Politics

ObamaCare defunding: urgently necessary, and pretty much impossible

ObamaCare defunding: urgently necessary, and pretty much impossible

There’s an effort afoot to zero out ObamaCare money in the next budget battle, which will inevitably boil down to either Republicans threatening to shut down the government if ObamaCare is funded, or Democrats threatening to shut down the government if it’s not funded.  No prizes for guessing which way the media will frame it, but given the growing public discontent with a program they disliked even before it started going to pieces before their eyes, the public relations fallout might not be dominated by the choice of headlines at the New York Times.

However, Byron York at the Washington Examiner rolls in with a trillion gallons of cold water for the defunding crusade, explaining that not much of ObamaCare’s money is subject to congressional approval:

Money to fund Obamacare comes from two sources. A relatively small part of it, including some of the funds used to get the program going, comes from Congress’ regular yearly appropriations. Congress could raise or lower the amounts without changing Obamacare itself. The defund-Obamacare Republicans in the Senate hope to strip out that discretionary funding from a continuing resolution needed to fund the government that Congress will debate in September.

They know they won’t succeed. Democrats, with 54 votes, have enough to pass anything that requires a simple majority, and won’t have much trouble getting to a filibuster-proof 60 votes, either. “I could count six or seven Republicans who would vote for full funding of the continuing resolution without breaking a sweat,” says one Senate aide who supports defunding. “So they’re going to get to 60.”

But that’s just the discretionary part of Obamacare. The far bigger portions of the program, including the billions and billions of dollars in subsidies that will start going to Americans on Jan. 1, are mandatory spending, an entitlement funded by an automatic appropriation which is written into law and runs without further congressional action. To change that, Congress would have to change Obamacare.

In the Senate, that would take 67 votes — the amount needed to overcome a guaranteed presidential veto. If the 46 Senate Republicans voted unanimously to end the Obamacare entitlement, they would have to persuade 21 Democrats to go along.

The people who inflicted ObamaCare on us weren’t terribly concerned about the nuances of designing a program Americans could live with, or that lived up to President Obama’s promises.  That sort of thing could be hashed out later, or not at all – whatever, dude.  Lately they’ve been shrieking demands that the Republicans step in and fix all the problems with a law none of them voted for, and accusing them of “sabotaging government” for their refusal to do so.

But the one thing ObamaCare’s authors were very careful to do was provide it with deep entitlement roots, and tough armor against reform.  All the “health insurance” stuff was written in pencil (or not even written down at all) but the invincible entitlement funding was done with all the care of an oil painting from the Dutch masters.  The rest of us needed to pass ObamaCare to find out what was in it, in Nancy Pelosi’s infamous formulation, but nothing about the expansion of Big Government was left to chance.

Karl Rove appeared on Sean Hannity’s show to discuss the defunding crusade on Thursday night, and warned he was nervous about the effort because “it gives the President the bully pulpit and a gigantic stick on which to beat us, because all he has to do is say, ‘Look, this law was passed, it’s on the books, I’m going to veto your continuing resolution that doesn’t fund ObamaCare, and it’s on you for shutting down the government.’”

Of course, that’s not how Democrats view laws they don’t like.  How about that six-year-old law obliging Congress to build a border fence?  The immigration laws Obama unilaterally decided to ignore, and which the political class in general disdains?  The Defense of Marriage Act?  For Democrats, the passage of a law they disagree with is the beginning of a battle; for Republicans, it’s expected to be the end of history.

Rove said he preferred to keep pressure on ObamaCare until it “collapses in and of itself,” which is another way of saying that it should be allowed to fail and then repealed in full, rather than suffering a fund-smashing baseball bat to its monstrous knees.  There’s always the risk – no, make that the absolute certainty – that a successful crusade to partially defund the program will be blamed by the President for all of the program’s failures, just as every current problem is blamed on Republican obstructionism.

The subsidy trap Byron York warns about is a heck of a racket.  ObamaCare will make insurance unaffordable, then give subsidies to a large segment of the middle class, so they can afford it.  Anyone who tries to interfere with the subsidy machine will be accused of hating the Sainted Middle Class and Noble Poor, to the point of wanting them to drop dead.  And if you think Obama’s sequestration theatrics were disgusting, just wait until every future effort at fiscal reform can be portrayed as a vile attempt to cut off those ObamaCare subsidies.  The first penny of all future spending cuts will come out of the welfare payments Obama got the middle class hooked on, so they can pay for the insurance he made more expensive.

Weakening this parasitic system before it takes root is vitally important.  Karl Rove may be overestimating the threat ObamaCare’s failure poses to the grand design.  It’s supposed to fail, and the answer proposed by its authors will be more government control, not less.  When ObamaCare “collapses in and of itself,” the even greater horror of socialized medicine will crawl forth from the corpse.

It’s too bad Americans don’t instinctively recoil from irreversible Big Government schemes.  ObamaCare was supposedly “one man, one vote, one time,” or perhaps two times, since Obama’s re-election in 2012 is touted as the end of the story.  Americans will never get to vote on the issue again; it is forever beyond the sphere of self-government.  No matter how catastrophically ObamaCare fails, no matter how many jobs it kills, one election plus one re-election of one man equals eternal life.  Obviously, the Democrats weren’t honest with voters about that in 2008 and 2012, and the Republicans didn’t say it loudly enough.

But is ObamaCare really an irreversible mistake?  It’s difficult to repeal a Big Government program with billions of dollars in subsidies and slush funds, but this whole notion of Americans as slaves to political destiny is both offensive to our traditions, and untrue. Everything can be changed.  Even the Constitution can be amended.  The people who say the Constitution is a meaningless old scrap of parchment also claim a law passed in 2010 is chiseled in stone, and hung around the neck of every American for the rest of history with an unbreakable chain.

What’s needed to effect meaningful change is determination.  The Left’s never-ending crusades are evidence they understand this.  When they want something, they don’t let a poll showing 80 percent public opposition dissuade them.  Their marches are long, but relentless.  They know the value of keeping their voters motivated.  There isn’t a single law they don’t think they can overturn with enough sustained effort.

The effort to defund as much of ObamaCare as possible – especially the utterly outrageous peripheral stuff, like Obama’s money-laundering schemes to finance left-wing interest groups with tax dollars in the name of “ObamaCare education.”  Remind Americans that forcing them to finance the propagation of ideas they disagree with is tyranny – and the vast majority of Americans profoundly disagree with ObamaCare.  Build public support to elect repeal-minded representatives in 2014; make Obama veto the bills, then beat his chosen successor into the ground with those vetoes in 2016.  And don’t let the Democrats shape the battlefield as merely “repeal,” with nothing in mind for what comes next.  Conservatives are understandably suspicious about slogans like “repeal and replace” because they can seem half-hearted, but that is what this should be about – replacing ObamaCare with health insurance reforms that actually work.  Give the people something they really want, and ask them for permission to clear away the wreckage of Obama’s bankrupt scheme to make room for it.

It’s not easy.  Big Government grows through skin-of-the-teeth dead-of-night kickback festivals like the one that saddled us with ObamaCare.  Dismantling it is much harder work.  But then, dignified freedom is always harder work than dependency, isn’t it?  The task for conservatives is, and always will be, showing the American people that freedom is worth the effort.  That should be doable, when ObamaCare is available for contrast.

Sign Up
  • Melbo58

    Repubs are going to lose this battle just like every one since ’08. No new ideas. No real alternatives. No consensus even among each other to govern. Good luck trying to repeal this LAW next year. Good luck with Pres. Hillary Clinton.

  • terry1956

    The Defund Obama care Senators are right and Mr. York is wrong.
    These is no legal ( constitutional) entitlement in Obama care.
    Ted Cruz is so right on this, congress controls the purse strings but the Senate Republicans need the House majority to keep that purse close until Obama and enough of the Democrats in the Senate agree to not fund Obama care or any of its enforcement, not fund Planned Parenthood and other abortions domestic and foreign.
    Even if it will take a partial shutdown of the federal government to get Obama and enough democrats to cry uncle.
    Yes most of the MSM will spin for Obama so the GOP needs to bypass the spinners to get the word out.
    Since Obama hates America he really does not care if DOD is funded so it still may take a two thirds over ride vote in congress to fund defense.
    There still may not be enough votes in congress to override the veto so the states may have to fund defense and other federal constitutional activities.
    The House can encourage the states to do this by passing a resolution.

  • terry1956

    Yeah, its going to have to mostly come from outside DC.
    There was 26 states fighting Obamacare which is 52% of the states.
    If the other 24 states want Obamacare they can do like the state of MASS. and Mitt Romney by doing it in their state.
    The US House majority can help as long as they don’t listen to people like Tom Cole and support Tea Party Republicans to run against people like him in the primary.

  • terry1956

    Well Obama’s Marxist up bringing and con artist training came from the white side of his family.

  • terry1956

    Mitt was not a real Republican although he still actually won the elections with a honest vote count although he did not speak out against the fraud which shows Mitt is a Rino.
    Still Mitt would have been a lot better than the worst US president in history-Obama.

  • terry1956

    Single Payer meaning the central government( which the US does not legally have anyway, it has a federal government with very few and define powers) health plan with no competition works for the Tyrannical government of North Korea and Cuba but even the high court in Canada says it can not be allowed in Canada because it violates Human rights.

  • shoes4industry

    When you come back to the real world and have something intelligent to contribute, please feel free…

  • brownie

    Mainstream Media Dictionary Definition: Scum of the Earth.

  • terry1956

    Well I’m contributing. so how long do we have to wait on you to write something except rehashed communist or fabian fascist propaganda from the 1920s?

  • Maximus_Legitimus

    If perhaps you would take the time to read my post you would note that I mentioned that the “electorate is holding themselves above the law”….that would mean all of the self serving bureaucrats, republican and democrat and independent alike.

    Who benefits when the populace is divided among themselves?

  • shoes4industry

    I’ll bet if you read the law, they are perfectly within their rights, however abhorrent that is.

  • shoes4industry

    Mitt was not a real Republican…LOL!

  • Maximus_Legitimus

    And they are the ones who write those laws. Nice to know that on average, when they are elected they have a net worth, excluding their homes, of nearly seven hundred thousand. After serving two terms, their public service has increased their net worth in excess of four million.

  • JamesDrouin

    The intellectually retarded left wing liberals strategy, aided and abetted by the sold-it’s-soul-to-the-left mainstream media, has been to declare the war lost before it even began.
    So, my vote is to defund every last bit, mandatory and discretionary, and let the chips fall where they may.

  • kenpuck

    One thing about Marxists: They’re like army ants or Muslims…they never give up. This they do — shamelessly — by funding their efforts with your tax dollars and donations from their cronies.

    They just keep coming, like zombies. The Republicans’ answer? Two marshmallows like McCain and Romney. And plenty more like them in the Congress.

    We’re done, folks; there aren’t enough of us to hold the line. With over half of America already on the dole, the game’s over. Resign yourselves to your fate and get your house in order.

  • MDABE80

    I’d say defunding is about the only way to draw the line. I’d say call the thing what it is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a hustler’s attempt to bankrupt the US. Let it die no matter the cost.
    A bitter pil for many since bama’s gpt the minorites and some of the women that he’ll takr care of them……..what’s best for the country is NOT Obamacare. No doubt though, lots of the country is captured by his government. I’d rather have it out now than years later.

  • gofer1

    Just like the man who came out with the book titled “The Death of Conservatism” just before the 2010 elections and then the democrats got shellacked. It’s at your own peril that such ridiculous statements are made and shows a intellectually vapid argument that only exists in fantasy land and in your bigoted mind.

  • afrocraft

    The Congress passed it; the Supreme Court endorsed it; the president was reelected; it can’t be defunded without his assent. Give it up.

  • gofer1

    The whole thing was completely unnecessary. People were already insured or receiving health care. States have their programs for the poor and then there’s Medicaid. It would have been simple to come up with a program to cover people that over wise couldn’t receive care in any other avenue, but NO, they had to completely screw up the entire system knowing it will collapse and then comes single-payer and the nightmares. They torn down the house just to add a couple shelves and now can’t figure out how to rebuild it.

    They don’t seem to get the fact insurance isn’t going to help you if you can’t find a doctor or have to wait 2-6 months for an appointment. Isn’t very difficult to find a doctor now that accepts Medicare. It’s coming to the point in this country that people will just refuse to play their little game anymore. Try to think of something, anything that isn’t regulated or controlled in some fashion. We are being run by a bunch of people who relish power over people and micro-managing gives them a rush of power. The biggest danger facing us is the fanatical environmentalists who have infiltrated the govt. and are determined to make life miserable and expensive in order to fulfill their “religious” cultism.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Unfortunately, yes.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Even England and Poland, just to name two states, which have public health, also have a thriving private sector health system which fills in the gaps which public health, of necessity, cannot fill.

    The aptly-named Barney FRANK wanted to do away with any private health care — in effect, making it as illegal as the anti-abortionists want to make medical abortion illegal. Is that what YOU want too?

  • Altosackbuteer

    As I understand Hayward’s article, most of the spending on Øbamacare is fixed in stone — until it’s not.

  • Altosackbuteer

    By the way, Mary, there is an article in the Monday July 29 edition of the Boston Herald which reviews a forthcoming book about Mittens’ two candidacies for the Presidency. According to the review, the book says that Mittens wasn’t really into running at all.

    In that case, his entire candidacy can be summed up in these words: “Thanks for NOTHING.”

  • Altosackbuteer

    Don’t forget the incredible hack appointment of the horribly unqualified but Snow White princess CAROLINE KENNEDY to be Ambassador to Japan.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Actually, Øbama’s baby daddy too was Marxist.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Ultimately, all “change” has to come FROM THE VOTERS THEMSELVES — the very voters who have brought us to this pretty pass in the first place.

  • Altosackbuteer

    It certainly CAN be defunded without Øbama Øsama’s consent.

  • Altosackbuteer

    You have put your finger on the heart of the problem.

    Ultimately, MOST Americans were already satisfied with their health coverage, and were RIGHTLY afraid that Øbamacare could only take a good thing and bleep it all up.

  • Flankspeed70

    The ‘problem’ came from, and is perpetuated now by ‘the voters.’ The majority of voters have succumbed to a gamed system, yet, we continue to play the same game – voting – which has never yielded a less corrupt or smaller, more efficient govt. Einstein said “No major problem can be solved on the same level of consciousness that created it.” Federal elections are a complete waste of energy. Pounding your state legislatures to ignore unconstitutional fed laws, and to authorize the impounding of federal income tax at the state level in order to cut off the blood supply of this beast – is a start. The revolt MUST come from the states if it is to come at all.

  • AgTrotter

    How tiresome. When you don’t agree with what someone states, merely denigrate their intelligence. Now THAT is surely a sign of true intellect. /s

  • AgTrotter

    What the liberals conveniently ignore is that there are two sad realities of every state-run healthcare plan. First, they only “work” if the care is strictly rationed. Secondly, supplemental private insurance is a must. When the left shows a willingness to discuss both, then I’ll pay attention.

  • Jayden2Parry

    Let’s just look at a couple of incontrovertible facts here:

    1) No matter what happens, Obama the Dear Liar will blame it on someone else – and the GOP is prime target number one.

    2) Obamacare is meant to fail as stepping stone to single payer – so it would be supremely stupid to go along with the socialist’s plans in this regard.

    Since were going to be blame anyway, we might as well be blamed for trying to stop that train wreck.

  • Deerknocker

    If Obamacare can’t be effectively defunded, why don’t the Republicans just take the position that the voters put into power Democrats who voted Obamacare in, and if the voters now want Obamacare out, they have to vote Republicans in.

  • shoes4industry

    LOL. You’re kidding right??

    Besides, no one said anything about the commenter’s intelligence, just his/her grip on reality, which seems to be tenuous at best.

  • shoes4industry

    Not sure what you are trying to say here but Barney Frank does have some healthy and correct views on how to drive down health care costs…

    we could reduce medical costs in general by a combination of one efficient delivery method and sensible public policies, we should do so.

    Frustratingly,the conservatives most eager to cut back Medicare and Medicaid are the strongest opponents of policies to do this. Efforts in the Affordable Care Act bill to promote research on and push for the adoption of the most cost-effective treatments were severely diminished in the bill because of opposition from the right. And conservatives generally oppose
    the other ways to constrain costs.

    First, the best way to bring down the cost of future health care is to be healthier in the future. Cleaner air, less smoking and drinking alcohol, healthier food, safer
    cars and driving – if we could accelerate the already positive trends inthese areas, health care will cost measurably less 20 years from now.

    Second, we can stop forcing very expensive end-of-life care on those who do not want it, and receive no real benefit from it.

    http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/republicans-tilting-at-health-care-costs-with-wrong-weapons_2013-04-07.html

  • Infidel51

    Our progressive masters have spoken and they know whats best for all of us. Thats how it works right?
    Try thinking for yourself and putting Country first for a change.

  • abby725

    like Laura said I didnt know that some one can get paid $9904 in four weeks on the internet. did you look at this site link w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  • Maximus_Legitimus

    Actually, a majority of the wealthiest members of the elected body are Democrats, not that it really matters.

    I’m self employed, I work almost one hundred hours per week in an effort to meet all of my familial, charitable and economic obligations. I have catastrophic health care insurance with a five thousand dollar deductible. My premiums have risen over 80% since 2010.

    I will perform at what ever level my circumstances require without asking for someone else to bail me out. I’m possessed of a contented heart and regardless of the obstacles in my path, I am determined to achieve. And my financial rewards will not be resultant upon unethical behavior.

  • AgTrotter

    “have something intelligent to contribute”

    Yep, my mistake Shoes. I thought you were using English in you post. Geesh.

  • shoes4industry

    Then, your insurance premiums should start to come down under the ACA, depending on what state you live in. Regardless, you must admit, that as a self employed individual with a high deductible (which discourages you from getting the preventative care that you should get) single payer, not for profit, Medicare for all, is the only way forward. 80% increases are unsustainable for most individuals.

  • shoes4industry

    You post. lol.

  • George

    Senator
    Mike Lee (R-UT) was a guest on Fox News Sunday this morning where he
    backed down from his plan to threaten to shut down the government if
    Obamacare was not defunded.
    Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/sen_mike_lee_backs_away_from_obamacare_shutdown_threat_07282013#6lP4KUrXsufIZvGd.99

  • George

    “Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Repeal
    Obamacare!!!!. ”

    “And replace it with what ?”

    Crickets, chirp, chirp, chirp.

    NOTHING.

    More B.S. from Human Excrement.

  • George

    You are incapable of paying attention.

  • LarryInIowa

    Why are the Democrats always willing to go to the wall for what they want but Republicans are always will to “compromise” in order to allow the Democrats to get whatever they want? Kill it, kill it now or explain why we should vote for any of you.

  • gregio

    +Maybe because we are conservatives we missed the real purpose of Ocare. What is the driving force of the democratic party? They need money and crisis and a dependancy class. What has Ocare provided so far? Money and a leftist health queen to move it around. Later as it proves to be totally unworkable and much of it is “delayed” you will see more and more of the unused monies diverted into “outreach” and “subsidies” and “emergency expenditures” which will only have one purpose and it won’t be healthcare. It will be to increase the democratic voter base, nothing else. We will need a LARGE legal staff to challenge this diversion of Ocare funds into “outreach”..

  • George

    The republicans are always willing to compromise? Put down that coke pipe. You got to be tripping? Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times, a historic record.

  • AgTrotter

    And yet, you continue to come back and post the same tired rants. States volumes about you, Georgetta.

  • AgTrotter

    Wow, more “brilliance” from Georgetta. Care to actually respond to my two points?

  • AgTrotter

    Shoes, this post is even bad by your own pathetic standards. First of all, the alleged lowering of premiums under Obamacare is nothing more than a campaign slogan that has zero basis in fact. Secondly, your high deductible policies discouraging preventative care statement is a pure fabrication. Unfortunately, most medical insurance policies don’t cover preventative care outside of possibly an annual physical. If they were structured more like dental plans, we would be in a much better situation. Of course, to properly price products like that, insurers would have to be able to assess higher premiums for self-inflicted health problems like smoking, obesity, etc. But, I highly doubt that liberals will allow that to happen. Finally, citing Medicare as the example we should aim for is laughable. Medicare is a complete mess and a major cause of this country being so far in debt. But, yo a big gubmint liberal, I can see why a failure is appealing.

  • AgTrotter

    You stupid. LOL.

  • shoes4industry

    1. High deductibles are designed to discourage getting health care in all but the most dire circumstances, hardly a good model.

    2. Premiums will be lowered under the ACA, that’s the purpose of the plan.

    3. Your right, any hope of reducing healthcare costs with out first addressing the obesity epidemic, are specious. You simply can reduce costs with 66%+ of the populations morbidly obese.

    4. Medicare is a mess because it only covers the oldest, sickest and most costly subscribers. Lower the eligibility age and include healthier, less costly people and costs will go down.

    5. Most of what you site is opinion, which you’re entitled to, but not your own facts.

  • shoes4industry

    “How tiresome. When you don’t agree with what someone states, merely denigrate their intelligence. Now THAT is surely a sign of true intellect”

  • shoes4industry

    It’s the law, move on.

  • AgTrotter

    You really believe that? Wow, good luck on Medicare. Of course, no fair getting additional supplemental insurance.

  • JayC777

    “Crickets, chirp, chirp, chirp.

    NOTHING.”
    Even ‘NOTHING’ would be better than Obamacare. So, even if Republicans never came up with an alternative, which by the way there have been multiple viable solutions, they’d still be supporting a better solution.
    Jay
    The only B.S. comes from you.

  • AgTrotter

    How else should we interpret a post that states “You post. lol.”?

  • JayC777

    Will Medicare be sustainable without rationing? ( the answer is NO ).
    Jay
    It already in the black for 10s of trillions of dollars.

  • JayC777

    Democrats wrote and passed this law, without a single Republican vote. Knowing this fact, one would look like an abject m0r0n trying to pawn this off on Republicans.
    Jay
    It sure wasn’t based on conservative principles.

  • AgTrotter

    1. I didn’t state that it was a good model. In fact, I even offered up a preferable option. Learn to comprehend that which you read.

    2. Talk about an opinion.

    3. Of course I’m right. Sadly, you ignore my point about liberals not allowing this to happen.

    4. Medicare is a mess because it is an administrative mess that is only to cover the sick and poor. Even if we add the entire population, you’ll still need to ration services to make it even remotely affordable.

    5. The only opinion I offered up was that liberals won’t allow premium pricing based upon personal health to occur.

  • Timothy Lane

    But you don’t have to rely on private insurance. The feds can, and eventually will, force you to rely on them alone.

  • Timothy Lane

    Contract disputes. Do you really think Limbaugh is going to disappear from the radio? (You wish.) As for Lee, my understanding is that he said there would be no actual government shut-down (which is in the category of a prediction) without quite backing down from his threat. But I’ll admit I wasn’t watching.

  • Grab_a_root

    Will the last productive person to leave the country please hit the light switch. Leave the effin parasites in the dark.

  • Dustoff

    Like O-dumber did….HAHAHAHAHA, tell me another joke clown!

  • Dustoff

    Notice george didn’t post it.

  • Dustoff

    Hey loon… even the IRS “union” doesn’t want it…

    LOL

  • Dustoff

    O-dumber is that you.

  • Dustoff

    You can still defund it…

  • shoes4industry

    Neither is private insurance! The do just as much denial of payment for procedures. Get a clue.

  • shoes4industry

    You folks are looney, paranoid and delusional. Medicare is a popular, successful and affordable GOVERNMENT run program of PAYING HEALTH CARE COSTS, not delivering health care itself.

  • shoes4industry

    FALSE: http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/03/ironic_challenge_affordable_ca.html

    Here is an alternative to big government: Instead of depending on taxpayer dollars, citizens take responsibility for their own welfare. Instead of government programs, they turn to the free market. And where government aid is essential, we provide it by encouraging free market competition.

    The idea of an individual mandate was popularized by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks as early as 1989. Today, Heritage cites differences between their idea and the Obama version. Yet the basic principles are the same.

    Money quote:

    “In other words, the individual mandate is not creeping socialism. It is the opposite. It is about requiring citizens to take individual responsibility in the arena of health care, where the inaction of some costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year.”

  • shoes4industry

    We would be all for basing health insurance premiums on an individual’s BMI and smoking habits.

  • shoes4industry

    No you can’t and won’t, sorry dustup.

  • shoes4industry

    That is simply NOT true. Most American’s premiums would be raised until they were simply unaffordable. And what if you HAD no health insurance? What are those individuals supposed to do? The unemployed and those with pre existing conditions?

  • surfcat50

    I was. You’re exactly right.

  • Dustoff

    LOL…………. only a lib.

  • physicsnut

    If we are going to defund obamacare, it sure would be great if there was an appealing campaign to do that, rather than having it look like a bunch of kooks.

    Where is the backup ? Is there a bunch of doctors who can stand up and say – defund and repeal – and say we ought to be doing something else that would be more constructive, and constitutional.

    The polls say that obamacare is unpopular – well, usually something this unpopular has groups that speak up. How about getting that together. It is called Public Relations.

  • shoes4industry

    See AT’s #5 answer above, numbnuts.

  • terry1956

    No way is defunding Obamacare impossible!

  • terry1956

    check out the links on the Conservative Caucus web site under the A’s and you will find the doctors calling for repeal of Obamacare and getting the federal government out of healthcare.

  • terry1956

    Because for several years a majority of Republicans have not been constitutionalist.
    Several years like at least over 90 years.
    Of course it has been longer for democrats like all the way back in Grover Cleveland’s first term.

  • terry1956

    replace it by getting the federal government out of health care, out of health care, health care plan, health care insurance regulations.
    Plus eliminate the federal DEA,FDA,USDA and SEC.

  • terry1956

    Jay that would be red, but of course its much more than 10s of trillions.
    When they talk of unfunded liabilities they born are counting social security and medicare taxes that have not been paid yet as assets.
    Average social security and medicare benefit totals today around 25,000, 15,000 for ss and 10,000 for med.
    For 50 million people for 20 years that would be 25 trillion dollars
    The next 50 million will likely live longer on average probably over 40 years past 67 but lets say 30, then that will be 37.5 trillion plus the 25 trillion for the first 50 million for a total of 62.5 trillion and we have not even covered a third of the current population yet in retirement not even counting all those born after 2013.
    The next 200 million on average will likely live over 100 years past their retirement age of 67 but lets see how 50 years will add to the taxpayers cost.
    That would be 250 trillion plus the 62.5 trillion would total 312.5 trillion going out as far as when the youngest today will turn 137 years of age or 2150.
    Eventually past 2013 1 trillion people will have lived in the US and retired and at just 25,000 a year for 50 years, that goes beyond trillions, beyond quadrillions and of course 1 trillion people will be just a small percentage of the total number of people in the trustfunds time frame which is forever.
    And I’m just talking about retirement age and beyond which alone is down right silly to put that much power and money into the control of a ruling class made up of such a small number of people ( only 546 in the DC ruling class).
    Of course a single payer mandated health plan for all will cost far more than the above fiqures and its extremlely far more silly to put that much more power and money into the hands and control of the DC ruling class or worse a one world central government ruling class which is really what the trots and fascist are shooting for.

  • terry1956

    sometimes if the doctor makes an honest mistake on the medicare code the federal government will throw him or her in prison without their constitutional right and American common law right to proper due process and of course take all their property again through improper civil process and administrative court processes.

  • terry1956

    no its not the law, its not constitutional thus its not law, juries will not convict thus its not enforceable.

  • terry1956

    oh its going to be defunded, either by congress, the states, the people or because of lack of money to pay for it because if it stays it will bloat out of control and there will not be enough money to pay for it.

  • shoes4industry

    Wrong. SCOTUS ruled it’s a legal tax, no matter how much you wish it was not. Tough luck.

  • shoes4industry

    There’s more than enough money in this economy to do all sorts of things, including the ACA. Get a grip, dude.

  • terry1956

    USA Today just came out today with a AP survey that says that 4 out of 5 Americans have experienced joblessness or near poverty or been on welfare.
    Since 2000 the poverty rates of whites has increased at a rate double that of blacks.
    Whites. are 41% of the poor ( the most of any group), 76% said they have been unemployed, in poverty, near poverty or unemployed, 80% of All Americans.
    11% of Whites are in poverty but the percentage is still higher for nonwhites under Obama at 23%.
    Last year Obama did the worst in votes by poor whites of any democrat running for president since 1984 but of course last year the GOP convention at the not so bright idea to nominate the inventor of Obamacare, a man who did not have the sense or guts to contest the voter fraud and vote count fraud that gave Obama the second term.

  • terry1956

    There will not be enough money over time and even if there was it does not make a lick of sense to give that much money and power to so few in DC.
    Wake up dude, use your good commonsense that God gave you and your parents told you to use.

  • terry1956

    Just because the SCOTUS says its constitutional does not make it so.
    At one time they said slavery was constitutional when it wasn’t.
    Lysander Spooner was one abolitionist convinced several other abolitionist including Fredrick Douglas that it was not.
    Spooner’s argument plus his Essay on Trial By Jury can be found here
    lysanderspooner.org

  • terry1956

    True but he did not see his dad that much if Obama Sr was his real dad.
    Now if his dad was Frank Davis then his dad a black Marxist/ con artist did help raise him with Marxist/ con artist white grandparents but Davis help do that wither he was Barrys dad or not.

  • terry1956

    I’m glad you agree Romney was a RINO.
    McCain was and is a Rino too but like Romney McCain he would have been far far far better than Obama also.

  • chuckiepoo

    pick a date….everybody take that day off…..millions of us show up in DC….make a statement……

    …..sounds wonderful, doesn’t it…..i’m afraid even millions of us showing up in DC won’t really make a difference, unless we were to become violent…and if we did that, we’d be criminals…..

    ….i’m old enough to remember living in america….sigh……

  • kanawah

    The public “discontent” is because of the never ending flood of LIES from the right wing.

    The republiCONS and the Transylvania tea bags know that once it goes into effect, and the people see the extent of therepubliCONS and the Transylvania tea bags know that once it becomes effective, there is no way they will ever be able to roll it back.

  • kanawah

    terry1956 wrote ” even the high court in Canada says it can not be allowed in Canada because it violates Human rights.”

    I think you need to do a little research. Canada has one of the best national health care systems in the world.

    The US is the ONLY developed nation that does not have national health care. Because of this, we pay 2 times what the next closest country pays, and we get a quality of care that is 35.

    The last time I saw a report on where the US was in the quality of care race, we had the 49 best life expectancy. And worst of all, we have the 52nd infant mortality rate. Some of the countries ahead of us pay 10% of what we do for health care. Do you still say it is “bad”.

  • kanawah

    You are adding 2 and 2 and coming up with 10.

  • kanawah

    The ACA is not, will not be a disaster. It is the best piece of legislation to come out of congress in the past 50 years. The only thing I have against it is it did not go far enough. At a minimum, there should have been a STRONG public option, not the wimpy “exchanges”. Best would have been a national single payer system.

  • kanawah

    McGoo and Mittens may be Rinos, but they would be far far worse as president then Obama.

    They would be better than Shrub Bush was.

  • kanawah

    Shoes, you are one of the few that understand the ACA, unfortunately.

  • kanawah

    It was a conservative bill long ago. Reagan supported it
    When Obama came out in favor of it, every republiCON decided it was a bad bill.

  • kanawah

    The only things that should be defunded are the laws that subsidize big business, like oil, and the give aways to corporate agriculture, etc.

  • kanawah

    His candidacy did make it easier for us to elect a good man to the oval office, namely Obama.

  • kanawah

    Terry1956 wrote, even the high court in Canada says it can not be allowed in Canada because it violates Human rights…………..

    Bushie took office in 2000. We are still feeling the effect of his screw ups. Add to that the fact that the republicons and the Transylvania tea bags are blocking everything Obama tries to do to improve the economy, and you have a very good explanation for the current economic situation.

    If the people do not wake up and drop kick the republicons and the Transylvania tea bags into the middle of the Atlantic ocean, the only explanation is just plain stupidity.

  • kanawah

    The only reason the republicons and the Transylvania tea bags won in 2010 is the massive gerrymandering in the red states. Jesus Christ could run as a democrat in some districts and would loose. Given the republicons and the Transylvania tea bags attitude about helping the poor, that would be expected. They are not christians, they are anarchist and fascist.

  • kanawah

    The 26 states are mostly “insane red states”. As the demographics continue to shift, they will become purple and then blue. The republiCONs and the Transylvania tea bags are doomed. It is just a matter of time. Hopefully, the AG will challenge everyone of the voter suppression laws that have been passed.

  • kanawah

    Yes, give us candidates that are unelectable. The the democrats can take control and get the situation straightened out in short order.

  • kanawah

    I definitely hope so. We need a functional government again.

  • kanawah

    the intellectually retards are on the right. Just look at the graduation rates in the red and blue states, also the percentage of high school graduates that go on to college. The red states lag far behind.

  • kanawah

    Only with 2/3 in both houses, and that will never happen, thank god.

  • kanawah

    Yes, fully fund ACA. It is the best thing that any session of congress has done in 50 years. Only other things close to this good was the Interstate highway system and the man on the moon project.

  • kanawah

    With a VETO, it would take 2/3 of both houses, and there is no way that will happen.

  • kanawah

    WRONG!
    The supremes have already said it is constitutional.

  • kanawah

    Want to bet on that? HE HE HE HE!

  • kanawah

    Oh, what about the 50 million with out health care.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Aptly-named Barney FRANK, if he’d had it his way, would have BANNED ALL PRIVATE SECTOR health care.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Not hardly!

  • Altosackbuteer

    Not true. Appropriations bills originate in the House. They can simply refuse to authorize money. And the whole thing dies on the spot.

    And it becomes like the classic line in the reggae hit movie “The Harder They Come” — “That’s Show Biz — no biz, no show.”

  • Altosackbuteer

    Not true.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Much as I don’t like agreeing with you, in this case, you are unfortunately correct.

    In the end, when the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, then it IS constitutional, and simply because the Supreme Court says so.

    ACA IS valid law.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Not true.

    The Supreme Court is like God. ANYTHING they say is constitutional, IS constitutional.

    When the Supreme Court said slavery was constitutional, it WAS constitutional, and ultimately, simply because the Supreme Court says so. Do NOT confuse constitutionality with morality.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Most Americans’ rates HAVE BEEN RAISED to astronomical heights BECAUSE of ACA

    I said NOTHING about those Americans without health insurance. I merely said that most Americans WHO HAD health insurance were already happy with it, and were rightly afraid that ACA would bleep up a good thing.

    MOST Americans had access to health insurance before ACA, by the way. And the ones who did ALSO HAD some kind of publically funded health coverage. Emergency rooms have been required by law to treat ALL visitors, without regard to ability to pay or whether patients have insurance.

  • Altosackbuteer

    That is a nonsensical remark.

    ALL I said was this: Aptly named Barney FRANK would have banned all non-government health care if he’d had it his way. And in doing this, he would have grossly exceeded the scope that public health penetrates even such European countries like England and Poland, which have both had public health for more than half a century.

    I can only conclude from this, that aptly-named Barney FRANK was a doctrinaire Socialist who dreamed of a utopian socialist paradise where there is no private sector at all.

  • rennyangel2

    I assume your computer was powered by solar or wind for this reply. If not, you can pound sand, (Actually, I also do not believe we should be subsidizing and giving tax credits to many industries, including GE, which because of its “green” investments has not paid taxes in years.)

  • Gerald Fodor

    So much for passing ANY legislation before reading it – Nancy Baloney withstanding. It’s the Republicans’ fault – They didn’t do their job and read the bill – No matter how much “pressure” the Dems were putting on them they should have done their job. Now we truly have a Frankenstein monster but this one has the skin of Superman!!!!!

  • Masmani

    Many think once it is in place there will be no way to repeal it. That is evidenced by the multiple generations of families on welfare and medicaid. Once you get on the government plantation it’s hard to get off. It’s hard to educate people that there is a better way when they have for so long been willing to accept what the government gives them rather than going out to make a better world for themselves and their children, I ask you whom is better off? Those who educate themselves and work for a better life and society or those willing to take the gubmint cheese?

  • shoes4industry

    And who pays for those emergency room visitors without insurance? The answer is, YOU, through higher premiums. The ACA compels PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your health care and should reduce costs for all over time. This will be a mixed bag, some individuals insurance costs will rise (they would with or without the ACA, btw) some will go down and more people will be covered. This is not a great scheme but it’s one the Republicans should be embracing instead of impeding at every step because they don’t like the fact that the president doesn’t look like them. It’s short sighted and fiscally irresponsible.

  • shoes4industry

    G W Bush already bankrupted the US.

  • shoes4industry

    Someone’s off his meds…

  • shoes4industry

    Mitt was a dyed in the wool Republican. Out of touch and out to lunch.

  • shoes4industry

    Same to you, dude.

  • shoemama

    NO Republican voted FOR it. This one sits squarely on the Dems.

  • shoemama

    Never say never!

  • shoemama

    The media stifles all meaningful opposition.

  • shoemama

    Affordable??? No!
    Private entities (hospitals, clinics, etc) have to do a lot of internal scrambling to cover it. Medicaid is WORSE.

  • shoes4industry

    So, fix Medicare by opening up to anyone who want’s to subscribe to it, including younger, healthier, less costly subscribers. Problem solved!

  • Altosackbuteer

    You say that in the face of the humunguous deficits which the government has to borrow to prop up the house of cards.

  • shoes4industry

    “a one world central government ruling class which is really what the trots and fascist are shooting for.” Yay, it’s tin foil hat time!

  • shoemama

    Uh….167 years old?? I doubt it!
    Even at 80-85 years, the Baby Boomers are going to be a HUGE drag on Health Care finances. That is why there was SUPPOSED to be a surplus waiting for us.
    EVERYTHING the Government touches costs more. They have NO incentive to keep costs down.

  • shoes4industry

    That old canard??! Then tax the wealthy if you’re so concerned about deficits! They’ve had a 10+ year tax holiday.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Whatever reasons the Republicans may have for opposing the ACA — and I note, they also opposed the VERY CAUCASIAN HILLARY CLINTON plan — you are an IDI0T for claiming that the basis of the Republican opposition is Øbama’s skin color!

  • Altosackbuteer

    Here is a simple truth: There is not nearly enough money in the world to give all people unrestricted coverage at all times for free.

    No public health system can ever do that; neither can any private system.

    It doesn’t mean that public or private systems are bad things. It is simply the way it is. And it is up to the public to grow up and realize that NO system can ever be a cure-all panacea.

  • shoemama

    Some Doctors are opting OUT of Insurance altogether. The put together a reasonable fee structure, and expect patients to pay for themselves. Saves a lot of money for Doctors and their patients.

  • shoemama

    kanawah: They go to hospitals and get treated anyway. Most hospitals try to work with people to recover some costs. The hospitals “eat” a LOT of free care.

  • shoes4industry

    If not that, what? he’s governing as a moderate if not full blown Republican. What other reason could it possibly be? Actually, he’s not even a good republican, Reagan had higher taxes and more government spending!

  • shoes4industry

    Nobody’s getting free health care but the very poor! Get a clue. No system is perfect but single payer, not for profit is better by far than they current system. Get a clue.

  • shoemama

    shoes4industry: YOU are wrong. You are only parroting what the MSM have been feeding you.
    Among other things, TECHNOLOGY is sending rates sky high. Florence Nightingale didn’t cost much because she couldn’t do much. Chemotherapy, for one example, is very expensive. People live longer because of medical advances and need lot of high tech things to STAY alive!

  • shoemama

    Unemployed, people with preexisting, and others who just don’t buy insurance can get treated. Hospitals all over the country treat first and try to collect later. For Profit Hospitals are the one who have been known to refuse care or demand payment upfront.
    Hospitals do get frustrated when someone is continually coming in and won’t even try to pay anything.

  • shoemama

    SCOTUS only ruled on ONE POINT of the law.

  • Altosackbuteer

    “If not that (Øbama’s skin color), then what?”

    Can you REALLY be THAT stupid to think that Øbama’s SKIN COLOR has the SLIGHTEST relevance to this discussion?

    “What other reason?” Gee — just peruse the human Events site for, say, the month of July. That will give you PLENTY of reasons to explain and justify the republican opposition.

  • Torcere

    Republicans suspect administration of trying to block self-funded insurance
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/29/republicans-suspect-administration-of-trying-to-block-self-funded-insurance/
    Republicans on Capitol Hill say the Obama administration is trying to regulate or prevent small companies from providing self-funded insurance for their employees because self-funded insurance plans could be the “Achilles heel” for Obamacare implementation.

    The majority of U.S. employers now offer self-funded insurance plans, in which companies finance employee health plans from their own funds. Many of the companies purchase stop-loss insurance plans from insurance providers. These companies would therefore avoid many Obamacare regulations when the law takes full effect in 2014. The practice of self-funded insurance, which was outright banned in early drafts of Obamacare, represents the “Achilles heel” for Obamacare implementation, according to insiders.

  • Altosackbuteer

    That is very TRUE. The cost of health care, of necessity, was and is bound to rise regardless of whether there is public sector health, simply because HI-TECH COSTS MONEY.

    The FDA NDA process (“New Drug Application”), just to name ONE reason for rising health costs, is HIDEOUSLY time-consuming and EXPENSIVE.

  • Altosackbuteer

    No — YOU get a clue, you nitwit. You who have discredited yourself from us taking you seriously by suggesting that opposition to the ACA is caused by Øbama’s silly SKIN COLOR.

    And even sane countries with long-functioning public systems (I know of England and Poland, to name two) are not so crazy as to ban their private sectors, since they KNOW that the loss of this sector would overwhelm them.

    An ALL-public sector health system is sheer insanity.

  • shoes4industry

    Chemotherapy and other treatments are profit centers for most health care providers, often they are ineffective or unnecessary. People don’t NEED high tech devices to stay alive, but they like to think so and providers like to sell them that myth.

  • shoes4industry

    Then you support the ACA? Good for you/

  • shoes4industry

    It has EVERYTIHNG to do with the Radical Right’s opposition to him. Probably the only thing. He’s a republican under that dark exterior.

  • Altosackbuteer

    This is almost as STUPID as your claim that opposition to ACA is based on Øbama’s skin color.

    The HISTORY of taxing the rich actually suggests the OPPOSITE of what you claim will happen.

    When you raise taxes on the wealthy, you actually get LESS tax returns. And when you LOWER rates on the wealthy, you actually raise MORE tax revenues than you would have had, if you had left revenues where they were.

    The most famous instance of this is the JFK tax cut of 1963.

    He reduced the top rate from 91% to 70%. Even 70% was still far too high, but it was worlds better than the confiscatory 91%.

    And tax revenues WENT THROUGH THE ROOF, so much so by 1968, Light Bulb Johnson could do ALL the following things simultaneously: 1) fund the Great Society; 2) fund the Vietnam War, and 3) STILL run a budget SURPLUS in 1968.

    When you LOWER rates on the wealthy, you get MORE. That is paradoxical but TRUE.

    And as for the deficit, the party HAS to stop sooner or later. Margaret Thatcher was quite correct when she noted, Socialism’s inherent party was that eventually any government runs out of someone else’s money to beg, borrow, or steal.

  • shoes4industry

    No one is advocating for PUBLIC RUN HEALTH FACILITIES, ok. get a grip.

    if not skin color what is it? what is driving this opposition to what is AT IT’S CORE a Republican, private insurance industry health care scheme???!!

  • Altosackbuteer

    That’s unimportant. That merely means, their refusal to rule that any part of the remainder is unconstitutional, means that they believe the rest was constitutional.

    “Silence implies consent.” It is a time-honored principle of Law. The Supreme court’s silence about the rest of the ACA implies its CONSENT to it.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Grow the bleep up, you IDI0T.

    You may find that we can take you seriously if you will refrain from such preposterous BS.

    Øbama Øsama is NO “Republican.”

  • shoes4industry

    Your “ideas” have been proven false over and over again.

    The sixties were an illusion, the economy was still running on the WWII MASSIVE government spending sugar high. The US is no longer that country. Honest income and wealth of the middle class as been slowly and steadily eroded and moved up the food change where it does little good for the economy as a whole. You need to Tax that wealth and move it back down the food chain in order to have a viable economy.

  • shoes4industry

    you haven’t given an alternate explanation so I must be right.

  • shoes4industry

    LOL. Hospitals and doctors pass those cost on to INSURED costumers! Get a clue.

  • Altosackbuteer

    More nonsense.

    Eisenhower ran up what, for his time, were massive deficits. So too did LBJ — until the JFK tax cuts took full effect.

    And under Reagan and his tax cuts, Federal tax revenues skyrocketed, and fueled a continued age of American prosperity unequaled in American history.

    JFK — the great liberal icon — said it very well: “A rising tide lifts all boats.” And you make the tide rise by LOWERING the rates on the wealthy, because they unleash their creativity and spread the wealth around naturally.

    In your dreary confiscational zero-sum socialist world, there is a fixed amount of money, and when the wealthy become wealthy, it’s because they stole it from the poor. As JFK realized, that is so much nonsense.

  • Altosackbuteer

    There are PLENTY of “alternate explanations.” This very article by Hayward states SOME of the cogent reasons.

    Tell me something, “genius”(not): Why did the DEMOCRATIC Senator Max Baucus, who voted FOR the ACA in 2009, state recently that it was an impending train wreck?

  • shoemama

    Excuse me! I have had 2 courses of Chemotherapy (same disease, different cell types), and a round of Radiation (different cancer).
    I KNOW how effective all this was! I am a Medical Technologist. That means I know how to run and UNDERSTAND laboratory tests.
    The Pathologist SHOWED ME what my cancer looked like under a microscope. Believe me it was UGLY. I KNOW what the normal structure is supposed to look like. I SAW my Xrays and the enlarged lymph nodes. I have had 2,3 dozen CAT Scans. I am grateful for the one in 1998 that showed my cancer was advancing! I am also grateful that the subsequent ones (after Chemo) that were negative.
    I am grateful for a routine mammogram that showed an abnormality. Yes, cancer again, but so small that it never breached the ductal wall. (It had not spread)
    I and my friends in the lab have run several other tests through the years that have usually shown that my other bodily systems were NOT damaged by my treatments.
    So I would “suggest” you don’t spout about something you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

  • shoemama

    It has been that way for the 30 some years I’ve worked in hospitals. Under Obamacare, that may end, because they will be FORCED to, by that legislation.

  • shoes4industry

    BS! Check Government spending figures under Reagan (who RAISED taxes) and the current administration…

  • shoes4industry

    Baucus is a DINO. From a Red state.

  • shoes4industry

    Good for you, but as a whole, Americans are OVER treated for most diseases. It’s nice that you had heath insurance to cover the cost.

  • Infidel51

    Ya nevermind the fact that socialized medicine has been a full blown disaster everywhere else it has been tried. (See Canada and the UK) Much like socialism itself. Surely this time will be different right?
    The most secretive and corrupt administration since Nixon will fix it all up and it will work “this time”?
    Its already falling apart and its already degrading the quality of care. I see it every day. If this goes through in a few years our healthcare system will be a lesson in waiting lists, rationed care, and closed down hospitals.