Odd that the House was able to pass 60 bills repealing Obamacare when Obama was president but can't pass one when Trump is president.
What was amazing was "blame it on Obama!" They had the majority of the votes. They had party meetings. When they got 40 dissenters from their own group, that was embarrassing.
If Obamacare is horrible, and Trump now wants it to play out, it IS the Republicans' fault. They have the vote power to change it.
So he will let the healthcare plan fail just to prove Obama was wrong. When you love your children, you don't let them walk off a cliff. You pull them back!
Obama care - as supported by every liberal in America , should be allowed to fail on its own . It is a failing policy , it has been since the beginning , Blame it on Trump when it does ? t best in real numbers it had a net gain of about nine million newly insured , Not the twenty or thirty liberals want you to believe .
It will be saved by Trumps tax reform , more than likely , they will probably credit your taxes like the earned income credit that liberals love so much . -----You know the one , that's where families that pay nothing in to IRS get back more than those who do !
Improvements to ACA could have been made from the beginning. Republicans could have introduced a perfectly good bill this week simply by removing the obstructions they placed on it. http://fortune.com/2016/10/04/obamacare-exchanges/
I read that article, the author doesn't have a clue what they are talking about putting the blame on Republicans. Its not as simple as changing the language as they suggest.
I am sure Obama was sincere when he wanted to make sure 50 million people without health care in America would be covered. That, he didn't intend for it to be expanded to everyone and make it mandatory, that was the Health Care Lobby that did that, and why Obamacare is crumbling under its own weight. HCL threatened to tie it up in Congress unless Obama signed off on it.
This time the main RAT that was supporting managed health care was Paul Ryan, and John McCain. We are finding out that we really need to clean house on Congress. And, we really need to replace health care in 2018.
Added: Trump never put his name on RyanCare, that's why it was called RyanCare. Did Trump set Paul Ryan up to fail? I think that is possible. How else do we get rid of the RINO?
Well said, Diane. They control the House, the Senate and the White House. But they can't seem to govern themselves.
Which is a good thing to me. Totally ineffectual. Despite the GOP monopoly on Washington, they are pitted against one another and struggling for a way to govern.
Liar In Chief :
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!
Just take everything he says as opposite of what is closer to the truth:
'a healthcare plan for the corporations. Start worrying.'
All Republicans have to do to improve health care in this country is to appeal the decisions they got courts to make to limit ACA's affordability and coverage for Americans.
No Kathleen, that is not all they have to do. All they have to do is accept the Democrat contention that healthcare is a right, and that all citizens have to pay for it whether we agree or not.
Most civilized Western economies see healthcare as a right, why are we always lagging behind in this basic aspect of civility?
Is it anyway related to why Amercan men are so intimidated by the possibility of a female head of state? (POTUS and VPOTUS)In so many ways, we are behind.
Your perspective, (which includes others that hold it too), that the U.S. is "lagging behind," is only that - a perspective. Not everyone holds it.
Your rhetorical question about an intimidation of American men seems to confirm the thought that you, (again, that general you), believe anyone that doesn't agree with your perspective isn't as civilised as you are. Did I read that right?
gA, to be intimidated about a female leader as not qualified solely because she is a woman is not a perspective but a bias. That stuck with me as an explanation as to why Clinton should avoid a female running mate, unfortunately, she subconsciously affirmed the same biases in her choices and behavior. So, It definitely qualifies as retrograde and such thinking belongs to the far reaches of that other century, behind, certainly not ahead. How can you defend it as simply a preference?
Hold on a minute Cred,
If your proposed thought, (about the intimidation thing), were true, then you are right, we are talking about a bias. But that is not what I said. (and I don't concede that there is truth in your question/statement)
I said that the very act of including that speculative thought in with your comments about other Western nations being more civilized because they chose to have national healthcare displayed a particular perspective - that folks that don't choose that path are less civilized.
Want to have another go at that point?
I wont, I will give this one to you on this occasion. It is obvious that America is not Europe and that goes beyond mere geography.
GA, I see a consistent opposition by you to posts in favor of ACA. It would help the rest of us if you clarify your position on it.
That's a fair request promisem.
My view of the ACA is highly tainted by my perspective of the way it was passed. That may not be rational, but the machinations used to get it passed were of such magnitude, (in my view), as to make it almost impossible to separate the two. I have spoken of the specifics of my issue with its passage in other responses. I hope you have seen them.
A further reference to that point is that by the way it was passed, the primary question of whether Americans accepted the premise that healthcare is a Right, was not fairly settled. That the Democrats had the political power to get it passed is not the same as the voice of voters agreeing. So as things stand with me - the birth of this new Right is illegitimate.
But that's water over the dam. Once that entitlement door was opened with the bill's passage, (regardless of whether it was a good or bad bill), the U.S. will now have some type of national healthcare. Again, regardless of the merits of the idea, it will be political suicide for any politician, or party that tries to take away this new found Right. We both understand, and probably agree, with that.
Regarding the bill itself - it was a terrible bill. It was was deceitfully written and implemented, (the proof of that is available and objectively undeniable). It was purposely deceitfully promoted to the American public; "... you can keep your doctor...," "your premiums will drop by $2500," the penalty for not participating is a fee, not a tax," etc. It's full implementation was delayed for a full seven years, why? A cynic might conclude the reason to be so that the new Right has time to become entrenched, and not really show its negative and hurtful aspects until after the election cycle. Hmm...
If the Healthcare Insurance industry was allowed to write a major portion of the specifics of the bill, and they strongly supported the bill - there should be a waving red flag attached to the question of who the real beneficiaries would be. I don't think it was the American public.
There is a lot more, but consider this; Where did the largest segment of those newly insured folks come from? If you research the numbers, beyond the partisan-sourced numbers tossed around, you will find they came from new enrollees in the expanded medicaid programs - not from new enrollees in the Healthcare Insurers 'Metals' plans.
Further consider the undeniable reality of those 'subsidized' Bronze and Silver plans. The deductibles and co-pays are so high many folks can't afford to use them. And just getting to their coverage for catastrophic health issues is enough to bankrupt more than a few folks that were required to sign-up for them. Many of those folks didn't give-up their current plans because the new plans were a great deal, they enrolled because they were forced to.
Finally, look at the reality that 2017 is showing us. Even the Democrats are now admitting the bill is unworkable as passed. The American public was forced by law to buy something. And that something they were forced to buy turns out to be an inferior product at a higher cost.
Now, since you should have known brevity isn't my strong suit, don't you wish you hadn't issued that "fair request?"
LOL. I don't normally like to read really long posts, but in this case I did.
I agree that the law is flawed in ways that I won't bother to describe here, starting as you say with the way it was passed. But I hope you also agree that a reasonable response to the law is a series of new laws that build on the strengths of it and fix the weaknesses.
They would address your comment that "the bill is unworkable as passed". Instead, we got yet another political football with nothing accomplished.
Unfortunately, the deep political divisions in this country have grown so deep that the two parties may never agree on a solution. Even the new president and party in power have such deep divisions that they can't agree on a new bill.
Per your other post, we need those rising Independents to demand that the parties stop fighting and fix the problem for everyone and not just for one faction or another.
Apologies for my own long post!
Hi promisem, I can agree that now, (after seven years of implementation), a reasonable response to this bad bill is to fix it. But, up until as late as 2012, I think a reasonable approach would have been to repeal it until enough bipartisan support would have indicated a more realistic 'voice of the people' said that a national healthcare plan was the nation's choice.
"They have the vote power to change it."
Obviously not, or we would have seen it pass in the house. Is it possible that the day of lockstep voting along party lines is finally coming to an end? That we have at least some legislators (all GOP so far) that will vote their mind rather than the party plan?
Why is it odd? Millions of people have gone from "We can't afford that!" to "Oh boy! something free for me!".
Are you surprised or disappointed that they couldn't pass the bill?
Not surprised at all; it was pretty evident as people all over the country began complaining they would lose their free insurance.
Disappointed: I get an Obama subsidy. I also realize it is not sustainable, money wise. So yes and no at the same time.
I had the impression that most of the no votes came from Republicans in the Freedom Caucus who thought the bill was too generous.
No promisem, most of the "no votes" came from all of the Democrats, it was the added no votes of the Freedom causcus that sealed the deal.
I actually believe that there were some GOP moderates that resisted the bill because too many would become uninsured and it was going to be a hassle to face their constituents back home empty handed.
I can agree with that. I would have opposed the bill also. It was not what was promised. It was just an effort to pass something promised as a campaign pledge. The objective of the bill was not to repeal Obamacare, (and replace), or fix it, as promised. The objective was to look like they were.
As my shallow, (how about that ahorseback), understanding of the proposed bill sees it - the bill had nothing to do with the principle of his pledge. I think that is the main reason the Freedom Causus wouldn't come aboard the Trump train.
You are right. Pennsylvania's Rep. Dent, (R), said just that, (almost) in response to a CNN reporter's question. He said he could not support the bill because it would have left some of his constituants without healthcare.
GA, I of course meant the no votes among the Republicans within the context of my original post about them passing 60 bills appealing it. I will try to be more clear next time.
Yes, that was probably obvious to anyone that wasn't looking for a launch pad. I will blame it on the martinis, and promise to try to be less jumpy in the future. ;-\
I haven't read Paul Ryan's health care bill myself, but I came across this article by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and I am sure they are happy the bill didn't pass. Why? Because, they claim RyanCare had 'gun control' in it just like Obamacare did. They called it House Speaker Paul Ryan's “Son of ObamaCare” bill. Ouch!
* https://www.ammoland.com/2017/03/will-g … obamacare/
If that is true, and for other reasons outlined in the article Ryan's bill was Obamacare 2.o and it needed to fail.
"The losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, because now they own Obamacare. They own it. One hundred percent own it. They have Obamacare for a little longer until it ceases to exist, which it will at some point in the near future."
"And just remember this is not our bill. This is their bill. Now when they all become civilized and get together and try to work out a great health care bill for the people of this country, we're open to it."
~ President Trump
I get the feeling Trump knew how this was going to play out, because he didn't seem too disappointed. And, I'm sure conservatives are even more convinced where RINO Ryan stands now.
Just can't wait to hear the right's pundits try to blame this on the Democrats and the media....
Now this is a solemn and humbling moment for Donald, this may very well be the first time that anyone has ever told him 'NO'.
This idea of Government being run as a business is inane one. Being POTUS and CEO of a corporation have differing skill sets.
Members of congress are not simple shepherd boys that he can awe, like those contestants on his tee-vee reality show.
When he realizes just how ineffective he actually is in this new world, he may well resign.
I agree. We were supposed to get so tired of "winning, winning, winning!"
Question: Are we winning?
News Flash - The man who invented the implosion called Obama -Care
Still blaming Obama for the pasting your people gave themselves, today? The GOP is ridiculous, 8 years of threats and now that you have all of Washington in your clutches, you cannot even pass gas.
Is this a recent picture of Obama, today maybe?
It's easy for a candidate to criticize an office holder. That's probably why he is laughing. The welfare of our country is no joke.
I am getting so tired of winning, maybe its time to start losing a little bit!!!
"This idea of Government being run as a business is inane one."
Are you sure? I doubt you will find many mature businesses with a debt load of 5X total yearly income, and even they generally only take on debt when it earns them more than the payments. Somehow we've forgotten some really basic financial principles in our greed for what we can't afford.
Yes, but there is no CEO, and 535 people that have a say, and government does not operate on a profit motive. Yes, there are budget deficits but my suggestions as to how to rein in costs are just as valid as that of any conservative. We just have different ideas as to what constitutes waste. It is a red herring to think that the GOP party is fiscally responsible.
Yes it is (a red herring). Of course I didn't insinuate that as NEITHER party has any concept of what "fiscally responsible" means. Seems to me that we need to go back to what the Constitution lists as responsibilities for government - it worked for a long, long time. Of course that will lose votes, so it won't happen.
You are right, it doesn't work any more and it won't. We got this little problem of the 18th century verses the 21st and all the real changes that have occurred during that time.
"..."and all the real changes that have occurred during that time."
With the #1 change being greed and a demand for what we don't want to pay for. Whether free health care or a new museum, we continue to demand ever more, always paid for by someone else.
Always paid for by someone else? Who exactly is this mystery benefactor?
Anybody but the one benefiting. But I'm quite sure that you are well aware of where the money comes from.
Yeah, the money comes from a well organised society where individuals cooperate efficiently to produce wealth:
The education system produces skilled people.
The healthcare system helps to keep them in good shape.
The government analyses the needs of industry and delivers the infrastructure.
Democracy provides talented leaders (not hereditary inbreds).
The free market allocates investment effectively.
The law keeps competition civilized.
Problem is, in the last thirty years, there has been an increasing disconnect between investors and workers. And the wealthy have been allowed to hoover up far too much of the wealth and power.
You are paying the price for an unbalanced society that is increasingly dedicated to the needs of a small percentage of the population.
Hey Cred, I am not picking on you, just offering another perspective. The thought that government should be run like a business is not at all associated with the thought a "profit motive."
The point is intended to apply to common-sense business practices of cost-control and efficiency. Not profit. Just getting more bang for the buck.
Coincidentally, a recent Reagan read illustrated this point. Relative to his commission of the panel of business experts that generated The Grace Report," here are just a couple of the reports findings - that were immediately implemented*:
The commission found 52 separate government 'Printing Offices', - this meant 52 printing process administration staffs, (bureaucracies), and 52 separate physical printing facilities. This was in the 1980s. Streamline efforts from this 'panel of businessmen' reduced that number to 7 Printing Offices. Yet government services to citizens didn't collapse.
They found 350 different accounting systems throughout the Federal Government. They were only able to pare that down to 250 different systems, but... government has still served its function since then.
*I am going from memory, the numbers might be off by a couple, but they are close enough for the point.
There is one glaring example that I don't remember the details of, but it involved a number of agencies that were still issuing "cardboard" checks, (this was Pres. Reagan's description - I can only assume he meant those extra-heavy bond paper checks that cost about 10 times as much as the typical paper business, (and most banks and citizens), used. Imagine, in the 1980s some agencies were still using checks that complied with the stiffness and thickness of the 'computer punchcards' of the 1960s - at a ten-fold cost to the government.
There were a lot more recommendations, over 2000+/-.
Here is a link to a summary of the report:The Grace Commission. I intend to search out a copy of the full report for myself.
One other example of considering a 'business-like' approach had to do with egg production. There were 6 different programs, and 6 different administrating bureaucracies to administer them, that dealt with telling farmers the best ways to increase egg production, and five other such initiatives - and then a seventh program and administrating bureauocracy that bought all the surplus eggs generated by the aforementioned 6 programs and subsidies. The seventh agency cost more than the other six combined.
Do you think a successful business would have had that egg problem?
The point of that wordy illustration was to say that those of us that promote the idea that government would benefit from being run more like a business, is that the profit motive of a business has nothing to do with it.
It is your own, (non-Conservatives), anti-business bias that sees that as the primary motive.
GA, a Sunday School Class has the goal of being efficient and not wasteful with resources. Nobody is arguing about efficiency as that is a desirable principle that applies to everything we do, not just business, per se. Business have direct line leaders who can say yes or no in regards to the very direction of the company. Negotiation and persuasion works in the Government environment to acquire consensus. Trump is used to being the "final word" and that is fine when you are in that position. But the Presidency is not such a place.
So what is this talk about antibusiness? All I am saying is that the GOP have been talking about this 'running America like General Motors' stuff for ages and it simply is not going to happen, and we all know it. I am content to go after waste, fraud and abuse in Washington in the same way I pursue those objectives in regards to my pantry.
Nope Bud, I don't see it.
This "talk" about anti-business has been repeated by you frequently, and not just your comments in this thread. Your history of denigrating CEOs and "business" would be easy to substantiate.
You may be able to find someone that referenced GM in a comment, but I am not certain of it. Even if you did, your perspective has always seemed to be anti-business. Note your comments here - you automatically associated "profit motive" with the concept, when the obvious context, relative to government operations, was cost-control and efficiency.
At least that';s the way I have read your, (and others with similar "Anti-business" proclamations) comments.
Business is about profit, right? Nothing altruistic about it , really. My problem is when greed becomes an issue which I associate with BIG business and its pursuit of the profit motive, the rest of us as mere mortals are flattened as if we were under a Mack Truck.
I am blue, Navy blue, and I am always going to put the interests of the middle class over that of the corporate class based on the greater numbers of the former over the latter if not for anything else. Unfortunately the danger of wealth and the subsequent abuse of influence with Washington politicians, puts the little guy at a distinct disadvantage. May the wishes of the middle prevail over that of the plutocrat.
" BIG business, greed, mere mortals are flattened, corporate class, danger of wealth, plutocrat"
All this from a discussion that government should adopt the efficiencies and controls of common-sense business operations - and you say you aren't anti-business! Then why did those descriptors pop into your mind when none of those aspects of business were in the context of the discussion?
Want another shot at that?
Did I wander?
My point is that, we all want common sense efficiencies in how government is run. I don't own a business, but I make sure that my checkbook is balanced and I am accountable for the use of resources. My distrust of corporate power and influence has nothing do with this.
I don't think you wandered bud, but let's let that horse amble on down the road.
If, and without those negative connotations, you can agree that your "balanced checkbook," and "... of course we all want efficiency" remarks are really the same as the inference behind the "run government like a business" point. Then do you still disagree with the potential benefits of running our government like a business? (Remember our context now, and that those business-type applications won't apply to all aspects of government operations - I agree that some functions just aren't suited for them)
If, and without those negative connotations, you can agree that your "balanced checkbook," and "... of course we all want efficiency" remarks are really the same as the inference behind the "run government like a business" point.
Ok, GA, if you like.
Then do you still disagree with the potential benefits of running our government like a business? (Remember our context now, and that those business-type applications won't apply to all aspects of government operations - I agree that some functions just aren't suited for them)
I don't think that it really possible, even though you hold my view of the "profit motive" as the driving force in disdain. It is the fundamental determinant as to where resources are committed and where they are removed. In my old job as Contracting Officer, it was considered an inherently governmental function. These jobs could never be contracted out to the private sector, much like the TSA security people at the airports. I think that there are more functions that are not suited rather than a few.
Well Cred, I did say, and I do agree, that there are some government functions that just can't function under the restrictions of a pure common sense business approach. But I can't think of any that wouldn't benefit from the business-like approach of cost-control and structural efficiencies that all successful business operations must include. I think my previous "egg bureaucracies" example speaks to that point.
Government has the added element of people wanted to be elected and having constituents. Constituents include well informed all the way down to idiots. What the elected official cares about what they say impacts how votes are casts.
I could never be a politician. It's wrong to tell people what they want to hear just to get elected....regardless of party.
We are one country. We need something that works for everyone. Real problem...how does a group (of individuals) do that. They have differekt objectives and principles.
Yes, they have different objectives. But if we could even get a solid majority of people that put the country above their own wants we could go a long way towards eliminating the debt. Not just the deficit, but the national debt.
I agree with you. The country should come before party.
maybe he'll become a Democrat again while he is in office.
I suspect House resistance also is part of a plan to undermine Trump until they come up with enough to impeach him. Then they get Pence into the Oval Office.
Right. The President can't fire someone in Congress. Only the voters can.
And we have damn sure failed in that responsibility haven't we?
Don't be so sure, I would start by firing the "so called" Freedom Caucus of the House of Representives.
Hi Cred, I haven't checked to see what the Freedom Caucus stands for, so I can only ask that if they are representing the positions of their constituents, and standing by their, (constituents), principles that don't agree with the concept of healthcare as a right, (or entitlement), then why should they be fired?
I'm sure neither of us would say it was because they didn't blindly follow the party.
Freedom Caucus were the 'young guns' of the House of Representatives during the Obama presidency, characterized by conservatism that makes Trump look like Jane Fonda. Such is the nature of the current GOP internecine squabble.
It is obvious that the vast majority of the American electorate wants some form of socialized medicine, otherwise the GOP would have been unanimously successful in the Obamacare repeal?
It not just a rabid rightwing attitude about healthcare, it is about everything else. Of course, I cannot support them.
Yes. For most people, voting isn't a responsibility. It's a knee-jerk reaction to the candidate's party. I'm a Republican, therefore I automatically vote Republican. I'm a Democrat, therefore I automatically vote for a Democrat.
I can certainly agree with that promisem. I would add that one bright spot might be the apparent rise in the number of Independents in recent years.
Hey Cred, regarding your disagreement that government should be run like a business...
With just a caveat that in the sense of similar' to a business - not strictly structured and run as a business, let me offer three former presidents that made statements that might give you some food for thought.
Pres. Reagan disagreed with you. ( I listed him first just to rev you up - the next two might give you pause)
Pres. Kennedy expressed views similar to both Reagan and the next guy on the list.
Pres. Franklin D, Roosevelt voiced strong sentiments in this direction.
I couild go back and find the pertinent passages and quotes, but you can find them as easily as I could if you doubt my listing.
Not Reagan. He ran up the deficit and debt in a way that no CEO would approve.
I voted for Reagan both times anyway. Despite the fact that I'm allegedly a liberal.
promisem, your facts about his debt and deficit record is true. Your reasoning that it was because he didn't try to run the government in a business-like manner is not true.
I responded to Credence2 with a post about the Grace Commission Report that I think would also help you understand why the inference of your comment is flawed. I hope you check it out.
Their goal was only to obstruct Obama and take away his signature accomplishment. They have no agenda.
I'd like a liberal Obama Care supporter to answer ?---- Why SHOULD Trump take the fall or blame for an already failing Obama -Care ? Letting it fall on its own was the smart move to begin with , I don't know why Trump even tried to replace it .
The old "Tea Party " has spoken .
I'm a moderate independent rather than a liberal. It's not a matter of blaming Trump for Obamacare. I'm just saying that he promised to kill it on day 1 of his presidency and replace it with something better. He did not.
I still wish it repealed and dropped ! Got to allow the free market competition to provide a better system , rather than one more welfare program . I honestly don't know why he bothered TO say he'd improve on it .
I agree with you promise! I'm not a liberal unless my skin color automatically makes me one.
I was so sick of hearing why Obamacare was bad. Fine! It was bad! So fix it. That's how politics are. Blame the other guy. POTUS did indicate that now maybe they all can get together to talk about it.
When you have a program, you follow it through the life cycle, monitoring and adjusting when necessary. When it is bad, kill it. I have no problem with that. Kill it!
What's annoying if the throwing sh*t back and forth. As far as I'm concerned, it is now Trump care because the onus is on them to fix it. They promised for 9 years.
Obama --Care is Soon Dead ! -------------------Even Dead its Still --Obama-- Care !
Diane, exactly, just fix it. Fix the parts that don't work and keep the parts that do. Quit jerking everyone around.
Medical bankruptcies are down, health care costs have slowed dramatically and the number of insured has jumped.
Yes, some people are paying more for their premiums because:
1. The lifetime limit was removed.
2. Children are covered until age 26.
3. Insurers can't deny based on pre-existing conditions.
4. Older citizens don't get burned as badly by age discrimination.
As a result, some people pay more and some pay less than before.
No promisem, your postings do not portray a moderate Independent perspective. You are not a Purple. At best you might qualify as a periwinkle or lavender. A somewhat conservative liberal.
Before you try to dispute that, grab your wife's blue eyeliner and see what it looks like on you.
Yep, periwinkle - like I said.
GA, conservatives call me a liberal and liberals call me a conservative. Give me an example of a belief of mine that makes me a liberal.
FYI, I have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my lifetime. The fact that I oppose extremist and hypocritical conservatives doesn't make me a liberal.
promisem, My observation is based only on my read on your postings, and responses. Just as yours of me can only be based on the same.
No, I won't play the "give me an example" game. That is a ploy I have heard Fox's Hannity use, I didn't think it was a credible response from him either.
If it makes a difference to you, I don't think Liberals are bad*, I just disagree with them more than I agree - on many issues and perspectives. (*hopefully you know me well enough to know I don't consider the extremes - from either side, in such general statements)
As for your voting record rationalization ... that sounds a lot like my defense that I can't be a racist because I have Black friends.
My question really wasn't meant as a ploy. I was just looking for an example.
I am a social moderate and fiscal conservative. I believe in individual responsibility, fiscal conservatism and limited government.
I strongly object to a Republican party that cuts taxes, wastes $2 trillion on wars chasing WMDs that don't exist and increases spending on a military budget that is 3X larger than the next largest on the planet when our national infrastructure is crumbling.
The party gave up fiscal conservatism a long time ago. I did not.
I say the following with respect. I will gladly share details on any specific issue you wish to discuss so that we clear up any misunderstanding about my political perspective.
Again, and to put it another way, opposing bad conservatives does not make me a liberal.
Out of curiosity, would you limit military manpower past the point we can fight a two-theater war as we did in WWII or would you send our soldiers out with less than the best equipment we can provide, accepting the loss of life in return for a better bridge?
That is hypothetical and has no reflection on reality. The war lords consistently find reasons to keep to drums beating to justify more lavish expenditure and I don't buy it.
Why after spending so much of the budget in this category, so many believe that it can never be enough?
Good question, Wilderness. I would limit military power to the point where we can defend our country, don't bankrupt it, prepare for limited overseas engagements and be ready to expand it rapidly in case of need (i.e., a draft).
I wouldn't shortchange my military friends with equipment. Nor would I tolerate gouging by the companies that provide that equipment.
No worries promisem, and no need to scrounge the past for unexploded ordinance. I am sure we will have future exchanges that will satisfy both our perceptions of each other.
Hey ahorseback, Are you sure you want to attribute this to the wishes of "the Old Tea Party?"
It sure sounds like you could be, (albeit from an opposite perspective), validating those other "Not My President" protester's position.
Pres. Trump must be the president for all American citizens - not just those that agree with him. To sit back and allow a coming disaster to occur just because you can say it is 'the Democrat's' fault, is simply blind self-serving self-righteous arrogance. I think Diane made that point. And she is right.
How can your comment be read as anything other than 'the hell with you, it's your own fault that you killed yourself? I should, (and could) save you but I ain't!
- "I'm not going to leave the lower 20% that can't afford insurance."
- "I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."
- "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."
-"There's going to be no waiting and no more excuses by anybody".
-"I’m already seeing the support [for the American Health Care Act]-- not only in this room, I’m seeing it from everybody"
Lies or incompetence? Which is it?
Because he is President. What happens on his watch falls on him. He made specific promises and did not deliver. He claims that Obamacare will implode and people will suffer. What leader allows that to happen just to blame an adversary. President Obama was blamed for everything that happened while he was in office, Trump does not get a pass just because people follow him like a cult leader. Obama cannot do anything about Obamacare now, the only people that can change this are GOP. It fails, it's on them - period!
But the thing is as well that America is spending far more than necessary on military expenses than on actual healthcare, poverty and education
True to a certain degree. She also knows what should be done and how to go about.
Didn't pass it cause the bill wasn't shown to nobody. Nobody has even seen what was in it
The ACA while flawed and far from a perfect fix, did offer better coverage, and in some cases allowed those who were not covered at all, the coverage they needed. Cost, of course, being an issue with the ACA is still better than the Republican's replacement plan that would have cost some 24 million people their current coverage, would have ended the pre-existing clause, and would not have covered common care benefits. Coming from a long-time liberal, the ACA needs a major overhaul, but not at the risk of people's lives.
Except that the people getting the subsidy, that weren't covered before but are now, can't afford any care because of extreme deductibles and out-of-pocket limits. So the only beneficiaries of those plans are the insurance companies and the handful that had catastrophic costs.
Not all of the deductibles went up. I didn't qualify for a subsidy and mine did go up, but it wasn't a huge jump. I do know you are correct in the fact that many did. It's like I said, far from perfect. The only way to guarantee healthcare coverage is to somehow adopt a single payor, healthcare for all system. If we can afford a $54 billion increase in an already overinflated military budget, we can afford healthcare. At some point we need to pull pharma and lobbyists out of the picture and do what needs to be done.
Premiums went up for younger people because they went down for older. Older people were paying 5X the premiums of young people before ACA.
They also went up because of coverage for children until age 26, no more denials on pre-existing conditions, no more lifetime maximum, etc.
And of course we have to pay for enormous salaries for the health insurance company CEOs.
It's not so much a matter of deductibles going up - it is that both deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums are far, far above what anyone getting a subsidy (the poor) can afford to pay. How in the world we can think that someone unable to pay $500 per month for insurance can pay $10,000 per year for care is beyond me.
Then if we have the money it won't be a problem to give everyone unlimited care. All we need is someone that can pick those dollars from the money tree, because Congress sure can't find any more!
Washington has the option of killing parts of the law that have driven up premiums, such as:
- Coverage of children until age 26
- Removal of lifetime maximums (i.e., advanced cancer)
- No denials based on pre-existing conditions
- Age discrimination
They shouldn't be able to deny for pre-existing conditions. That's a death sentence to many people...young and old.
Depends on if you wish to provide insurance or health care. The two are NOT the same, and insurance fees depend on past history. One has only to look at what people with multiple accidents or tickets pay for car insurance - it's how insurance works.
Health insurance fees do not depend on past history. They are based on age and location.
Insurance companies were allowed to charge 5X more on premiums for older adults (57+) than younger (18 to 35) before ACA. The law limited the age band ratio to 3X.
It doesn't matter if I cost my insurer a dime or not. I have to pay more because of the unhealthy smokers and gluttons who drive up costs and insurance companies that practice age discrimination.
No, I don't think they do. Not in the real world, at least - the people are demanding their freebies again, not wanting to pay for their own needs, and to deny them that will cost the party that suggests it their power. Unacceptable, regardless of the cost to the nation, so in the real world it won't be done.
I don't think it's people wanting freebies, (okay, maybe some people) but rather, those with pre-existing conditions still being able to get coverage at a cost. If you can't get coverage and you have a catastrophic illness or injury, 99% of people will not be able to afford any treatment. I speak from personal experience, if I hadn't had the coverage I had, I wouldn't be here today. One of the injections I was taking, Neulasta, cost $6000 each, and I had them 3x a month for 8 months. That was one medication, no other treatment, meds, surgeries, procedures, etc.
Do you think maybe just wanting to afford health insurance is one reason why some people like the law?
Not everyone who wants affordable health insurance is a lazy bum.
Because before they knew they would never pass with the democratic majority and Obama would veto it. Now that they have the house senate and the presidency, they don't want to pass one or they would have reintroduced the one they wanted 6 years ago.
If the fine/mandate, for not having insurance, (which is illegal/unconstitutional,) is removed, no health care insurance act will work. Just take away the fine and the entire system will
~ ~ F I Z Z L E ! ! ! ~ ~
by kerryg6 years ago
Thought some of you right wingers might be interested in seeing what some ACTUAL socialists think of the health care bill. Not that I expect any of you to admit that Obama isn't socialist by any definition of the word...
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue...how could any American citizen stand for allowing their tax dollars or be forced in their work ethic to be used for something that is against their deepest...
by sandra rinck6 years ago
I just wanted to clear up the garbage that is being put out about people being forced to buy a government health care plan. I know this seems to be the center of controversy over health care. For the record, no...
by qwark7 years ago
It took a year of "dickering" for a nation "dedicated" to HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM to pass a health care bill that is supposed to offer it's constuents better care for more people at a lesser cost.In...
by MikeNV7 years ago
"Pelosi said it appeared a second administration priority, far-reaching changes in the student loan industry, would be added to the legislation."That's right... it's not just a health care bill it's a student...
by Friendlyword7 years ago
Dr Howard Dean, Keith Olberman, and a Very Large segment of the American People are completely against the passage of this Health Care Bill in it's present form.I agree with them all! This is an outrageous Bill that was...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.