn't "collapse."

But again, I'm not interested in you picking apart my example on things like the sugar industry. I've already explained my reasoning regarding Obamacare in specific. I want you to present your own ideas. This is a discussion. You either demonstrate you have the skills to participate, or post something like "I don't want to go back and forth with you," or "Go Google it," etc., admit you can't back up what you say, and punt. That is how this works.

Look at burl below; he understands. He's making the effort:

Obamacare will collapse. There will soon be NO insurance companies that will be participating.

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...from-obamacare-leaves-little-insurance-choice

My take: your own link doesn't support your conclusion; its central message is that most Obamacare exchanges are becoming monopolies...exactly as I predicted. Nothing is collapsing; it's just turning out to be bad for Americans. Just like a host of other Federal programs that never went away.

I'm not looking for how Obamacare will be "bad" or "not succeed" or add more load to the National Debt. I already know all those things. I'm looking for evidence it will "collapse." Because these words have meanings, it's important that we be precise in their usage.

 

[BugI02]

I'm with Woobie on this. I'm more than a little jagged because I believe that they shot the bolt on repeal and replace. They should have gone with a clean repeal first and made people record their vote. ​Those 'Republicans' willing to vote down clean repeal, with replace to be decided later (with a future effective date of repeal such as 1/1/2020, say) then they need to be gone. The idea that Republicans can somehow hang onto legislative relevance if they just don't upset too many people is just the purest of pipe dreams. A lot of people are already upset and only getting more so. I judge the RINOs to already be making the political calculation that since they are marginally better than what might replace them in a competitive election, they can leverage that into re-election. It is time we disabuse them of that notion

Here in Ohio, even before this mess, we were working to make sure our sorry excuse for a governor is challenged from his right for re-election. There is a risk that this infighting could leave us with a Democratic governor, but it needs to be done. Politicians need to believe that there will be consequences if they fail to deliver what the voters want, first and foremost being their ignominious retirement from the field. Kasich tried hard to put the Hag into the white house and he needs to go. Others like him deserve the same fate

 

[BugI02]

Ok, I will accept history instruction from you: name one federally-subsidized, court-upheld federal mandate or program that ever collapsed? We're all ears. [snip]

High level nuclear waste repository/Yucca Mountain comes to mind. Nine years of Federal subsidy couldn't get it done, and that was against the determined opposition of just one or two states

People who believe they can't do something are almost always right

 

[gregr]

I`ll be redundant, and say again, there is zero authority provided in the Constitution for government to own, mandate, provide, or direct healthcare, period.

 

[Twangbanger]

High level nuclear waste repository/Yucca Mountain comes to mind. Nine years of Federal subsidy couldn't get it done, and that was against the determined opposition of just one or two states

People who believe they can't do something are almost always right

Bug, you are truly my hero . Although your small, dubious example didn't create a national welfare entitlement...I'll accept it.

I'm with Woobie on this. I'm more than a little jagged because I believe that they shot the bolt on repeal and replace. They should have gone with a clean repeal first and made people record their vote. ​Those 'Republicans' willing to vote down clean repeal, with replace to be decided later (with a future effective date of repeal such as 1/1/2020, say) then they need to be gone. The idea that Republicans can somehow hang onto legislative relevance if they just don't upset too many people is just the purest of pipe dreams. A lot of people are already upset and only getting more so. I judge the RINOs to already be making the political calculation that since they are marginally better than what might replace them in a competitive election, they can leverage that into re-election. It is time we disabuse them of that notion

Here in Ohio, even before this mess, we were working to make sure our sorry excuse for a governor is challenged from his right for re-election. There is a risk that this infighting could leave us with a Democratic governor, but it needs to be done. Politicians need to believe that there will be consequences if they fail to deliver what the voters want, first and foremost being their ignominious retirement from the field. Kasich tried hard to put the Hag into the white house and he needs to go. Others like him deserve the same fate

And as a second, I have a pretty substantial amount of agreement with that. Republicans didn't want to go on record for "clean repeal," when they knew there was a chance it could actually happen. I do realize and accept that Moderate Republicans from swings states are an important part of why the Republicans have a Majority in the first place, and House Republicans don't want to jeopardize themselves for something the Senate will likely not pass. But what good is a Majority, if you won't _do_ anything with it? (However, I must admit that I say that as a "citizen," not a legislator...it's very clear what "legislators" get from being in a do-nothing majority: they get campaign cash and continued employment).

I understand T. Lex's concern that we not annihilate the GOP and wind up with the "Party of Gun Control" as a replacement. And there's a part of me that wonders if it wouldn't have been better to accept a compromise, in order to get rid of the Individual Mandate. (That same cynical side of me also wonders how much money people like Rand Paul got from insurance companies, to oppose any change which would jeopardize the revenue stream they get from keeping Obamacare the way it is). But we've tried for too long to "pick up the turd by the clean end." Republicans just want to stay in control and not get any sh*t on them. They do not have what it takes to govern. I'm beginning to (fearfully) wonder if suffering another AWB is what it's going to take to make people on our side understand what the score is? Because the midterms are starting to look awfully dicey after the last couple days.

This whole thing ended up being a total gift to the democrats. They have been looking for a way to neutralize "our" turnout advantage in the midterms, and I think the GOP just handed it right to them. Republicans will pay a price for this either way, whether they compromise or not. Will the cost of "doing nothing" be greater than the cost of a "compromise?" We shall see.

 

[BugI02]

I just believe we need to go down swinging, just like we would on 2A. These people need to believe "You'll do this (repeal, replacement is a whole 'nother can of worms), or your replacement will. Those are the only options"

If we don't strive to hold politicians feet to the fire, even 'our' politicians, this will be our lot

 

[KG1]

We should be so lucky if Obamacare totally collapsed.

 

[KG1]

"Our" Politicians should be made fear their own voting bloc. They are more afraid of people that don't vote for them. That's upside down world.

 

[BugI02]

Correction: ALL politicians should be made to fear our voting block. The NRA could be a model/prototype

 

[Twangbanger]

I just believe we need to go down swinging, just like we would on 2A. These people need to believe "You'll do this (repeal, replacement is a whole 'nother can of worms), or your replacement will. Those are the only options"

If we don't strive to hold politicians feet to the fire, even 'our' politicians, this will be our lot

I have a question for you, related to this. Do you think it's possible that Trump has calculated his chances of re-election are actually better if he loses control of Congress in the midterms? (Does the average INGOer feel more motivated to vote for Trump a second time, for instance...if he's the only thing standing between us and another Assault Weapon Ban?)

And if Democrats gain the majority in the midterms...would Trump spend that last two years battling against them? Or working _with_ them on stuff?

That is the calculation that Trump supporters, and Freedom-Caucus-ers, must make. Do you feel lucky? I really am not sure if it was 5, or 6, shots fired in this latest exchange .

 

[Woobie]

Ok, I will accept history instruction from you: name one federally-subsidized, court-upheld federal mandate or program that ever collapsed? We're all ears. And I really want to learn. I'm eager to see Obamacare go away. And I'm eager for you to show how it will happen. (Or provide an example of a similar program that did so). I've already stated my reasoning for how it won't, earlier in the thread.

History shows us that "bad" federal subsidy programs tend to survive, not collapse, no matter how bad we think they are. For example, in the area of agricultural subsidies, we still have federal subsidies in place, decades after the industries they were designed to protect have largely left the country. That would be "failure" in my "logical" book; yet history doesn't care about my definition of "failure." Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty failed to eliminate poverty. Yet all these laws, regulations and subsidy programs still remain. They may not have "succeeded;" none of them are "viable" in the logical sense. But they still _remain_; they certainly didn't "collapse."

But again, I'm not interested in you picking apart my example on things like the sugar industry. I've already explained my reasoning regarding Obamacare in specific. I want you to present your own ideas. This is a discussion. You either demonstrate you have the skills to participate, or post something like "I don't want to go back and forth with you," or "Go Google it," etc., admit you can't back up what you say, and punt. That is how this works.

Look at burl below; he understands. He's making the effort:




My take: your own link doesn't support your conclusion; its central message is that most Obamacare exchanges are becoming monopolies...exactly as I predicted. Nothing is collapsing; it's just turning out to be bad for Americans. Just like a host of other Federal programs that never went away.

I'm not looking for how Obamacare will be "bad" or "not succeed" or add more load to the National Debt. I already know all those things. I'm looking for evidence it will "collapse." Because these words have meanings, it's important that we be precise in their usage.

You're looking at the short term. In the long term economic disaster has accompanied every effort to socialize medicine, especially when accompanied with socialized retirement and welfare.

Soviet Russia, Greece, Italy, Spain, Venezuela have collapsed or are in the process. Cuba and PRK are so permanently depressed as to be almost incapable of further collapse. One way or the other, Obamacare will fail.

 

[Woobie]

I have a question for you, related to this. Do you think it's possible that Trump has calculated his chances of re-election are actually better if he loses control of Congress in the midterms? (Does the average INGOer feel more motivated to vote for Trump a second time, for instance...if he's the only thing standing between us and another Assault Weapon Ban?)

And if Democrats gain the majority in the midterms...would Trump spend that last two years battling against them? Or working _with_ them on stuff?

That is the calculation that Trump supporters, and Freedom-Caucus-ers, must make. Do you feel lucky? I really am not sure if it was 5, or 6, shots fired in this latest exchange .

This presupposes a vote for Trump was made the first go around.

 

[BugI02]

To be honest, I don't think Trump cares all that much about re-election. I think he just wants to make a few repairs. I don't think at first he really thought he would/could win and was likely motivated to be like Ross Perot and try to move the political debate toward issues he cared about. Now that the dog actually caught the tire, I think he wants to fix many of the things he perceives as going wrong. I do believe he wants to leave the country better off than he found it

I don't look for the setback on repeal and replace to have that much effect on him, as a business man I expect he has tasted failure many times without letting it discourage him. When he says on to the next item I think you will see that there is no subterfuge there, he will move on to tax reform. But people should not expect that he will now compromise on what he believes is needed just to get a win. I think the RINOs are in for a rude awakening

I don't say that Trump particularly likes to lose, just that it won't be debilitating. I think RINOs forget at their peril that, like his base, politically Trump doesn't have that much to lose since so many are sure he will fail anyway. I think they likely will play brinksmanship with the wrong man and burn the whole party down after all. It would be hilarious if he began working closely with the Freedom Caucus on issues where they have overlap

 

[hoosierdoc]

Again, Republican Party establishment are pathetic losers who are incapable of leading

 

[Libertarian01]

I agree with all who have been saying straight repeal. I have been hoping for that from the beginning. I knew the republicans would get bogged down if they tried any form of replacement as that would lead to infighting. I am very sorry I was right on this one.

I also don't believe the ACA will collapse. That is the damned problem with s****y legislation! Social security should have died in the 1950's. It didn't. Social security should have died in the 1980's. It didn't. Congress has a track record of patching crap that doesn't work instead of letting it fail. The same will be there for Obamacare if it is allowed to live. It will be on the brink of failure, then congress will patch it. It will have some damned clause that will hurt too much so congress will cut it out. It will slowly morph into some horrible thing that we can't get rid of because we have become addicted to it.

That is why it should have a clean repeal now, while there is still time.

This is how we wind up with $19.8 trillion in debt! This is how we wind up with about $130 trillion in unfunded liabilities! It will be our hubris and our greed that brings down the greatest nation on earth. And the worst part of it is - over half the people living here won't understand how they got there when the fall finally comes.

Regards,

Doug

 

[BugI02]

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

- Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

- Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee

 

[Woobie]

- Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee



- Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee

Precisely.

One way or the other the ACA, SS, Welfare, HUD, ad nauseum will fail. It will likely take the country with it.


Lord Woodhouselee was spot on. The astute reader will note where we are as a nation both in his progression, and in relation to the 200 year average.

 

[KG1]

"Bound by dependency" = the antithesis of Liberty. This country is definitely headed the wrong way. Has been for quite awhile.

 

[Twangbanger]

Bug/Woob,

Everything in those philosophical dissertations indicates that Obamacare will become even further entrenched. There is nothing there which says "the people" will realize its error and remove it or replace it with anything different.

If what you're getting at with these examples of foreign governments, different stages of democratic decay, etc., is that Obamacare will not fail until "America in general" fails...then I believe you are conceding my assertion that Obamacare is here for the duration.