Bets are on that Romeny won't repeal "Obama care" if gets PotUS

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Jun 28, 2012.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    Simply put, many aspects of the AMA (aka Obmamny care) are Republican supported ideas, in particular is the "Insurance market".
    The requirement that everyone must buy insurance is the darling of insurance companies, and they have huge power of politicians.
    And Romney created the basis for the AMA, among other things.

    Considering the stalled job environment, millions cannot afford the very expensive individual health insurance (when I shopped during a low income period, it was almost 2 weeks salary for me!). Dismantling the AMA means any chance they can get affordable, or assistance, H.C. goes out the window.

    TEA Party will very likely do all they can to remove it, but I suspect the general Republicans will work with Democrats to at most teak the system.

    Yes, Romney is just trying to get the vote, seen this before.


    If you think otherwise, explain why.
     
  2. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #2
    Additionally, when he says he will "repeal and replace it on day one" you know he is totally lying as it's not in his power to just flip a switch like that. Day one is usually taken up with that whole inauguration thing. After that he would have to pass such a repeal through both the House and Senate and this assumes that the GOP has majorities in both of those places, because there is no way the Democrats are going to vote to repeal it. Then he would also have to explain to the American people why he's dumping the things they are starting to like and finally he would have to explain what the "replace" part entails. Replace it with WHAT exactly?

    I especially know he is lying when he says that he wants to keep the people with pre-existing conditions onboard, because the only way to do that without having everyone in the system to offset that cost, is to let the insurance companies dramatically increase the cost (to the point of non-affordability) for those people, or possibly increase the cost for everyone even. The only way to keep it even half way affordable is to have everyone in the system.
     
  3. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #3
    Lets not forget who pushed this **** through in the future. Republicans wanted nothing to do with this bill and attempted to stop it.


    5 years from now I don't want to hear liberals bitching about how Republicans caused this pile when they are getting ramrodded by their insurance companies without a choice to not carry insurance. At least now you can get ****ed by the insurance companies, drop your coverage, and not have to worry about being penalized for not getting ****ed.
     
  4. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4

    Rewriting history so soon? Perhaps you forgot how we got the ACA. Months and months of negotiations where all kinds of Republican ideas (mandate, delayed implementation etc.) were incorporated into the bill only to have them walk away from the bill.
     
  5. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #5
    They didnt like the final product and neither do I. This is the democrats baby. Im sure the insurance companies are giving obama some donations for selling out his people.
     
  6. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #6

    My. The anger is palpable.

    And a ****ing good morning to you, sir.

    Anyway, yes, this is Obama's and the Democrat's baby and most likely will be seen that way, much like the New Deal is tied to FDR.

    If you ever see me try to disavow the connection in the future, you're welcome to call me a hypocrite.
     
  7. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #7
    I understand this, given that The President staunchly refused to allow it to be called Republicare.

    You mean "their" people, surely.

    And I see that you take as much care with your typing as you do with your critical thinking.
     
  8. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #8
    Yes, we will never forget that Republicans came up with the idea and Romney implemented the test bed for it in Massachusetts. :)

    [​IMG]
     
  9. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #9
    I'm well aware of this. Romney is really just Obama lite. That's why I was hoping the Supreme Court would overturn this. I don't really understand why "open-minded liberals" are scared of people like Romney. He really is no different from Obama. Both are just slick politicians who are in it for power.

    Only the naive think politicians are in it for the people. They are useful tools to be placed into power for a limited time and then tossed into the scrap heap once they cease being useful. That's why we have checks and balances.
     
  10. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #10
    Okay so the fact that Obama supports gay rights, abortions, wants to remove Bush tax cuts for the rich, drove healthcare and Romney is completely opposed to all those means they're the same?

    Romney scares 'liberals' because he says crap like he wants to 'double Guantanamo'. Also he's an indoctrinated mormon. Obama is as Christian as he needs to be to be acceptable to the electorate. I wouldn't be surprised if he's an atheist under it all.

    I can't even watch Romney when he's taking questions, he's so terribly out of touch with the working class it's cringeworthy. Working class America must seriously hate black people if they vote for Romney.
     
  11. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #11
    Obama's position on gay rights is very similar to Romney's when he was governor. Obama just changed positions, to match Dick Cheney's, a few months ago, likely for political reasons.

    As for being a Mormon, Democrats don't seem to mind that their own Senate Majority Leader is one (and a practicing one from all indications). Besides, I thought liberals supported religious freedom. As long as Obama claims openly to be a Christian and frequently attends church services, I won't assume he's an atheist.

    As for the "Bush tax cuts," not even Obama is proposing to repeal all, or even most of them. As for being out-of-touch, I recall it was Barack Obama who made the statement about how expensive arugula had gotten at Whole Foods while he was campaigning in rural Iowa in 2008. Hillary Clinton was arguing that she was more in touch and that Obama was the elitist. It was also Obama who blamed his loss to Clinton in Pennsylvania on all those "bitter" Democratic primary voters "clinging to guns and religion." That's a great way to show respect for the working class, isn't it?

    It's only the "open minded liberals" like you who inject race into everything. I actually voted for Obama, both in the primary and the general election. I guess I'm racist, though, since I might decide to vote against him this time (I really don't want to vote for Romney, but a 10% chance of overturning ACA is better than a 0% chance at this point).

    In reality, Romney and Obama are both statists who see the presidency as an imperialist executive position with more power than the Constitution actually grants to it.
     
  12. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    It's amazing.

    No matter how many times you've repeated this phrase it still remains fresh and insightful.

    :rolleyes:
     
  13. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #13
    Most "liberals" are neither liberal nor open-minded from my experience. It's one of my favorite terms, in contrast to the generally vulgar terms that "open-minded liberals" like the people at Daily Kos use to describe people who disagree with them.

    On a side note, I actually used to post there, quite civilly (I never used the "open-minded liberal" term or anything remote derogatory there), until they decided I wasn't worthy of posting there. If I recall, I think the last straw was when I defended Blanche Lincoln after her primary win in 2010 by pointing out that she cast votes in support of ACA and Dodd-Frank (and actually strengthened Dodd-Frank through an amendment that bears her name). While I fully respect that Markos Moulitsas fought in the military in part to defend his right to host a website where he can decide to ban people at will, I was kind of hoping he'd be more welcoming of alternative views.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    And I look forward to your obsessive use of it.

    :cool:
     
  15. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #15
    He's hugely different from Obama. Obama is a true leader, while the other has no concrete plans or ideas of his own. Other then "Obama bad" "Obama failed leader". Nevermind that he has shown more leadership then any President we've had recently.

    Oh George Bush gave up looking for Bin Laden? No worries Obama finished the job.

    Auto industry on the ropes? Obama to the rescue. Romney on the other hand would have just let them go belly up.

    No President able to do anything on healthcare in decades? No problem..Obama did what no one else was able to do.

    DADT discriminatory to gays? No problem, he took care of that too.

    Congress sitting on their butts on immigration - no worries, Obama did something about that too for now. Meanwhile Romney doesn't even know what his plan on immigration even IS. And neither does anyone else.

    And that's the real difference. With Obama, you know what you are getting, you know what his plans are and you see things actually getting DONE. With Romney it's a moving target. So much so that even members of his own party are unsure of what he stands for or what he will do. That is NOT the sign of a leader.

    Obama worked his way up, literally going door to door and talks about working for the common man. Because he WAS a common man at one time. Romney on the other hand talks about multiple Cadillacs and building elevators for them in his house. You can't see the difference in that??

    [​IMG]
     
  16. leekohler, Jun 30, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2012

    leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    Oh really? I'm a liberal- mostly by default because the GOP is so completely messed up right now.

    Here's what I stand for:

    1. First and foremost- equal rights and equal opportunity (NOT equal outcomes, as it is not realistic). Without that as a start, nothing else matters. It's what this country was founded to be, and it must be the first concern of all. Without that, the rest of what we stand for means nothing.

    2. The second amendment, with regulation. It is in the country's best interest that we allow gun ownership. However, we MUST make sure that people who buy guns not be:

    Felons
    Untrained
    Mentally ill to the point they would be irresponsible with guns

    Those are reasonable requirements. None of those mentioned above should ever be permitted to buy guns.

    3. People should be able to make as much money as they want, as long as it is done in an ethical manner, and not to the detriment of others. Enron, the housing crisis and the banking crisis are examples of bad unregulated practices that need to be stopped.

    4. Universal health care. The more healthy we are, the more productive we are as a society. That benefits everyone. No one should have to go bankrupt or go without care because they got sick.

    5. Obligatory military service for all, for one year. Every able-bodied citizen should have to serve. Do this, and we'll see a lot fewer wars like Iraq. And yes, even at age 45, I would include myself in this requirement. I am sure they could find something for me to do. We would stop policing the world very quickly.

    6. Tax any religious organization that becomes overtly politically active. An example was the Mormons funding campaigns for Proposition 8. That should never have been permitted without taxing them. This is already a rule, but it needs to be enforced. If individuals who adhere to a certain religion wish to fund a campaign, that is OK.

    7. Require public schools to teach the facts, not religion. Religious schools are fine, but they may not be publicly funded.

    So, what do you disagree with so far?
     
  17. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #17
    First of all, it was George W. Bush who first used TARP funds to prop up GM. Romney would have let GM go into a normal Chapter 11. Guess what. It would have worked. What Obama did was put GM through a special process that handed $27 billion that rightfully belonged to secured creditors (under 200 years of legal precedent), and handed it instead to the UAW. Those secured creditors included many state pension plans, among others. GM asked Sweden and Germany for the same deal for SAAB and Opel. They said no. Guess what. Sweden and Germany are recovering faster than we are.

    DADT - That was Bill Clinton's policy. So was the Defense of Marriage Act. I'm against them, too, but as they were legislative acts, they need to be dealt with legislatively. If you think it's a good idea for the president to ignore duly passed legislation, I hope you appreciate it when some future president decides not to enforce the ACA.

    It's the same with immigration. Obama had a chance to take care of it in 2010 when he still had a friendly Congress. In fact, he promised Luis Gutierrez (an influential Congressman from Chicago) that he would propose a comprehensive immigration bill later that year in exchange for his support for the health care bill. Gutierrez was very adamant on this point and even threatened to vote against ACA unless he did this. Guess what. Obama got his vote on ACA and he didn't even suggest an immigration bill.

    As for "no president doing anything on health care," I thought it was George W. Bush who added the Medicare prescription drug benefit in the first place. Senator Obama voted against it. Apparently he didn't believe senior citizens deserved a drug benefit at all until 2010, when he bragged about how the new law expanded the drug benefit.

    There is more to being president than "getting something done." George W. Bush "got things done," too.
     
  18. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #18
    3) I agree you need to earn your money honestly, but I lack your faith in regulations and regulators to be able to do anything about it. Where were the regulators in the decade leading up to the financial crisis? Why they were out there encouraging banks to originate subprime loans? The SEC under Bill Clinton had a reputation for being tough. Except they missed Enron, WorldCom, and Madoff, among others. Even today, there are 100 full-time regulators at JP Morgan, and still the company managed to lose $2 billion on a bad trade.

    The financial crisis was a result of "too big to fail" institutions failing. Dodd-Frank does nothing to solve the problem of "too big to fail" and just concentrates global finance into a smaller number of even bigger institutions. It won't stop the next financial crisis.

    4) Health care is your own responsibility. Once you give control over health care to the government, other freedoms are curtailed. Mike Bloomberg's regulation of soft drinks in NYC sounds a lot less "crazy" in the context of a national health system. Expect more ideas like that to come out. Of course, since the USDA is in the back pocket of the industry, don't expect a correlation between government recommendations and actual health. For decades the government was pushing the stupid idea that eating more processed carbohydrates and synthetic fats would solve our health problems. It was a not-so-subtle subsidy of corn and soy farmers. Expect more of the same.

    5) I would ban the draft. Conscription is slavery. If there is a just war, there will be volunteers. Consider that in 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, at our peak we had about 200,000 troops on the ground and lost about 5500. In 10 years in Vietnam, where we had the draft, we had about 500,000 troops on the ground at our peak and lost about 53,000. We don't need a draft.

    6) That's fine, but then we should also tax political parties.

    7) The federal government shouldn't be involved in education. In the 40 years since we've had a department of education, spending has skyrocketed and our performance has fallen relative to other advanced countries. Governance of education is the responsibility of state governments. Every attempt at federalization has been a disaster.

    Most recently, consider No Child Left Behind, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed the Senate 91-8, and the House 384-45. It is now widely acknowledged as a complete failure. Even Obama's "Race to the Top" received a lot of bipartisan praise and showed promise, but has been abandoned. It would be better to dismantle the Department of Education and convert it into a research organization.

    At the local level, I think we should have more private schools and more school choice, but I'd approach it in a different way. Rather than hand out vouchers to inner city residents and expect schools to come out of nowhere, I'd suggest starting with the wealthier suburban districts that don't need funding. Reduce property taxes there and spin the schools off. That would free up state funding for other purposes. As we learn lessons from those experiences we can gradually expand it.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    BS- after the Great Depression, measures were put in place to prevent another. The GOP, starting with Reagan, started removing those rules and regulations. They have pledged to undo everything FDR put in place to prevent this very type of thing.

    Wrong- health care has not and never will be one individual's responsibility. That's why insurance came to be in the first place, because very few people can afford health care on their own. Two years ago, I had to have a series of procedures to treat a hereditary condition. All the pre-approvals were done and the insurance company gave the green light.

    Then in the middle of the series, the insurance company decided it wasn't paying. I fought them for three months and finally went to the state AG's office to get them to pay. They finally did. But in the meantime, everything that had been done up to that point cam undone. I had to go through the procedures all over. What should have cost $20,000, ended up costing $35,000. I'm sorry, but most people do not have that kind of money to to hand over.

    Oh please. Slavery? But wait, you also probably think paying taxes is slavery too, right? Sorry, you want to be part of a society, you have to contribute.

    You just make this crap up, don't you? Do yourself a favor, and do a two second google search before you post things like this. The fact that you didn;t even know this, hurts the rest of your arguments.

    http://www.irs.gov/charities/political/index.html

    NCLB is bad and needs to be repealed, but we need national standards for education for the reasons I explained in my previous post.
     
  20. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #20

    Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Anyway, Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the financial crisis. If anything, doing away with it made it easier to deal with the mess, since healthier commercial banks were able to take over the weaker investment banks.


    Most people can afford most health care on their own. What is uncertain is the risk of injury, which is why we buy insurance. It's the same with property and casualty insurance. Most of us can't afford a fire destroying our house, so we buy insurance. It shouldn't be any different just because it is health care. We don't mandate that everyone buy property and casualty insurance.


    Yes, forcing someone into the military is involuntary servitude.

    Do yourself a favor. Stop hurling insults. Political parties are tax-exempt. A lot of foundations that are politically active are also tax-exempt (e.g. Sierra Club, Ford Foundation). A two second google search would help you figure that out. The fact that you didn't even know this hurts the rest of your arguments.

    I know full well that churches aren't supposed to be politically active. However, I think there is a clear double standard in what the IRS decides to enforce.


    National standards haven't helped for the past 40 years. There is no reason to think they would help now. The problem isn't a lack of standards. The problem is that we have entrenched public school unions that make change nearly impossible. Even Democrats like Andrew Cuomo are getting fed up.
     
  21. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #21
    And your point is ....... :confused: Sauce.

     
  22. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #22
    Yes. Just because other countries force military service doesn't make it right. Other countries ban gay marriage, too, including a lot of the ones with mandatory military service. Are you seriously saying we should be more like Myanmar, Belarus, Egypt, or Ukraine?

    The situation in Switzerland is quite ridiculous. They haven't been invaded since 1815, are surrounded by friendly countries, and have run out of reasons to even have much of a military at all. Yet they steal a year out of every man's time and make them do useless military exercises when they could be doing something productive. Of course, they also require nearly everyone to keep a loaded gun in their house. I don't hear many "progressives" suggesting that.
     
  23. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #23
    Guess what...what was done worked despite Romney claiming that if the auto companies get the bailout that "you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye".

    Hmmm. Didn't pan out that way did it? For all his business experience he certainly didn't seem to be able to call that one correctly. And why doesn't George W Bush get crucified by conservatives or by Romney in the same way they go after Obama? The same amount of venom should be directed his way then too. But people are reluctant to criticize one of their own. I guarantee if he were still President there wouldn't have been as much bitching and moaning and there might have even been a few pats on the back.

    DADT was dealt with legislatively. As for DOMA, I find it strange that people think a government body should keep defending something in court that it does not believe in. How do you (legitimately) do that? How can you make a decent case for something when you are really against it? It would be like me trying to win a case defending some Republican policy when I don't believe in it at all. It would be like me going door to door trying to convert people as a Jehovah Witness when I am not. It would all be a sham. So what you are proposing is that your government lie to you and conduct a charade and put a half-hearted effort in defending something that they don't think is Constitutional. I on the other hand, rather just have them be honest about it.

    And despite all that, Obama has STILL done more on immigration that the Republicans who (once again) seem to have no plan of their own. Because they are divided within their own party and cannot come to a consensus on it.

    That's not a healthcare plan. That is but just one piece of the puzzle. Numerous Presidents have wanted to put forth some healthcare reform. They didn't do it. Obama on the other hand, did get something through.

    Ah right...I forgot. "Mission Accomplished".

    [​IMG]
     
  24. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #24
    I doubt Romney will appeal it. I think even republicans are progressively realizing that the American insurance model is sinking. And opinion polls show increasing support for healthcare reform as well as some standardized coverage for all citizens. Also, with the economy as it is, which has resulted in less job security, it has likely made people, who have not ever had to consider the costs of not having insurance, think about it and possibly even experience it first hand.

    The internet has allowed the spread of information and we can physically see homemade videos that show the costs of being uninsured. My favorite was when a guy decided to manually remove his own infected toenail because could not afford to go the doctor as he was uninsured and low income. Politicians, and the public, can only play dumb to that for so long. So I'd like to think that Romney is smart enough to see that the time for healthcare reform is now.



    This is a very prejudiced statement.
     
  25. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #25
    Guess what. It didn't work, since it put us the taxpayers on the hook for $27 billion of benefits that the union should have taken care of instead.

    I don't care what Obama lite (aka Romney) said. Just because I don't like the father of Obamacare doesn't mean I like the grandfather of Obamacare any better.


    I don't know. Bush was the most liberal president of my lifetime until Obama. Maybe the Bushitler signs generated a bit of backlash. I never liked Bush.


    It's a duly passed law. Based on your statements, I trust that if Romney wins in November, you will have no issues if he elects not to implement ACA.


    Except that he did it essentially by saying he'll ignore the law. Under Barack Obama's vision, we are a nation of men, not a nation of laws.


    One more piece of the puzzle than Bill Clinton passed. Again, I was against Medicare Part D. However, I get annoyed when idiots like Chuck Schumer take credit for "eliminating the donut hole" in Medicare Part D when they voted against it in the first place.



    Who cares? I already said I didn't like Bush. I actually voted for Obama in 2008. Heck. I even gave money to his campaign (I still get his annoying e-mails asking if I want to give more money for a chance to meet George Clooney or whoever his latest celebrity backer is). He's been a big disappointment.
     

Share This Page