jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (48 posts)

Can Liberals and Conservatives Ever Work With Each Other?

  1. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 2 months ago

    I'll let you answer that but provide this insight from a recent CNN poll.

    Q16.  If you had to choose, would you rather see Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress mostly
    implement Republican policies and pay little attention to the positions taken by the Democratic
    leaders in Congress, or would you rather see Trump and the Republicans in Congress include
    Democratic policies in any legislation that they pass?

    The overall results:
    - Republican Only:                 14%
    - Include Democratic Polices: 79%

    SEEMS like there is Overwhelming support for bi-partisanship.  Let's see what the details say.

    ...............................................Ds..................Is..................Rs
    - Republican Only:                   3%                11%               40%
    - Include Democratic Polices:  97%                82%              55%

    ..............................................Libs.................Mods...........Conser
    - Republican Only:  14%           4%                  8%               33%
    - Include Democratic Polices:  94%                89%               62%

    Clearly, the Ds/Libs and Is/Mods are strongly in support of bi-partisanship, but even the Rs/Cons are moderately supportive of it as well.  Of course it is how the Is/Mods feel that is most important because the others are obviously biased.

    Q20. Which comes closer to your view:
    Since Donald Trump didn't win the popular vote, his agenda should emphasize
    programs that will attract those who voted for other candidates:
    Since Donald Trump won the presidency, he has a mandate to advance the
    agenda that his supporters favor:

    The overall results:
    - Emphasize Other Programs:                53%
    - Advance Agenda of Trump Supporters: 40%

    ...............................................................Ds..................Is..................Rs
    - Emphasize Other Programs:                  76%                54%              28%
    - Advance Agenda of Trump Supporters:   16%                40%              65%

    ................................................................Libs.................Mods...........Consr
      - Emphasize Other Programs:                  77%                58%              33%
    - Advance Agenda of Trump Supporters:   17%                38%               59%

    The results are about the same as with Q16 except that Rs/Cons are much less enthusiastic about advancing non-Trump projects.

    1. ahorseback profile image44
      ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      The national opinion and answer  to  "Working with each other "  was delivered in this important election , The White House , Congress and even the House were lost to liberal ideologies for lack of working together !    Face it , for years the Obama agenda  pounded its way through the system using every dirty trick in the book !
      Now , the left wants a  congressional group hug ?

      At this point , Pres. Trump had better begin "draining the swamp ".   THAT  was the resounding speech spoken and heard heard  across America .  That , will be the agenda  of change spoken to by the majority of electors  and the peoples states .

    2. jackclee lm profile image74
      jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Good question. The question I have for you is this. Where was this question during the 8 years of President Obama? I am willing to bet the results of the poll would be similar. We all want a bipartisan solution to help all the people. Obama didn't do that did he? He forced ACA on the American people and the result was a disaster... I hope Trump learn that lesson well.

      It seems from my point as a conservative, when the Democrats win, they get to do what they want regardless of what the people want... when the Democrats looses, they start asking for tolerance and bipartisanship...
      It is President Obama who said "elections have consequences..." when will democrats learn that?
      This whole ruse of the popular vote is just that a ruse. We don't have elections based on popular vote.
      It is called a democratic republic and not a popularity contest.
      If Democrats wants to make a difference in future elections, they need to figure out what the grass root people want from their government or don't want...

      1. Misfit Chick profile image93
        Misfit Chickposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        As an Independent... The problem with your perspective is that you assume most of the people in this county have the same version of your conservative perspective. They don't. Plus, conservatives themselves don't even have the same perspective about things. For instance, most of them couldn't bring themselves to vote for a divisive person like Trump so they stayed home.

        There is something to respect in that decision even if it meant Hillary didn't win (yeah, I was with HER, ha!) I really don't care that she didn't win - I just wish Trump wasn't being exactly like we thought he would be after he got in there. He needs to take a step back, re-assess the situation, and figure out wft is going on with the dynamics. Believe it or not, I believe he has the intelligence to do that - figure it out and make the adjustments that he needs to. But getting him to think outside of the box isn't easy, LoL!

        1. jackclee lm profile image74
          jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Wow, you can claim you are an independent but that does not make it true. Anyone who supports Hillary is no independent by definition.
          Conservatives are just a label for a group that shares some common believes, but that does not mean we agree on all topics or issues. I would estimate 80% is a good fit.
          The problem is also some in the media labels the GOP to be conservative but they are not for the most part. The leadership of congress both houses are not conservative. If they were, they would not attack TEA party members...more than they criticize Democrats...

          1. Misfit Chick profile image93
            Misfit Chickposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            I'm not a member of the Independent political party. I am not a member of either major political party; and I vote for either. Most people who are like that consider themselves to be 'Independents' - that is what I meant.

            Actually, many 'Independents' voted for Hillary (same with Obama & Trump) - that isn't a strange claim. The fact that you don't know that Independents now control the vote - not Dems or GOP (which is why the candidates BOTH parties originally want keep losing) - is concerning.

            If you'll recall... The race running up to Obama winning the 2008 Dem nomination for POTUS looked very much like this year's GOP race with Trump, Cruz and the gang (without nearly as much locker room talk). Obama took that from Hillary - she's been their 'desired candidate' for a while, now. Things got contentious with Bernie for them this year, too. He almost won and he was not their first choice. GOP tried to derail Trump just like Dems did Bernie - its just that they failed cuz they outright bashed him (#NeverTrump) - which just riled up Trump's supporters behind him - instead of trying to be sneaky about it like the Dems, LoL!

            Trust me, neither side likes being hijacked.

            https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13446058.jpg

            1. jackclee lm profile image74
              jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Maybe so... but there is a difference between the two parties. In the democratic side, it became clear with wikileaks that the DNC colluded with Clinton to defeat Sanders even though he was the clear choice of the populace. Despite that, Sanders went on to support Clinton like the good democrat soildier. On the GOap side, you had 17 candidates, some were outsiders and some were establishment, and there was Trump the spoiler. When he won, some principled Conservative like Cruz, did not cave and did not endorse Trump. That should tell you something. Obama won because of the 90% support of the black vote. Those same people did not come out for Hillary. There goes the theory that Democrats are for blacks while GOP are not. Finally, the Hispanic vote. It was Ramos who predicted thst no one can win the White House without it... He was wrong. Many hispanic did not vote and legally couldn't vote. Some even voted for Trump. Another myth that died.
              The only thing that this election demonstrated for me is that issues matter. The TEA party did their homework, worked at the grass root and over 3 election cycles won the House, the Senate and the White house and many local state houses...That is the formula to win for any future party.

              1. ahorseback profile image44
                ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Hear -hear !  And the problem with apparent democratic  corruption of the DNC as you mention weighed heavily ON independent --democrats  switching sides  for a centrist Trump . ?  I think your also right about the tea party people  , many of us ;  that corruption  swaying it all !

      2. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        "He forced ACA on the American people and the result was a disaster" you say Jack.  Tell me, how is:

        79 hearings over the course of a year of debating on ACA,
        - heard from 181 witnesses and
        - accepted 121 amendments.
        - approximately 100 hearings, roundtables, walkthroughs and other meetings, and 
        - after 25 consecutive days in continuous session debating the bill.
        that occurred over 18 months? PLUS
        - incorporate over 160 GOP amendments in the Senate.

        forcing anything on the American people?  It was the other way around.  The GOP decided 1) not to let one thing Obama wanted pass, good or bad and 2) switched from bipartisan support for ACA to trying to deny the American people a relative good program that helped MILLIONS of Americans.

        By the way don't try to use polls that say Americans hated it, the didn't.  The fact is, almost ALL of the polling, if the detail had been reported showed something like 35% of people (mainly the GOP) didn't want ACA, 40% liked ACA, but thought it needed fixing, and 25% thought ACA Didn't Go Far Enough (mainly Ds). (not the right percentages, but the right relationship.)

        1. jackclee lm profile image74
          jackclee lmposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          My esoteric, I can't believe I have to explain this to you. You are a smart man.
          How is it that you think a 2000 plus page law, which not one congressman have read or understood can ever be a good bill. That was why no Republicans voted for it.
          It was setup badly, the website cost half a billion $ and didn't work upon rollout...
          It was scheduled in stages to complete only after Obama left office. Because it was a failure and unsustainable. You cannot have an insurance where 80% of the people are subsidized. It was failing and the exchanges were going broke.
          The main objection I have with the bill is the fact that it is a jobs killer.
          It prevented companies of hiring full time workers. Many jobs had their hours cut to below 30 hours so that they would not have to pay the mandated insurance coverage...
          Small companies did not want to expand beyond 50 employees for the same reason.
          This bill was written by lobbiists and insurance executives and not by physicians and lawmakers. That is why it is failing. The Supreme court in my humble opinion also made this problem worse. By not stopping its implementation early when it was challenged. The court twisted the words of the bill to make it legal when it should have been ruled un-constitutional and kicked back to Congress.
          Here we are in 2017 with a huge mess that will take years to unwind.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Meanwhile our food chains, bees, wheat and corn fields and the animals we consume such as cows and chickens are being poisoned by Monsanto. How are we supposed to stay well? Then there are GMO products such as corn and soybeans which are outlawed in Europe. We are gineua pigs. I can't eat corn anymore and many people report stomach problems after eating corn. Vegetarians need corn to compliment legumes and grains for a complete protein. Without corn, vegetarians don't get the right amino acid combinations. The pesticides they put on all our fruits and vegetables are cancer causing. Millennial's have a high incidence of colon cancer. Seems like a set up. SOMEBODY is profiting from our ill health.

            "Colon and rectal cancers have increased dramatically and steadily in young and middle-age adults in the United States over the past four decades, a study confirmed Tuesday.

            While scientists have not pinpointed an exact cause, prime suspects include obesity, inactivity and poor diets, said researchers from the American Cancer Society, reporting in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute."

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017 … /98483844/

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Question 16:
    A. Would you rather have President Trump and the Republicans in Congress implement Republican policies and ignore Democratic policies?

    B. Would you rather President Trump and the Republicans in Congress implement all Democratic policies? 

    Poll Results:

                                                                Democrats       Republicans
    - Include Republican policies only (A)       3%                  40%

    - Include Democratic polices only (B)       97%                  55%
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Question 20:
    A. Since Donald Trump didn't win the popular vote, should his agenda include programs of those who voted for other candidates?

    B. Since Donald Trump won the presidency, should he advance the agenda his supporters favor?

    Poll results:
                                                                        Democrats          Republicans
    - Emphasize only other programs (A):             77%                     33%
                                                                               
    - Advance agenda of Trump supporters (B):     17%                     59%

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    President Trump is answering to the people who voted for him. What was your query?

    1. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      That is true.  And those people are a minority of Americans.  That's the problem.

      1. ahorseback profile image44
        ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        And you would change this system of  a state based  of the electoral college to what , a fad oriented election cycle that changes its skin like a chameleon  from hour  to hour  like public opinion ?.........Great !  ............. How little your party politically evolves ! No wonder .

    2. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Agree, that is what Trump IS doing, but what do the People want him to do.  The answer is certainly clear to me.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Democrats and Republicans can work with each other when they agree on the basis of good government. The principles of Individualism must be embraced and the principles of Collectivism must be rejected. When they see eye to eye on this ideal/precept/reality they can work together just fine.

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      To rephrase you slightly, Kathryn, "The principles of liberalism must be embraced and the principles of conservatism must be rejected."  (Nowhere in Kirk's 10 Principles of Conservatism does he emphasis the individual) just saying.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        … just sayin not much

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Collectivism:
    "the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it."

    Individualism:
    "1 the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
    2 a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control."

    1. Will Apse profile image90
      Will Apseposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      How independent do you feel you are?

      I mean that quote is a copy and paste. Seems to me everything you say comes from one source or another. That makes you normal.

      Everything. I say or think comes from one source or another. too.

      I learn from those small numbers of people who actually have original thoughts in any generation. I hope to apply the insights well, but they are not mine.

      But back to the original question, how independent do you feel you are?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I was more independent before I was unconstitutionally taxed/fined for not having insurance. I was more independent before I signed up for worthless insurance coverage which I will never use. 100 bucks a month less independent. Bah! I want my twelve hundred dollars BACK! I would invest it in decent coverage I could actually use to some tangible benefit.

        I like being normal/typical. That's a compliment.
        Thank You!

        1. ahorseback profile image44
          ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

        2. Will Apse profile image90
          Will Apseposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Get seriously sick without health insurance and you will either become a burden on others or, perhaps, die unnecessarily.

          Where is the value in either of those things?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Or go bankrupt.  A very high percentage of Americans have taken that route, for a variety of reasons, through the years and health care is probably one of the more common reasons.

            1. Will Apse profile image90
              Will Apseposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              All of these things, including bankruptcy, involve significant costs to others. The same arguments that apply to compulsory car insurance, compulsory taxes to provide fire services and garbage collection etc, apply to health care.

              A lot of people would rather not pay and take the risk instead. Often though, they are not the only ones affected by your personal disaster.  If you have a car accident involving third parties, have a house fire that spreads, or keep mountains of garbage that encourage a plague of rats, others will suffer.

              With health care, you either pay your way or you a liability to the community.

              In the US, hospital emergency rooms treat a lot of uninsured people and that is a ridiculously expensive way to operate.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                You DO understand that any time you use your medical insurance (or any other type of insurance) you are contributing to the price of premiums?  That others are paying for your care through increased premiums?  That's how insurance works: premiums are based on historical costs of customers and the higher those costs the higher the premium is.  TAANSTAFL - no one gets free care, insurance or not.

                1. My Esoteric profile image89
                  My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Actually, the people who get "free care" are the ones who don't buy insurance and let You pay for their health.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    But the ones that choose their own insurance while letting You pay for it aren't getting free care.  Got it.

                    But I'm not understanding the connection between that and a 4 sentence dissertation on how any form of insurance works.  Is there one?

        3. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          It is quite Constitutional, Katheryn, Prove it is not.

          You can't buy decent coverage for $1,200/yr, you do know that don't you?

          Why didn't you invest it in direct coverage rather than being a drag on society when you get sick if you don't have coverage?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            <Its quite Constitutional, Kathryn. Prove it isn't.>

            No one agreed to being fined! If the fine/tax had been stipulated we would't have agreed to national health care insurance.

            <You can't buy decent coverage for $1,200/yr. …?>

            I had great coverage which I lost as soon as Obama care took over, due to Blue Shield increasing my rates to double what they had been. I was paying my way just fine at $300.00 a mo. and WILLING to pay because the coverage and policy was excellent.

            <Why don't you invest it in direct coverage>   what is this? <rather than being a drag on society when you get sick and don't have any coverage?>

            I don't get sick because I exercise and eat right. I am very healthy and I am very careful. I consider it my patriotic duty, so I am not a "drag on society".

  6. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    Yes.  Those numbers represent the will of the average American.  But, thanks to years of gerrymandering, we aren't sending average Americans to congress. We are sending the extremes from the right and the left.  And we are sending them with the mandate - never compromise.  We've stopped governing.  Republicans now want everyone to forget their obstructionism of the last eight years now that they are the majority.  Don't they think the Democrats wanted that too?  The answer: let computerized data from the next census determine congressional districts, removing politics from the process.  That is draining the swamp.

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Yep, it starts with gerrymandering, something our founders worried a lot about but didn't do quite enough to not allow its practice.  They did give Congress the power to stop it, but didn't do it outright.

  7. Live to Learn profile image82
    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago

    Democrats and Republicans cannot work together. They can't because to do so would create accountability to the American people.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Does the statue of liberty welcome groups or individuals?
    Do we feed groups of pets or each pet individually?
    Do we teach groups of students or students individually?
    Do groups of people go to sleep every night or do individuals drift to sleep?
    Do groups of people eat at restaurants, or do individuals sitting at the same table with others eat at restaurants?
    Do groups of kids playing soccer score goals or just one player at a time?
    Do groups of graduates graduate from college or individuals who have worked diligently to pass every class graduate from college?
    Do groups of people survive in society or the indivduals that make up that society?
    Do people THINK in groups? or individually?

    1. Misfit Chick profile image93
      Misfit Chickposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      This is the first time I am hearing this as a GOP stance, too. I'm pretty sure most of us understand that individuals comprise groups; and governments can't address people as individuals. If that were true, we would have to create a set of policies for each individual. How dumb & impossible would that be, when we ALL have the same basic needs?

      I do understand that Republicans favor less government so individuals will seem to have more control over their lives. I don't feel like I don't have control over my life to begin with. And I think our country and the world has developed into a mass where SOME aspects of our 'group' really needs to be regulated because they have shown in the past that they are unable and/or unwilling to do it for themselves: banks, large corporations and insurance companies, for example.

      Creating policies for 'the whole' of the country as best we can - while defining down into smaller groups as needed, seems to be the best way to govern an entire country. Or, we could just create an Anarchy-type government where people barely cooperate to survive - but their individual lives are very 'individual'. That certainly seems like what the GOP wants sometimes, doesn't it? Let's let the states decide sweeping national concerns like abortion &  healthcare so that people have to move into those 'individual states' if they want to live a more free or stifled life, as they choose. That just creates dividing lines and sets us up for another civil war in the future.

      Some things should just be a right across the board - like healthcare (although *I* - not all Indies - am open to not covering abortions since that is such a hotspot). National healthcare programs are working in all kinds of countries across our planet; and there is no reason why we can't create one (as well as other policies) that work for us as a nation.

      The day Republicans realize that 'their way' is not the way this country desires to flow - probably coming up next election in a couple years unless they alter their pigheadedness - is the day they will start working with the opposition; and together, maybe they'll even start creating policies we can all appreciate & support - and the deep divisions & fighting will fade to whimpers instead of raging screams.

      I know I'm a notorious optimist, but it could happen someday - it could!! LoL!

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13443639.png

      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13443640.jpg

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13443641.jpg

      And I will remind you all how INCREDIBLY PROFITABLE we all are when we're fighting - and if war comes, even BETTER!! If you think these divisions have not been stirred up on purpose - think again. There is only ONE government and it doesn't matter who's guy is in office - they all work for the same powerful people - that's why nothing ever changes much no matter whose political party is in office. Stop jumping through their hoops.

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13443645.jpg

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I like the way you write, Misfit.

        I am not sure the conversation is focusing on individuals vs groups is on track, at least in my view.  It is, I think, a broader question as to, when push comes to shove in Most circumstances, who wins out; the individual which comprises the whole or the whole which is made of people.

        In a socialist or conservative society, it is the "state" which comes first (whether that state be a small community or a whole nation).  If the "state" determines an individual right should be abridged, so be it.  Examples are the battle over gun rights or not to be owned by another.

        In a liberal society, the right to own a gun is upheld, even though there is danger to the state in it or that the slave should be free (which most slave states thought to be very dangerous).  In a socialist or conservative state, those may or may not be givens (for different reasons, of course)

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        How are republicans pigheaded? What is "their" way?

        You suggested: "Or, we could just create an Anarchy-type government where people barely cooperate to survive - but their individual lives are very 'individual'."

        Anarchists would disagree with you.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Republicans want to preserve individualism. The right to be independent and not be overly taxed. Its really quite simple and nothing to be afraid of or hate. Gosh! yikes Government is not understood. Republicans understand it way better than democrats.

    "While all other sciences have advanced, that of government is at a standstill - little better understood, little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago." John Adams

    "Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power." John Adams

    "Power, Choice, Thought All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation." John Adams


    https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/auth … adams.html

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    "SOME aspects really need to be regulated because they have shown in the past that they are unable and/or unwilling to do it for themselves: banks, large corporations and insurance companies, for example.  There are Laws against these overreaches, of course. These are simply not being followed or enforced. Surely we can urge Trump to look into it. Maybe he already is. He needs to let us know.

  11. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 2 months ago

    Obama- Clinton-  Care  should be completely repealed WITHOUT any  replacements , Where does it say in the US constitution that the government shall provide healthcare at all ?    And yet ,  the assumption that the replacement Has to be  better than the original  is egg all over the face -one more phony democratic outrage .

    Trump is a democrat in a conservative suit - as to Obama Care ,  Repeal it and let it die !

    1. Misfit Chick profile image93
      Misfit Chickposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Well, Obama has often been accused of being a conservative in a Dem suit, so I guess that makes sense, LoL!

      Why don't the Republicans entirely repeal Obamacare? Cuz THE MAJORITY of the American people want it; and they are trying to walk a fine line between keeping themselves in office & in control of the govenment for longer than just the next couple years. Plus, they have to create a whole new one instead of just tinkering & fixing the one we already have because it has Obama's name on it and that just won't do, ha!

      I don't consider myself a liberal. In my mind, liberals are the people who want FREE everything - healthcare, college, etc. This is kind of the point of this question: can we ever work together? Probably not on the 'all or nothing' stuff like abortion or regulating healthcare & making it affordable.

      I see healthcare insurance in much the same way that I see auto insurance - everyone should have it for obvious reasons. We certainly do not get away with not having it and are fined when we don't. If we cared as much about people's bodies and the expenses surrounding 'maintaining & fixing' it as we do their cars - perhaps attitudes about healthcare would be a little different.

      The difference is, you don't have a choice on whether or not you get a body when you are born into this life; and you're not always in a financially-lucrative place to obtain heath insurance to take care of it. You can choose to buy a car or not, but having a body isn't an 'option'; which is why most people consider healthcare to be a 'right', now.

      Almost every other country in the world has some sort of national healthcare policy except for us. Why? Because its CHEAPER in the long run to maintain health than to wait until it has to be addressed in an emergency room. Healthcare stuff needs to be fixed, not repealed. It is an issue that isn't going to go away by repealing it - it will just come back up again and again until we get it right.

      In the meantime, I really wish government on both sides would address welfare for corporations that they are so in favor of; and stop giving them huge financial breaks that gut this country of income that belongs here. Trump repealing the regulations that were placed on corporations & banks after the almost financial disaster in 2008 isn't a good way for him to start addressing that issue...

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        "I see healthcare insurance in much the same way that I see auto insurance - everyone should have it for obvious reasons."

        But there is one glaring difference.  We are required by law to have liability insurance on our car...to protect others from our actions.  We are NOT required to have "collision" insurance - the part that protects us.

        But there IS no "liability" equivalent in health insurance, only the equivalent of "collision".  The part we aren't required to purchase.

        "but having a body isn't an 'option';which is why most people consider healthcare to be a 'right', now."

        Do you really think so?  Or do they say it's a "right" because they want someone else to pay for them instead of doing it themselves?  That's what happens with "rights" (education, food, water, housing, etc.) - as soon as it becomes that "god given" right, it's also paid for by someone else.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      They should remove the fines stipulation. Without them, Obama Clinton Care would die a natural glorious death.

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Democrats and Republicans do need to listen to each other. Both have positives to bring to the table in establishing a good country/earth.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      There seems to be good guys and bad guys in both political parties.
      Why do liberals label ALL republicans as bad or republicans label ALL liberals as bad?

      And why do any of us allow the government to use universal health care insurance as a government money tree?

      It is not the function of government to generate capital. Let the private insurance companies return. Allow the economy to percolate, allow the youth to be their healthy selves. Let us determine how to stay healthy, stay off pharmaceuticals and grow organic fruits and vegetables.  Maybe the next generation can save themselves.

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    Worth repeating:
    "The main objection I have with the bill is the fact that it is a jobs killer.
    It prevented companies of hiring full time workers. Many jobs had their hours cut to below 30 hours so that they would not have to pay the mandated insurance coverage...
    Small companies did not want to expand beyond 50 employees for the same reason.
    This bill was written by lobbiists and insurance executives and not by physicians and lawmakers. That is why it is failing. The Supreme court in my humble opinion also made this problem worse. By not stopping its implementation early when it was challenged. The court twisted the words of the bill to make it legal when it should have been ruled un-constitutional and kicked back to Congress.
    Here we are in 2017 with a huge mess that will take years to unwind."

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      +1 Thanks jackclee lm
      smile

 
working