Government Shutting Down

[Macedonicus]

Meanwhile only 19% support what Republicans are doing right now.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...88381481237582

How is this exactly helping Republicans again?

Time will tell of course, just wait for it all to play out, and I'm not quite sure CNBC is any less biased than you appear to think Rasmussen is. lol.

[Lenonis]

keeping healthcare for-profit

I doubt it's what you meant, but healthcare is still for-profit even after the ACA. It's been called the largest expansion of private health insurance ever in fact. Something that republicans would normally be all about.

[prwraith]

Yah good luck with that. This is precisely why Republicans did not want this going into effect. How do you think this campaign is going to go?

Millions of people who have not had insurance are now insured.
2016 Election cycle starts.
Republicans run on a platform of repealing Obamacare and kicking said millions off of insurance.
?
Republicans gain control of the Senate and White House.

Ugh, no. Once an 'entitlement' program is started it never ends.

That's the problem


It's not healthcare it's an insurance scam.

National healthcare implies that everyone will get taken care of for no additional out of pocket costs other than the tax's they pay for it.

Which would be amazing.

This is not that..

[Matchles]

Time will tell of course, just wait for it all to play out, and I'm not quite sure CNBC is any less biased than you appear to think Rasmussen is. lol.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jona...mussen-problem

[obdigore]

I doubt it's what you meant, but healthcare is still for-profit even after the ACA. It's been called the largest expansion of private health insurance ever in fact. Something that republicans would normally be all about.

It's almost the exact plan suggested by GOP in the nineties. But since they have moved further right, and so have the Dems, a Dem suggests it and suddenly its 'THE MOST HORRIBLE THING EVAR!'

[Macedonicus]

No need to go into any link wars, one side always accuses the other of having unbiased faulty sources... but since someone brought up polling I thought I'd show some that show the opposite of what some are claiming.

[NYC17]

Time will tell of course, just wait for it all to play out, and I'm not quite sure CNBC is any less biased than you appear to think Rasmussen is. lol.

Yet of the 2, Rasmussen has very recent, documented, and clear evidence of bias. It's just amusing considering your earlier demand for "nonbiased" poll evidence.

But please, do keep up the entertainment.

[Apexis]

Yet, your wife's coverage was ever so tenuous, and you think it was indefinitely sustainable? Sigh.

We are not under the state plan, so yes it is. We pay an extra $800 per month above the state plan for that privilege.

[Kanariya]

Time will tell of course, just wait for it all to play out, and I'm not quite sure CNBC is any less biased than you appear to think Rasmussen is. lol.

The longer the Government remains shut down, the less support the GOP is going to have, and the amount of damage their party faces will continue to substantially increase. Waiting for it to all play out is not a good strategy on their end, and helps none of us.

[Zaydin]

I doubt it's what you meant, but healthcare is still for-profit even after the ACA. It's been called the largest expansion of private health insurance ever in fact. Something that republicans would normally be all about.

I am well aware that the ACA is basically a handout to the insurance industry, since it's giving them millions of new customers; reality does not stop conservatives from claiming it's a government takeover of healthcare, however, no matter how many times that particular lie has been debunked.

Considering how much they are freaking themselves out over the ACA now, imagine if it had actually had a government option!

[Sunseeker]

I doubt it's what you meant, but healthcare is still for-profit even after the ACA. It's been called the largest expansion of private health insurance ever in fact. Something that republicans would normally be all about.

Personally, I'm still of the stance that if the government wants me to buy it, they better be selling their own version of it. I think it's hugely bullshit that a government can require you to purchase a privately produced product.

[Matchles]

No need to go into any link wars, one side always accuses the other of having unbiased faulty sources... but since someone brought up polling I thought I'd show some that show the opposite of what some are claiming.

... bummer and I completely skipped the recent accusations of Rasmussen push polling.

[obdigore]

Considering how much they are freaking themselves out over the ACA now, imagine if it had actually had a government option!

It did have a single payer option. This was removed on the demands of the GOP. Too bad too, because I would have dropped my work health insurance and most likely gone on the single payer option.

[Lenonis]

No need to go into any link wars, one side always accuses the other of having unbiased faulty sources... but since someone brought up polling I thought I'd show some that show the opposite of what some are claiming.

Not sure how far back in the thread you read but there were several links to polls from various sites that were bad news for the GOP. If you want to assume all the polls linked so far would average each other out in terms of bias, things still don't look good for the right on this one.

[Arrogant Bastard]

No need to go into any link wars, one side always accuses the other of having unbiased faulty sources... but since someone brought up polling I thought I'd show some that show the opposite of what some are claiming.

You do not need to bring up polling. If you want to see if Obamacare is more or less popular simply look at the 2012 election. Democrats won the WH and gained seats in the Senate. Obviously the majority of the nation supported the administrations agenda.

[Lenonis]

Considering how much they are freaking themselves out over the ACA now, imagine if it had actually had a government option!

I think Medicare for all is a conservative nightmare.

[NYC17]

We are not under the state plan, so yes it is. We pay an extra $800 per month above the state plan for that privilege.

Then, as earlier evidenced, you don't understand the current state of healthcare in this country.

[Slybak]

I study health sciences at a decent american university (im european) and even my professor (self-proclaimed republican) seems to think that the only thing that is wrong with obamacare is that (republican) states refuse to fully implement it therefore causing medicare dependant people to fall through the cracks in some states.

Medicaid, not Medicare. Medicare is a federally-administered program that is essentially single payer for the elderly. Medicaid is subsidized insurance for the poor that is run through the states. The ACA expanded Medicaid to cover those that are either ineligible or too poor for the exchanges, and the Federal government is picking up the overwhelming majority of the cost of this expansion, but it requires approval from state legislatures and governors.

Some Republican governors want it, some don't. The odd thing is that there are states with Republican governors and Republican-controlled legislatures, and the governor wants the expansion while the legislature doesn't. Ohio and Arizona are in this situation. Michigan was in this situation but the legislature finally relented two weeks ago (and ended up costing the state $600 million because of the delay).

[Macedonicus]

Yet of the 2, Rasmussen has very recent, documented, and clear evidence of bias. It's just amusing considering your earlier demand for "nonbiased" poll evidence.

But please, do keep up the entertainment.

I can show you well documented and clear evidence of bias from any polling site that has been posted here as well. What does that say? I don't think I claimed Rasmussen to be any less biased, I just said I wanted to see some unbiased polling on the subject if you reread what I said earlier.

[Lenonis]

You do not need to bring up polling.

Not to mention the polls have a serious fundamental underlying flaw that surprisingly few people in this thread have brought up. You have people claiming they want to repeal something they don't actually understand. Or know what it is. They just have the talking points.

That poll has very little value and is hardly worth making policy decisions over.