I don’t generally buy into conspiracy plans…but this is pretty good. Im buying it… I think Obama was super smart. He knew once it got going nobodys going back to the old days. But Obama said he didn’t love single payer because he grew to understand that the insurance industry employees tons if Americans. Keep in mind he was the bailout guy. I didn’t agree with him there and he ended up being right. Solid tin hat theory Ill ride with ya on it👍 I could see him seeing a bigger picture. Im on ACA and I 100% agree. It gets worse yr after yr…but no way in hell we are going back to pre ACA… Yur right Trumps turd wont float and ultimately some type of Gov option will rise.
How can it not, HB?..and Trump is inviting it on a Silver Platter.
There seems to be no disagreement that what Trump is currently doing will effectively give poorer, older and/or sicker people no other option.
And if you take the attitude "Well that’s “their” problem!..this includes the disabled; those BORN with mental and physical disability; nursing home care; those with chronic illnesses…the list goes on and on. It’s not just the “lazy” and those wanting to “milk the system”.
“Insurance” is about spreading risk…not just creating the cheapest product you can by “creating more competition”.
But Trump doesn’t deal in reality. He’s deals with what feeds his enormous ego.
3 Likes
And all comes on the heels of Boomers rapidly retiring, with "X’ ers and “Y” ers fast on their heels.
I don’t know who Trump thinks he’s appeasing; but his actions will have negative implications for many… regardless of what “color” state you live in, or whether you are Liberal,Conservative, or “nothing”…
Keep repeating a lie until it seems true. It was a half baked idea from the Heritage foundation that never became a real bill and was never brought up for a vote. The conservatives rightly shut it down. No Congressional/Senate Republican ever voted for it. Not in 1993, not in 2010.
Second link is a lefty outlet outlining how the Heritage plan and the ACA are worlds apart. He’s mad about it too.
The Dems own the ACA lock, stock and barrel. They promised:
“If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.”
“I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”
Those promises were bold faced lies. They are the reason Reps won in 2010 and 2014.
Politifact:
"However, to call it the Republican plan, as though a majority of Republicans endorsed it, goes too far. The House Republicans took a different path, and there was opposition from more hard-line members of the Republican coalition. It is telling that the Chafee bill never became a full blown bill and never came up for a vote.
We rate the statement Half True."
So are significant portions of the people hurt by natural disasters
in TX & FL…
Stop pretending you’re actually are dumb enough to think it’s racism please.
The dems took existing framework (That I believe originated in GOP circles) and stuff a bunch of extra taxes and shit into it and rammed it through congress with nearly zero bipartisan support. They didn’t design it to fail, they took something that really wasn’t that good and rushed adding/subtracting to it. They put politics and the optics of “we did something GREAT!” over actual good legislation, which being honest is typical of many, many politicos from all areas on the spectrum.
Thankfully, the Rs tends to fracture when they disagree on something, and shitty (maybe better, but still shitty) replacement bills weren’t passed.
Or, you know, they noticed it’s (massive) shortcomings after implementation in MA, and wanted to address/change them.
However, yes, some voted no purely because they can’t stand to see someone with the wrong letter next to their name have anything look like a “win”. Which is a problem on both sides of the divide.
Not sure who you’re responding to, as I never said there was a GOP bill to vote on. All I said was it originated with Heritage and Romneycare, which are true statements.
Well, no. The ACA is like a car. The Dems bought it, but the Reps currently own it. And they (the Reps) have 1) steadfastly refused to do any maintenance on it, and 2) driven it in several demolition derbies. And now they are complaining and tsk-tsking that it is in terrible shape. I wonder why.
That is not a fair statement at all. It’s spin, and not intellectually honest.
They have put up two bills (while the D’s are doing the same political horseshit the R’s did in refusing to, you know, work together) and both were rejected.
That is FAR from refusing to do maintenance. That is, objectively, attempting to do maintenance. That the bills weren’t of quality or substance to pass is an entirely different statement than the one you just made.
1 Like
The R’s control both Houses, and the WH. How did the Dems stop them?
1 Like
Same way the R’s tried (and failed) to stop the original passage of the ACA, refusing to vote for anything the current POTUS or his party presents. In both instances (passage of the ACA and the lack of passage of any of the “fixes”) the counter party wouldn’t have signed the bills even if it cured cancer.
Just so happens the D’s both succeeded in passing their bill, and being a stonewall in getting the “fixes” passed. (I use the term fixes loosely here.)
R’s tend to fracture faster than D’s do. (I’m not making judgement that either is good or bad.)
But in both situations (The ACA and any “fixes”) the country would likely be better off if the bills weren’t rushed and had honest input from a diversity of perspectives. But that isn’t contemporary politics very often on “big news” bills.
Aside form the fact I didn’t say the D’s stopped them, not even once.
If the bills aren’t of quality or substance to pass, how do they get credit for “objectively, attempting to do maintenance?”
Is that like when someone tries to put KIA breakpads on a F150 but the dealership told them they were crazy and they “objectively, attempted to do maintenance”
I’d be wary of any predictions that assume Trump will want to be in office for a second term.
You’re arguing that there is a meaningful difference between a majority caucus being unable to pass its own legislation, and that caucus refusing to pass its own legislation. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me.
As the bills were introduced via reconciliation, the Rs didn’t need the Dems to sign them.
You’re half-correct here…
…But you’re fully correct here. And this phenomenon (the ‘fracturing’ of which you speak) is because there is no single Republican party anymore–it is two separate parties, with radically different goals and agendas, that happen to share the same name (for now).
Because in both situations they objectively attempted to do maintenance.
Statements of fact are statements of fact. In both scenarios, your brake hypothetic and the reality that which is congress, people objectively tried to do maintenance.
In both scenarios the quality of said maintenance was at best sub par, and at worst very dangerous, and thankfully the attempts were either overridden (no votes) or remedied, as in your example.
Sure. I don’t think that is an unreasonable view at all.
It would sort of put a dent in the whole “his massive ego” thing though.
You keep saying “objectively attempted.” To look at something objectively, don’t you have to look at the context surrounding it? It’s not objective without all the facts.
We saw Republicans attempt to pass bills, that even career Republicans were on the record saying they knew was rushed and the vast majority of GOP Congressmen hadn’t even read the bill.
How does “I didn’t even read the bill” translate to “objectively attempted” to do maintenance. If they weren’t even really trying to get the bill passed (you know, by letting their own people read it before voting) how have they “objectively attempted” to maintain ACA?
You said “they refused”, I pointed out the objective fact that there was no refusal, in fact attempts were made.
Can we at least agree that the language you used wasn’t representative of the truth, however your greater point may not have been wrong?
I think, and this is 100% subjective so feel free to disagree, that there is a rather large difference between the two situations yes, and that difference has stark implications of the party. (Whether those implications are good or bad would depend on your viewpoint I guess.)
Being unable to points to may possibilities for example; disagreement between members, vague language, serving in a vulnerable district, lack of organization, party infighting, etc.
Refusing to, at least to me, means either party infighting or a party on the brink of self destruction.
Effectively you get the same result, so someone like my wife would say “that’s not different because the results are the same”, but I’d argue that the reasons for the results matter. Well at least as far as I’m concerned. You seem to agree with my wife, and I can’t say that you’d be wrong to. I just seem to care about other details.
I think you’re missing the point of my comment here. And I likely should have used “voted for” rather than “signed” to avoid any confusion. I do have to work inbetween posts and I really should take more time to make sure the words I’m using are the correct ones.
No, I’m fully correct.
Sure. I don’t 100% agree with what you’re saying here, but I do agree with the overall point of “the R’s aren’t a united group”.
I’m not sold that’s a bad thing or good thing inherently. But depending on the perspective you wanted me to take I could argue both that it is good, and it’s bad.
Party infighting points to Unable AND Refuse to? Since party infighting is what happened in nearly every case, means they quality for both buckets right?
How can there be a rather large difference between the two if qualifications for either side can be the same?
Because it is an objective fact, part of recorded history, that they introduced two separate bills who’s stated goals were to address the ACA.
You’re trying to argue things I’m not saying. You’re arguing quality. I’m not making a statement on quality. I’m pointing out ED"s statement, via the language used wasn’t factual.
I even in my post pointing it out, stated that discussion of the bills themselves was an entirely spate point, outside the fact they existed and were voted on. Which I did to avoid this very conversation.
Except you’re taking an opinion on the topic, not a factual one. Whether or not they “objectively attempted” to maintain relies entirely on whether or not their intent was to maintain.
If the intent was to destroy Ocare from the start, they never objectively attempted to maintain. They objectively attempted to destroy.