Republican Excuses Why "Obamacare is Doomed!"

[MattusMaximus]

Well, the number of private enrollments in Obamacare/ACA is now going like gangbusters, with about 1.4 million enrollments as of this posting and enrollment heading towards meeting projections. It seems as if, contrary to all the frantic efforts by the GOP to stall, stop, reverse, or just plain obstruct the law's passage and implementation, the ACA is well on its way to success.

Let's take some time to list all the reasons why the GOP has said the ACA is doomed, DOOMED!!11!

Who'd like to start? I'll go first...

1. Healthcare.gov is a crappy website. And despite the fact that this is the same nation that sent humans to the moon, there's NO WAY it is possible to fix the website. OBAMACARE IS DOOMED, I tell you!

 

[Unabogie]

Death spiral. Young people won't sign up because of Pajama Boy and therefore it's doomed. DOOMED!

 

[Robrob]

It's funny, if the ACA was really so doomed - why does the GOP have to create fake websites or pass laws forbidding people from helping others sign up?

 

[Denver]

The next big argument you will see (around March I think) is:

1) Based on current metrics, it will cost more than Obama promised.

 

[12AX7]

But...but...but...he said you could keep your plan if you like it, and some had their plans cancelled!!!!!1!!eleventy!

 

[theprestige]

It's funny, if the ACA was really so doomed - why does the GOP have to create fake websites or pass laws forbidding people from helping others sign up?

Maybe it's doomed maybe it isn't. But consider the example of Soviet Russia: Probably doomed all along, but it still managed to do immense harm before it finally died, and it would have done more harm still if it hadn't been vigorously opposed. And even though that opposition was sometimes inept or counterproductive, it had no bearing on the fundamental question of whether or not Soviet Russia was doomed.

I doubt you could imagine a government policy that you believed was bad, and that you believed was doomed, that you also believed should continue to do harm unopposed until it died of natural causes.

 

[12AX7]

Maybe it's doomed maybe it isn't. But consider the example of Soviet Russia: Probably doomed all along, but it still managed to do immense harm before it finally died, and it would have done more harm still if it hadn't been vigorously opposed. And even though that opposition was sometimes inept or counterproductive, it had no bearing on the fundamental question of whether or not Soviet Russia was doomed.

I doubt you could imagine a government policy that you believed was bad, and that you believed was doomed, that you also believed should continue to do harm unopposed until it died of natural causes.

Wait...What?

 

[Unabogie]

Maybe it's doomed maybe it isn't. But consider the example of Soviet Russia: Probably doomed all along, but it still managed to do immense harm before it finally died, and it would have done more harm still if it hadn't been vigorously opposed. And even though that opposition was sometimes inept or counterproductive, it had no bearing on the fundamental question of whether or not Soviet Russia was doomed.

I doubt you could imagine a government policy that you believed was bad, and that you believed was doomed, that you also believed should continue to do harm unopposed until it died of natural causes.

That's the kind of comedy gold we're looking for! The ACA is just like SOVIET RUSSIA!!!

DOOMED!

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

We won't be able to gauge the success of this law for several years. But, something has to be done to rationalize the payer system and get costs under control. If it's not going to be single-payer, it has to be something along the lines of the ACA.

 

[Robrob]

That's the kind of comedy gold we're looking for! The ACA is just like SOVIET RUSSIA!!!

DOOMED!

Yes, giving millions of Americans the opportunity to find affordable health care is exactly like Soviet Russia...

 

[theprestige]

Wait...What?

Even if one believes a thing is doomed, it may still be appropriate to oppose it while it lasts. This should be obvious.

An obvious example of this principle: Soviet Russia. Doomed, but still worth opposing while it lasted.

This refutes the argument that Republicans shouldn't oppose the ACA if they believe it is doomed

 

[theprestige]

That's the kind of comedy gold we're looking for! The ACA is just like SOVIET RUSSIA!!!

DOOMED!

Well, it's like Soviet Russia in the sense that people who believe it's a bad thing are right to oppose it, even if they also believe it's a doomed thing. They may be wrong in believing it's bad, and they may be wrong in believing it's doomed, but they're not wrong in acting on those beliefs by opposing it.

Again, this should be obvious. I'm sure you apply the exact same princple towards everything that you believe is wrong: You oppose it, even if you also believe it is doomed.

Atheism is growing in the US. Teaching creationism in public schools is probably doomed in the long run--maybe even in our lifetimes. But I'll bet you still think it should be vigorously opposed on its way to the grave. Am I right?

 

[Robrob]

Even if one believes a thing is doomed, it may still be appropriate to oppose it while it lasts. This should be obvious.

An obvious example of this principle: Soviet Russia. Doomed, but still worth opposing while it lasted.

This refutes the argument that Republicans shouldn't oppose the ACA if they believe it is doomed

No one said they shouldn't "oppose" anything. What has been said is they shouldn't actively (and deceitfully) create fake websites to misinform or pass laws preventing people from helping others sign up.

You can claim there is danger of house fires all day long without a problem but when you set your neighbors home on fire you don't get to use that as "evidence" of any thing but deceit.

 

[Corsair 115]

Well, it's like Soviet Russia in the sense that people who believe it's a bad thing are right to oppose it, even if they also believe it's a doomed thing.

The question which follows for me is whether their beliefs are based on evidence and rational analysis. Because if they are not, then their beliefs aren't worth a plugged nickel. So, are the beliefs by those opposed to ACA based on solid evidence and sound analysis? Or are they based on paranoid or conspiratorial fantasies?

 

[theprestige]

No one said they shouldn't "oppose" anything. What has been said is they shouldn't actively (and deceitfully) create fake websites to misinform or pass laws preventing people from helping others sign up.

You can claim there is danger of house fires all day long without a problem but when you set your neighbors home on fire you don't get to use that as "evidence" of any thing but deceit.

But this is all true regardless of whether it's doomed or not. The two things--the quality of their opposition, the doomedness or not of the ACA--aren't related.

Are you putting forward this argument as a prophylactic against the day that the ACA might actually fail? If it does, you're prepared to blame the GOP's opposition to it, rather than any systemic shortcoming that may be suggested?

 

[Robrob]

But this is all true regardless of whether it's doomed or not. The two things--the quality of their opposition, the doomedness or not of the ACA--aren't related.

Are you putting forward this argument as a prophylactic against the day that the ACA might actually fail? If it does, you're prepared to blame the GOP's opposition to it, rather than any systemic shortcoming that may be suggested?

No, I'm putting this forward to highlight the hypocrisy of people yammering how something won't work and is going to fail - while they sneak around and actively try to sabotage it.

No different than the other nuts who believe the Second Coming will happen after a race war, so they murder people to try and cause one.

 

[theprestige]

The question which follows for me is whether their beliefs are based on evidence and rational analysis. Because if they are not, then their beliefs aren't worth a plugged nickel.

While this is certainly a pleasing fantasy, in practical terms their beliefs are worth a lot, if they are able to act on them and bring about some desired effect.

The Nazis had some pretty irrational beliefs about master races and German lebensraum. Not worth a plugged nickel, right? Nobody died over those worthless beliefs, right?

So, are the beliefs by those opposed to ACA based on solid evidence and sound analysis? Or are they based on paranoid or conspiratorial fantasies?

And if they are based on paranoid or conspiratorial fantasies? Does their opposition suddenly not matter anymore?

 

[theprestige]

No, I'm putting this forward to highlight the hypocrisy of people yammering how something won't work and is going to fail - while they sneak around and actively try to sabotage it.

No different than the other nuts who believe the Second Coming will happen after a race war, so they murder people to try and cause one.

But totally different from those nuts who thought Communism was going to fail, but also worked to sabotage it, right? I mean, those guys must have been total hypocrites, to undermine Soviet Russia's hegemony in Eastern Europe, while at the same time insisting that the whole thing was doomed anyway.

ETA: Not to mention the obvious fact that the Administration is doing an excellent job of failing already, without any help from the GOP. And not just them, either. Oregon's exchange failed to sign up even a single person. The head of the Oregon exchange just resigned over this. These failures are not credibly attributable to conservative meddling.

 

[Robrob]

But totally different from those nuts who thought Communism was going to fail, but also worked to sabotage it, right? I mean, those guys must have been total hypocrites, to undermine Soviet Russia's hegemony in Eastern Europe, while at the same time insisting that the whole thing was doomed anyway.

You do realize there's a slight difference between a Cold War fraught between nations and a social program voted into law with which you disagree, right?

Out of curiosity, if these covert attempts to derail the ACA work - do you think the nuts plan on admitting what they did, how they overtly sabotaged a legal program - or are they going to lie and pretend it was doomed from the start because of its own flaws?

 

[Upchurch]

Well, it's like Soviet Russia in the sense that people who believe it's a bad thing are right to oppose it, even if they also believe it's a doomed thing. They may be wrong in believing it's bad, and they may be wrong in believing it's doomed, but they're not wrong in acting on those beliefs by opposing it.

Again, this should be obvious. I'm sure you apply the exact same princple towards everything that you believe is wrong: You oppose it, even if you also believe it is doomed.

Atheism is growing in the US. Teaching creationism in public schools is probably doomed in the long run--maybe even in our lifetimes. But I'll bet you still think it should be vigorously opposed on its way to the grave. Am I right?

Wow. I never considered that the Tea Party was like Soviet Russia. I'll have to remember that.


eta: I'm quickly falling in love with this argument.

X is bad.
Soviet Russia is bad.
X is just like Soviet Russia.
QED