@CaptainKid:
Unless you're a small business owner or you're somebody who is affected by the new taxes. Also all the new people coming into the system will cause prices to rise for you're employer (or whoever gives you healthcare)
Why is it everytime somebody claims to be a rightwing Libertarian they constantly parrot Republican talking points?
If you're a small business owner, then your business will obtain tax credits for offering health care, subsidies to help pay for that health care, and exemptions from penalties if the firm is under a certain size.
Also, the entire point of adding new people to the system is that it increases the amount of people paying into the system, which would decrease the cost of health insurance simply because the ratio of healthy people paying into the system would increase relative to the number of sick people. Hence the Republican idea of an individual mandate, which is also where the idea of a penalty comes from. Even then, most people unable to afford private insurance would be eligible for Medicaid by the time those provisions kick in. It's not the best solution but one that was adopted from the 1994 Republican health care proposal in an attempt to gain votes from the other side of the aisle. It didn't work and shouldn't have been in there, but that's what happens when you try to work with people who have no interest in working with you.
To pass anything Romney will have to work together with some Democrats. Also Romney is just playing to the right wing to try and create more of a juxtaposition to Obama. When if he got in (he won't be elected) then he'd just say something like "I tried to get the whole thing repealed but those dang Democrats…" and he'll be fine.
Romney getting elected would probably result in either a Republican controlled Congress or a tied Senate with Ryan being the tiebreaker simply because the only way he wins is with an extremely heavy Republican turnout in states like Florida, Virginia, and Ohio, which also have fairly close Senatorial elections going on. And I don't buy for a second that Romney will magically revert to center when he gets elected; that would doom him a one term Presidency from the start since the base would view that as confirmation of what they believed all along: that he's not a real conservative and can't be trusted.
Sadly, I can buy him blaming any failures on Congressional obstructionism since that only exists for Republicans when Democrats are in power. Not that I have a huge amount of faith in Democrats trying all that hard to block his policies since they largely let Bush advance his agenda.
Yes but the private sector has always been more efficient in things EXCEPT what the government is authorized to do by the Constitution. The profit incentive is a good thing, the problem is the government can be influenced to bend the rules and lax regulations allowing profiteering to take place.
All the more reason to keep this a bipartisan, non-profit system since it cannot be subjected to banks lobbying for rule changes that make it easier for them to lose elderly people's retirement funds.
I also said as a public option not the only option
Such a move will have to come after a big fight with banking lobbyists who don't want to lose all the money such a system would create for them.
and if privatized social security fails then people will return to the govt sponsored system.
Because clearly if there's one thing elderly people have the time and luxury of doing, it's recovering from having their life savings utterly wiped out by some bad investment. Bad enough when it happens to a 401K as is, but at least people who have that happen to them have other options to turn to. Not to mention the mere fact that this would make large investment firms even more valuable to the government since a potential collapse from bad investments would wipe out a lot more people than just those who actually had those investments in their portfolio. Even a relatively safe account administered by those firms would be at risk of being wiped out.
That's the reason I 'lean' right because I think the government likes to get it's mitts (no pun intended) on everything and mess with stuff that we can do on our own. I view the government like I view the NFL replacement refs, the regular refs (like a smaller govt) make the game fair and keep everyone on the same page but the replacement refs/current govt are slowing things down and screwing with the game.
Then why the hell are you conservative? For all the talk about Big Government and Government Meddling In Our Lives, almost every single one of those initiatives in the past few decades has taken place under a Republican Administration and Congress. Reagan and Bush the Lesser massively increased the size of the Federal Government as well as the debt during each of those terms. At least FDR and LBJ's massive programs reduced poverty and dragged this country into the 20th Century.
And the Scab Referees reference is hilarious in light of the fact that it stems solely from the NFL's attempt to break the referee's union in order to save money. If anything, hiring scabs to replace unionized employees is the default Libertarian approach.
Fair enough but I think private options would be more efficient must like UPS is beter than USPS (and I know, I know the USPS isn't made to be competitive but it is highly infficient and has (the potential) for unlimited funds from Congress, anything run by a private company is on a budget). I also think if regulated properly it would work very well, problem is republicans can't stand things to be regulated at all.
The Postal Service IS run on a budget as a nonprofit organization because Republicans have been trying to kill it for the last three decades; it hasn't been supported by taxes since the '70s and all operating funds have to come from postage. The only reason it has any monetary problems at all is because of a Republican passed bill that requires that it fund the pensions and healthcare of postal employees for the next seventy-five years upfront. Do you think UPS and Fed-Ex could do that? Even then, that wouldn't be so bad if any extra funds beyond its operating costs weren't confiscated by Congress; if it were allowed to recover those, then even funding the pensions wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Yes but no matter how much a President likes a law (like Obamacare) he can't do anything about it without Congress while Congress can potentially do something about whatever the President signs.
The hell he can't do anything about it. If somebody like Obama goes on national television, which is ridiculously simple for him to do, and issues a direct call to his supporters to call their Congressmen and urge them to do something, then a lot of them will. There's also the political repercussions for openly going against a President on a political issue; while Obama is easier going than most would be (witness him going to bat numerous times for Lieberman, who stabbed him in the back even more times than that), political parties have long memories. A lot of neocons never forgave McCain for his comments about torture after all.
Well they are blocking bills that they think are ineffective or bad, but Obama threatened to veto any of their economic solutions.
What economic solutions are we talking about? Jobs bill? Republicans blocked it. Jobs programs to benefit veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Republicans just blocked it. Further stimulus programs? Not on their watch.
So what are they left with exactly? Hey, let's reduce regulations on the people who caused this in the first place! Lowering taxes hasn't helped, let's lower them more even though we claim that the deficit is a massive threat to America!
Obama hasn't had to block any Republican economic plans BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.
The country is in bad shape for a variety of reasons but democrats share the blame, they were in full control of Congress for Bush's last 2 years when the economy sunk.
A major contributing factor to the 2008 Recession was the collapse of the subprime mortage martet, which rapidly expanded in the period of 2004-2007 and was a bomb that didn't detonate until 2008 so the damage was already done by the time of the 2006 elections.
Well the arabic world hated us before we illegally invaded
Wow, you really don't have the slightest idea as to how America intervened in Libya at all, do you?
