Ted Cruz: Here’s how to repeal Obamacare

[Cyber Liberty]

Nah. His politics are informed by his self interests. In spite of all the rhetoric about compassion it's all really about what/who butters his bread.

This imo is one of the main differences between progressives and conservatives... each vote in their own interests, only conservatives are up front about it.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Nah. His politics are informed by his self interests. In spite of all the rhetoric about compassion it's all really about what/who butters his bread.

This imo is one of the main differences between progressives and conservatives... each vote in their own interests, only conservatives are up front about it.

With Conservatives, the 'self interests' benefit everyone, with progressives, they benefit progressives.

Conservatives don't see the size of the pie as fixed. If everyone has a slice and the pie gets bigger, everyone gets more, even if they started with a small slice. Making the pie smaller hurts everyone, especially the guy with the small slice, but everyone loses.
If a Conservative has a big slice and sees someone with too little, they often give some of theirs to benefit those without enough.

With progressives, they see the pie as staying the same size, no matter what, so they only see taking part of someone else's slice as a way to get more. Hence, they are constantly trying to take everyone else's stuff to give away, which tends to shrink the pie, hurting the ones they claim to help even more. They see themselves as Robin Hood, when they are really just robbing hoods.

[Jazzhead]

Without concern for the very HARD WORKING people the ACA has cost not only health insurance, but their full time jobs?

Why do you employ rhetoric like that?   Those are the folks I have the very most concern for,  folks like yourself whose effective options vanished in the wake of the ACA.   

Why don't those employers offer coverage?

There are a number of reasons that employers are cutting health benefits these days, or, more commonly,  passing more of the cost-share on to the employees.

Because the coverage they could afford to offer dried up in the face of Obamacare demands, that's why. Forced to choose between closing their doors, penalties, or cutting hours (and not offering the plans they may have had that no longer were in the marketplace because of the ACA), those employers did what they could--the only thing they could, they cut hours.
Now those employees have to work two jobs to make up that income, which means they don't even have a shot at getting in some overtime. This is a result which was predicted, and it happened. So much for advocacy for the "hard working poor". 

The problems that plague the ACA can be fixed.   That's the point.  I don't "laud" the ACA,  I just happened to have read it and understand what it does, what it doesn't do,  and the underlying weaknesses in the current system that have contributed to ACA's failure.   
 

But we know the real reason you laud Obamacare, don't we?

   You do?  Well, enlighten me.   Maybe I'd like to see the Republicans succeed, and turn this tarbaby into an asset,  a testament to the party's competence.   The hard right wants, as usual, to set off a bomb, and to hell with the collateral damage.   Kasich is right. 

Your advocacy of so many things 'gay' ignores the fact that the 1.3 million people (hard working or not) who have HIV/AIDS are going to have medical bills between 600K and 750K (each) in their next 25 years of life (A trillion dollar aggregate liability, now, and growing). You couldn't mean the junkies in that bunch because it's hard to claim someone who spends time with a spike in their arm is "hard working", so that leaves the risk groups of homosexuals and the promiscuous, who are reputed to have plenty of overlap.

Ah, pirouetting to the favorite obsession of the moment - gays.  Well,  I'll tell you what is cutting down on AIDS cost - gay marriage.   A couple that stays together in sickness and it health saves all the rest of us tax and insurance money.   That's family, that's what most efficiently takes care of the aged and the sick.   Marriage equality is a boon to the family - the bedrock unit that provide mutual support in good times and bad.

Junkies?   You and I both say we're Christians.  One of us - like a lot of Republicans running for Congress this year - is perfectly willing to provide community resources to help folks wrestling with addiction   And the other, it appears, hopes they all die in the gutter.     

Insurance companies ordinarily would not underwrite such a serious risk without exhorbitant premiums, and you want the rest of us to pick up that tab.

   Okay, then, cover them with welfare and pay for it with your taxes rather than your premiums.   

It isn't about little Johnny with cancer, or little Susie with leukemia, (they can turn to Shriner's or St Jude's and/or community assistance from church groups and others) it is about the people you claim have the 'right' to demand services from a baker or florist for their ersatz wedding, demanding health insurance from the rest of us. Why don't you just come clean and stop lying about this?

 A little incoherence, there, in your parting shot.   

[Suppressed]

It isn't about little Johnny with cancer, or little Susie with leukemia, (they can turn to Shriner's or St Jude's and/or community assistance from church groups and others) it is about the people you claim have the 'right' to demand services from a baker or florist for their ersatz wedding, demanding health insurance from the rest of us. Why don't you just come clean and stop lying about this?

If those charities provided all that was needed, why were people falling through the cracks?

Society has called out for universal coverage because charities have not always been able to meet demand.  Also, do we expect churches to grow in their ability to help, or decline.  Personally, I see declining influence and prosperity of churches.

I'd like to see some reassuring information to assuage my concerns.

[skeeter]

With Conservatives, the 'self interests' benefit everyone, with progressives, they benefit progressives.

Conservatives don't see the size of the pie as fixed. If everyone has a slice and the pie gets bigger, everyone gets more, even if they started with a small slice. Making the pie smaller hurts everyone, especially the guy with the small slice, but everyone loses.
If a Conservative has a big slice and sees someone with too little, they often give some of theirs to benefit those without enough.

With progressives, they see the pie as staying the same size, no matter what, so they only see taking part of someone else's slice as a way to get more. Hence, they are constantly trying to take everyone else's stuff to give away, which tends to shrink the pie, hurting the ones they claim to help even more. They see themselves as Robin Hood, when they are really just robbing hoods.

Yes. Everyone can benefit from conservative solutions. With progressives there are clear winners and losers.

[Smokin Joe]

Why do you employ rhetoric like that?   Those are the folks I have the very most concern for,  folks like yourself whose effective options vanished in the wake of the ACA.   

The ACA has done far more HARM to far more people than it has done good. You sure express your 'concern' strangely.

There are a number of reasons that employers are cutting health benefits these days, or, more commonly,  passing more of the cost-share on to the employees.

Yep. $1000, $2000, $3000, you want me to keep numbering them? Employers aren't in business to be a charity, they have to make money, too.

If you encumber them with crap like requiring coverages which are inappropriate and unnecessary, with insurance plans that are more expensive, or cutting hours to keep from the crippling expense, they will do what they have to to survive as a business. A lot of policies that were around before the ACA are no longer offered because of it.

The problems that plague the ACA can be fixed.   That's the point.  I don't "laud" the ACA,  I just happened to have read it and understand what it does, what it doesn't do,  and the underlying weaknesses in the current system that have contributed to ACA's failure.   

The principal weakness is that it is a socialistic transfer of wealth that kills the golden goose. How do you FIX that? You stop killing the goose. You stop robbing the people who are being productive and screwing things up for those who are trying to. Get rid of the ACA and let the market decide.

    You do?  Well, enlighten me.   Maybe I'd like to see the Republicans succeed, and turn this tarbaby into an asset,  a testament to the party's competence.   The hard right wants, as usual, to set off a bomb, and to hell with the collateral damage.   Kasich is right. 

The bomb has already been set off, the collateral damage is done along with the productive middle class people who were the principal target.
 By its very nature, this tarbaby won't be an asset, this is damage control.
You can only bleed the productive so hard for so long before they aren't.
BTW, the Democrats own this mess, and the GOP will have to clean it up.

Ah, pirouetting to the favorite obsession of the moment - gays.  Well,  I'll tell you what is cutting down on AIDS cost - gay marriage.   A couple that stays together in sickness and it health saves all the rest of us tax and insurance money.   That's family, that's what most efficiently takes care of the aged and the sick.   Marriage equality is a boon to the family - the bedrock unit that provide mutual support in good times and bad.

This is an offshoot of other discussions where you advocate fining Christian shop owners for not violating their beliefs to cater a gay ceremony, where you insist that a gay civil union is the equivalent of the sacrament of matrimony, and have pushed the idea that somehow the two are equivalent in terms of being moral. Really? Gays, while there are some stable couples, have been notorious for promiscuity, even within that relationship ( an "Open" relationship). It's pretty rare that even heterosexual relationships survive long with those terms, I really doubt that homosexuals are immune to the same insecurities and jealousies.
Gay couples who were going to be faithful to one another don't need a piece of paper to do so, and that piece of paper won't keep someone faithful. It doesn't work with heterosexual couples either, it just asserts the rights of one to part of the stuff in the event the couple heads their separate ways. 
The reason for homosexuals to advocate for civil unions wasn't "love", what was said time and again were complaints of medical records not being able to be viewed by their partner (solved with a simple release form), inheritance (a will), being able to make medical decisions (Conditional medical power of attorney), all problems that could be handled by the ordinary legal system. Oh, wait, the other one was to be covered on their partner's insurance at work. I guess that just wasn't working out well enough or fast enough, or maybe underwriters weren't happy about covering that sort of risk. After all, even after Obama's spending spree, a trillion dollars is a lot of money--especially for companies that can't just print it. The electorate would never go for that. That isn't even a social conservative thingy, it's a fiscal one. But by requiring that everyone be insured, that preexisting conditions be covered, that policies not take into account anything but age and tobacco use, but not be allowed to consider other even more dangerous behaviour, the burden of payment would be forcibly shifted to people who conduct themselves in a far less risky manner, and who would be unlikely to ever contract HIV/AIDS because they don't live that way.

Junkies?   You and I both say we're Christians.  One of us - like a lot of Republicans running for Congress this year - is perfectly willing to provide community resources to help folks wrestling with addiction   And the other, it appears, hopes they all die in the gutter.

This isn't about dealing with the self-inflicted wound of addiction, I was pointing out the two primary risk groups for HIV/AIDS, and needle junkies are one of them. You said some blather about helping "hard working" people, and I really can't say any of the needle junkies I have ever known are hard working, except to scam their way to the next fix. That isn't hard working in any sense except the efforts they will go through to steal or otherwise abscond something to keep the habit going. That left the other group.

     
   Okay, then, cover them with welfare and pay for it with your taxes rather than your premiums.   

Junkies are covered with welfare, medicaid picks up the tab. Damn, but that's taxes. The ACA didn't do anything about that. I see you still want to stick those "hard working poor people" you claim to champion with that tab and the trillion dollars plus in AIDS costs, and forcibly remove those assets from them. 

A little incoherence, there, in your parting shot.   

Nothing incoherent about it. One group stands to bag a trillion plus in benefits, another stands to pick up the tab, and the division comes along the line of behavioural choices.  While there might be some collateral benefit to a few people who aren't on the 'wild side' of that behavioural line, the vast majority benefit goes to the previously uninsurable people who are that way by virtue of their lifestyle choices. In the meantime, a lot of hard working people, both middle class and working poor are working harder for less to pick up the tab, or are doing without.

[DB]

If those charities provided all that was needed, why were people falling through the cracks?

Society has called out for universal coverage because charities have not always been able to meet demand.  Also, do we expect churches to grow in their ability to help, or decline.  Personally, I see declining influence and prosperity of churches.

I'd like to see some reassuring information to assuage my concerns.

Perhaps if the churches weren't being replaced by the state the churches would be doing better.

The bottom line is the federal government has no business doing all this social work.

[Bigun]

Perhaps if the churches weren't being replaced by the state the churches would be doing better.

The bottom line is the federal government has no business doing all this social work.

Let's make that bigger so it doesn't get overlooked!   

[INVAR]

If those charities provided all that was needed, why were people falling through the cracks?

Because people wanted to make government the church so as to avoid hearing lessons in morality, responsibility and overcoming. 

Society has called out for universal coverage because charities have not always been able to meet demand.

Because society has gone from independence to complete dependence at the behest of The Great Society and the great lie that government is there to provide sustenance and equality.

Personally, I see declining influence and prosperity of churches.

An entirely different discussion to be had for sure - but it does fall in line with a society that no longer is interested in the bible, and only interested in assuaging the self.

[Bigun]

Personally, I see declining influence and prosperity of churches.

I isolated that portion of your post because I want to respond to it very specifically. 

What you see is exactly what is happening and it is entirely by design.  We should have NEVER allowed the state to usurp the traditional roles of the Church in any shape, form, or manner because once we did that - allowed the camels nose under the tent - the game was pretty much over.  I may be entirely alone in this thought but I am personally convinced that this is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was trying to tell those Danbury Baptist in his letter to them regarding a Separation of Church and State!

[Hondo69]

What you see is exactly what is happening and it is entirely by design.  We should have NEVER allowed the state to usurp the traditional roles of the Church in any shape, form, or manner . . .

It's a great point and one that has history on its side to back it up.  We've seen this before, which makes it pretty easy to predict the direction we are heading - it ain't pretty.

Both today's Anarchists and Globalists understand this critical point as well.  All you have to do is examine their blueprints and they spell it all out for the whole world to see in black and white.  Replace the church with the state.

There has been some discussion here about charities and I feel it is a topic that drives home this central theme.  It is very telling that you really don't hear much about charities anymore.  We used to hear much more about charities if you remember, but not anymore.  Beyond the occasional hurricane or earthquake the media works overtime to keep charities out of the spotlight.  Day to day charity operations are almost never mentioned by the media.  Who needs a charity when you have 634 federal agencies to do that sort of work?

Also telling is the way government programs have evolved over the years.  During the Depression, for example, the New Deal brought in all sorts of one-time remedies whipped up in response to a crisis.  They were never intended to be long-term programs.  But as Reagan told us, "Nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program".  Today we take all sorts of things like school lunches and farm subsidies for granted but they were never intended to be nationwide long-term programs.

The idea of charity itself has become fused into an odd combination work performed by churches, government programs, 501C3's, and foundations of every type.  Many do fantastic work and should be applauded.  It's the blurring of the lines that I find troubling and if history is any guide we'd be wise to bring those lines back into focus.

[Bigun]

It's a great point and one that has history on its side to back it up.  We've seen this before, which makes it pretty easy to predict the direction we are heading - it ain't pretty.

Both today's Anarchists and Globalists understand this critical point as well.  All you have to do is examine their blueprints and they spell it all out for the whole world to see in black and white.  Replace the church with the state.

There has been some discussion here about charities and I feel it is a topic that drives home this central theme.  It is very telling that you really don't hear much about charities anymore.  We used to hear much more about charities if you remember, but not anymore.  Beyond the occasional hurricane or earthquake the media works overtime to keep charities out of the spotlight.  Day to day charity operations are almost never mentioned by the media.  Who needs a charity when you have 634 federal agencies to do that sort of work?

Also telling is the way government programs have evolved over the years.  During the Depression, for example, the New Deal brought in all sorts of one-time remedies whipped up in response to a crisis.  They were never intended to be long-term programs.  But as Reagan told us, "Nothing lasts longer than a temporary government program".  Today we take all sorts of things like school lunches and farm subsidies for granted but they were never intended to be nationwide long-term programs.

The idea of charity itself has become fused into an odd combination work performed by churches, government programs, 501C3's, and foundations of every type.  Many do fantastic work and should be applauded.  It's the blurring of the lines that I find troubling and if history is any guide we'd be wise to bring those lines back into focus.

Yep!  Been going on for centuries now initiated by the writings of one Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

[thackney]

Rights under the Constitution mean little to INVAR;

Like your opinion of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, waltzing or not?

[Suppressed]

Good points being made about charities and churches.

I get the impression that a higher percentage of "high-risk lifestyle choicers" died in the streets "back then", something society won't allow now.  Also, there are more long-term care threats now (HIV/AIDS, stronger drugs, etc.).  I think the churches couldn't carry this burden entirely. 

Finally, Americans are demanding ever-advancing medical care. That costs a lot.  Medical care didn't used to differ much, decade to decade. Now, there's a new gadget or drug that costs oodles to get approved, and the next will cost even more!

 If you want 1970-level care, it's not expensive.  What's expensive are the MRIs, latest drugs, and keeping you alive for years, rather than you just dying, 1971-style.

[Bigun]

Good points being made about charities and churches.

I get the impression that a higher percentage of "high-risk lifestyle choicers" died in the streets "back then", something society won't allow now.  Also, there are more long-term care threats now (HIV/AIDS, stronger drugs, etc.).  I think the churches couldn't carry this burden entirely. 

They died in the streets perhaps because there was so little of that kind of thing around they had no idea what the root problem even was.  Death certificates probably said died natural causes and left it at that.

Finally, Americans are demanding ever-advancing medical care. That costs a lot.  Medical care didn't used to differ much, decade to decade. Now, there's a new gadget or drug that costs oodles to get approved, and the next will cost even more!

It "costs a lot" because of government intervention in the marketplace primarily. 

If you want 1970-level care, it's not expensive.  What's expensive are the MRIs, latest drugs, and keeping you alive for years, rather than you just dying, 1971-style.

ALL of which would cost FAR less in a free market atmosphere.  And especially when the consumers of those thing again have an interest in the costs of them which is NOT the case today.

[Smokin Joe]

Good points being made about charities and churches.

I get the impression that a higher percentage of "high-risk lifestyle choicers" died in the streets "back then", something society won't allow now.  Also, there are more long-term care threats now (HIV/AIDS, stronger drugs, etc.).  I think the churches couldn't carry this burden entirely. 

The cheapest medicine is preventive. Had the bath houses been shut down, for instance, instead of that medically sound action presented as some sort of evil crusade undertaken because straits hated gays, maybe more would not have died.
Every thing medically sound, from relating the risks and limiting exchange of pathogens is presented to the world by the press and the very people who have 'pride' in their behaviour as some stultifying effort of the religious and bigots and homophobes, when it would not only have saved lives, prevented suffering, but saved billions of dollars as well.

Here is the conflict (as presented by the media and especially 'special interest groups') in that because Bible following churches frankly disapproved of the hideously damaging behaviour that led to death and the destruction of lives, they could be characterized as bigots and "haters". No good deed goes unpunished.

Finally, Americans are demanding ever-advancing medical care. That costs a lot.  Medical care didn't used to differ much, decade to decade. Now, there's a new gadget or drug that costs oodles to get approved, and the next will cost even more!

 If you want 1970-level care, it's not expensive.  What's expensive are the MRIs, latest drugs, and keeping you alive for years, rather than you just dying, 1971-style.

I can understand new tech being expensive, after all, someone is recovering development costs.
But I worked an oil well where we used a MRI logging tool nearly 30 years ago. Why is it still so expensive?
While an awful lot of medical care could be done cheaper (200 bucks for a doctor visit? I remember when it was twenty!) Regulations (HIPAA for instance) have forced doctors to employ increasing numbers of non-medical staff to handle the paperwork.

I envision the day where a sample of spit or blood or urine or stool could be analyzed, and the appropriate medication issued--by a machine--or the patient referred for further testing.
 
Two things rear their heads in this issue: while the expenses of equipment and facilities need to be recouped, regulations and liability insurance are incredible cost factors as well.
Tort reform could go a long way to remedy the latter, a review of regulations by practicing doctors might be in order as well.

[Suppressed]

The cheapest medicine is preventive. Had the bath houses been shut down, for instance, instead of that medically sound action presented as some sort of evil crusade undertaken because straits hated gays, maybe more would not have died.

At what point do you draw the line?  Call Mike Bloomberg to start banning things like fast food?

But I worked an oil well where we used a MRI logging tool nearly 30 years ago. Why is it still so expensive?

The resolution and imaging being done by that MRI is far more complex than that NMR tool.  But you're right about those other factors...especially liability.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Social Conservatism IS fiscally conservative, though. He doesn't seem to get that.

To put it even more bluntly, to be Conservative is to be a Social Conservative.

I do not know what you are if you are not Socially Conservative, but it is definitely not a Conservative.  Maybe a Schwarzenegger, for want of a better term.

[Smokin Joe]

At what point do you draw the line?  Call Mike Bloomberg to start banning things like fast food?

We draw lines all the time, we quarrantine. The idea of shutting down bath houses was to stop the spread of a little-known disease that was lethal.
We would do the same in any epidemic, and attempt to stop the spread. Product recalls are a fine example. A different approach is to give away needles (exchanges), despite the targeted IV drug use being illegal, in order to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS and HepC, just for a couple of diseases.

There is no extraordinary risk that a 32 oz pop or a big greasy triple stacker will kill you, nor even necessarily lead to long term medical problems, consumed in moderation, and that effect even in extreme cases is not guaranteed.

Unprotected promiscuous gay sex with HIV infected people is a lot riskier behaviour, and that's what was said to be going on in the bathhouses. The odds of the participants contracting a lethal disease were high. Trying to shut them down was an act of kindness.

The resolution and imaging being done by that MRI is far more complex than that NMR tool.  But you're right about those other factors...especially liability.

Sure the imaging is better. There have been 30 years to get it that way. Computers have improved ridiculously in that time as well. To buy a TB of storage now is nothing compared to 30 years ago, and there is more processing power in a smart phone than that whole logging truck had--and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.
So why not the MRI? (Liability issues are a large part of it, is my guess).

[txradioguy]

To put it even more bluntly, to be Conservative is to be a Social Conservative.

I do not know what you are if you are not Socially Conservative, but it is definitely not a Conservative.  Maybe a Schwarzenegger, for want of a better term.

Weren't they referred to in the past as Rockefeller Repiblicans?

[Cyber Liberty]

Weren't they referred to in the past as Rockefeller Republicans?

Yeah.  Apparently they weren't ostracized enough.

[Jazzhead]

To put it even more bluntly, to be Conservative is to be a Social Conservative.

Social conservatism demands that the government enforce a certain view of morality at the expense of individual liberty and the law's equal protection.  That's not conservatism.     

[txradioguy]

Social conservatism demands that the government enforce a certain view of morality at the expense of individual liberty and the law's equal protection.  That's not conservatism.   

This just goes to show how little you know about Conservatism or the way our government was founded.

History has taught us that freedom cannot long survive unless it is based on moral foundations. The American founding bears ample witness to this fact. America has become the most powerful nation in history, yet she uses her power not for territorial expansion but to perpetuate freedom and justice throughout the world.

For over two centuries, Americans have held fast to their belief in freedom for all men—a belief that springs from their spiritual heritage. John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote in 1789, “Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” That was an astonishing thing to say, but it was true.

What kind of people built America and thus prompted Adams to make such a statement? Sadly, too many people, especially young people, have a hard time answering that question. They know little of their own history (This is also true in Great Britain). But America’s is a very distinguished history, nonetheless, and it has important lessons to teach us regarding the necessity of moral foundations.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-moral-foundations-of-society/

Now if the late great Maggie Thatcher can understand that...why is it so hard for you?

[Jazzhead]

You waltzed around my statement without addressing it, txradioguy.   I'm not critical of those whose morality is socially conservative;  they have as much right to live in accordance with their faith as anyone else under the Constitution.   My issue is the political demands of social conservatives, which are antithetical to liberty.   

 To repeat:

Social conservatism demands that the government enforce a certain view of morality at the expense of individual liberty and the law's equal protection.  That's not conservatism.

 

[txradioguy]

You waltzed around my statement without addressing it, txradioguy.   I'm not critical of those who have socially conservative morality;  they have as much liberty to practice their faith as anyone else under the Constitution.   My issue is the political demands of social conservatives, which are antithetical to liberty.   

 To repeat:
 

 

I didn't dance around anything...I merely pointed out..yet again..the fallacy of your liberal beliefs in relation to the Constitution individual liberty and liberty in general.

IF there weren't morality there'd be no liberty.  Having morals goes hand in hand with freedom.  If you don't have morals...if morality isn't placed ona society...there'd be no respect for anyone or anything and you'd have anarchy.

Your "issue" is one of your own making because of your Liberal beliefs and trying to force them onto a society that by and large rejects certain things you believe in. 

You want to drive a wedge between fiscal and social conservatives...what you don't realize is that a tru Conservative is conservative in both areas..financial AND social.  You can't be one with out the other no matter how much you try to hammer a wedge between the two.

What you fail to realize...and this is important...is that freedom is not a moral, spiritual, or political vacuum in which anything goes.