Texas lawmaker: "Less insured = more freedom"

I think one of the things that's happened is that society has actually moved forward - from one or two angles, and a very, very small amount - since the last time the GOP had carte blanche to do what they liked. A number of their big plans and talking points are no longer popular, even with their own base. Many of them are clearly shocked.

Now, if only people were as passionate about little things like civil rights as they were about their own health insurance...

This talking point was modeled by Paul Ryan 2 days ago: "Freedom is the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need. Obamacare is Washington telling you what to buy regardless of your needs."

I feel pretty certain they have no intention to replace it with anything. They actually made Obamacare what it is. Now they have no clue how to "improve" it. They won't open Medicare, and they can't agree among themselves how fix what's in place, so America? You're SOL.

John Boehner, whatever else you might think about him, was the consummate pragmatic politician. He says repeal and replace will never happen. But what he does say is this:

"They'll fix Obamacare," the former Ohio congressman predicted at a conference hosted by the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society in Orlando, Florida. "I shouldn't have called it repeal and replace because that's not what's going to happen. They're basically going to fix the flaws and put a more conservative box around it."

Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/23/politics/john-boehner-obamacare/index.html

That's pretty much what Obama wanted to do – work with Congress to improve the ACA, which does have some real problems. The Republicans wanted it to fail and did everything in their power to make sure that it did, trying to identify its problems and make them worse.

Now that they are in charge, they are going to end up keeping it with some tweaks and then claiming it as their own – aware that the ACA is actually popular with the majority of Americans. Then they will claim they indeed got rid of the ACA and put something much better in place, just like they promised.

You can take our health care, but you can never take our freedom?

These guys will try to sell anything with "freedom".

I hope someone asks Dr. Burgess if he intends to let his constituents without health insurance, who were annoyingly unable to remain free of cancer, heart disease or car accidents, die without treatment? Because in my experience, those freedom-loving people without health insurance become surprisingly demanding of health services under those circumstances, even if those circumstances include an inability to pay for them. Or does he also believe the medical profession has voluntarily surrendered its freedom to bill for its services when its members swore the Hippocratic Oath? Because he surely doesn't believe all the other taxpayers should pony up, right? That would be -gasp- socialism! Right, Dr. Burgess? And we certainly can't have that in the US!

These cages and shackles represent the freedom that your forefathers fought for. This bridge made of yarn over the deep gully that you must cross holds together the freedom that all the blood spilt over the centuries since that fateful day when we said freedom was what we fought for. When I walk away from you to never regard your wasting presence, know that I have your back. This is freedom. You'll love it. It's great.

It was either Voltaire or Victor Hugo who once extolled the virtues of French egalitarianism by noting that it meant that rich and poor alike had equal freedom to sleep under a bridge.

caw

rugcat said:

Now that they are in charge, they are going to end up keeping it with some tweaks and then claiming it as their own – aware that the ACA is actually popular with the majority of Americans. Then they will claim they indeed got rid of the ACA and put something much better in place, just like they promised.

Click to expand...

I have little doubt they're going to tweak it and claim credit for "fixing" it. I have far less confidence that their tweaks will improve it or make it work better (or rein in costs without drastically reducing services and the quality of health care) for most Americans.

Introversion said:

I dearly hope this SOB catches a tsunami of crap at the next townhall meeting he holds, assuming he has the guts to hold one.

Click to expand...

It would be even better if he caught some horrible disease that wasn't covered by his insurance plan.

ElaineA said:

This talking point was modeled by Paul Ryan 2 days ago: "Freedom is the ability to buy what you want to fit what you need. Obamacare is Washington telling you what to buy regardless of your needs."

Click to expand...

No, freedom is the ability to afford to buy what you want to fit what you think you need. If you have money, you can have the best medical care around. If not, it's little tin donation-can time.
And, there's your 'needs' versus your 'perceived needs'. The young and healthy, or just the healthy, are often willing to forgo health insurance in favour of just spending the money -until something happens. Then, hello pre-existing conditions, good-bye affordable insurance.

This is what mandatory insurance is for: to protect those who think they'll never need protection.

To quote someone on my twitter feed (and Janice Joplin), freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose...

lizmonster said:

I think one of the things that's happened is that society has actually moved forward - from one or two angles, and a very, very small amount - since the last time the GOP had carte blanche to do what they liked. A number of their big plans and talking points are no longer popular, even with their own base. Many of them are clearly shocked.

Now, if only people were as passionate about little things like civil rights as they were about their own health insurance...

Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

I'm not sure how this statement was intended, but I want to say two things. One, everyone has to prioritize, otherwise everyone is running around spluttering like headless chickens. If someone can't afford needed health care, medicine, and treatments, it makes it very difficult, sometimes impossible, to get involved in the greater community and fight for civil rights. Two, the people I know who are most active and passionate about the health insurance questions are also active and passionate about civil rights.

Not being insured is "freedom" if you're rich and fortunate enough to never incur medical expenses you can't comfortably afford (which is probably unlikely for most of us. If you live long enough, stuff often starts going wrong no matter how healthy you've been).

ap123 said:

Bolding mine.

I'm not sure how this statement was intended, but I want to say two things. One, everyone has to prioritize, otherwise everyone is running around spluttering like headless chickens. If someone can't afford needed health care, medicine, and treatments, it makes it very difficult, sometimes impossible, to get involved in the greater community and fight for civil rights. Two, the people I know who are most active and passionate about the health insurance questions are also active and passionate about civil rights.

Click to expand...

Did not mean to suggest that it was not possible for people to be passionate about both. I certainly am. (I think we must be.)

I'm just noticing that there are a lot of people who voted this administration in who are saying "You can't do this to me!" with a lot of personal passion, and it makes me wonder if adding a little empathy to that personal passion might have prevented all this to begin with.

lizmonster said:

Did not mean to suggest that it was not possible for people to be passionate about both. I certainly am. (I think we must be.)

I'm just noticing that there are a lot of people who voted this administration in who are saying "You can't do this to me!" with a lot of personal passion, and it makes me wonder if adding a little empathy to that personal passion might have prevented all this to begin with.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying.

I agree with what you're saying above. Mostly, I wish those who are crying now would realize none of this is a surprise, despite the vague yet oddly declarative rally speeches of 45, the ideas being proposed now are exactly what has been talked about by those on the right for years.

Too many are not only selfish, but remarkably short-sighted. Once you say it's ok to take away rights/privileges from group A, it's only a brief matter of time before rights/privileges are taken away from B, C, and D. Precedent.

Night_Writer said:

It would be even better if he caught some horrible disease that wasn't covered by his insurance plan.

Click to expand...

As redgog says, he's covered by gold-plated coverage. Coverage paid by taxpayers, 99.999% of whom do not have--and cannot get--equivalent coverage. It's ripe, rancid hypocrisy at its worst. I keep tweeting at him to just give us what he's got and we'll call it good.

frimble3 said:

No, freedom is the ability to afford to buy what you want to fit what you think you need. If you have money, you can have the best medical care around. If not, it's little tin donation-can time.
And, there's your 'needs' versus your 'perceived needs'. The young and healthy, or just the healthy, are often willing to forgo health insurance in favour of just spending the money -until something happens. Then, hello pre-existing conditions, good-bye affordable insurance.

This is what mandatory insurance is for: to protect those who think they'll never need protection.

Click to expand...

This points to the thing that no one seems to know or remember: Obamacare Idea 1.0 was quite close to single-payer, without being single payer. Because in this country, carving the insurance industry out of the equation is impossible. They are some of the biggest-dollar corporations in the US, with lobbying heft akin to the defense industry. So the REPUBLICANS went to work demanding this concession and that concession for their insurance company clients, until we wound up with the Obamacare we have. Obama had to concede to them. They were in control of congress. Boehner did his best to defend special interests in the package while still getting it through the house.

The Republicans made it what it is. They built it as a faulty product to begin with, then, when people used it anyway, they immediately took to denouncing it, undermining it, belittling it, claiming it was broken before it started, etc etc, like little kids taking a hammer to their LEGO Starship Enterprise. Their only hope has been to continue to ignore the history of how the ACA got passed to begin with, and pin it to a president they found abhorrent. Alas, it's not perfect, but turns out Americans LIKE having health care.

Come here, chickens. I have a cozy little hutch for you to roost in.