If only we didn't call it "Obama-Care" . . . .

[kishnevi]

I would be much more supportive of any Republican initiative if I had even the vaguest hint of belief in the possibility that they intended to replace it with something better. But the fact of the matter is that if they manage in some way to get it repealed, there won't be even a salute to health care reform in my lifetime, or possibly ever at all. The intention of this drive is NOT to get a better health care plan in place, it is to remove any restraints whatsoever on health care providers. This is what has happened with telecommunications, and with the finance industry and many others. And isn't that working out nicely?

So despite the fact that I am rather on the conservative side of several essential issues, I sure can't back them on this one.

The ironic thing is that single payer healthcare, or any other plan that would de-link employment and health insurance, would be excellent for businesses and the labor market, but almost any proposal that would have this effect  is either a) bitterly opposed by the Republicans, those stalwart friends of business or b)so costly and confusing for individuals that it would either keep people from getting health insurance or keep them wedded to employer provided plans just like they are now.

When you come down to it, the Republican agenda on health care is anti--business.  Anti almost anything else too except the possibility of making health care unaffordable for most people....

[Geo Dude]

The ironic thing is that single payer healthcare, or any other plan that would de-link employment and health insurance, would be excellent for businesses and the labor market, but almost any proposal that would have this effect  is either a) bitterly opposed by the Republicans, those stalwart friends of business or b)so costly and confusing for individuals that it would either keep people from getting health insurance or keep them wedded to employer provided plans just like they are now.

When you come down to it, the Republican agenda on health care is anti--business.  Anti almost anything else too except the possibility of making health care unaffordable for most people....

Well, it's not strictly anti-business if you look at it from the right angle...I've heard one of the stand-ins on Rush Limbaugh's show argue that even without health care reform insurance should be de-coupled from employment because 'my employees' health issues have nothing to do with my business.' (or something along those lines, I'm paraphrasing) and therefore employees should have to take their paycheck and pay for insurance out of their own pocket.   Good luck getting Republican politicians to publicly admit to sharing this viewpoint, though.

[Brian]

My Republican ex-boss (left last week) volunteered to me the opinion that instead of Obamacare, we should ban all health insurance. I was speechless.

[kishnevi]

My Republican ex-boss (left last week) volunteered to me the opinion that instead of Obamacare, we should ban all health insurance. I was speechless.

Republicans have a strange fantasy that health insurance, encourages people to overuse doctors, etc.; and interferes with people being able to find out the cheapest prices/fees--in other words, cuts down on the ability to shop for doctors and hospitals. People direclty spending their own money would be more careful how much they spend, of course, so in part that's true, but it's mostly unrealistic.  If you're in an accident or life threatening emergency, the last thing you're going to worry about is how much you're being charged, and there's no time to call different hospitals to see if they will charge less.  Most consumer goods are subject to price competition because consumers are able to search out the best price if they want to.  That's not true in most fields of medicine, and the more important the medicine involved, the less able consumers are to find out prices.

[Geo Dude]

Republicans have a strange fantasy that health insurance, encourages people to overuse doctors, etc.; and interferes with people being able to find out the cheapest prices/fees--in other words, cuts down on the ability to shop for doctors and hospitals. People direclty spending their own money would be more careful how much they spend, of course, so in part that's true, but it's mostly unrealistic.  If you're in an accident or life threatening emergency, the last thing you're going to worry about is how much you're being charged, and there's no time to call different hospitals to see if they will charge less.  Most consumer goods are subject to price competition because consumers are able to search out the best price if they want to.  That's not true in most fields of medicine, and the more important the medicine involved, the less able consumers are to find out prices.

They also have a strange fantasy that Obama-care is a conspiracy designed to replace insurance companies by forcing them out of business.  Among other things, my father has informed me that the Heritage Foundation (or maybe it was Human Events, I can't be bothered to remember the details) has 'discovered' a rule within the bill which stipulates that if your insurance company makes changes to your policy that they must hand over their customers to medicare (or perhaps some shady new government insurance company that is being hidden from the public) and therefore the insurance companies will be dropping like flies since they tend to make small alterations to their policies on a yearly basis.  Rather strange that none of the insurance companies have discovered this plot and tried to inform the public about it given how much they have to lose.

EDIT:  Speaking of strange fantasies, Rush Limbaugh was on earlier today and ranting about how Obamacare is intentionally designed to be complex and messy because that will force the government to make 'adjustments' which will result in the government gaining more power.  He continued on to say that the motivation behind Obamacare had nothing whatsoever to do with helping people have access to health care and was entirely about expanding the government and having more control over citizens with the idea of access to health care being a trojan horse.  Whatever one thinks of Obamacare (or Obama) I think that he was overplaying his hand, to say the least.

[kishnevi]

They also have a strange fantasy that Obama-care is a conspiracy designed to replace insurance companies by forcing them out of business.  Among other things, my father has informed me that the Heritage Foundation (or maybe it was Human Events, I can't be bothered to remember the details) has 'discovered' a rule within the bill which stipulates that if your insurance company makes changes to your policy that they must hand over their customers to medicare (or perhaps some shady new government insurance company that is being hidden from the public) and therefore the insurance companies will be dropping like flies since they tend to make small alterations to their policies on a yearly basis.  Rather strange that none of the insurance companies have discovered this plot and tried to inform the public about it given how much they have to lose.

EDIT:  Speaking of strange fantasies, Rush Limbaugh was on earlier today and ranting about how Obamacare is intentionally designed to be complex and messy because that will force the government to make 'adjustments' which will result in the government gaining more power.  He continued on to say that the motivation behind Obamacare had nothing whatsoever to do with helping people have access to health care and was entirely about expanding the government and having more control over citizens with the idea of access to health care being a trojan horse.  Whatever one thinks of Obamacare (or Obama) I think that he was overplaying his hand, to say the least.

There is some rule that limits how employers can make changes to employee health plans, and which it is claimed (by the Republicans) will force employers to drop health care benefits and force people into government run exchanges.

That might be the rule your father heard about.

And Limbaugh is saying the same things that appear almost every day on conservative blogs.  The GOP is energetically preaching the idea that Obamacare is the mechanism that will turn the US into a totalitarian state, and that the US medical system will soon be reduced to the same low level as the UK's NHS.  You, the National Health Service run by the dictatorial British government.....

EDIT: You have to understand.   American conservatives believe that the greatness of the US medical system does not lie in how many people it cures/saves lives/etc., but that the greatness of the US medical system lies in the fact that Americans can currently choose whatever doctor,hospital they want and pay through the nose for the privilege.  Yes, any American can take advantage of all the miracle drugs and technology they want, as long as they have the money to actually pay for it.  And those that don't have the money--well,  they can take solace in the fact that if they had enough money, they would have been able to be cured too.

[Geo Dude]

There is some rule that limits how employers can make changes to employee health plans, and which it is claimed (by the Republicans) will force employers to drop health care benefits and force people into government run exchanges.

That might be the rule your father heard about.

Most likely, but they've taken the propaganda a step further and claimed that it also applies to insurance plans that are paid for by individuals rather than employers, and therefore people are likely to lose any insurance they have and be forced onto the government system.  Anything to keep the anti-Obama machine rolling.

By the way, I'm very happy to speak to someone of a libertarian orientation that can discuss this issue sanely.  I'm something of an unorthodox libertarian myself and it's been very sad for me to see sites like CATO (not so surprising, I suppose) and Reason take a hard-line Republican stance on the matter from day one and brook no reasonable opposition of any kind. (Your point about how a system that decouples employment from insurance would be good for businesses, for example.)  I believe strongly in keeping an eye on government and watching for signs of abuse of power but it has been taken into insane levels of paranoia.

[kishnevi]

By the way, I'm very happy to speak to someone of a libertarian orientation that can discuss this issue sanely.  I'm something of an unorthodox libertarian myself and it's been very sad for me to see sites like CATO (not so surprising, I suppose) and Reason take a hard-line Republican stance on the matter from day one and brook no reasonable opposition of any kind. (Your point about how a system that decouples employment from insurance would be good for businesses, for example.)  I believe strongly in keeping an eye on government and watching for signs of abuse of power but it has been taken into insane levels of paranoia.

Thank you.  It comes from the fact that I was born and raised a Democrat, and still maintain my registration as a Democrat.  In fact,  I often find it handy to label myself as a "blue dog Democrat" in general conversation, as people understand that more than they understand "libertarian". 
But I could never think of voting for any Republican presidential candidate.  The dangers of GOP foreign policy are worse than any type of Obama domestic policy.  (Of course, it's not easy to find the difference between Obama's foreign policy and GOP foreign policy, except the propaganda labels.)  The only GOP candidate I would have voted for is Ron Paul, and you see how well received he was by the GOP faithful.  As it is, I wil probably vote in November for Gary Johnson, candidate for the Libertarian party--meaningless, of course, except as a good way of saying "Pox on both your houses!" to the two main wings of the Duopoly.

[Sammy]

Thank you.  It comes from the fact that I was born and raised a Democrat, and still maintain my registration as a Democrat.  In fact,  I often find it handy to label myself as a "blue dog Democrat" in general conversation, as people understand that more than they understand "libertarian". 
But I could never think of voting for any Republican presidential candidate.  The dangers of GOP foreign policy are worse than any type of Obama domestic policy.  (Of course, it's not easy to find the difference between Obama's foreign policy and GOP foreign policy, except the propaganda labels.)  The only GOP candidate I would have voted for is Ron Paul, and you see how well received he was by the GOP faithful.  As it is, I wil probably vote in November for Gary Johnson, candidate for the Libertarian party--meaningless, of course, except as a good way of saying "Pox on both your houses!" to the two main wings of the Duopoly.

I'm pretty much on the same street as you.  I was always registered as a Democrat but eventually came to the conclusion that both major parties sucked.  So I'm now registered as Libertarian and will definitely vote for Gary.  Some folks scoff at my selection, stating that my vote will just be wasted.  I don't feel that way - every vote (and non-vote also) tells us something.

[Geo Dude]

In fact,  I often find it handy to label myself as a "blue dog Democrat" in general conversation, as people understand that more than they understand "libertarian". 

I know what you mean.  My position is complicated even more because I have strong left-wing tendencies when it comes to certain environmental issues (wilderness preservation in particular) and while the standard term for my set of viewpoints is 'green libertarian' people who do know what a libertarian is are either shocked by the idea of an environmentally friendly libertarian existing (too much CATO?) or think that a 'green libertarian' is someone who wants pot legalized even more than your average libertarian.  As a result of this I've settled on 'unorthodox libertarian' because 'What the hell is a libertarian?' can make an interesting conversation starter.

I come from a significantly different background than you or Sammy, or most of the members of this board, I would guess:  My family (parents and extended) started out as paleo-conservatives simply by farm family tradition and are too locked into tribal Us vs Them politics to see how much the Republican party has changed since the late '60s/ early '70s when they came of age, politically speaking.  (Not to say that it was great then, but could you imagine a modern Republican president signing, much less fighting for, the Endangered Species Act?  At that time there was at least room for dissent.)  They're all lost in a quagmire consisting of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Worldnutdaily, Heritage Foundation, and conservative e-mail forwards and can't see out of it.  When Republicans advertise positions they oppose (repealing the minimum wage law, for example) they're thoroughly convinced that those are just a fringe group.  These are all intelligent people by the way, so it terrifies me to see how easily they've been brainwashed - and what this (admittedly small) sample size might have to say about the population at large.  If anyone's wondering I propose no solution to this and contrary to what some members have advocated in the past I certainly don't think that banning Fox News, for example, is the correct way to deal with this.

In short:  I grew up in a home where medical marijuana is just an excuse to smoke dope, the Iraq War was only opposed by filthy hippies who think we should never go to war, even for defensive purposes, and anyone who votes Democrat is just a lazy bastard looking to have the government steal your money so they don't have to work.  Fortunately, I discovered the internet.

[Todd]

My Republican ex-boss (left last week) volunteered to me the opinion that instead of Obamacare, we should ban all health insurance. I was speechless.

There's no cure for stupid.

I grew up in a home where medical marijuana is just an excuse to smoke dope

It is.  "Medical" marijuana is one of the most blatantly dishonest political campaigns in the US.  I'd have far more respect for its proponents if they simply and consistently came out and said that they want to end prohibition of marijuana, that doing so would reduce the financial and social costs associated with this particular aspect of the war on drugs, that adults should be able to smoke it if they so choose, and that it should be legalized rather than the sanctimonious claptrap about how it will help people with various ailments.  And the arguments for using hemp as an industrial product again need to be dropped.  The continued use of this argument shows that the people supporting it are indeed smoking the wacky tobacky. 

[Todd]

The dangers of GOP foreign policy are worse than any type of Obama domestic policy.  (Of course, it's not easy to find the difference between Obama's foreign policy and GOP foreign policy, except the propaganda labels.)

There is little to no difference between the parties when it comes to foreign policy.  Dubya started one war with popular support, which our current President has called a good war, and one war that initially had support from the public and both parties, though it was, presumably, a bad war in the end.  Obama hasn't invaded any countries in the same fashion, but he sent more troops to Afghanistan, has ratcheted up drone attacks in friendly nations, expanded the scope of drone use, has taken on the duty of personally selecting targets to murder, set up more operations in Africa, and failed to close Gitmo.  Before Bush, Clinton occasionally used cruise missiles against various targets and directed the bombing of European cities.  (There are people who claim that Clinton is a war criminal and should be prosecuted by the ICC - good luck with that.)  Bush Sr of course had the first Gulf War, but he had the good sense to make it truly multilateral, and he had James Baker to strong arm the Saudis into paying a good chunk of the bill.  He also took out Noriega, which seems to be less noted nowadays.  The late- and post-Cold War United States has been quite assertive in foreign policy, and it won't change depending on the party in charge.

[Geo Dude]

It is.  "Medical" marijuana is one of the most blatantly dishonest political campaigns in the US.  I'd have far more respect for its proponents if they simply and consistently came out and said that they want to end prohibition of marijuana, that doing so would reduce the financial and social costs associated with this particular aspect of the war on drugs, that adults should be able to smoke it if they so choose, and that it should be legalized rather than the sanctimonious claptrap about how it will help people with various ailments.

While I agree that it is often used dishonestly as an argument by people who want to end marijuana prohibition it does have medical uses (helping with nausea during cancer treatment, for example).  Perhaps I should have been more clear:  What I heard in my home is that every person who has ever used marijuana for medical purposes (including countries where it is legal) was just doing so because they wanted to get high and that it has no medical benefits whatsoever, and to hell with evidence to the contrary.

And the arguments for using hemp as an industrial product again need to be dropped.  The continued use of this argument shows that the people supporting it are indeed smoking the wacky tobacky. 

I've always felt that argument to be particularly stupid given that the government could simply say 'Okay, we'll legalize hemp plants that have a low THC content for use as an industrial product and keep those gardens well regulated.'

By the way, when you said that I couldn't help but think of this:

http://youtu.be/e3C9rMIRuF8

Spot on.