Repealing the ACA under Trump

[QMany]

[QMany]

[zoogs]

Paul Ryan, everybody -- policy wonk and the GOP's intellectual powerhouse.

[Red Five]

[zoogs]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325568-trump-tells-gop-to-take-it-or-leave-it-on-obamacare-repeal

 

If the vote fails, Trump will move on to other priorities and ObamaCare will stay as the law of the land, Mulvaney said.

Well, that's a creative way to save face. Keep the ACA!

[Red Five]

So Trump is forcing a vote on Friday. Probably to see who his "enemies" are that he can attack on twitter.

[commando]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325568-trump-tells-gop-to-take-it-or-leave-it-on-obamacare-repeal

 

If the vote fails, Trump will move on to other priorities and ObamaCare will stay as the law of the land, Mulvaney said.

Well, that's a creative way to save face. Keep the ACA!

 

they have already sabotaged the aca so it will fail and then the freedom caucus will be happier than pigs in chit.

[Danny Bateman]

 

[BigRedBuster]

I just am baffled at republicans statements about this.

They keep saying there is "no plan B" as though that's a badge of honor and courage.

 

So....it's leadership when you put out a plan that very few people like and then just throw your hands up and say...."Well, it's this or nothing".

[QMany]

[Danny Bateman]

 

This guy just doesn't get it.

 

Live in a state that doesn't care about requiring good healthcare? Easy solution: Just find a way to change your state! (I'll just be over here, with my nice, safe, federally-provided healthcare.)

[BigRedBuster]

I don't like the ACA or the AHCA.

 

However, I have started seeing the term "murderous" or "murderers" used when discussing the issues or the people trying to pass the bill.

 

That is nothing but inflammatory and being used for shock value. It takes away from the argument actually being made that may be valid.

[ZRod]

I don't like the ACA or the AHCA.

 

However, I have started seeing the term "murderous" or "murderers" used when discussing the issues or the people trying to pass the bill.

 

That is nothing but inflammatory and being used for shock value. It takes away from the argument actually being made that may be valid.

I think you're right, it is inflammatory. However, this is also a very serious issue with significant consequences for the lives of real people. People will die if they lose coverage and are not longer able to afford treatments. This isn't something to be taken lightly.

[zoogs]

I think there's also some basic accuracy to this. Healthcare is something of a moral debate. People will literally die without the access some of our political leaders have been positively giddy about removing. No, they are not murderers, but they will have deaths on their hands -- not unlike when you don't have sufficient regulations or you fail at enforcing them and you end up with poisonous drinking water. And at least that is partly attributable to negligence, not "Hell yeah bro, this has been our dream since the frat school kegger days! High five!"

[Danny Bateman]

Indeed, that tweet was acerbic. But the point it makes is very real.

 

I don't want to go down the rabbithole of blaming pols for having gov't provided insurance. But it does allow guys like Mulvaney to use tone deaf arguments about simply waiting to change their local --> state governments if the effects of the law means they won't have access to things like maternity care, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment or neonatal care after getting rid of the ACA.

 

OK, report back to me about pushing for comprehensive healthcare plans in dirt poor red states like Kansas or West Virginia and let me know how simple that is!

 

Guys like Mulvaney are free to advocate hardline conservative governance because they're well off enough that they won't feel the squeeze.

 

And, as ZRod stated, this isn't a game to me. People's lives are at stake.