Republicans kill their own health care bill

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (118 posts)

0
promisemposted 7 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 61
  dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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 !
  reply report
  76
  Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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/
  reply report
  78
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Well said, Diane. They control the House, the Senate and the White House. But they can't seem to govern themselves.
  reply report
  68
  ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.'
  reply report
  76
  Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you Cred, on your thought that America is not Europe. And I will also give you that, even if all European perspectives are not adaptable to America, some could be.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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?"
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  "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?
  reply report
2. 96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Why is it odd? Millions of people have gone from "We can't afford that!" to "Oh boy! something free for me!".
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Are you surprised or disappointed that they couldn't pass the bill?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I had the impression that most of the no votes came from Republicans in the Freedom Caucus who thought the bill was too generous.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  +1 Agree 100%. It seems that we have made the choice now to provide health insurance (if not health care) to everyone, and the replacement didn't even try to do that.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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. ;-\
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I'm just glad it wasn't margaritas.
  reply report
  78
  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  The Republican party now controls everything. Should they govern or blame?
  reply report
3. 79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, Dreaming again Credence ?
  reply report
  61
  dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. We were supposed to get so tired of "winning, winning, winning!"
  
  Question: Are we winning?
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  
  News Flash - The man who invented the implosion called Obama -Care
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I am getting so tired of winning, maybe its time to start losing a little bit!!!
  reply report
  61
  dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Don't let it change your personality! Take it in stride..
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  "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.
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  "..."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.
  reply report
  87
  Will Apseposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Always paid for by someone else? Who exactly is this mystery benefactor?
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Anybody but the one benefiting. But I'm quite sure that you are well aware of where the money comes from.
  reply report
  87
  Will Apseposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  Everyone matters.
  
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  OMG!
  " 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?
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to 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)
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  report
  61
  dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  61
  dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you. The country should come before party.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  And yet for too many people, party comes before country. A good example is the sudden love fest by Trump supporters for Vladimir Putin, who just assassinated another opponent.
  reply report
  61
  dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  maybe he'll become a Democrat again while he is in office.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Right. The President can't fire someone in Congress. Only the voters can.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  And we have damn sure failed in that responsibility haven't we?
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Don't be so sure, I would start by firing the "so called" Freedom Caucus of the House of Representives.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  It's too bad the rise of Independents hasn't led to a third political party. We might see better behavior from the Repubs and Dems if that happened.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  OK, I withdraw that part of my post. Thanks.
  reply report
4. 61
  DICESIposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Their goal was only to obstruct Obama and take away his signature accomplishment. They have no agenda.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 7 years ago
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 .
reply report
1. 0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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 .
  reply report
  84
  gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!!!
  reply report
  61
  dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Obama --Care is Soon Dead ! -------------------Even Dead its Still --Obama-- Care !
  reply report
  61
  dianetrotterposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  That's fine! It doesn't hurt me. Those that are hurt will be really upset. Not doing any baiting ... are you a?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
  79
  Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  
  GA
  reply report
2. 88
  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  
  GA
  reply report
3. 82
  Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  - "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"
  
  (Donald Trump)
  
  Lies or incompetence? Which is it?
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  Both. The GOP will get rid of him as soon as possible. Their sabotage of the bill is just the start.
  reply report
4. 61
  DICESIposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  It is the difference between leadership and incompetence.
  reply report
55
Danny Tribelhornposted 7 years ago
But the thing is as well that America is spending far more than necessary on military expenses than on actual healthcare, poverty and education
reply report
1. 0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  And Trump wants another big increase in the military budget at a time when it already is 3X larger than the next largest on the planet (China).
  reply report
61
Jife Kromposted 7 years ago
True to a certain degree. She also knows what should be done and how to go about.
reply report
41
Angela Rae Maagposted 7 years ago
Didn't pass it cause the bill wasn't shown to nobody. Nobody has even seen what was in it
reply report
79
SherrieWeynandposted 7 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  79
  SherrieWeynandposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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!
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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
  reply report
  79
  SherrieWeynandposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  They shouldn't be able to deny for pre-existing conditions. That's a death sentence to many people...young and old.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  96
  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  79
  SherrieWeynandposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
  0
  promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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.
  reply report
53
Robert Deesposted 7 years ago
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.
reply report
1. 76
  Kathryn L Hillposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  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 ! ! ! ~ ~
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this
  ++++++++++++++++++++++++=
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Republicans kill their own health care bill

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Republicans kill their own health care bill

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies