Repealing the ACA under Trump

[Red Five]

 

Things like this is why the internets were invented

[Moiraine]

I can't find the post, but I think it was today in this topic.

 

 

Someone was talking about McCain and bipartisanship, and how the Democrats should never have passed the ACA with no Republican votes, and now the Republicans are trying the same thing and failing.

 

Here's my issue with blaming the Democrats. When Obama was elected and in 2010, GOP leaders created a plan to oppose every single part of Obama's agenda no matter what it was, and fight him on all of it. What do you do against that? How much do you have to give away to get any votes from people with that attitude?

 

They had 8 years of the presidency, part of which with a Republican congress. What had the Democrats done that was so awful that they came up with this plan before even knowing all of Obama's agenda?

 

And now after all the sh#t they shoveled and tried to shovel on Obama, they won't even let the Democrats have time to read the f'ing bill.

[wutthewut]

 

 

https://twitter.com/joshharveyscout/status/890821365812645888

 

It was the right thing to do but another bill will come along.

 

Maybe they'll actually talk to Democrats about it this time (like the Democrats did with the GOP when the ACA was passed) and give the voters more than 2 hours to look at it. Although I doubt it.

 

Boy the GOP sure is a fraud of a party

 

 

As opposed to the Democratic party which is...???

[Fru]

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/joshharveyscout/status/890821365812645888

 

It was the right thing to do but another bill will come along.

 

Maybe they'll actually talk to Democrats about it this time (like the Democrats did with the GOP when the ACA was passed) and give the voters more than 2 hours to look at it. Although I doubt it.

 

Boy the GOP sure is a fraud of a party

 

 

As opposed to the Democratic party which is...???

 

 

Remind me when the Dems gave 2 hours consideration for a bill that would take away healthcare from 22 million people.

[wutthewut]

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/joshharveyscout/status/890821365812645888

 

It was the right thing to do but another bill will come along.

 

Maybe they'll actually talk to Democrats about it this time (like the Democrats did with the GOP when the ACA was passed) and give the voters more than 2 hours to look at it. Although I doubt it.

 

Boy the GOP sure is a fraud of a party

 

 

As opposed to the Democratic party which is...???

 

 

Remind me when the Dems gave 2 hours consideration for a bill that would take away healthcare from 22 million people.

 

 

Perhaps you forgot..

 

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"

 

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"

 

"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it"

 

Give me a break...

[NM11046]

Welcome to Huskerboard and the P&R forum.

[wutthewut]

Welcome to Huskerboard and the P&R forum.

 

Thank you!

 

Now can we all agree that political parties are a sham, politicians are the scum of the earth, and America is the most prosperous country in the history of the world because of individual liberties expressed through both social and economic platforms?

[Fru]

ACA has genuine issues, no doubt. It also gave millions coverage and was analyzed for months.

 

Work to fix the issues and make things better or blow it up and take healthcare away from 22 million without a viable replacement with a bill that was given 2 hours to review?

[wutthewut]

ACA has genuine issues, no doubt. It also gave millions coverage and was analyzed for months.

 

Work to fix the issues and make things better or blow it up and take healthcare away from 22 million without a viable replacement with a bill that was given 2 hours to review?

 

It doesn't have to be one way or the other. That's what's lost in the fray of all this hyper-partisan horse$h!t.

 

If I had it my way, government wouldn't be involved in healthcare other than to put very few necessary regulatory restraints on it - but as few as possible. But answer this question:

 

Is it morally superior to take healthcare coverage away from millions, make insurance premiums 3-5 times more expensive and deductibles 5-10 times more expensive for millions of others, and tax the hell out of the rest in order to provide subsidies so that 22-24 million people with "pre-existing conditions" can have health coverage?

[Danny Bateman]

Is it morally superior to take healthcare coverage away from millions, make insurance premiums 3-5 times more expensive and deductibles 5-10 times more expensive for millions of others, and tax the hell out of the rest in order to provide subsidies so that 22-24 million people with "pre-existing conditions" can have health coverage?

 

Do you have an example of this in mind, or...?

[wutthewut]

 

Is it morally superior to take healthcare coverage away from millions, make insurance premiums 3-5 times more expensive and deductibles 5-10 times more expensive for millions of others, and tax the hell out of the rest in order to provide subsidies so that 22-24 million people with "pre-existing conditions" can have health coverage?

 

Do you have an example of this in mind, or...?

 

 

I just described our current healthcare law. That's what it's done.

 

Tens of millions who had great healthcare had their premiums and deductibles become so unaffordable that they dropped out entirely.

 

Hundreds of millions who had great/good healthcare had their premiums and deductibles shoot through the roof but they're suffering under it still.

 

Is it okay for those 100+ million people to foot the bill for the 22-24 million that Lefties continue to fear-monger about? I'm just curious where leftists draw their moral lines.

[NM11046]

Those numbers are simply not correct Wut.

 

And for what it's worth, just a tip - you'll find the conversations to be more interactive and productive if you don't use condescending titles like leftists, lefties, libs etc here.

[RedDenver]

 

 

Is it morally superior to take healthcare coverage away from millions, make insurance premiums 3-5 times more expensive and deductibles 5-10 times more expensive for millions of others, and tax the hell out of the rest in order to provide subsidies so that 22-24 million people with "pre-existing conditions" can have health coverage?

 

Do you have an example of this in mind, or...?

 

 

I just described our current healthcare law. That's what it's done.

 

Tens of millions who had great healthcare had their premiums and deductibles become so unaffordable that they dropped out entirely.

 

Hundreds of millions who had great/good healthcare had their premiums and deductibles shoot through the roof but they're suffering under it still.

 

Is it okay for those 100+ million people to foot the bill for the 22-24 million that Lefties continue to fear-monger about? I'm just curious where leftists draw their moral lines.

 

Do you have any sources for those numbers?

 

Here's a moral line for you: the rest of the modern countries on earth provide healthcare as a right to their citizens. There's multiple models from those countries of how to do it, so why do Americans continue to pretend like there isn't already a solution?

[zoogs]

Does society come together to help foot the bill for those who can't?

 

Yes.

 

Those 20 million people are people.

[mrandyk]

 

 

 

Is it morally superior to take healthcare coverage away from millions, make insurance premiums 3-5 times more expensive and deductibles 5-10 times more expensive for millions of others, and tax the hell out of the rest in order to provide subsidies so that 22-24 million people with "pre-existing conditions" can have health coverage?

 

Do you have an example of this in mind, or...?

 

 

I just described our current healthcare law. That's what it's done.

 

Tens of millions who had great healthcare had their premiums and deductibles become so unaffordable that they dropped out entirely.

 

Hundreds of millions who had great/good healthcare had their premiums and deductibles shoot through the roof but they're suffering under it still.

 

Is it okay for those 100+ million people to foot the bill for the 22-24 million that Lefties continue to fear-monger about? I'm just curious where leftists draw their moral lines.

 

Do you have any sources for those numbers?

 

Here's a moral line for you: the rest of the modern countries on earth provide healthcare as a right to their citizens. There's multiple models from those countries of how to do it, so why do Americans continue to pretend like there isn't already a solution?

 

Don't let reality get in the way of some good ol' Republican propaganda.