Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General GOP at war with itself on health care

The military fits comfortably into the traditional definition of health and welfare. Their motivated by a set of rules and follow those rules without exception. Congress is not an asset to the health and welfare very often, they follow no rules and cannot even agree on how to balance the budget.

Congress does not engender trust, and does not deserve our trust.

Cool, keep medicare and Medicaid. See, we can agree on healthcare. If we don't take care of the elderly, we fail as a society.

And, of course, the federally-run massive socialized medical care systems of the military and the VA. The federal government can't possibly set some rules about what private insurance companies can and can't do, but they can run military health care (including retirees and their spouses and dependents) and the VA system.

So I guess you were perfectly fine with RomneyCare: The Massachusetts health insurance plan ACA was based on. (The main difference was that the RomneyCare mandate penalty was much higher than ACA's.) That was run entirely by the state for the people of that state.

Just like each other state's version of ACA. I think there is a little hole in your logic here!

I also think you don't have any problem with ACA redefining insurance to cover preexisting conditions, having no exclusions, no yearly or lifetime cap, etc. I bet your main objection is that the federal government gives poor people subsidies. Which means poor people should just die. Which won't really happen because they will just use very expensive ER visits to get health care and all the hospitals will have to eat it and go bankrupt, or charge everybody with insurance enough to make up for it.

This says a lot more about you and your sense of right and wrong than it does about the ACA. Poor people end up with health care either way, but as long as they don't have insurance it is better even if we all end up paying more.

For those in denial, ACA is the Heritage Foundation's Healthy Equality Access Reform Today (Act of 1993)

I want people to be happy, healthy and safe. I do not trust the government, and I believe that they are the absolute worst institution possible to be managing anything other than a checking account.

I was against Romneycare when the SJC insisted that Mitt create it. I have, however, had to use it for coverage. If not for Obamacare, I wouldn't have used Romnetcare either. Look, everybody should be able to afford medical care. The cost has spiraled out of control and Congress has done nothing to lessen the costs for working America. Why should people who do the right thing get punished? Why should working Americans have to pay outrageous amounts of money each month for coverage that most do not use? They have to do it because Obama embraced his socialist soul and decided that we really are responsible for our neighbors.

I follow the rules, I pay my taxes and because I actually work, I get screwed. Sorry, if that attitude makes me a grumpy Republican, then I embrace the grumpiness. I want to take care of what is mine first, then if there is anything left over maybe I can give it to charity. That concept, the one where you are responsible for your own situation, has become passé, and America is less for it.

Here's the problem with your logic, Ma. Taking care of others is taking care of you and yours. The truth is, the cost of your healthcare is directly affected by not taking care of those "others." The ACA (and Romney care before it) helped slow the rise of healthcare/insurance costs for everyone, including you. The truth is, we are all in this together.

Why was there an ACA? Because the cost of health care throughout the United States was rising nearly exponentially, and a major reason is because so many people did not have insurance, were not getting preventive care, and our health provision services were/are being overwhelmed. It is a national crisis. Frankly, that's why we have a United States, to deal with issues that are of national scope. Individual States cannot handle it on their own. (Large States, like Massachusetts, can, but that leaves out more than half the US, and nearly all Republicans.) And this crisis is not over.

I believe there are better solutions than the ACA, but it was a good start, and helped identify why, where and how the problems can be addressed. I agree that Congress is an unwieldy body, but it is the system we have. It can get big things done when properly led - social security, national security, the interstate highway system, NASA - are all demonstrations of that. The problem is patently obvious, though. The Republican party is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem. It stands in the way of every rational solution to nearly every national problem.

Holy cow! I just looked at a list of countries with universal health care on Wikipedia. There's a crap load of them. Rich/poor, 1st world/3rd world, north/east/south/west ... everywhere.

Wonder why those countries do that. They couldn't all be tree-hugging liberals. Could it be that it is the cheapest way to do it? I'm pretty sure those countries considered cost before they set up the system.

What stands between the US and universal health? Could it be all the money big pharma gives in political donations? Could it be the money insurance companies donate? There's literally no reason to give money to people to give to the insurance companies so they can make their profits instead of just giving people health care.

"Socialized medicine" is a term that is so vile to so many people. They fear it, hate it, but don't take away their Medicare or their Medicaid. The government just better keep its hands off those programs.

I swear, a lot of Americans are their own worst enemies. Their votes make it hard on the rational, sane Americans.

The best I can do with that is ... you do not comprehend the concept of insurance or you are emotionally angry that other people are getting the benefits of insurance. In either case you offer nothing.

This is different than the ideological rejection the federal government should not be engaged in health care.

There is no compromising ideological differences.