He promised repeatedly during the campaign that he would kill the law. He even said he would call a special session of Congress right after his inauguration to kill it.
He is already reneging. LOL. Enjoy your new president.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trum … 1478895339
"NEW YORK—President-elect Donald Trump said he would consider leaving in place certain parts of the Affordable Care Act, an indication of possible compromise after a campaign in which he pledged repeatedly to repeal the 2010 health-care law." From the above link
He has to compromise at this point. The uprising would be too much if he just stopped it cold. This issue and reality is going to be a dilemma, for sure.
Well, if you hate the President, you must read very carefully, pick and choose what to repeat with a definite to promoting your hate and then twist what is left out of any semblance of truth.
But it IS a little surprising that the very headline of the link provided as support contradicts the OP so badly.
Excellent points, Kathryn. I agree that a slow transition is the responsible thing to do.
I'm just stunned that he would back off on his #1 campaign promise to kill Obamacare just days after the election.
"Trump favors keeping the prohibition against insurers denying coverage because of patients' existing conditions, and provision that allows parents to provide years of additional coverage for children on their insurance policies." (Wall Street Journal)
Both Republican plans had those provisions in them.
LOL. Thor is already losing his thunder.
Its called sound reasoning. Its based on wisdom. A slow transition is the best policy, of course.
You don't stop an addict, cold.
Agreed. However, Republicans in Congress have voted to repeal it over 60 times. Are they suddenly NOT going to repeal it now that they are finally running the show? Seems strange to me that they wouldn't go ahead and do what they've tried to do over 60 times already.
He also has had high praise in the last two days for Obama, Hillary and Bill.
Maybe he is a closet Democrat after all.
Now, wouldn't that be the best long game ever?
That is great, no less than the rightwinger deserves, we get spread the disappointment around...
David Brooks, the most respected conservative columnist in the country, predicts the Republican Congress will impeach him within a year. because they want Pence in the Oval Office.
The political science scholar who has accurately predicted every presidential election since 1984 -- and who predicted Trump would win when all other experts said otherwise -- has predicted the same thing.
That is quite a prediction, even they should not be able to do that. Impeachment is based on commission of high crimes and misdemeanors. I will even fight for Trump in the face of political sabotage by a GOP led congress, who would take us in a direction that I would prefer not to go while Trump stands in their path.
They will be able to do it if they prove any illegal behavior.
Ah, but would you fight for Trump in the face of political sabotage by a DEM led coalition? Or the entire congress, for that matter?
I see claims of 200 signatures on a request for electors to discard their ethics and pledges and vote Clinton. Or to ignore laws requiring a Trump vote because the ballots are secret, meaning they can't be caught. Will you fight that, or support the abuse of power and abrogation of ethics that put Trump in the office in the first place?
Right now the GOP is in charge of the machinery of power in Washington, so what Dem coalition?
The system is the system and Trump won under the proper and appropriate conditions. I can not discard the system merely because I do not like the outcome. That is what Republicans do , can not trump with that, no pun intended.
Yes, Again, 4 times in 200 years but twice in the last 16. Is this a trend that I am going to have to deal with more frequently? If that is a trend that is accelerating, that is a problem in regards to the Electoral College controversy.
I tend to think it is accelerating, but could very easily be wrong.
But if it is, and if we do away with the tiny advantage the EC gives rural, I'm in most definite trouble. In a very general sense, with lots of exceptions, my values are rural - if would kind of hurt to know that there is no reason for I or anyone but those with very liberal values to vote at all. Rather than liberal vs conservative we would have liberal vs very liberal and a large percentage of America would be disenfranchised, left paying for the desires of the liberal and with no voice at all. Eventually we'd see the whole breadbasket of America talking secession rather than just Texas and California.
Isn't that why we have senators and representatives for each state? Your vote would matter just as much as it does now.
I wouldn't say that it is the end of the world. Conservatives persist because they have positions on many issues that attract people whether they are urban or not. While they did not win the popular vote, they were competitive and there is no reason to believe that they could not. Because of alliances and coalitions the GOP can still prevail and that flies in the face of the idea that Dems and progressive voters shut out their opponents to the point that they are disenfranchised. Look at the demographics, older and more conservative voters vote more consistently than their liberal and younger counterparts. For every strength, there exists a corresponding weakness. The democratic constituencies that include Minorities are not always reliable at election time even with their increasing numbers.
I can't say how long conservatives can keep their agenda as one that guides the country, but for a little while they remain in the cat birds seat.
"... liberal vs very liberal..." as a societal direction.
Damn, I like that. I mean the thought of that as a real possibility in the not-so-distant future, as in 20 - 30 years. Hmm...
If the electoral college were abolished, it would be much easier to see.
OMG! It is The Hunger Games!
But seriously, consider Credence2's musing; rural America is becoming secondary to urban America. Not just in population influence, but in perceived stature. This sentiment, and possible trend, really is aptly portrayed in Isaac Asimov's science fiction Foundation trilogy. The point being, if we extrapolated your point through a few generations - Asimov nailed it.
But, seriously, GA, Rural America has been in the back seat relative to the more populous urban America for some time. This is nothing new, the weight of the numbers tells the tale and explains the outcome. I don't know if I can say that they are down in perceived stature. There are many that would give their eye teeth for a life in the country if only they were able to support themselves financially.
Hello again promisem, I hope I didn't misread your comment, but it sounded to me to be more a jab, than a statement of fact, (which is was, if that was your intended point)
I know we still don't know, for sure, whether Trump is the Thor of the Right, or the closet democrat of the left, but given the interview quotes of your link, could you entertain this possible perspective;
He did say repeal and replace - simultaneously. Do you think either of us know whether a simultaneous replacement is even possible?
But, if you can separate obamacare from the concept of national health insurance, it is easier to consider the ACA on its merits - not the merits of national healthcare.
The ACA, (Obamacare), is a lousy law. Consider the early years problems and predictions that seem to be materializing now.
So, could you consider that Trump may have something in mind that would continue national healthcare coverage and still repeal the ACA? And if you could, then wouldn't he be doing exactly what he promised in the campaign - repeal Obamacare? And if so, wouldn't your recitation of the anti-Trump "he reneged" talking point also be as shallow as you are implying Trump is?
Hello, GA. I'm sincerely glad to hear from you, I'm not actually taking a jab at Trump. I'm simply shocked that he would change his message only days after the election.
To your point, I think parts of the ACA are lousy and parts are good. For example, do you believe someone should have their health insurance canceled when they become seriously ill? Do you think putting a cap on premiums for older people like us at a 3:1 ratio is reasonable?
What parts of the law do you oppose?
Ha! "...What parts of the law do you oppose?". Nope.
My point was I don't think it can be said that he has reneged yet. Consider his campaign pledge; he would repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better.
So, if you can entertain the possibility that I mentioned, is it accurate to say he has "reneged?" If not, then why did you do it? I intimated it was just a recitation of an anti-Trump "talking point." Was I wrong?
Now, to Obamacare. I do think the machinery is ill-fitted to the task, there are a lot of bad parts, but my biggest objection to Obamacare is the way it was passed. It was bought. America was strong-armed. The strong-arm tactics were public, (pressure tactics used to get votes in the media every night), and the price was proudly broadcast, (remember the senator that bragged the publicly rumored $300 million price was really $600 million for her state?)
Good lord liberals are such sore losers. I realize that it is a huge disappointment to you that he hasn't yet demanded that the presidential song be renamed Heil to the chief and anyone who doesn't offer the Nazi salute to be shipped to some gulag in Alaska, but can you at least be reasonable until he does?
I would think there is good and bad in everything. If he says he thinks some parts are in our best interest I'm certainly willing to see which ones he is talking about. Could you try to give anyone a break for a moment, at least, or is that too hard to do in your abject misery.
Aw, but my brother-in-law, a non-college-educated white male, has been rabidly advocating the repeal of Obamacare for years! He was ecstatic that Trump was so adamant about repealing it. Republicans in Congress have tried to repeal it over 60 times. Surely, now that they have complete control, they are going to follow through with their deepest convictions. Surely!
Hello??? Have you been listening to me???
Republicans have complete control!?! If there is one sure thing about Trump it is that he is not another party flak.
That is true, but that shouldn't stop Congress from repealing Obamacare. If they did it over 60 times under Obama surely the can do it once under Trump. What would stop them?
Trump. Let me repeat: " If there is one sure thing about Trump it is that he is not another party flak."
Just watched a spot on TV where he reiterated that there are parts of Obamacare that must be kept and protected. And I do believe that he will do just that, even if it means vetoing a bill from the people that refused to endorse or accept him.
I believe you could be right. Obamacare definitely needs fixing. Repealng it is not the answer.
This is interesting, you know something? Maybe, you were right about Trump and his relationship with the rank and file GOP. This latest aberration combined with a statement he made during the campaign that moved me and so many in the upper Midwest that it cost Clinton the election. He said to a group of CEOs in Michigan that he would slap on punitive tariffs on their products if they took their plants abroad.
That flies in the face of GOP standard procedure, always looking after the best interests of the 'big shots' first.
The GOP may have brought into its midst a Trojan horse of epic magnitude. So, these developments means that for the immediate future, my log remains empty.
An interesting thought about those CEO's - they don't care whether their plant is in the US our outside of it, and probably actually prefer inside as both a little patriotism and certainly ease of management.
But the playing field MUST be level: if a CEO is to pay US labor rates then his competitors must also. He cannot compete when his labor costs are double or triple what his competitors are paying, not with the low cost of shipping today.
We're sorry. The entity known here as "Wilderness" has suffered a myocardial infarction after reading posts from PrettyPanther and Credence2. We hope for his quick recovery and return
Whew! Back with you again.
We can but hope, PP. But, Credence, the GOP did not bring that horse into its midst; they were drug willy nilly...screaming, biting and fighting all the way to election night. You will never convince me that Trump is "their" man - he is his own man and should the paths of the GOP and Donald Trump coincide it will be because they agree with him, not the other way around. Or, possibly, because he is cutting a deal to get what HE wants, the same as he would do with the Democrats or the devil himself.
I agree. I got it from an inside source that members linked to the establishment of the GOP (BushOps) contacted Trump (or Thor) and said they would let him win the election, if he would listen to them and do what they say at least a part of the time. Trump said "No." He took over the GOP, and will rebuild it. Neocons will be out! There's been enough blood shed.
I dare not say much more, lest I cause trauma.
Does anyone remember when Trump asked Kasich if he would be vice president and handle the day-to-day running of the country while Trump handled the PR, or something to that effect? If he has done the same with Pence, then you really didn't make any headway on getting rid of the insiders. I thought of this today when Kellyanne Conway said Trump might be doing a "victory tour." Of course, that might be the answer to my question of how will Trump continue to get the narcissistic "high" he received from the adoring crowds--just keep on doing the same thing.
I'm not sure what your response has to do with my post. I'm simply pointing out that Trump insisted throughout the campaign that he would kill Obamacare. Now he is saying otherwise.
Dr. Ben Carson said he will be helping President Thor to craft and replace ObamaCare. Whatever that means.
David Brooks has not been right this whole election
He works for Hillary. Oh, what a tummy laugh!
Oh, so respected....
Lies...media lies! Brooks is a lying shill for neocons and Democrats.
Boy, I needed that. Laughter is a good medicine!
What liberal layman intellectuals can't seem to grasp is the fact that America is and was made up of ALL individual states , The need to protect states equality rights is the reason for the constitution to begin with ! Thus the main reason for the electoral college - That each state is represented in fair balance - Idaho is just as important as NY state in federal election and leadership challenges
Liberal pseudo- Intellectuals - Please bone up on your history and government process' . You lose almost every debate about government , elections and history .
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
Obama indicated in his promissory speeches that he would improve America? However, he has done nothing of the kind, in fact, he has made America much worse since his takeover in the White House. Do you think that America has become worse under President Obama? The main crux of Obama's...
by Scott Belford 13 days ago
On Wednesday, Jan 6, 2021, while Congress was attempting to certify Joe Biden as having won the election to become the next President of the United States, Donald Trump was exhorting the mob he had spent the previous week or two calling together to attack Congress and stop the process. He...
by Bill Akers 7 years ago
Do you think Obamacare would be an easier sale if all Federal Employees had to buy in?I believe Obamacare would be better received if everyone had to put up with the same insurance, including unions, congressmen, senators, judicial, and president. The elites with their cadillac insurance make it a...
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
Maybe. The 17th Century term High Crimes and Misdemeanors may not mean what you think it might be after seeing President Clinton impeached, but not convicted. A common interpretation is as follows:The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 years ago
believe would have made a more efficient president? Why?
by JOC 8 weeks ago
So if we understand the suit, the GOP wants states to send both sets of electors to Congress and the VP can determine which to count. Why are we even having elections then? The VP of the sitting party just chooses the president under this argument.https://www.yahoo.com/news/gohmert-suit...
Copyright © 2021 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.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|