President Donald J. Trump

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

Yes the all or nothing approach keeps the govt from
Ever doing anything useful. Hence why you don't want them running healthcare into the toilet as they have succeeded in doin so now.

At this point letting the states handle it sounds good. The only problem is the red states open market system will be much cheaper and provide the best coverage in the world leaving no one left to pay for the failed over priced coverage of the precious blue state single payer system. The only answer would be to build a wall, around the red states.

with all that outstanding "red state" health care, why not just adapt the "blue states" to serve us?

[Dr. MD MD]

They still need 50 votes + the VP to get anything passed in the Senate.  There's no nuclear option available.

That means that not enough Republicans voted for it. So, I'll say it again. Why are they so timid?

[CozyRozie]

That means that not enough Republicans voted for it. So, I'll say it again. Why are they so timid?

..maybe there is indeed some serious flaw with the new concept ??

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

That means that not enough Republicans voted for it. So, I'll say it again. Why are they so timid?

[PB the Deplorable]

That means that not enough Republicans voted for it. So, I'll say it again. Why are they so timid?

Well, there's only 52 of them in the Senate, so they pretty much need every vote.  Susan Collins of Maine is very liberal.  Her and two others said they wouldn't support a repeal without a replacement, so that's 49 votes for repeal at most.

McCain and Goober Graham are a couple other idiots.  Corker and a few others are not reliable, depending on what the issue is.  Mike Lee and Ted Cruz are Tea Party types who won't join on bad Rino bills, and so it goes.  McConnell isn't much of a leader when it comes to gathering his members and pushing legislation through.

It used to be the Ds had some conservative members, at least on certain things, and a few members who would put the good of the country before party politics, but not anymore.  They are going to spend the duration opposing everything. 

And so on

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

keep the "death panels" and dump everything else.....

[PaulAtreides]

That means that not enough Republicans voted for it. So, I'll say it again. Why are they so timid?

Well, a few of them felt the bill did not fuck over Americans quite enough and a few of them listened to their constituents who told them this bill was bullshit.   Pretty simple.

[PB the Deplorable]

Well, a few of them felt the bill did not fuck over Americans quite enough and a few of them listened to their constituents who told them this bill was bullshit.   Pretty simple.

What fucked the country over was ObamaCare.  The people who pay for health care insurance have seen their coverage go down and their costs go up, and are very aware of this.  ObamaCare coverage itself is horrible and costs a ton, which is why people still aren't buying it.

Since ObamaCare passed, the Ds have lost the House, the Senate, the presidency, a net 13 governorships, nearly 1000 state legislative seats and now control 67 of 98 state legislative bodies.

They won those seats at least in part by running against ObamaCare, even those at the state level. 

No matter what the Fake Polls say, the people of this country want it repealed.  They want the issues that existed in 2008 that ObamaCare claimed to fix actually be addressed, along with the new problems created by ObamaCare.

[Lt.Uhura]

No matter what the Fake Polls say, the people of this country want it repealed.  They want the issues that existed in 2008 that ObamaCare claimed to fix actually be addressed, along with the problems created since by ObamaCare.

You're as clueless as Mitch McConnell. Repeal and Replace was a dirty 2016 campaign trick, essentially a bait and switch. Trump voters wanted and were promised something better than the ACA. Now that voters have realized the various GOP iterations are worse than the ACA, they're speaking out. Evidently some GOP legislators are paying attention and listening to their constituents, thus the lack of support to advance the bill.

But instead of having the wisdom and sophistication to own his failure and vow to resolve the issue, the idiot in the WH instead slings blame, essentially telling Americans to "fuck off and die under Obamacare."

"I think we're probably in that position where we'll just let Obamacare fail. We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you that the Republicans are not going to own it. We'll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us and they're going to say, 'How do we fix it?'" --Donald Trump

[WOTR]

Thanks, WOTR. Good to see you too 

Yes, the groupspeak is strong in here.

How can you not love that cartoon?

[WOTR]

...They knew that once medical care began to be seen as a right there would be no going back no matter how much of a dog the ACA turned out to be.

I suppose having grown up in a system where health care is taken for granted and not something I have ever scrambled for, I shake my head at this statement.  I consider myself (mostly) libertarian.  With this glaring exception...

Yes, there are abuses of the system... and government has a REALLY tough time imposing limits (no, we should not pay 5 million to keep one person alive for a year.)  It is difficult to say "no" when the public feels "badly" for the person... Also, without the option of private health care, it would become a "death panel" to decide that one persons life is not worth that amount.

There are improvements that could be made.  With that said, I cannot imagine saying that even the homeless guy on the corner shouldn't feel that his health (such as it is) is a "right."  I'm glad that I don't worry that a heart attack would bankrupt me...

On the other hand, there is something to be said about a system where you can choose a level of coverage, your hospital and your surgeon.  There is also something to be said for the efficiencies and innovations that such a system encourages.  The lack of competition can (and would) stunt health care.  I would be interested to know the percentage of innovations from the US... I would bet it is disproportionately high due in large part to health being "for profit."

[Kidnostad3]

the idiot in the WH instead slings blame, essentially telling Americans to "fuck off and die under Obamacare."

That's exactly what I said when Obama signed the ACA. 

[Kidnostad3]

I suppose having grown up in a system where health care is taken for granted and not something I have ever scrambled for, I shake my head at this statement.  I consider myself (mostly) libertarian.  With this glaring exception...

Yes, there are abuses of the system... and government has a REALLY tough time imposing limits (no, we should not pay 5 million to keep one person alive for a year.)  It is difficult to say "no" when the public feels "badly" for the person... Also, without the option of private health care, it would become a "death panel" to decide that one persons life is not worth that amount.

There are improvements that could be made.  With that said, I cannot imagine saying that even the homeless guy on the corner shouldn't feel that his health (such as it is) is a "right."  I'm glad that I don't worry that a heart attack would bankrupt me...

On the other hand, there is something to be said about a system where you can choose a level of coverage, your hospital and your surgeon.  There is also something to be said for the efficiencies and innovations that such a system encourages.  The lack of competition can (and would) stunt health care.  I would be interested to know the percentage of innovations from the US... I would bet it is disproportionately high due in large part to health being "for profit."

Why is it your responsibility to pay for another's healthcare?  Who is John Galt?

[albrecht]

I suppose having grown up in a system where health care is taken for granted and not something I have ever scrambled for, I shake my head at this statement.  I consider myself (mostly) libertarian.  With this glaring exception...

Yes, there are abuses of the system... and government has a REALLY tough time imposing limits (no, we should not pay 5 million to keep one person alive for a year.)  It is difficult to say "no" when the public feels "badly" for the person... Also, without the option of private health care, it would become a "death panel" to decide that one persons life is not worth that amount.

There are improvements that could be made.  With that said, I cannot imagine saying that even the homeless guy on the corner shouldn't feel that his health (such as it is) is a "right."  I'm glad that I don't worry that a heart attack would bankrupt me...

On the other hand, there is something to be said about a system where you can choose a level of coverage, your hospital and your surgeon.  There is also something to be said for the efficiencies and innovations that such a system encourages.  The lack of competition can (and would) stunt health care.  I would be interested to know the percentage of innovations from the US... I would bet it is disproportionately high due in large part to health being "for profit."

I think a lot of the world benefits from certain American inventions are an being subsidized by the US tax-payer both in the costs but also government/corporate money pumped into universities and med schools who will do the 'work' for the companies (and many of the drug companies are actually European) at a cheaper rate. I think doctors make more $ here than in most European countries, not sure about Canada, but they also have a lot of student debt because, on average, the teaching is not free or heavily subsidized. I think our trauma level facilities and expertise is likely better than most Europe hospitals- but that is a sad "win" coming at the cost of all the violence, especially in major cities, and war experience. And a single-payer 'socialized' system would have great bargaining power when negotiating prices with, say, drug companies. Doctors also have more 'freedom' in what they study and practice and where they are located than many 'socialized' systems. But, unlike most socialized systems frequently bear high operating costs, especially if solo, using privileges, and not associated with a hospital or group. I forget when my uncle told me but his malpractice insurance was something crazy high. I don't think most other countries have the idea of lawsuits with crazy high damages and so many attorneys seeking to sue everybody and knowing that most doctors or hospitals will 'settle' rather than the costs and gamble of a trial.

[albrecht]

Why is it your responsibility to pay for another's healthcare?  Who is John Galt?

Excepting family I don't think it my, or society's, responsibility to pay for another's healthcare but it could be argued from a 'selfish' position that providing some kinds of healthcare does benefit me that the poor or indigent get healthcare because less chances of diseases spreading, or (due to Court opinions and laws) using the ER and 'primary care doctor,' the aesthetics of seeing homeless guys keeling over in the street is not desired, etc.

One feature of my system would be that anyone receiving 'free' healthcare would be barred from suing for malpractice and if a foreigner their home country would have to pay for it (or take amount away for foreign aid given to that country.) If an illegal they could be treated, after all we are humane, but shipped back and the the costs of treatment and shipping be borne by that country (or taken away from aid to that country.)

[WOTR]

Why is it your responsibility to pay for another's healthcare?  Who is John Galt?

I have to run... So it will be an incomplete thought...

A one payer system is similar to insurance.  In both systems you are paying for somebody else (or they are paying for you if you are very sick.)  With private insurance, if you do not use it, you are still paying for another's health care.  Granted, they are at least contributing... Unlike the homeless guy on the corner I referenced in my first post.

Just the same- the number of people who outright do not contribute to the tax base (and, by extension, one payer health provider) is minimal.  Even in the US you have a number of those people covered by the government (hello, George Senda.)

I suppose to me I know that a portion of my taxes go to health care... In a private insurance situation it would just be more direct.  In either case, I am damn healthy (at least for now) and I would be paying for the health of another... And in the US I would also be contributing to both the bottom line of a massive corporation, paying to lobby congress and on a more positive note, providing some profits to drive research...

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJCepVFPzw

[PB the Deplorable]

You're as clueless as Mitch McConnell. Repeal and Replace was a dirty 2016 campaign trick, essentially a bait and switch. Trump voters wanted and were promised something better than the ACA. Now that voters have realized the various GOP iterations are worse than the ACA, they're speaking out. Evidently some GOP legislators are paying attention and listening to their constituents, thus the lack of support to advance the bill.

But instead of having the wisdom and sophistication to own his failure and vow to resolve the issue, the idiot in the WH instead slings blame, essentially telling Americans to "fuck off and die under Obamacare."

"I think we're probably in that position where we'll just let Obamacare fail. We're not going to own it. I'm not going to own it. I can tell you that the Republicans are not going to own it. We'll let Obamacare fail and then the Democrats are going to come to us and they're going to say, 'How do we fix it?'" --Donald Trump

I agree with nearly all of this, so if I'm clueless the person that posted must also be...   

[PB the Deplorable]

Basically we both agree the establishment Rs never meant any of it, we agree it was a bait and switch, we agree the people want something better than ObamaCare, that they were promised something better, that Trump is an idiot who lacks leadership.

The part I'm not so sure about is any of them listening to their constituents.  They are all voting just as one would expect, regardless of what their constituents said or didn't say.


I do agree with Trump, if the Rs can't get their shit together, then rather than pass a bad bill they and he will be blamed for forever, let ObamaCare fail and blame the Ds for it - who over the past six months have behaved atrociously in general, and who've done nothing but obstruct in particular.  He should also do what Harry Truman did, and blame a ''do-nothing'' Congress. 

While that is all going on, he should put together his own plan, get the American people on board, and start insisting the Congress - both parties - pass it.  Time to quit screwing around and put the heat on them.

[PB the Deplorable]

...  With that said, I cannot imagine saying that even the homeless guy on the corner shouldn't feel that his health (such as it is) is a "right."  I'm glad that I don't worry that a heart attack would bankrupt me...

Healthcare is not a 'right' in the traditional sense we've used the term in the US.  The Bill of Rights list things that don't impinge on others or demand something from them:  freedom to speak freely, religious exercise, self defense - much of it sets out rights regarding government intrusion:  speedy trial, reasonable bail, jury trial, to not testify against oneself, papers and effects to be secured against search and seizure.  There is nothing about medical care, food, housing, etc - things others would have to provide.

To say medical care, food, housing, etc are 'rights' is to say socialism is a right (''... to each according to their need'').  If that's true, then its game over for the system that has delivered the greatest advances, wealth, and lifestyles - for everyone - the world has ever seen (yes, even our beggars are better off in our system than elsewhere in the world currently, or in history). 

[21st Century Man]

We need 3 parties in this country.  We have two that are controlled by BIG GOVT.  interests. One wants more and more federal control and the other will maintain the status quo.  We need a third party that embraces the federalist platform and sends more of the power back to the states and we the people.

[CozyRozie]

We need 3 parties in this country.  We have two that are controlled by BIG GOVT.  interests. One wants more and more federal control and the other will maintain the status quo.  We need a third party that embraces the federalist platform and sends more of the power back to the states and we the people.

LGBTQ and BLM should join and form a third party called, "We  the people" Party 

[albrecht]

We need 3 parties in this country.  We have two that are controlled by BIG GOVT.  interests. One wants more and more federal control and the other will maintain the status quo.  We need a third party that embraces the federalist platform and sends more of the power back to the states and we the people.

Collectivism and exclusion, of many types, is a part of the human condition I guess but our founders (and even more recently) spoke, wrote, and recognized the potential problems of democracy, political parties, secret societies, foreign religions, foreign entanglements, monopolistic situations, and an all powerful Federal government and/or Executive Branch (and Judicial Branch.) We need to devolve power to the States, Counties, and People and look less to DC or Federal funds for solutions. This would also force those entities to seek economically rational spending and take much of the $$ away from DC. Take away the $ and regulatory authority it will become less corrupt and do what it was supposed to do: defend our borders, administrate some small Federal properties, adjudicate disputes between States, foreign diplomacy and tax/excise laws, and oversee- after a lot of process- egregious civil rights or unconstitutional violations by States, etc.

[Up All Night]

All good ideas.  What about a provision in California that provides for the change of a transexual back to his orinal sex if he/she decides he doesn't like his/her new gear?  Maybe they could limit it to 3 gender reassignments and reversals to a customer unless they can demonstrate extreme circumstances.  Sounds like something Jerry Brown would go for.

CA, the land of unlimited (plastic) surgeries...

What about someone who wants both... you know... so they could go and fuck themselves. Would be great for those don't get out much.

[Kidnostad3]

CA, the land of unlimited (plastic) surgeries...

What about someone who wants both... you know... so they could go and fuck themselves. Would be great for those don't get out much.

Jerry Brown would go for that too.

[21st Century Man]

Collectivism and exclusion, of many types, is a part of the human condition I guess but our founders (and even more recently) spoke, wrote, and recognized the potential problems of democracy, political parties, secret societies, foreign religions, foreign entanglements, monopolistic situations, and an all powerful Federal government and/or Executive Branch (and Judicial Branch.) We need to devolve power to the States, Counties, and People and look less to DC or Federal funds for solutions. This would also force those entities to seek economically rational spending and take much of the $$ away from DC. Take away the $ and regulatory authority it will become less corrupt and do what it was supposed to do: defend our borders, administrate some small Federal properties, adjudicate disputes between States, foreign diplomacy and tax/excise laws, and oversee- after a lot of process- egregious civil rights or unconstitutional violations by States, etc.

Amen, albrecht.  You are speaking my language.  It is very frustrating to see how ineffective Republican "leaders" have been since the days of Reagan and Gingrich.  I hesitate to call them leaders because they aren't. 

[Kidnostad3]

Amen, albrecht.  You are speaking my language.  It is very frustrating to see how ineffective Republican "leaders" have been since the days of Reagan and Gingrich.  I hesitate to call them leaders because they aren't.

+1. 

[albrecht]

Amen, albrecht.  You are speaking my language.  It is very frustrating to see how ineffective Republican "leaders" have been since the days of Reagan and Gingrich.  I hesitate to call them leaders because they aren't.

One of the problems is philosophical. Not for all (lots of normal politicians out there, just trying to make a buck, get reelected, and benefit from insider trading and after-government careers- basically) but there is a fundamental difference between the modern Democrats and Republicans (but also some R's abide by this.) And that is "positive law" and the idea, counter to almost ALL Founding Fathers and great politicians of the past. They think the government gives us rights. Fundamental difference from what our Founders and documents, writings, correspondence, say.

Also, if you aren't making laws and regulations you aren't "serving," that DC should "run" the country, that we should change our lifestyle/rights due to Muslims and terrorist "threats," but also bend-over backwards to keep open-borders and not 'offend' people who don't hold any common values with us and allow them in. Our Founders recognized (Obama infamously on video had the opposite view) that the idea of "rights" were not given by government but natural. There even was much dispute about the "Bill of Rights" because it was feared this might, in future generations, make people think it was DC that granted them- as a King to a subject. No, the government is subject to citizens. at least as intended here and no government can take away fundamental rights in principle (though, arguably, you can personally agree to give them away- but for yourself only.)

[21st Century Man]

+1.

Thanks, kid.   

Do you think conservatives are finally going to get fed up and start a new party? 

All of our Republican Congressmen and Senators said we needed to repeal Obamacare when they were running for office.  They could repeal it and have a sunset clause that ends Obamacare on Jan 1, 2020.  That would give them 2 and a half years to work on a replacement. No extensions allowed.

If that doesn't happen then we will have to kick them out. By their actions, they shall be judged.  Come 2018, the lion's share of Senators and Congressmen need to be voted out of office for lying to the people.

[21st Century Man]

One of the problems is philosophical. Not for all (lots of normal politicians out there, just trying to make a buck, get reelected, and benefit from insider tradering and after-government careers- basically) but there is a fundamental difference between the modern Democrats and Republicans (but also some R's abide by this.) And that is "positive law" and the idea, counter to almost ALL Founding Fathers and great politicians of the past. They think the government gives us rights. Fundamental difference from what our Founders and documents, writings, correspondence, say.

Also, if you aren't making laws and regulations you aren't "serving," that DC should "run" the country, that we should change our lifestyle/rights due to Muslims and terrorist "threats," but also bend-over backwards to keep open-borders and not 'offend' people who don't hold any common values with us and allow them in. Our Founders recognized (Obama infamously on video had the opposite view) that the idea of "rights" were not given by government but natural. There even was much dispute about the "Bill of Rights" because it was feared this might, in future generations, make people think it was DC that granted them- as a King to a subject. No, the government is subject to citizens. at least as intended here and no government can take away fundamental rights in principle (though, arguably, you can personally agree to give them away- but for yourself only.)

+2

Unfortunately, our young have not been taught this by their brainwas.....er "educators".