Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GOP's hypocrisy on Obamacare

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GOP's hypocrisy on Obamacare

    The Link

    .

    Last spring, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on implementation of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and the chairman of the committee, was not pleased with how things were going.

    The Obama administration originally had asked for more than half a billion dollars to spend on public relations and outreach for the law. House Republicans had returned with an offer of nothing. That's right: zero dollars. Without necessary funds, the Department of Health and Human Services worried it would not have the necessary money to pay for navigators to help people enroll in health care, for the technology needed to implement the exchanges and for the public relations campaign that was required to inform citizens about what the law actually did.

    HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made the controversial move of asking insurance companies and nonprofit organizations to donate money and help. Republicans were outraged. She asked for more money. She was refused.

    Then, when she tried to move some money from the PR budget to replace cuts to other areas, Baucus became quite upset. He was concerned that if the administration did not do more to inform people about the law and get implementation going, there would be problems:

    "A lot of people have no idea about all of this," he said. "People just don't know a lot about it, and the Kaiser poll pointed that out. I understand you've hired a contractor. I'm just worried that that's gonna be money down the drain because contractors like to make money. ... I just tell ya, I just see a huge train wreck coming down."

    As I've said before, it's important to note that the "train wreck" Baucus was describing was a botched implementation because not enough was being done to make things go smoothly.

    It wasn't a description of the law itself but of what might occur if the government did not devote enough resources to making it work. Sebelius' response was not surprising to those who were paying attention. She said that she was "incredibly disappointed" that all her requests for resources were being denied by Republicans.

    That was then. Today, implementation has arrived, and if it's not a train wreck, then it's certainly close. The administration is still under fire because people cannot get the insurance they want through the exchanges. But while I will continue to point out the problems with implementation and fault the administration for mistakes they've made, how does one ignore the apparent hypocrisy from many politicians who are now "outraged" about the very problems they've helped to create.

    Republicans refused to appropriate money needed to implement Obamacare. When Sebelius tried to shift money from other areas to help do what needed to be done, she was attacked by Senate Republicans. At every step, Republicans fought measures to get money to put towards implementation.
    "There are four lights!"

  • #2
    I guess somewhere in the 2000 pages of the The Act, the authors of the bill should have set aside some funding for the implementation.
    After all they had both sides of Congress and the Prez on their side, so it should have been a no brainer (no pun intended).

    Maybe Nancy, Harry and Barry should have read the bill before they signed it.
    We are so fucked.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by gary m View Post
      I guess somewhere in the 2000 pages of the The Act, the authors of the bill should have set aside some funding for the implementation.
      After all they had both sides of Congress and the Prez on their side, so it should have been a no brainer (no pun intended).

      Maybe Nancy, Harry and Barry should have read the bill before they signed it.
      Perhaps.

      .

      Regardless, Republicans are sounding like the proverbial defendant who murdered his parents asking the court for mercy due to the fact that he is an orphan.
      "There are four lights!"

      Comment


      • #4
        The Obama administration originally had asked for more than half a billion dollars to spend on public relations and outreach for the law.
        What's truly amazing is that not only this author, but also all of the Obamacare champions both inside and outside of the Beltway has recognized the utter absurdity of blowing more than half a billion dollars on "educating the public" about this half-baked, hare-brained scheme that not a single damned one of the people involved in crafting it understand themselves! How ridiculous! We keep getting told that everyone wants this, everyone loves this, but there's not a soul in this country who has even the slightest real understanding of the legislation (and the 20,000+ associated pages of un-legislated "regulations" that have been drawn up) from a legal standpoint. Obama's just flat-out lying about it. Congressional Democrats are all over the board on it, changing what they say from one week to another, always to the constant drumbeat of "just wait; you're gonna love it!" while in the very same breath getting forced to admit that they don't even know WTF the law says. The only people who have the slightest inkling of what it says are businesses, who have read it and are scared to death of it, adjusting their hiring practices and work practices to do whatever they can to avoid it, and then every other week we find out some other big surprise about the law that no one even knew was there.

        No fuckin' wonder the economy's in the shitter. Thanks in no small part to this law, we now have more people on the government tit than we do working full-time jobs in this country. And these doofuses continue to a.) wonder why that is, and when they're told that it's because of this idiotic cacophony of stupidity; b.) turn around and blame Republicans for the problem that they created entirely on their own, without a single Republican vote.



        In perhaps the ultimate irony, I would actually support the basic premise of the law, the individual mandate, and indeed I have even proposed as much before anyone ever even thought about this current lunacy, and I was able to prove a workable system for everyone, from the least of us to the wealthiest captain of industry, in just a few paragraphs on an internet message board and using a few pages of MSExcel.

        But leave it to Washington and especially the Congressional Democrats to manage to fuck up a simple idea beyond all recognition. Congressional Democrats could figure out a way to break a steel ball.
        Bask in the warmth of the Deep South
        No one will be denied:
        Big law suits and bathroom toots;
        We're all getting Dixie-fried.
        But somewhere Hank and Lefty
        Are rollin' in their graves
        While kudzu vines grow over signs that read "Jesus Saves."

        Comment


        • #5
          Exactly why should any politician that is in opposition to a particular piece of legislation vote to appropriate the funding to implement it?
          If Republicans were to pass a law requiring all citizens to own a firearm and then demand a future Democrat Congress and Prez to fund it, would you be slamming the Democrats (Shumer and Feinstein come to mind) that vote no?
          Or is it only when it is Republicans obstructing a law that you personally agree with that your ire is raised?
          We are so fucked.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by gary m View Post
            Exactly why should any politician that is in opposition to a particular piece of legislation vote to appropriate the funding to implement it?
            They shouldn't.

            I was a kid when the Fall of Saigon happened. From my understanding (limited as it is), that could be attributed partially, at least, and probably wholly, because of Congress defunding the war effort. What would you think of Democrats who fought to defund were to point fingers at everyone but themselves for that failure?
            "There are four lights!"

            Comment


            • #7
              This is all you need to know:

              Aaron E. Carroll is a professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine and the director of its Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research. He has supported a single-payer health system during the reform debate. He blogs about health policy at The Incidental Economist and tweets at @aaronecarroll.
              Like clockwork is the need for this administration and it's apologists to point the fingers away from themselves. You'd think they'd find a more original scapegoat.
              May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
              Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
              And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
              may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Michele View Post
                This is all you need to know:
                Ah ha! He doesn't share our beliefs! Well, there's certainly no point reading his arguments, then.
                Enjoy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                  Ah ha! He doesn't share our beliefs! Well, there's certainly no point reading his arguments, then.
                  He has no argument..he's only whining..much like those who are trying to blame anyone but this administration and it's minions.
                  May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
                  Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
                  And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
                  may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Billy Jingo View Post
                    The Link

                    .

                    Last spring, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on implementation of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and the chairman of the committee, was not pleased with how things were going.

                    The Obama administration originally had asked for more than half a billion dollars to spend on public relations and outreach for the law. House Republicans had returned with an offer of nothing. That's right: zero dollars. Without necessary funds, the Department of Health and Human Services worried it would not have the necessary money to pay for navigators to help people enroll in health care, for the technology needed to implement the exchanges and for the public relations campaign that was required to inform citizens about what the law actually did.

                    HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made the controversial move of asking insurance companies and nonprofit organizations to donate money and help. Republicans were outraged. She asked for more money. She was refused.

                    Then, when she tried to move some money from the PR budget to replace cuts to other areas, Baucus became quite upset. He was concerned that if the administration did not do more to inform people about the law and get implementation going, there would be problems:

                    "A lot of people have no idea about all of this," he said. "People just don't know a lot about it, and the Kaiser poll pointed that out. I understand you've hired a contractor. I'm just worried that that's gonna be money down the drain because contractors like to make money. ... I just tell ya, I just see a huge train wreck coming down."

                    As I've said before, it's important to note that the "train wreck" Baucus was describing was a botched implementation because not enough was being done to make things go smoothly.

                    It wasn't a description of the law itself but of what might occur if the government did not devote enough resources to making it work. Sebelius' response was not surprising to those who were paying attention. She said that she was "incredibly disappointed" that all her requests for resources were being denied by Republicans.

                    That was then. Today, implementation has arrived, and if it's not a train wreck, then it's certainly close. The administration is still under fire because people cannot get the insurance they want through the exchanges. But while I will continue to point out the problems with implementation and fault the administration for mistakes they've made, how does one ignore the apparent hypocrisy from many politicians who are now "outraged" about the very problems they've helped to create.

                    Republicans refused to appropriate money needed to implement Obamacare. When Sebelius tried to shift money from other areas to help do what needed to be done, she was attacked by Senate Republicans. At every step, Republicans fought measures to get money to put towards implementation.
                    Are you saying that adequate money for the exchanges was not appropriated?
                    "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."

                    -John Locke

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                      Ah ha! He doesn't share our beliefs! Well, there's certainly no point reading his arguments, then.
                      Isn't that the argument used to discount AGW skeptics McIntyre and McKitrick?
                      "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."

                      -John Locke

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by scott View Post
                        Isn't that the argument used to discount AGW skeptics McIntyre and McKitrick?
                        No.
                        Enjoy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                          No.
                          What is it then?

                          Oh yes, their evil oil funding.

                          Funny how government funding isn't considered a bias by scientists that advocate policy of more government control of the economy.
                          "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."

                          -John Locke

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by scott View Post
                            What is it then?

                            Oh yes, their evil oil funding.

                            Funny how government funding isn't considered a bias by scientists that advocate policy of more government control of the economy.
                            I don't know why you're debating global warming science in an Obamacare thread, or who you're debating. But if you want substantive arguments against McIntyre and McKitrick, start here.
                            Enjoy.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                              I don't know why you're debating global warming science in an Obamacare thread, or who you're debating. But if you want substantive arguments against McIntyre and McKitrick, start here.
                              Yes, I've read Gavin Schmidt's pro-government stance on skeptics. I remember when he was outed as the founder of RealClimate and he tried to act like he never hid it and scrubbed the site of his posts claiming to be neutral and not affiliated with any government agency.

                              The reason I brought this up was because it was a good parallel to the opinion of a a single-payer proponent.
                              "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."

                              -John Locke

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X