Politics

[Polish Leppy 22]

After dozens of attempts to repeal the ACA, I heard for the first time in the Republican response to this year's State of the Union the term "repeal and replace." Baby steps. All they have to do now is come up with the "replace" idea and start circulating it. Who knows, maybe it will catch fire and people will jump on board. Unfortunately, I have not heard any proposals. Can you provide any information on the health care proposals that the Republicans put out there? The only one I can remember is what got approved and became the ACA.

It's going to be a huge 2016 issue. Do a 5 minute google search on Ben Carson's plan. That's a good start.

 

[IrishLax]

Previously, yes Republicans had put out bills (Hell I have provided links to different ideas of theirs including George Bush's) but when the ACA was being passed they were against comprehensive healthcare reform . That was stated by them. The funny part about the previous Republican healthcare bills that you mention is that they usually included some form of the individual mandate (though not all of them did) which Republicans did generally agree with back then but for some reason once Obama borrowed their idea it became "unconstitutional". Again when healthcare reform came up under Obama Republicans were against it and did everything in their power to block it (mostly because of their stated goal that he be a one term President and them not wanting him to have a signature piece of legislation that was bi-partisan). To argue that Republicans wanted to pass any form of Healthcare legislation after Obama took office is re-imagining the facts afterwards. Again, the Republicans were not acting in good faith, they never had any intent to even consider the bill (besides, Snow and Collins).

The bolded is that part that every Democrat takes as Gospel, but really isn't accurate. Republicans (and lots of people in general) hated the bill* because it was a terrible bill in many respects. Democrats refuse to accept that people can and do have legitimate gripes about the bill.

I was in college still while the initial ACA stuff was going on, and I actually read the bill in its entirety - something I assure you almost none of the people voting on it did, not most of the people opining in this thread - on a post-graduation cross-country road trip. That was almost five full years ago so I'm sure I'll misremember aspects of it Brian Williams style, but the one thing I will never forget is how they deferred and masked the costs of the whole thing. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics could see the potential problems down the road. But by deferring the cost, Obama could at least get reelected before people started losing their jobs and businesses or seeing their increased healthcare costs.

*People also forget how much the bill "evolved" throughout the process and all the different iterations that ultimately resulted in the atrocious piece of legislation that was passed.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

And after all the backdoor deals to get it done, after Obama mocking Republicans saying the sky isn't falling because of ACA, after people lost their plans and he lied, after people like GoIrish41 claiming one man provided millions of people "access" to health care, we get this:

GHEI: The poor will pay more - Washington Times

Yet supporters of ACA and Obama still act like the man single handedly cured cancer.

 

[Irish#1]

I'm sitting here reading the thread and laughing. The fact of the matter is both sides share equally 50-50, not 51-49, 55-45, 60-40 or 75-25, but 50-50 for the predicament we are in now. Stop blaming the other side.

 

[IrishLax]

Final thoughts on the ACA... many Democrats hated the bill or otherwise didn't want to vote for it. The anecdotes of the whipping involved with getting Democrats to vote for the bill are insane. Nothing that is a "good idea" should require that. My favorite one was from ND grad Joe Donnelly who was a congressman at the time and was relayed to my American Congress class at ND.

Democrats could EASILY pass any bill they wanted in the house with ZERO Republican votes yet the bill was still a war. Yet, the final bill BARELY passed only thanks to pork and whipping due to Democrats who conscientiously opposed it.

And let's not get into the myriad of flat out lies Democrat leadership and the President told the public over the bill.

 

[EddytoNow]

Pull yourself together lol. Democrats forced their agenda on the American public for a few years with a super majority.

So what is the Republican plan for universal health care? I keep hearing they have a plan, but I haven't seen any details. The Democrats were forced to compromise on their original plan to gain the support of Senators Collins and Snow. This permitted Obamacare to be voted on and approved. If the Republicans will put forward their plan, it can be debated.

By the Democrats forced agenda, I assume you mean Obamacare which passed both houses of Congress when changes were made to get moderate Republicans to vote for closure. Or perhaps you mean, President Obama's unilateral immigration policy. A policy that was implemented after the Senate passed an immigration bill and John Boehner refused to allow debate and a vote in the House of Representatives.

I personally don't approve of Obama's unilateral action, but immigration policy is at a standstill. Why? If the Republicans had a plan that could be supported by Hispanics and other immigrant groups directly affected by the plan, we would have seen it by now. The truth is that some aspects of their immigration policy would not be accepted by Hispanic voters. Don't expect any action before the next presidential election.

So if the Democrat's agenda consists of universal health care and amnesty for immigrants, what exactly is the Republican agenda? I am waiting to see it in writing so I can judge it on its merits.

 

[IrishLax]

So what is the Republican plan for universal health care? I keep hearing they have a plan, but I haven't seen any details. The Democrats were forced to compromise on their original plan to gain the support of Senators Collins and Snow. This permitted Obamacare to be voted on and approved. If the Republicans will put forward their plan, it can be debated.

By the Democrats forced agenda, I assume you mean Obamacare which passed both houses of Congress when changes were made to get moderate Republicans to vote for closure. Or perhaps you mean, President Obama's unilateral immigration policy. A policy that was implemented after the Senate passed an immigration bill and John Boehner refused to allow debate and a vote in the House of Representatives.

I personally don't approve of Obama's unilateral action, but immigration policy is at a standstill. Why? If the Republicans had a plan that could be supported by Hispanics and other immigrant groups directly affected by the plan, we would have seen it by now. The truth is that some aspects of their immigration policy would not be accepted by Hispanic voters. Don't expect any action before the next presidential election.

So if the Democrat's agenda consists of universal health care and amnesty for immigrants, what exactly is the Republican agenda? I am waiting to see it in writing so I can judge it on its merits.

Passed with zero Republican votes, dude. Zero. And many Democrat defections too... never would've passed period without severe whipping of House Democrats, expenditure of virtually all of Obama's political capital, and tons of pork.

There has never been a more force-fed bill in the history of this country than the ACA. If you want to defend the merits of the bill, I totally respect that. There's a lot to like. But the impetus to passing the bill was the bill itself and how unpopular it was... not Republican obstructionism, etc.

 

[IrishLax]

IMO, the ACA was by far the worst thing Obama did while in office. That's my opinion, that's not a fact. But I know literally over a dozen people who recently lost their job or had their hours cut because of their business restructuring to comply with the ACA. And EVERYONE has had their healthcare costs go up.

The Government has had to spend millions on ADVERTISING to even get people to sign up for this thing that was "desperately needed."

And that doesn't even begin to touch on all of the lies told by Obama and Democrat leadership about the bill. Flat out lies.

 

[IrishLax]

FCC Passes Net Neutrality Rules in Victory for Open-Internet Activists - NBC News

Score one for the good guys. Democrats got this one 100% right, and shame on the Republicans who tried to oppose this under the guise of "Government overreach."

 

[Buster Bluth]

IMO, the ACA was by far the worst thing Obama did while in office. That's my opinion, that's not a fact. But I know literally over a dozen people who recently lost their job or had their hours cut because of their business restructuring to comply with the ACA. And EVERYONE has had their healthcare costs go up.

The Government has had to spend millions on ADVERTISING to even get people to sign up for this thing that was "desperately needed."

And that doesn't even begin to touch on all of the lies told by Obama and Democrat leadership about the bill. Flat out lies.

These two points don't mean much to me. Healthcare costs we're already out of control, and getting the word out on program eligibility is pretty common.

But the ACA sucks, no disagreement there.

 

[ACamp1900]

Previously, yes Republicans had put out bills (Hell I have provided links to different ideas of theirs including George Bush's) but when the ACA was being passed they were against comprehensive healthcare reform . That was stated by them. The funny part about the previous Republican healthcare bills that you mention is that they usually included some form of the individual mandate (though not all of them did) which Republicans did generally agree with back then but for some reason once Obama borrowed their idea it became "unconstitutional". Again when healthcare reform came up under Obama Republicans were against it and did everything in their power to block it (mostly because of their stated goal that he be a one term President and them not wanting him to have a signature piece of legislation that was bi-partisan). To argue that Republicans wanted to pass any form of Healthcare legislation after Obama took office is re-imagining the facts afterwards. Again, the Republicans were not acting in good faith, they never had any intent to even consider the bill (besides, Snow and Collins).

I'm talking DURING the health care debate, AFTER Obama was in office, the Republicans put bills and ideas out there,... They did however oppose obama care with all they had, and I would have too, but that wasn't the only thing out there... I'm just saying its completely inaccurate to state the right had zero ideas and just opposed everything out there, that's not factual.

 

[EddytoNow]

Passed with zero Republican votes, dude. Zero. And many Democrat defections too... never would've passed period without severe whipping of House Democrats, expenditure of virtually all of Obama's political capital, and tons of pork.

There has never been a more force-fed bill in the history of this country than the ACA. If you want to defend the merits of the bill, I totally respect that. There's a lot to like. But the impetus to passing the bill was the bill itself and how unpopular it was... not Republican obstructionism, etc.

At least two Republican Senators had to vote to allow closure (Snow, Collins). Although they voted against the bill, they had the courage to allow the bill to be put to a vote. That type of courage is lacking on both sides now. The common practice now (by both sides) is to prevent there being a vote at all. The truth is that allowing any controversial bill to be voted upon puts each Senator and Representative on record. Republicans are so afraid of being tea-partied in a primary, they do not want a vote on record. Likewise, Democrats would prefer no vote to a vote that showed them standing up for their convictions and alienating a large segment of the voters in the process.

Politicians of all persuasions lack the courage to stand behind their convictions. No party has a monopoly on being courageous. Political courage is missing in action.

 

[pkt77242]

IMO, the ACA was by far the worst thing Obama did while in office. That's my opinion, that's not a fact. But I know literally over a dozen people who recently lost their job or had their hours cut because of their business restructuring to comply with the ACA. And EVERYONE has had their healthcare costs go up.

The Government has had to spend millions on ADVERTISING to even get people to sign up for this thing that was "desperately needed."

And that doesn't even begin to touch on all of the lies told by Obama and Democrat leadership about the bill. Flat out lies.

I disagree (not that they are going up but that the ACA is causing the increase) Healthcare costs go up every year and as it is averaged out over the population the ACA has not increased the costs of healthcare. Obviously the latest

ACA Impact on Per Capita Cost of Health Care

Here is a look at just premiums
Fact Check Thursday: Does Obamacare increase premiums? - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

 

[Wild Bill]

I disagree (not that they are going up but that the ACA is causing the increase) Healthcare costs go up every year and as it is averaged out over the population the ACA has not increased the costs of healthcare. Obviously the latest

ACA Impact on Per Capita Cost of Health Care

Here is a look at just premiums
Fact Check Thursday: Does Obamacare increase premiums? - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

Wasn't the ACA supposed to decrease costs?

 

[pkt77242]

Wasn't the ACA supposed to decrease costs?

It was. It seems to have decreased the rate of growth at least (which is saying something as the rate of growth was crazy). Again, I am not saying that the ACA is a great bill.

What I want to know is do the Republicans/conservatives on here think that we needed to overhaul the Healthcare system/insurance before the ACA? If yes, how would this be accomplished?


Through all of the political reading on the subject that I have done (both Republican and Democrat proposals) the two main option have been the Individual Mandate (usually over the past 20ish years championed by Republicans) and the single payer system (usually champion by the Democrats) and once a Democrat tried to meet halfway with the Mandate the Republicans decried it as "unconstitutional", ignoring the fact that they had endorsed it for a while. The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

 

[IrishLax]

I disagree (not that they are going up but that the ACA is causing the increase) Healthcare costs go up every year and as it is averaged out over the population the ACA has not increased the costs of healthcare. Obviously the latest

ACA Impact on Per Capita Cost of Health Care

Here is a look at just premiums
Fact Check Thursday: Does Obamacare increase premiums? - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

I obviously phrased that poorly because everyone is taking exception to it. I'm not talking about standard healthcare cost increases that are a yearly norm... I'm talking about the deferred costs I mentioned earlier which are now beginning to hit in earnest and are a HUGE financial burden to either the company providing insurance or the individual, depending on who is fronting the cost. But the cost gets paid by someone. So you're either getting fired, your hours cut, or your wages are going to decrease if you're not paying it yourself. "Cadillac" plans getting taxed? Hint: every good healthcare plan is "Cadillac."

I don't have time to fact check this, so take it with a grain of salt, but this talks about the astronomical cost increases expected this year of 20%-60%:
Health insurance costs have nowhere to go but up - CBS News

Even if the 20%-60% is inaccurate, I hope that clarifies what I'm talking about.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

WaPo's Lydia DePillis just published an article titled "Why companies are rewarding shareholders instead of investing in the real economy":

If you’ve noticed the steep upward trajectory of the stock market over the past few years, looked around and wondered why cash doesn’t appear to be raining down upon your friends and neighbors, you’d be justified in wondering: What’s going on here? If corporate America is doing so well, shouldn’t we feel like things are getting better, too?

In the past several years, profits have been increasingly paid back out to shareholders, rather than invested in hiring more people and paying them better. And lately, companies have even been borrowing money to make those shareholder payouts, because with interest rates so low, it’s a relatively cheap way to push stock prices higher.

That’s according to a new paper from the Roosevelt Institute, a left-leaning think tank that's launching a project exploring how the financialization of the economy has unlinked corporates from the well-being of regular people.

“The health of the financial system might matter less for the real economy than it once did,” writes J.W. Mason, an assistant professor of economics at John Jay College who wrote the paper, "because finance is no longer an instrument for getting money into productive businesses, but for getting money out of them."

If it holds up, that has some pretty serious implications for how the Federal Reserve should go about tending the "real economy" in the future.

Here’s the data at the center of the report: In the 1960s, 40 percent of earnings and borrowing used to go into investment. In the 1980s, that figure fell to less than 10 percent, and hasn’t risen since. Instead of investment, borrowing is now closely correlated with shareholder payouts, which have nearly doubled as a share of corporate assets since the 1980s.

So what happened in the 1980s? The “shareholder revolution,” starting with a wave of hostile takeovers, propelled a shift in American corporate governance. Investors began demanding more control over the firm’s cash flow. Rather than plowing profits back into expansion and employee welfare, managers would pay them out in the form of dividends.

The years since the recession have given firms even more of an incentive to dispense cash rather than invest in growth: The Fed’s policy of keeping interest rates low has made credit cheap, and with weak consumer demand, high-yield investment opportunities have been scarce. So instead, companies have been borrowing in order to buy back stock, which boosts their share price and keeps investors happy — but doesn’t give anything back to the world of job listings and salary freezes, where most of us still exist.

“In the postwar decades, when today's policy consensus took shape, abundant credit would have offered strong encouragement for higher investment,” Mason writes. "But in the financialized economy, the link between credit availability and real production and job growth is much less reliable."

Until a few years ago there was an exception to that kind of shareholder-above-all philosophy: profitable Silicon Valley firms like Apple, Google, and Facebook, which have resisted paying dividends and spend lavishly on the development of new products. But in 2013, Apple came under intense pressure from shareholders to share some of the massive cash pile it had accumulated over the years. So, rather than paying its army of retail workers something commensurate to the tremendous volume of sales they do for the company, Apple embarked on a massive stock repurchase and dividend payout program that will return $130 billion to investors by the end of the year.

That worries Mason.

“If managers don’t have the autonomy to say 'You’re just going to have to take a lower return today,' you’re not going to see investment on the kind of scale that we used to,” he said an interview.

Of course, in the modern economy, it may be that investing in people — which would raise wages and boost hiring — isn’t actually the kind of smart business decision that a manager would make, even absent pressure from shareholders. Factories run with less labor now, and robots might require more cash now but save money down the line. That’s where Mason thinks societal pressure might have to be brought to bear on businesses with the power to spread their wealth.

"There is, at some point, a value judgment that we can’t avoid,” he says. “We might say that actually, business activity has other goals in addition to generating profits for shareholders, and it’s not good for society if we keep paying workers low wages.”

Mason’s thesis is in line with the work of a movement of scholars and advocates, especially the University of Massachusetts’ William Lazonick, who have sought to redefine the purpose of corporations away from the doctrine of maximizing shareholder value. The financial sector no longer allocates capital efficiently, they say, and is actually a waste of the talented people who go work for it. A course correction is necessary to both rein in economic inequality and ensure sustainable innovation down the road.

But relying on a sense of corporate responsibility for additional business investment isn’t always a good bet. That’s why Mason thinks the United States could use more institutions like Germany’s system of regional banks, which invest in local businesses for productive ends, and labor union-owned banks, which might attach strings to lending around worker welfare. The idea is that while credit is needed, it shouldn’t be granted simply to increase payouts to shareholders.

“The long-term reform is that you need not just monetary policy, but credit policy, so you decide where lending is going,” Mason says. “We need a policy that doesn’t just lower interest rates across the board. We have to think about the whole transmission mechanism, and not think that there’s one knob the Fed can turn."

"You're killing the economy, wooly."

 

[Wild Bill]

It was. It seems to have decreased the rate of growth at least (which is saying something as the rate of growth was crazy). Again, I am not saying that the ACA is a great bill.

What I want to know is do the Republicans/conservatives on here think that we needed to overhaul the Healthcare system/insurance before the ACA? If yes, how would this be accomplished?

Individuals should be responsible for their own insurance. I don't want to subsidize another man's health insurance and I don't want another man working to pay mine. Pay your own way or suffer the consequences of not having insurance (one exception below).

I wouldn't be opposed to subsidizing the cost of covering those with pre-existing conditions provided they have skin in the game too, i.e., they're paying for a portion of their insurance (assuming the feds wouldn't dick this up too). I understand why some would disagree with me and respect their opinion. I just wouldn't be opposed to my tax dollars being used to insure unlucky citizens (those with uncontrollable pre-existing conditions) who are trying their best (paying a portion of their own care).

 

[pkt77242]

Individuals should be responsible for their own insurance. I don't want to subsidize another man's health insurance and I don't want another man working to pay mine. Pay your own way or suffer the consequences of not having insurance (one exception below).

I wouldn't be opposed to subsidizing the cost of covering those with pre-existing conditions provided they have skin in the game too, i.e., they're paying for a portion of their insurance (assuming the feds wouldn't dick this up too). I understand why some would disagree with me and respect their opinion. I just wouldn't be opposed to my tax dollars being used to insure unlucky citizens (those with uncontrollable pre-existing conditions) who are trying their best (paying a portion of their own care).

I respect that (though I may disagree with it). I guess my next question then is do you think that people without insurance make your insurance cost more? Basically if someone without insurance goes and gets treated at a hospital for a heart attack, do you think that the hospital eventually passes that cost on to your insurance who passes it on to you? If so under you idea, how should that be handled?

 

[pkt77242]

something different then healthcare, but what does everyone think of Ted Cruz wanting to abolish the IRS?

 

[phgreek]

So first off this whole thread is one tangent after another.

LOL. You do realize in the beginning that Obama and the Senate democrats tried to get Republican input but Republicans were dead set against being involved and refused to participate. They were steadfast against any healthcare law being passed. You are acting as if the Republicans actually wanted to pass a healthcare reform bill when they did not. They even shit on ideas that some of them had previously endorsed such as the individual mandate (A lot of Republicans supported the individual mandate - The Washington Post this link provides some names of Republicans who had supported it previously including some who then opposed it when Obama tried to use it).

Really? Never said anything or acted remotely like that. The argument was that Republicans didn't try to change or offer alternatives to the ACA (assuming we are talking after it passed)...they did. Having never allowed any of them to the floor stifled discussion...fact. What you are doing is pointing to a bunch of things which I assume are an attempt to justify Mr. Reed's behavior....I don't think you can. If the legislation happened concurrent with other legislation or activities bent on rolling ACA back...it doesn't justify shelving the alternative legislation...further it may well have acted to stem the rollback activities by providing voice to the minority...but we'll never know.

 

[Wild Bill]

I respect that (though I may disagree with it). I guess my next question then is do you think that people without insurance make your insurance cost more? Basically if someone without insurance goes and gets treated at a hospital for a heart attack, do you think that the hospital eventually passes that cost on to your insurance who passes it on to you? If so under you idea, how should that be handled?

Tough questions. I don't know how much of that cost is passed on to the insured consumer (has to be something, I assume). The obvious answer is simply to deny access to those who are uninsured and the costs are eliminated. I'm not sure if the cost savings to us as a society would justify the harsh results. I do know it would motivate any reasonable person to make sure their insurance premiums are paid.

 

[phgreek]

something different then healthcare, but what does everyone think of Ted Cruz wanting to abolish the IRS?

Well, you need a revenue gathering function.

That said, I think there is an argument to be made that the IRS in DC, and anything to do with non-profits, and anything to do with IT is sick beyond repair... Its time to clean house, and codify very clear penalties for engaging as Lois Lerner and Co. did, and those in the IT community who tried to clean up Lerner's bread crumbs. That can't stand unpunished...and yes some folks are going to lose retirements, and some innocent folks would get swept up in it...but in the end what is best for the American people and their long term belief in the system? Because without their belief in it, well...you can't hire enough agents.

 

[IrishLax]

something different then healthcare, but what does everyone think of Ted Cruz wanting to abolish the IRS?

I mean... I have no idea what he said. But with regards to the IRS, you can't really abolish it, but there's an awful lot of logic to a simplified, efficient tax code that would allow you downsize it by 90%+.

 

[pkt77242]

I mean... I have no idea what he said. But with regards to the IRS, you can't really abolish it, but there's an awful lot of logic to a simplified, efficient tax code that would allow you downsize it by 90%+.

I definitely agree that a simplified tax code would allow you to downsize the IRS (though I would say maybe by 75% or so) but Cruz said that one of his first priorities if he is elected is to "abolish the IRS". Kind hit me as demagouging.

 

[IrishLax]

I definitely agree that a simplified tax code would allow you to downsize the IRS (though I would say maybe by 75% or so) but Cruz said that one of his first priorities if he is elected is to "abolish the IRS". Kind hit me as demagouging.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, unless he followed it with "and here's how I would give revenue collection to another Department"... as much as people hate the IRS, you can't just stop collecting money.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I definitely agree that a simplified tax code would allow you to downsize the IRS (though I would say maybe by 75% or so) but Cruz said that one of his first priorities if he is elected is to "abolish the IRS". Kind hit me as demagouging.

That's his MO. This is the same guy who got booed off-stage by Middle Eastern Christians--many of whom are facing genocide at the hands of ISIS--because he chose to use the opportunity to score political points with AIPAC.

Cruz is the physical embodiment of everything that is wrong with the GOP.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, unless he followed it with "and here's how I would give revenue collection to another Department"... as much as people hate the IRS, you can't just stop collecting money.

He's not dumb. Just a sociopath utterly devoid of scruples, who is obnoxiously good at throwing red meat to the Republican base.

 

[GoIrish41]

That's his MO. This is the same guy who got booed off-stage by Middle Eastern Christians--many of whom are facing genocide at the hands of ISIS--because he chose to use the opportunity to score political points with AIPAC.

Cruz is the physical embodiment of everything that is wrong with the GOP.



He's not dumb. Just a sociopath utterly devoid of scruples.

And looks like a grown up Eddie Munster

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'm sitting here reading the thread and laughing. The fact of the matter is both sides share equally 50-50, not 51-49, 55-45, 60-40 or 75-25, but 50-50 for the predicament we are in now. Stop blaming the other side.

I get your point, but in regards to ACA it's 100% accurate. That $hitshow didn't get one Republican vote. Democrats should own it.

 

[EddytoNow]

Individuals should be responsible for their own insurance. I don't want to subsidize another man's health insurance and I don't want another man working to pay mine. Pay your own way or suffer the consequences of not having insurance (one exception below).

I wouldn't be opposed to subsidizing the cost of covering those with pre-existing conditions provided they have skin in the game too, i.e., they're paying for a portion of their insurance (assuming the feds wouldn't dick this up too). I understand why some would disagree with me and respect their opinion. I just wouldn't be opposed to my tax dollars being used to insure unlucky citizens (those with uncontrollable pre-existing conditions) who are trying their best (paying a portion of their own care).

If everyone had a job that paid them enough to afford health insurance, I would totally agree with your position. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. In many cases, the cost of health care insurance would consume the wage earner's total income. That leaves us with very few choices:

1. Universal Health Care for All (Single-Payer)
2. Subsidized Health Care for the Needy with part of the population receiving health insurance as a benefit of employment. Those that can afford it are mandated to purchase it or pay a fine for failure to do so. (Affordable Care Act)
3. Health Care for those that Receive Health Care Insurance as a benefit of their employment or can afford it on their own and want it and the rest be damned.

Obama and the Democrats would prefer Option #1, but they have settled for Option #2. Republicans seem to prefer Option #3. If the Republicans have an option that falls somewhere between Option #2 and Option #3, I'd like to hear/see what it is.