Tag Archives: republicans
If it weren’t so awkward because I hear people say this in real life, I’d think it was a joke. Can a single person explain this view (for real) without using ideological non-verbiage and flag pins? In other words, does anyone have concrete examples of civil liberties at risk under Obama?
Privacy? Bush’s Patriot Act is responsible for warrantless surveillance, phone tapping, and arrests. Obama did renew it though–is that what is meant? Civil marriage for all? Only the republican platform wants to limit those. Guns? Obama’s done nothing except expand gun allowances on Amtrak trains. There are even more gun freedoms now than under Bush.
Are these people truly *only* referring to the civil liberty to choose not to pay into a medical insurance pool and then cash into medicaid allowances for the uninsured when he or she can’t pay for emergency surgery? Because the Heritage Foundation, a republican think tank, thought that was stupid and wasteful and recommended that republican principles of personal responsibility and limited government financial intervention prevail, and therefore claimed that all should be required to hold an insurance policy for their own health in the same way that all are required to wear a seat belt for their own health. What government expenditures that can be avoided should be avoided–that’s the essence of conservatism, isn’t it?
The only reasons against PPACA I’ve heard are nonsensicals like “but, CIVIL LIBERTIES!” “……KENYA!” or the “How’s he going to pay for it?!’ Yes, better not to try anything new. Better to cope with the current system of bankruptcy and 60 million uninsured than to improve our policies just because “they’re new”. There has already been a pilot experiment: Massachussetts (Thanks, Mitt!). Besides that successful test, analysts for the bill at the Department of Health and Human Services anticipate over $10k annual savings for average income families and an annual $350 per family savings by small businesses through both healthcare tax credits and reduced premiums.
–>”HOW?! More medical problems = higher premiums, silly liberal!”
Yes, I’m a silly liberal…. one who has a Life, Accident and Health Maryland insurance license. Even if I didn’t, though, the concept is elementary. The principle behind insurance is shared risk. The larger the shared risk pool, the smaller individual risk become, and the smaller the premiums need to be. This requirement broadens the shared risk pool by millions.
–>”But why would private insurance companies lower their premiums just because you want them to?! No one will make them!”
Ahh, not such a proponent for de-regulation and free market control anymore, Mr. and Mrs. Adam Smith? You can’t have it both ways. Either you believe that the free market will run itself, or you don’t. Lucky for you, President Obama is a closet republican. The cheaper insurance options that will be offered federally (the only way to ensure that the insurance requirement makes sense–after all, if the uninsured could afford private insurance, they’d have it already….) will serve as heavy competition for private insurers. So, private insurers either need to price honestly according to the risk pool or lose their customers to the federal option. Free market solution to the rescue!