Republicans Have No Solutions

Firstly, no legislation is perfect, so saying something is 'flawed' in this respect is pretty meaningless. Passing law isn't a zero sum game. Also, the main thrust of Republican resistance to the ACA is the mandate, which is also what was brought to the table by the Heritage Foundation and was the main reason Republicans championed it back in '89. It was considered a great free market approach to reforming healthcare in the United States. What changed where they would pull a complete 180 on this idea in the past 25 years (especially considering they were for it much more recently than 25 years ago, something you conveniently ignored)? Do you have anything substantive to add or just more vagaries?

 

You're right about the vote. I just checked and it was pretty much a party-line vote. And a better system is available. The rest of the developed world already has it.

 

I live in a state with a tight Senate race. In all the TV ads, all the Republican candidate has to say is that he isn't a Democrat, and he doesn't like Obama.

 

It would be interesting to see what would happen if all doubting people (not commited to either party) and all non voters would vote on a third party. It could be a small majority... right?

 

Republicans can regard probability for life on Earth independently of God's existence which made everything as it is. What may be instead is the plausible life of other planets with incapacitated 'gods' of probability for new Possibility. God on Earth will improve to higher probabilities of a better more evolved conditions for Economy. But the other planets may show an alternative improbability for success. In such a model of analogy we look at the atheistic Republican dreaming of the perfect atheistic life on another planet.

 

So can we send all the Republicans to another planet?

 

We can hope?

 

Why exclude Democrats from the equation, as if they're much better?

 

I'm not a fan of either party but if I am forced to pick a team....I'll never pick the Republicans.

 

Uhh I am pretty sure most of america is for weed legalization, or at least decriminalization.

 

But if a large corporation would make more profit using exploited workers in third world countries than they would taking the tax break are they really going to bring jobs back. They would have to pay the american workers at the manufacturing plant a living wage...which in the end even with the tax break might cost them more money than just keeping the manufacturing in third world countries. Or they could bring it back, not pay people a living wage...but then that would not reduce the number of people on welfare since they'd still need it to supplement the sh*tty wages.

 

A much simpler solution would be a 2 sovereign Nation solution. Isn't that how the native Americans were dealt with in the past?

I have to admit that is the first solution to an existing problem. with the exception of 'another planet', from the Left that I find acceptable.

 

Can we just give the Republicans the south and let them stew in it? 80% of them would wish they had the north back in less than 2 years.

 

Who has the right to give? Why not put it on the ballot and allow the people to decide, and as a result allow those who disagree with their States outcome to be relocated to a State of their choice which matches their political views?

 

Point taken. Fair enough.

 

An excellent example of why Federal elections results should never be viewed as providing those elected with any form of a mandate on any issue at all. There are just too many different issues available for politicians to appeal to different voter blocs to acquire a majority of votes, which in my opinion is why the 10th amendment should be applied more strongly by the States in cases of judicial activist reinterpretation of our Constitution. If the people want changes in interpretation, they and the States alone should be the source of what changes are made.

 

Maybe the injuns?

 

The Heritage Foundation – is basically a lobbyist for the interests of wealth – it was set up by the right wing multi-millionaire Joseph Cools and has been generously supported by such people as the very right wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and of course the notoriously right wing Koch brothers, along with most of the right wing political foundations.

It pumps out neo-liberal/free market propaganda that a lot of the right wing media present as ‘fact’ [as in ‘a reports out today says that’] and which many right wingers seemingly accept without question.

 

Indie

Yes we know you Social Darwinist based individual responsibility argument – and we also know you seem incapable of defending it from criticism.

I can’t talk for others but I prefer to talk about left and right [of which there are many shades] as I’ve said many times to me there is no real left in the US [and one of the problems with its political system] basically the US has two right wing parties the liberal right of centre Democrats and the further right Republicans [with much further right wing elements trying to pull the system even further to the right]

To me a lot of the problems with right wing ideas are that they are built on flawed ideas that are based in fundamentally faulty ideology.

That’s why so many of them seem unable to defend their ideas from criticism.

It is for that reason I don’t think many of the supposed solutions put up by the right are actually real solutions at all because they seem aimed at making things worse rather than better for the majority of people.

 

Vance

Tort as in suing – you want to base a healthcare system on people suing each other?

Have you given this any amount of thought?

Just a couple of things off the top of my head.

Well first off not every illness, disease or even accident has a clear ‘perpetrator’ who can be sued. I mean if someone catches a disease who do they sue, the person they got it from, who would that be and in many cases it would most likely a member of their own family, do you sue them?

And since the outcome of any trial is uncertain and might take a while to be resolved how much cover does a doctor or hospital give to someone when they arrive needing help?

As to private insurance their whole reason to be is to not pay out – and will try and claw back anything they do in higher premiums ect.

To me such a system would be great for lawyers and insurance companies but would give little to society except for putting huge pressure on an already overburdened judicial system.

Yes this argument has been pumped out many times through the wealth sponsored propaganda mills.

It’s the same race to the bottom argument I’ve talked about before, and as I [and others] have explained it’s very good for wealth but detrimental to everyone else.