GOP Nightmare, Obamacare Popularity Soars

[Jack Hays]

LOL. I think the ACA was also targeted... at the uninsured. Those of us with employer based insurance didnt see much difference, assuming we stay employed until retirement.

ACA aims to establish a broad insurance entitlement and transform health care delivery for everyone. eace

 

[polgara]

I can agree with you last point there. Each representative should represent and vote the way his constiutients wish, the same with states and senators. Now if it was split 50-50 or their abouts, who cares which way your elected official votes. But when your looking at 60% or more against something in your state you are elected to represent, voting for it is telling the exact same people you don't give a dang what they think or want.

Now that you brought up the ACA, I did some research on Social Security and Medicare. Votes and polls that is: Here is what I came up with plus my two cents.

Below is the difference between Obamacare vs. Social Security and Medicare. Both Social Security and Medicare were bi-partisan and more than 60% of Americans wanted both programs before they were brought up and voted on in Congress. Obamacare had a scant 35% support prior to being brought up in congress and voted on. It was solely a single party initiative and against the wishes of the majority of Americans. Which it remains today with a 38% for/53%against public approval rating.

Social Security votes in Congress – Over 65% of the American Public was in favor of Social Security
House - Democrats 284 AYE 15 NAY – Republicans 81 AYE 15 NAY
Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 1 NAY – Republicans 16 AYE 5 NAY

Medicare votes in Congress – Over 60% of the American Public was in favor of Medicare
House – Democrats 237 AYE 48 NAY – Republicans 70 AYE 68 NAY
Senate – Democrats 57 AYE 7 NAY – Republicans 13 AYE 17 NAY

Obamacare votes in Congress – Only a bit over 35% of the American Public was in favor of Obamacare
House – Democrats 220 AYE 36 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 179 NAY
Senate – Democrats 60 AYE 0 NAY – Republicans 0 AYE 39 NAY

Excellent post, Pero! Thanks again for all the work you do to keep us updated! :thumbs: It was most unusual to see in black and white the "O" Republican ayes in both the House and Senate! That doesn't happen often! :shock:

 

[Greenbeard]

ACA aims to establish a broad insurance entitlement and transform health care delivery for everyone. eace

The transformation of health care delivery in the ACA is achieved primarily using...Medicare and Medicaid.

 

[Jack Hays]

The transformation of health care delivery in the ACA is achieved primarily using...Medicare and Medicaid.

Not exactly, but thanks for a good try.eace

 

[Greenbeard]

Not exactly, but thanks for a good try.eace

"Not exactly" is a rather weak refutation.

 

[Jack Hays]

"Not exactly" is a rather weak refutation.

The right tool for the right job.eace

 

[Threegoofs]

"Not exactly" is a rather weak refutation.

Well, I believe the started with the phrase that in the 60's there was no passage of health care legislation of ANY KIND.

So I guess its an improvement.

 

[Linc]

Dinner out tonight was nice, except for the right-wing blowtorch who had to hear himself spout.
Got a little better when more crowded, but he just turned up his volume .

The right tool for the right job.eace

 

[Buck Ewer]

Keep up the denial.eace

It is you that is in denial Jack.
We have shown with historical facts and links that the individual mandate was a republicon idea from it's conception at the republicon Heritage Foundation and the 22 republicon congressmen who drafted the first legislation that contained the concept.
It was adopted by the Democratic party as a way to compromise a centrist bill that would appeal to everyone to some degree. What wasn't foreseen was that the republicons would vow to never support any legislation that President Obama liked...even when many of the ideas within the act were their own.
You are correct that the Democratic party owns the ACA lock stock and barrel. When all of America realize that the ACA is a good deal for all of America the Democratic party will be glad to take full credit for it and the republicons will get absolutely no credit for it whatsoever.
As the ACA rolls out, states like Kentucky will get bluer and bluer as they appreciate the fruits of a fully insured population.
It is happening as we speak.
States like Texass will also see a bluing of the states population as they realize that the republicons in denying them the chance at the ACA have built a larger population of un-insured people who must rely on emergency room healthcare only, than any other state.
.

Some 308,000 of Kentucky’s uninsured — mostly the working poor — will be covered when we increase Medicaid eligibility guidelines to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

In short, we couldn’t afford not to do it.

The other 332,000 uninsured Kentuckians will be able to access affordable coverage — most with a discount — through the Health Benefit Exchange, the online insurance marketplace we named Kynect: Kentucky’s Healthcare Connection.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/opinion/my-state-needs-obamacare-now.html?_r=0

Things are so bad for Mitch McConnell in Kentucky that a new DFM Research poll found that the Senate Minority Leader has a higher unfavorable rating than the Affordable Care Act.

The poll is loaded with bad news for McConnell. Sen. McConnell’s approval rating is 35% in the state. This puts McConnell just two points ahead of President Obama in the red state. (Rand Paul doesn’t fare much better than McConnell. His approval rating is 41%.) 33% of Kentuckians rated McConnell’s leadership during the government shutdown as fail. Twenty eight percent rated his leadership as poor which means that a total of 61% of those polled are very unhappy with the way McConnell handled the government shutdown.

Mitch McConnell Is Less Popular Than the Affordable Care Act in Kentucky

 

[tres borrachos]

Nope.. it was.. whether you want to believe reality is your business...

Seriously.. its your kind of intellectual dishonesty that has killed the credibility of us real conservatives.

The mandate was introduced to congress by 20 republicans.. as late as the last GOP candidate for president supported exactly such a mandate..

But its not a republican idea..

Must be the unicorns..

Come on man...

You are having 2 different conversations, and you don't even realize it.

The Heritage Foundation, specifically a man named Stuart Butler, came up with the idea of the individual mandate.

21 Senators, including 19 Republicans, in response to Bill Clinton's proposal for healhcare reform, co-sponsored HEART in 1993. HEART included the individual mandate, and had some other major similarities to and major differences from the ACA, which was the Democrats' plan decades later.

Proposing legislation that was never embraced by the majority in a party (by the way, the 2 Democrats in that number of 21 - Bob Kerrey and David Boren - also never got their party to embrace it) doesn't mean you take credit for the original idea.

Harry Reid sponsored the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. It included funds to be spent on bridge building. So by your logic, that must mean that bridges are a concept that Harry Reid came up with.

 

[tres borrachos]

And why exactly do the Democrats care whose idea the mandate was in the first place, or about a failed piece of legislation that never went beyond the 21 moderate Senators who co-sponsored said failed legislation? I never understood the relevance of that argument. What difference does it make?

 

[Threegoofs]

And why exactly do the Democrats care whose idea the mandate was in the first place, or about a failed piece of legislation that never went beyond the 21 moderate Senators who co-sponsored said failed legislation? I never understood the relevance of that argument. What difference does it make?

It sure seems to be bothering you. Why do you attach so much significance to denying it was a GOP idea when it was clearly a conservative idea first put forth by Republicans?

 

[tres borrachos]

It sure seems to be bothering you. Why do you attach so much significance to denying it was a GOP idea when it was clearly a conservative idea first put forth by Republicans?

It doesn't "bother" me, tg. I just like to point out untruths.

 

[tres borrachos]

the 22 republicon congressmen who drafted the first legislation that contained the concept.

It was actually 19 Republicans who drafted it, not 22, and one of those 19 withdrew his support 10 months later. You may want to check your facts before you post.

And what difference does it make how many Republicans drafted the HEART act anyway? Is that relevant?

 

[Perotista]

Excellent post, Pero! Thanks again for all the work you do to keep us updated! :thumbs: It was most unusual to see in black and white the "O" Republican ayes in both the House and Senate! That doesn't happen often! :shock:

Afternoon Pol, I am afraid here lately voting straight party line is happening way too much. This means that some individual representatives and senators aren't listening to the people who elected them to represent them. This has become party over people and nation.

 

[jaeger19]

You are having 2 different conversations, and you don't even realize it.

The Heritage Foundation, specifically a man named Stuart Butler, came up with the idea of the individual mandate.

21 Senators, including 19 Republicans, in response to Bill Clinton's proposal for healhcare reform, co-sponsored HEART in 1993. HEART included the individual mandate, and had some other major similarities to and major differences from the ACA, which was the Democrats' plan decades later.

Proposing legislation that was never embraced by the majority in a party (by the way, the 2 Democrats in that number of 21 - Bob Kerrey and David Boren - also never got their party to embrace it) doesn't mean you take credit for the original idea.

Harry Reid sponsored the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act. It included funds to be spent on bridge building. So by your logic, that must mean that bridges are a concept that Harry Reid came up with.

No.. you are trying to have two different conversations and I am trying to pull you back to reality...

You want to think that the heritage foundation.. which is funded, staffed etc by republicans.. used by republicans.. is a separate conversation and that republican congressman.. sponsored a bill in congress of 19 republican senators proposed a federal mandate to have insurance be made into law.. means that of course.. it has nothing to do with republicans.

in fact.. the fact that you just pointed out that only 2 democratic senators never got their party to embrace it.. means of course that the idea didn't come from republicans.. I guess then it was never an idea.. right.. because it never passed,, and even though 19 republicans supported it and even co sponsored the bill.

Wow.. look at how much backflipping you have to do on this. So I guess it was no ones idea right? Neither democrat or republican because though republicans sponsored the bill and a number of them supported it and supported it for years.. with even the republican candidate for president supporting a mandate..

Heh.. it wasn't anyones idea...

Tell me.. whats the magical number needed before suddenly its a an idea and someone came up with it? Does it have to pass Congress before its considered an idea.? :roll:

Hey.. Obama never proposed Obamacare.. heck.. he's in the executive branch so he wasn't responsible for the law as it is... yet we still call it Obamacare...:roll:

The healthcare mandate is a republican idea.. that's fact.. all the crawfishing and backflips do nothing to change that reality... all it does is hurt republican credibility.

 

[tres borrachos]

No.. you are trying to have two different conversations and I am trying to pull you back to reality...

You want to think that the heritage foundation.. which is funded, staffed etc by republicans.. used by republicans.. is a separate conversation and that republican congressman.. sponsored a bill in congress of 19 republican senators proposed a federal mandate to have insurance be made into law.. means that of course.. it has nothing to do with republicans.

in fact.. the fact that you just pointed out that only 2 democratic senators never got their party to embrace it.. means of course that the idea didn't come from republicans.. I guess then it was never an idea.. right.. because it never passed,, and even though 19 republicans supported it and even co sponsored the bill.

Wow.. look at how much backflipping you have to do on this. So I guess it was no ones idea right? Neither democrat or republican because though republicans sponsored the bill and a number of them supported it and supported it for years.. with even the republican candidate for president supporting a mandate..

Heh.. it wasn't anyones idea...

Tell me.. whats the magical number needed before suddenly its a an idea and someone came up with it? Does it have to pass Congress before its considered an idea.? :roll:

Hey.. Obama never proposed Obamacare.. heck.. he's in the executive branch so he wasn't responsible for the law as it is... yet we still call it Obamacare...:roll:

The healthcare mandate is a republican idea.. that's fact.. all the crawfishing and backflips do nothing to change that reality... all it does is hurt republican credibility.

The Heritage Foundation never sponsored a bill. Republicans in the Senate sponsored a bill in 1993.

There is no credibility coming into question, unless you're suggesting that the individual mandate is a bad idea?

 

[jaeger19]

And why exactly do the Democrats care whose idea the mandate was in the first place, or about a failed piece of legislation that never went beyond the 21 moderate Senators who co-sponsored said failed legislation? I never understood the relevance of that argument. What difference does it make?

speaking as a republican.. I am tired of the lying and hypocrisy that our party has been doing of late... that mandate wasn't some "failed piece of legislation".. you don't have a bill sponsored by 19 republicans if it doesn't have considerable support among the party. And the idea of a mandate didn't stop there.. it was bandied about in republican circles for decades.. that's in part how it ended up in not only Romneycare.. but also there is a mandate in the Medicare Part D legislation.. which again.. was sponsored by republicans and passed.(if you don't sign up when eligible, or have credible coverage.. you pay a penalty in premiums for the rest of the time on mecicare part D)...

Mandatory insurance is an important, if not the important piece of legislation if you want ANY type of market based, competition based fix to healthcare insurance. We republicans used to understand that... now we are not worried about whats right, whats best for the nation... but what we think is best to get elected... (and are finding out that we have lost the presidency twice)

 

[jaeger19]

The Heritage Foundation never sponsored a bill. Republicans in the Senate sponsored a bill in 1993.

There is no credibility coming into question, unless you're suggesting that the individual mandate is a bad idea?

Right.. it was sponsored by republicans... but it wasn't a republican idea right?

Yes.. credibility is in question very much so... maybe you can't see it because you don't see your intellectual disconnect... but its quite obvious...

Just follow your logic.. its sponsored by republicans.. but it wasn't their idea... .

 

[tres borrachos]

speaking as a republican.. I am tired of the lying and hypocrisy that are party has been doing of late... that mandate wasn't some "failed piece of legislation".. you don't have a bill sponsored by 19 republicans if it doesn't have considerable support among the party. And the idea of a mandate didn't stop there.. it was bandied about in republican circles for decades.. that's in part how it ended up in not only Romneycare.. but also there is a mandate in the Medicare Part D legislation.. which again.. was sponsored by republicans and passed.(if you don't sign up when eligible, or have credible coverage.. you pay a penalty in premiums for the rest of the time on mecicare part D)...

Mandatory insurance is an important, if not the important piece of legislation if you want ANY type of market based, competition based fix to healthcare insurance. We republicans used to understand that... now we are not worried about whats right, whats best for the nation... but what we think is best to get elected... (and are finding out that we have lost the presidency twice)

Do you know how many Republican Senators there were in 1993? 43. 19 of 43 isn't "considerable support among the party". And 1 of those 19 withdrew his support. Oh, and another 1 of those 19 was Arlen Specter, and we all know what kind of Republican he was.

And I'll ask again. What difference does it make if there were 2 Republican Senators or 43? Why is it relevant to anything?

You never said what the credibility issue was either, or if you did, I apologize because I missed it.

 

[tres borrachos]

Right.. it was sponsored by republicans... but it wasn't a republican idea right?

Yes.. credibility is in question very much so... maybe you can't see it because you don't see your intellectual disconnect... but its quite obvious...

Just follow your logic.. its sponsored by republicans.. but it wasn't their idea... .

Tell me again what the "credibility" issue is that you keep referring to.

The Heritage Foundation's Stuart Butler proposed the individual mandate in a lecture he gave in 1989. Republicans co-sponsored a bill in 1993 that went nowhere but included an individual mandate. Now that we have all of that out of the way, what is supposed to be the relevance anyway?

 

[Threegoofs]

Tell me again what the "credibility" issue is that you keep referring to.

The Heritage Foundation's Stuart Butler proposed the individual mandate in a lecture he gave in 1989. Republicans co-sponsored a bill in 1993 that went nowhere but included an individual mandate. Now that we have all of that out of the way, what is supposed to be the relevance anyway?

Well....there WAS a Republican governor who put the individual mandate into law to the crowing of many conservative pundits who thought by carrying those Republican....errr...non-partisan, but DEFINITELY not Rebublican ideas that he would win the GOP nomination for President. Twice.

 

[tres borrachos]

Well....there WAS a Republican governor who put the individual mandate into law to the crowing of many conservative pundits who thought by carrying those Republican....errr...non-partisan, but DEFINITELY not Rebublican ideas that he would win the GOP nomination for President. Twice.

What does Mitt Romney signing into law the MA state plan as the governor of MA have to do with my post? I asked him about the "credibility issue" he referred to.

 

[polgara]

Afternoon Pol, I am afraid here lately voting straight party line is happening way too much. This means that some individual representatives and senators aren't listening to the people who elected them to represent them. This has become party over people and nation.

I don't think that I'm off base here, but if I were paying someone a good chunk of change to do a job for me, and they didn't listen to me, I sure would find someone else that would! :2mad:

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

 

[Threegoofs]

What does Mitt Romney signing into law the MA state plan as the governor of MA have to do with my post? I asked him about the "credibility issue" he referred to.

Yes. No relation to Republicans there. Move along.