Could be Trump?

[Al Swearegen]

Today, we people of the USA mourn the death of the American Healthcare Act, known as Trumpcare. Trumpcare died around 4-5 PM today, on March the 24th, 2017. The bill lived a very short, but very full life as politicians from both sides of the aisles fiercely debated about it. Opposition said that the bill would take away healthcare from 24 million people, and decrease the quality of healthcare while increasing its price for everyone else, those in favor said something about freedom. Whatever the case may be, the bill is now gone and has left behind its parents: Donald J. Trump and Paul H. Ryan.

On the tombstone, it shall be written: "Obamacare is the law of the land!" -Paul Ryan

 

Ryancare

[benjimanbreeg]

Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford.  There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices.  This needs to be changed.  I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'.  Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose     hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford.  There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices.  This needs to be changed.  I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'.  Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose   

Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.

Did I mention how pathetic you are?

It isn't 'healthcare' you fucking brain dead imbecile.  It is compulsory insurance.  Yes, in some cases it may have worked out better, but that depends on which state you are in.    Quite obviously, obombercare is not the answer.  Thanks to that clueless moron there was no cross state competition which would bring prices down.  Trump addressed this in his debates but you were too busy and retarded focusing on 'racism'.  You need help.

[Jack]

Benjamin and Icequeen are both correct. The affordable healthcare act filled an important gap for the lower middle class who were not offered insurance through an employer or offered crappy or overly expensive employer insurance plans that weren't worth paying into, and they now have health insurance option at prices comparable to if an employer were paying in. Insurance outside of an employer plan was an expensive option in the past because employers pay about half of insurance premium costs. Getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses was also very beneficial to people of all income levels, if they previously had insurance or not. It is in fact a compulsory health insurance law. Past numbers of uninsured people can be misleading, as there was a subset of the public who could afford insurance but made the personal choice not to pay in because they were healthy and the cost of regular doctor visits was less expensive than insurance deductibles and premiums. There was also a subset of people below the poverty line who couldn't afford insurance and also made the personal choice to not be a part of the social welfare system. It took the public a while to resign to the notion of car insurance being compulsory, and it will take a while for this too. The ACA isn't a perfect system and could probably use some improvements, but an entirely new system isn't required to do that.

[DirtDawg]

Benjamin and Icequeen are both correct. The affordable healthcare act filled an important gap for the lower middle class who were not offered insurance through an employer or offered crappy or overly expensive employer insurance plans that weren't worth paying into, and they now have health insurance option at prices comparable to if an employer were paying in. Insurance outside of an employer plan was an expensive option in the past because employers pay about half of insurance premium costs. Getting rid of pre-existing conditions clauses was also very beneficial to people of all income levels, if they previously had insurance or not. It is in fact a compulsory health insurance law. Past numbers of uninsured people can be misleading, as there was a subset of the public who could afford insurance but made the personal choice not to pay in because they were healthy and the cost of regular doctor visits was less expensive than insurance deductibles and premiums. There was also a subset of people below the poverty line who couldn't afford insurance and also made the personal choice to not be a part of the social welfare system. It took the public a while to resign to the notion of car insurance being compulsory, and it will take a while for this too. The ACA isn't a perfect system and could probably use some improvements, but an entirely new system isn't required to do that.

 

[DirtDawg]

Talking to Russians isn't a crime. Still no evidence provided that they hacked the election.  This is simply the 'liberal' establishment not being able to deal with the fact that they lost the election and why they lost the election.  They can't admit their mistakes so they just say "it was Russia" and they know so many retards are stupid enough to believe it.

As far as I can make it, Russians diplomats talked with members of both Parties as part of their official functions BUT when Liberal Senators talked with Russians...no issue. When Jeff Sessions talked to Russians, BIG Problem. It becomes improper all of a sudden.

I am still waiting for the issue. Clapper and Morrel and others have stated that there is no evidence. Essentially THSI seems to be the crux of everything:

Russians always try to influence elections and always try to hack things in the US, HOWEVER THIS TIME the fact that we believe that they hacked John Podesta's email (evidence of out of date malware protector and Russian IP - which are BOTH evidence that a top of the line Russian agency is involved - Because if you were top Russian government spy you would use out of date Malware protector and use your own Russian IP when hacking America...) and FAILED to hack the voting machines..apparently, means that:

1) Putin co-ordinated to influence the US election and succeeded in bring down Corrupt Hillary
2) Donald Trump was running against her and therefore he was colluding with this big scheme.

Only there is NO proof and no evidence.

There IS proof!

There was a massive conspiracy by the voters in those states indicated in red to vote FOR President Donald J. Trump.
What more proof do you need of collusion and conspiracy?

[Jack]

 

Personally preferred the first response. It was an excellent point and would be willing to discuss if that point were made again.

[matthe]

They should just make health insurance illegal. Shit would be fucked for about 5 years and our old folk would be dead, but it would all work itself out when people are forced to shop for it.

[odeon]

Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford.  There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices.  This needs to be changed.  I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'.  Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose     hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford.  There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices.  This needs to be changed.  I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'.  Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose   

Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.

Did I mention how pathetic you are?

It isn't 'healthcare' you fucking brain dead imbecile.  It is compulsory insurance.  Yes, in some cases it may have worked out better, but that depends on which state you are in.    Quite obviously, obombercare is not the answer.  Thanks to that clueless moron there was no cross state competition which would bring prices down.  Trump addressed this in his debates but you were too busy and retarded focusing on 'racism'.  You need help.

"Quite obviously"?

Trump lost. Get over it.

[DirtDawg]

 

Personally preferred the first response. It was an excellent point and would be willing to discuss if that point were made again.

I just asked if anyone but me has ever wondered whether or not the federal government actually has the power to force an American citizen to purchase a particular product. An example might be if "TeH G'vment"  made everyone buy McDonald's three times per week or face a penalty.

Conceding that something MUST be done for the lower to middle classes, I mentioned one of the many overreaches the current law takes such as the fact that a young male must pay for maternity coverage, despite the fact that he will be unlikely to become pregnant.
Continuing my previous example, I likened this to being forced to buy more McDonald's than one  can possibly use just to make this McDonald's overage available for others to use.

The current system is broken, but we need something in place. I believe we need some fix available that is driven by the open marketplace, something with an a la carte menu, to continue with my junk food simile.

I also wanted to remind each of us that what is in place currently took about fifteen years to establish, pass and take root and it will NOT be corrected, fixed and made fair for everyone in The First Hundred Days of a brand new administration.



After reading a few previous pages, I realized that the points had already been made and I felt stupid and removed the redundant text, leaving only the obvious, since it can not be mentioned enough.

 

[Al Swearegen]

Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford.  There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices.  This needs to be changed.  I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'.  Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose     hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford.  There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices.  This needs to be changed.  I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'.  Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose   

Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.

Did I mention how pathetic you are?

It isn't 'healthcare' you fucking brain dead imbecile.  It is compulsory insurance.  Yes, in some cases it may have worked out better, but that depends on which state you are in.    Quite obviously, obombercare is not the answer.  Thanks to that clueless moron there was no cross state competition which would bring prices down.  Trump addressed this in his debates but you were too busy and retarded focusing on 'racism'.  You need help.

"Quite obviously"?

Trump lost. Get over it.

You think so? I am not so sure he did?

In trying to marry up elements of the GOP, Trump had to get some prominent GOP figures on board. Pence went a long way to that and so did Reibus.

However, the opposition in the party still is substantial - Ryan, McCain, McDonnell, Sasse, Graham, Flake. So this bloc and Trump's team, are fighting for the loyalty of the Republican Party.

It is back and forth battle. But here comes an opportunity. Ryancare. Trump knows that Obamacare left to run on will hurt America. He knows that Ryan wants to make the replacement - a show of his competence. So he designates this to Paul Ryan.
IF Paul Ryan comes through with the goods AND he strongly backs him both Trump and Ryan are raised in the eyes of the Republicans. If Paul Ryan fails and Trump is critical, others will distrust Trump to back his party members and will seem disloyal. He can instead blame the loss in confidence NOT in the Republicans but in the Democratic Party and warn them that the Obamacare is going to hurt Americans if NOT repealed and replaced. (This is what happened).

So in the wash - Ryan looks incompetent. Trump looks supportive. He knows that Obamacare will be exposed in time for how horrendous it really is.

As Obamacare premiums get worse, people will point fingers at Ryan (Trump has a perfect shield) for not doing a better job and he will fall in grace further than what he would do even if Trump went head to head with him. People will virtually beg for a replacement and Trump will be shown to be right again. When he comes next time with a bill, it will not be Ryancare and Paul Ryan will not be in a position to block any other bills. It will be a Healthcare bill created by the likes of Paul Rand and Ted Cruz and such. A better bill that most republicans and even Democrats will vote for to repeal the proved catastrophe named Obamacare.

Trump will get what he wants across the board and his success will be palpable and contrast so very differently against Paul Ryan and co. He will, again, rise in estimation with the Republican party and perhaps even the Democratic party.

You think he lost? How?

[Jack]

I just asked if anyone but me has ever wondered whether or not the federal government actually has the power to force an American citizen to purchase a particular product.

There it is. Obama's campaign promise to provide everyone an affordable government health insurance option, was essentially a promise to provide a service which would have put health insurance industry out of business via government competition within the capitalistic market. The US thrives on capitalism and the public has a lack of faith in the federal government, so not really sure if that would have been a better option. Personally believe the compulsory part of the act was the trade-off in negotiating the terms of the act with insurance lobbyist, in order to get rid of pre-existing condition clauses and lower costs for a specific subset of people. The McDonald's analogy is a good one, to ask the question of government enforcement for people to pay for something they don't want or need, just so someone else can have too. It's an excellent question. Some people ask similar questions about their taxes, and the answer to them is, because they live in a functioning society. That's the answer here too, but the thorn in the side with that answer is because this law doesn't revolve within a tax based system, but rather a capitalistic one. Still, that's exactly why the ACA is successful, because it's functioning like taxes. Millions of people are now mandated to pay for something they don't want, need or even use, in order for millions of other people to have that service. Should the government have the right to mandate for people to buy something if they don't want it, to mandate for people to be on welfare if they don't want it, to dictate what a capitalistic industry can charge or write into the terms of their service? Probably not. As said before, it's not a perfect system. However, it will work.

[Icequeen]

Obamacare has it's flaws, but it was "something", before there was "nothing".

A bigger person would work on fixing those flaws though, not replacing it with something that cuts off people, eliminates services to women, and makes it even more unlikely that people can afford it. Sure it won't be mandatory anymore...dying has always been mandatory, it's just choosing how you want to do it.

I won't say Trump lost, I'll just say he doesn't know shit about healthcare and should leave it to someone/anyone that might know more...for the same reason you don't give a 6 yr old a paint brush and tell him to go paint the kitchen walls.

...and word on Russia is that Flynn may have flipped on Trump. The proof has been there, Comey had been looking into it since July, but made no mention of it in August when he mentioned Hillary. 

The push is there for an independent investigation...and I agree I think one is needed.

[matthe]

Those 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford.  There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices.  This needs to be changed.  I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'.  Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance companyfriends will lose     hose 24 million people haven't got 'healthcare', they have insurance forced on them that they cannot afford.  There is only one company in certain states which means no competition to lower prices.  This needs to be changed.  I'm sure the house rejected Trump's plan because they care so dearly about all those people having 'healthcare'.  Surely has nothing to do with the money their insurance company friends will lose   

Yes, it's just so much better to not have any healthcare at all.

Did I mention how pathetic you are?

It isn't 'healthcare' you fucking brain dead imbecile.  It is compulsory insurance.  Yes, in some cases it may have worked out better, but that depends on which state you are in.    Quite obviously, obombercare is not the answer.  Thanks to that clueless moron there was no cross state competition which would bring prices down.  Trump addressed this in his debates but you were too busy and retarded focusing on 'racism'.  You need help.

ever heard of minimum medical loss ratio? Yeah I didn't think so.

[matthe]

 

Personally preferred the first response. It was an excellent point and would be willing to discuss if that point were made again.

I just asked if anyone but me has ever wondered whether or not the federal government actually has the power to force an American citizen to purchase a particular product. An example might be if "TeH G'vment"  made everyone buy McDonald's three times per week or face a penalty.

Conceding that something MUST be done for the lower to middle classes, I mentioned one of the many overreaches the current law takes such as the fact that a young male must pay for maternity coverage, despite the fact that he will be unlikely to become pregnant.
Continuing my previous example, I likened this to being forced to buy more McDonald's than one  can possibly use just to make this McDonald's overage available for others to use.

The current system is broken, but we need something in place. I believe we need some fix available that is driven by the open marketplace, something with an a la carte menu, to continue with my junk food simile.

I also wanted to remind each of us that what is in place currently took about fifteen years to establish, pass and take root and it will NOT be corrected, fixed and made fair for everyone in The First Hundred Days of a brand new administration.



After reading a few previous pages, I realized that the points had already been made and I felt stupid and removed the redundant text, leaving only the obvious, since it can not be mentioned enough.

 

the mandate is the worst part of the aca. I'm with you on that.

[Al Swearegen]

Obamacare has it's flaws, but it was "something", before there was "nothing".

A bigger person would work on fixing those flaws though, not replacing it with something that cuts off people, eliminates services to women, and makes it even more unlikely that people can afford it. Sure it won't be mandatory anymore...dying has always been mandatory, it's just choosing how you want to do it.

I won't say Trump lost, I'll just say he doesn't know shit about healthcare and should leave it to someone/anyone that might know more...for the same reason you don't give a 6 yr old a paint brush and tell him to go paint the kitchen walls.

...and word on Russia is that Flynn may have flipped on Trump. The proof has been there, Comey had been looking into it since July, but made no mention of it in August when he mentioned Hillary. 

The push is there for an independent investigation...and I agree I think one is needed.

I see no evidence and a lot of "people say". Trump may actually be Guccifer 2 or the 400 lb hacker he burned as an image into our brains. But there is no evidence of that either.

I am actually wondering at the line in the sand. At what point do people say "Okay there was nothing ever in the Russia collusion narrative."
Not say that there is or not but what would it take? 12 months no evidence? Comey ruling definitely?  Clappet has already said so (that there was no evidence), but what if Mike Rogers said so too