Trumpcare...

[Chase]

"This November, we have been given a mandate to repeal and replace Obamacare..." - House Speaker Paul Ryan. Probably.

 

A mandate huh? Snide comments about how Hillary Clinton won the popular vote aside, it appears the same Republicans that were "mandated" to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act are suddenly unable to muster the courage to follow through on that premise. The most staunch opponents of the ACA, conservative Republicans, stand as the biggest obstacle between President Trump, Speaker Ryan, and the Republican Party, and their biggest goal - extinguishing President Obama's crowning legislative achievement.

 

Why? Because they don't really like the "replacement" plan - known as the "American Healthcare Act". It's been panned across the country as "Trumpcare", or "Ryancare", and to the most conservative GOP members of the House of Representatives, it's earned a damning moniker that is pretty explanatory as to why the right-wing of the House is suddenly not on board with what has been "the plan" since 2012.

 

"Obamacare-Lite."

 

---

 

In order to understand why the AHCA is getting shot down by members of the majority party that are in favor of repeal and replace - we have to understand what generally is supposed to happen with the bill when it's signed.

 

Essentially, the biggest changes will be huge rollbacks in regulatory legislation when it comes to healthcare insurance companies, allowing them corporate legroom. The bill also gets rid of the "individual mandate" posed by the Affordable Care Act, which is a mandate on able Americans who can afford health insurance but -CHOOSE- not to have it. It forces those Americans to pay fees for every month they and any qualified persons in their home are without insurance, or a bulk fee during tax time. This is the groundwork fee that puts America toward the direction of "universal" healthcare, as the money has to come from somewhere.

 

However, coverage options don't fall all that much. The more popular aspects of the Affordable Care Act - such as younger Americans being allowed to stay on their parents' plans until age 26, and having access to insurance with "pre-existing conditions" (medical situations that are already existent before purchasing health insurance.) are all present in the American Healthcare Act. In order for Obamacare to be successfully repealed - "something" had to replace it.

 

---

 

Unfortunately, there are many in the House who believe insurance companies should be able to deny people with pre-existing conditions insurance in the effort to bulldoze any notion of American universal care. These people generally come from a caucus in the House known as the "Freedom Caucus" - the conservative band of House Reps responsible for ousting House Speaker John Beohner by taking a hard, unified line against moderates and liberals. They are a tight-knit group of righties who are quite a powerful force when they are not on your side. Especially when Republicans are the majority in the House chamber.

 

The bill has then been tabled by President Trump and Speaker Ryan with these people and the result has brought the AHCA more and more to the right in an effort to secure "Yea" votes for the bill's passage, among threats from the White House of Representatives losing their seats to Democrats for failure to deliver on the Republican ultimate promise to repeal and replace the ACA. For one, this has only brought moderate success on the "Western" front, getting very few - if any - Freedom Caucusers to commit support for the bill. Then there's the problem of moderate Republicans in the other wing of the party abandoning ship in response to these backroom deal-makings. Moderates - especially Republican Representatives hailing from "blue" areas up for re-election - are aware of Obamacare's positives for their constituents and in effect need the ACA's good parts to remain in the bill in order to support the AHCA.

 

As of right now, President Trump and Speaker Ryan need less than 22 Republicans in the House (assuming VERY confidently that House Democrats are unwilling to crap on President Obama's landmark legislature and will assuredly vote "Nay") to break with the party and deny "Trumpcare". With people from the right -and- the center pledging to vote "No" - it would seem the Trump doesn't know what the "art of the deal" is anymore, as prospects are looking dim for tomorrow's vote - a vote that was supposed to have happened tonight but was delayed due to the obvious uncertainty of the plan's fate.

 

---

 

President Trump levied perhaps the last-ditch hail mary. It came in the form of a threat, and one that I found particularly interesting.

 

You can either vote yes tomorrow, or Obamacare might be here TO STAY.

 

All of a sudden, the dead-in-the-water legacy of the former President may survive thanks to the indifference of his successor, who is growing increasingly tired of playing politician. As a Republican that personally -REALLY- hates the individual mandate for my uninsured friends who have no choice in the matter, and the requirement that businesses with 50 or more employees -MUST- provide care -or- be fined, I very much am happy with the American Healthcare Act because it's -a- replacement plan that leaves in what's worked with the ACA while removing the burdens of the bill off of many Americans. It's the best of both worlds in the realism sense.

 

I didn't vote for President Trump, but I did mostly circle "R" on my ballot, so this political derby, I hope my reps understand that I want a "Yea".

 

---

 

L2beAMajorityRepublicans. Get gud.

[Lord Bagel]

Canadian healthcare is p good

[Eviora]

If Trump wants some better approval ratings. all he needs to do is sign an "executive order" replacing Obamacare with the Affordable Care Act. (Yes, I know...) That way, he can avoid congress entirely! Anyway, we all know that the most hated aspect of Obamacare is the "Obama" part. Get rid of that and I think Republicans nationwide will celebrate their victory!

[Chase]

It certainly could be about approval ratings, but this is one of those things that had me pretty skeptical about Trump when it came to his so-called "conservatism" during the campaign.

 

Trump was the first Republican candidate to advocate a "replacement" plan with the phrase "We aren't going to leave people dying in the streets. We can't do that." in the debates. Since his victory, his being President(elect) coupled with Democratic insistence that the American people would be extremely upset with the Affordable Care Act getting repealed strengthened the need for Republicans to begin rolling out alternatives they had drafted rather than just bring the axe on Obamacare.

 

So far, assuming polling is more accurate than it was during the campaign, most Americans seem pretty upset one way or the other, as the American Health Care Act has a pretty low approval rating of 17%. However, the Trump Administration needs this victory in order for the president to begin cooking with gas on the rest of his agenda - and Republicans in Congress almost assuredly need this one done or Republican voter turnout will be dismal in the upcoming midterm elections.

 

Most Republicans just wanted the ACA gone before Trump entered the scene. Now the goal has morphed into "let's not try to mess up EVERYTHING" for some, while there are still a fair amount of people that are bent on "really" getting rid of Obamacare by ensuring it's succeeding legislation looks NOTHING like it at all.  And of course, every one else is most likely a liberal that would rather the ACA stay as it is or be "fixed" rather than replaced.

 

I'm not sure how Trump really feels on the ACA, but based on his "It's now or never" approach as of last night, I don't think he even remotely cares as much as his fellow party members do. He knows he can easily pin the blame on specific others and shrug it off through his Twitter feed. Add that to an Even-Steven 8 person Supreme Court and Trump's incredibly bad luck with judges - and just letting the GOP perform disastrously today seems pretty sensible here. To quote his book, "Art of the Deal", this is what appears to be a President that is ready to walk away from the table.

 

---

 

As for your quip about Obama, I really wish that wasn't as accurate as it actually is. This bill would be a slam dunk if that were the case.

[Eviora]

I'm having a hard time taking most of the things this administration has done so far seriously. Basically, the election amplified my already significant misanthropy by about a billion percent. I don't think this health care bill will particularly hurt my family, and Trump's tax plan will put more money in our pockets anyway, so I can barely bring myself to care anymore. I'll just hide in my tower and watch the fireworks. A mean little part of me is kind of hoping the healthcare bill does pass just so I can see the reactions of Trump supporters when they realize what they voted for. So, y'know, whatever.

[Chase]

One of the Democrats in the House had to be absent for today's vote to make it to a relative's funeral.

 

This gives the Republicans an extra "Nay" vote they can allow. The maximum amount of "no" votes the AHCA can take and still pass is now 22.

 

---

 

My family also would benefit from the AHCA. So I hope it passes on that account. Although it would be humorous to see Trump get egged in the face.

[Eviora]

I got a reputation point for being cynical and sadistic? Hahaha.

 

I think a sizable percentage of Trump's voter base won't benefit so much from the removal of Obamacare, though. In fact, aren't a bunch of people supposed to be left uninsured under the new plan? I guess the Trump supporters among them voted to shoot themselves in the foot. I can't say I feel particularly bad for them.

[Chase]

I don't either, considering Trump blatantly said everyone was going to be insured -and- Obamacare was out.

 

The uninsured persons numbers seem to be listed as a decade long presupposition rather than immediate effect, but yes, by 2026, there supposedly will be 24 million more people without insurance.

 

I don't think universal healthcare - in America given the circumstances - is realistic regardless of who is trying to sell it, and I think Trump supporters may have had other driving motivations for voting for Trump than healthcare. It's more of a big deal for Republican lawmakers.

 

---

 

...and, for the time being, it may be pretty inconsequential. Speaker Ryan visited President Trump to discuss the air in the House chamber - and reports out there are signaling that the bill isn't looking so hot right now.

 

I guess people aren't really afraid of the guy - for better or for worse.

[Neo]

Universal Healthcare doesn't seem feasible as it is now because the healthcare industry in this country is based on profit.  

 

That being said, the AHCA is a fuckin' mess, and sometimes I wonder how the GOP can sit around and act like everything is hunky-dory when it's becoming more and more clear by the day that they're in for a very long year this year, and assuming they maintain a similar majority after 2018 a long 4 years with the joker in the WH. They've literally spent so much time on obstructionist actions that they've no fucking idea how to make actual substantive policy. I wonder if Trump turns on them should they fail to pass this bill, and revives his calling to "Drain the Swamp"

[Chase]

I -EXPECT- Trump to at the very least say incredibly mean things about House GOP members who vote No on Twitter. He's already complained that the process of whipping up votes was frustrating because it's too - get this - "political".

 

The "Drain the Swamp" line certainly shouldn't be forgotten.

 

---

 

Obama virtually had a full year to flesh out the ACA. The Republicans seem like they're trying to speed run this because it's an immediate promise of theirs. Ryan should have waited and fleshed it out.

 

They certainly are only accustomed to playing spoiler and not leading, Neo.

[Chase]

Official: Speaker Ryan pulled the bill - saving it from the inevitable trash heap and taking that "L".

Edited March 24, 2017 by Arkhi
This is NOT a needless double post, please don't warn.

[Eviora]

I mean, I want to say that's technically a good thing, in my eyes, but surely they'll be back later with another bill that's even worse for lower and middle class people. And so the circus will repeat itself.

 

Still, I was hoping for some entertainment. Maybe Trump will have a nice Twitter meltdown later. I'm sure Obama - recurring villain in this merry narrative - was behind this somehow. Doubtlessly, the Toddler-in-Chief will have many rebukes for him. That should occupy me for 20 seconds or so.

 

Edit: I just saw someone post this and thought it belonged here.

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Eviora

[Peanuts]

I get that the republicans wanted to 'repeal and replace' the ACA, but why didn't they initially design a bill that would appeal to more members of the party? Democrats probably wouldn't vote for the replacement plan anyway, so they just had to model it for their party members. It seems like a simple matter to pass a bill if the republicans have majorities in the house and senate.

 

[Maelstrom]

6 hours ago, Mint3kool said:

I get that the republicans wanted to 'repeal and replace' the ACA, but why didn't they initially design a bill that would appeal to more members of the party? Democrats probably wouldn't vote for the replacement plan anyway, so they just had to model it for their party members. It seems like a simple matter to pass a bill if the republicans have majorities in the house and senate.

 

 

Because the republican politicians think one way, and their constituents have started feeling the other way.

 

Trump- "Who knew that healthcare would be so complicated?"

Everybody except Trump knew that, actually.

 

 

Paul Ryan- "The whole thing with Obamacare is that the people in the blue pay for the people in the red. The people who are healthy pay for the people who are sick."

This idea seems to be one of his problems with Obamacare, but as someone so astutely pointed out, 'you just described how insurance works.'

 

When you give people the option to back out completely from paying anything, then you greatly increase the cost burden of people who want or need the coverage. Which basically means they all have to pay more for it because there isn't that same store of funds. It's very simple math, so let's do a simplified example. If 100 people pay $2 each and it costs $20 to care for a sick person, those 100 people can pay for 10 of them to be sick and get proper care. If suddenly there are say, 50 people in the pool, they can only pay for half as many sick people. But you know what, it's still gonna be the same 10 getting sick, cuz it's the healthy ones who left because they didn't want to pay. The sick people are still there because they need the care and have pre-existing conditions and there will be a some healthy people still around because they're worried about accidents and diseases that can show up in the unforeseeable future (and that's the point of insurance, right? that just in case?). But everybody left is gonna have to pay 4$, or double what they did originally. And not everyone can afford that, so they drop out, and prices have to be increased further as the pool of money shrinks. The sick are left on the wayside because they might not be able to afford it with the limitations their individual conditions place on them. All too soon the money for adequate care is gone and the system goes defunct.

 

That's why the Individual Mandate is absolutely essential and not some liberal lawmaker's whimsy or afterthought. With the penalty, you pay less than you would if you bought into the coverage, but your still contributing something. We will all have to pay some to make it work or it won't work at all. You'll just have to think of it as a tax, because that's basically what it all amounts to. This is the perfect time to point to Canada, cuz that's how they have it. That does go hand in hand with paying a bit more, but it seems reasonable to me. And I wouldn't be surprised if they also have laws that directly regulate medicine costs. Erick is right in saying that a major part of the problem is that our healthcare is based on profit. This part of the economy is far too 'free' and cutthroat. You have big pharmacy and hospitals and specialists who charge a shitton because they can and get away with it (I have my own ideas of how I might handle it if I had the opportunity...). They go for max profit over a tempered profit and wider benefit. Personally, I want government regulations and restrictions in these kinds of matters but I know Republicans and other conservatives hate government interference. They also hate the taxes that (for example) maintains the highways and freeways that allow their businesses to stretch and supply to everyone across the nation and beyond instead of being constrained to their little niche in the dirt. They hate the 1960's laws on emission and pollution, that changed things that you can actually see the mountains from a backyard in LA, instead of the gray fog that blankets China and is literally causing thousands of people to be stricken with disease and sickness now. People who now can't work and require the time and attention of a caregiver. Clearly, not good for business owners and the economy... but I digress.

 

When you have big businesses creating monopolies and taking unfair advantage of people, who else but the government can step in and make necessary changes?
 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

I would compare our country to a biological organism, and republicans are like the cells in a tissue that likes to whine and complain when blood is shunted to other tissues and organs that get damaged or sick. They're germophobes, afraid of all bacteria as foreign invaders while not realizing that for every human cell in our body, there are 10 that are not. It can be complicated and there are controls (as it is with immigration), but there is still cooperation and symbiosis. Even the dreaded E. coli is naturally found in our body and helps us with digestion. It's true, in the wrong areas or concentrations in our body, these other organisms within can cause damage, disease, and/or death, but to make no distinction at all and attempt to forcefully remove them all at once is a grave folly. A grave folly that all too many Trump supporters embrace. And no matter how important the heart is, if it hogs up all the blood and refuses to let enough trickle down to the rest of the body, the heart will suffer for it. (How many metaphors and references have I scrunched in to this, I wonder?)

 

It's not that republicans or conservatives don't care about other people. It's just that the circle of people they care for is much, much smaller. As someone who has been to the middle east and spoken to people and got to get a feel for attitudes and opinions... republicans and conservatives are so very similar to these all the different tribal, Muslim groups that some of them seem to hate that it's ridiculous. I'd go into it more but I think that's enough rambling for now.

 

Quite frankly, I'm glad this AHCA didn't pass (that's another big L for Trump, no matter how he tries to dodge it with semantics, just a transparent attempt to save face). It wouldn't have worked because like most republican calls for tax cuts, it isn't financially sound or stable in any meaningful way. And as with taxes, the numbers for costs and penalties should be reassessed and changed to meet the needs and requirements that different times and situations require.

 

 

 

 

Edit: You do realize that the creation and adoption of the insurance system in our free market is the major reason WHY healthcare is so costly in the first place? It's because our beloved free marketeers recognized and took advantage of an insurance company's ability to pay much larger quantities of money in exchange for health service than any single average person (and are contractually obligated to do so in the terms of the contract). Between medical service providers amping up the cost for care and insurance providers using this as both proof and excuse that everybody needs health insurance, the average person gets boned. Now they have to pay higher and higher insurance rates for less coverage (another way the insurers combat payouts to medical providers). It's a terrible cycle and system, and I think that's why Erick and I agree that the problem with health care is that it is run for profit.

 

Edit 2: And I just want to make it clear why certain people don't like that the AHCA still held onto the facet of not allowing companies to reject people for having pre-existing conditions. And they're mainly insurers. What it means, as it is hinted above, is that insurance companies are compelled to pay out. Before, an insurer could look at someone who has a condition that needs chronic care (med prescriptions, etc) and refuse to offer them insurance because they knew they would have to pay for that stuff and it would eat into their profits from that person, or even go beyond that if the condition was severe and/or the medicine is that expensive. The way insurance works is that they want to insure the young, the health, the strong, the ones who take care of themselves and don't take risks. That way, they only pay for the rare freak accident or disease, and the cost is absorbed by the other people they insure. If they can't say no, this is a problem. But again, this is a problem because healthcare is for profit and not a social service paid for by taxes. 

[Chase]

Thank you, @Arkhi

 

@Maelstrom

 

My friend - the individual mandate is necessary if the goal of the nation regarding healthcare is to provide every American with insurance. If today's vote getting killed by conservatives who wanted MORE distance from the ACA in the bill is anything to illustrate - that is NOT the goal of the nation and clearly not the goal of the majority party.  The individual mandate is a fee that is applied to people who choose to not be insured, essentially nullifying the entire point of said choice (saving money.) It's as frustrating as the illusion of choice in video games, Mael, more so when it's your money involved. If the goal of the IM is to encourage people to sign up for health insurance, the money paid should work to insure THAT PARTICULAR PERSON... or their family... before it goes to others. All it's doing now is forcing people to throw away money for a program the Trump administration isn't going to do a thing to support and Congress half-heartedly tried to kill today. For seven years, all it's done is lower people's tax return amounts, and those who are paying for insurance are rewarded with increasing premiums that clearly indicate the ACA is broken and would need a monkey wrench and willing hands to fix.

 

There's a difference between caring and being extorted. Charitable giving and volunteer work is caring. Paying the individual mandate is more akin to being extorted, as there is no choice in the matter other than paying even more money for your own insurance. Benevolence isn't so if the cause is outside of your own will. So here, it's not that Republicans and conservatives don't care for people, or only care for a select few - it's that they only truly "care" when they are able to make the choice themselves. That's how kindness works. A good deed that is coerced is merely compliance.

 

@Mint3kool

 

There are several reasons this bill died.

 

• Republican lawmakers saw this bill as a chance to deliver their constituents a party-wide campaign promise - to tear down the ACA within the first 100 days of Red D.C.
• The bill simply looked too much like the ACA for conservatives to be convinced the AHCA was actually anything different.
• The subsequent negotiations caused bill changes that caused moderate Republicans to fear for their liberal constituencies, who appreciate parts of the ACA.
• There are multiple types of Republicans - Establishmentarians who wanted badly for this bill to pass. Right-leaning House members who wanted to kill the ACA with fire as a whole, and moderates who genuinely wanted the first iteration of the bill, that was called "Obamacare-Lite." There were three different ends that were hoped for (the banhammer, the toy hammer, and "would someone just give me a hammer, ANY stinkin' hammer"), and there was only one bill. The saying "you can't please everyone" applies.

 

@Eviora

 

Thank you for indulging my thread. I can't say I know how much you actually care about politics, but you are at least interested in giving me a piece of your mind. I appreciate it. You've also taken some great shots at the president and I've even laughed. Given my position of wanting the AHCA to be passed -and- successful, that's pretty impressive.

 

I think the most hilarious bemoaning so far is Pro-AHCA House members, who would have voted yes simply to easily fulfill a campaign promise. You can laugh at me too, if you like..... stupid conservatives

 

EDIT: The unpopular opinion is that the problem with healthcare in America is that healthcare is attributed to reality. People need real resources, such as multiple years of education or the materials to create medicine. Those real resources have costs attributed to them. Innovation is something people would like to think is completely done out of benevolence or to advance mankind to a better era, but here too money is critical. If I were to be the one who cured all cancer in the world, I would gladly give the cure away for free because it's the right thing to do and there's a history for it in my family, but there are surely others that may not have been inspired or motivated to cure cancer if it weren't for the potential payoff. Healthcare is based in profit because there is real opportunity for innovation in the field, and the almighty dollar has the potential to feed, to cure, and to sustain human life. It's also based on profit because in reality, it's an industry, as there is both supply and demand.

 

To add to this point, the smartest thing I've ever heard from Bernie Sanders is on healthcare, and it's not universal healthcare. It's about allowing United States citizens to shop internationally for medicine, where their public healthcare systems have lower costs. Having to compete globally would then force American medicine to drive down costs, making "affordable care" without causing outrageous binding marriages to premiums that skyrocket and without having to overhaul our own system that is so used to profit-based supply and demand.

[Eviora]

I follow political drivel more than I care to admit, but like I said, given our current president, it's hard for me to take this all that seriously. So if I'm being thanked for being snarky rather than my usual no-nonsense self, then I guess you're welcome, although I'm not entirely certain what I'm bringing to the table beyond superficial humor.

 

As far as laughing at people goes... today, Trump is the star. I'm sure I'll fixate on something else later - although I can't promise it won't be malicious.

[Chase]

You're being thanked for being present, being open for actual discussion, for putting up with me so many times, and yes, for your snark.

 

I get a kick out of watching politics. It's probably something I'd equate as "Teen Mom" levels of "guilty pleasures" in my experience. By commenting, you're allowing me to talk about a passion I have that literally nobody else in my immediate sphere of influence doesn't, so that's endearing to me.

 

Also endearing is your snark, because it possibly means you're somewhat enjoying being here - even if the purpose is to merely drop timely dank memes for the upvotes. I would feel pretty guilty if people felt like "Oh, Hunter started one of them politics threads again - I'd better bother myself to give my opinion because he probably expects SOMEONE to share one." ...and then they felt like they had to shoot response after response because I wouldn't shut up and let the thread die.

 

You usually speak up when you feel something, especially before Election Day, and that gives your responses both substance -and- a window into your point of view. I find that fascinating when anyone brings their personal opinion and then is willing to bat for it because it matters to them. Contrary to how you might feel now, it actually makes me extremely interested in your words.

 

Long story short, I have fun when others at don't leave me sitting here with my pocket protector all by myself at the lunch table.

[Maelstrom]

55 minutes ago, Wheat said:

My friend - the individual mandate is necessary if the goal of the nation regarding healthcare is to provide every American with insurance. If today's vote getting killed by conservatives who wanted MORE distance from the ACA in the bill is anything to illustrate - that is NOT the goal of the nation and clearly not the goal of the majority party.  The individual mandate is a fee that is applied to people who choose to not be insured, essentially nullifying the entire point of said choice (saving money.) It's as frustrating as the illusion of choice in video games, Mael, more so when it's your money involved. If the goal of the IM is to encourage people to sign up for health insurance, the money paid should work to insure THAT PARTICULAR PERSON... or their family... before it goes to others. All it's doing now is forcing people to throw away money for a program the Trump administration isn't going to do a thing to support and Congress half-heartedly tried to kill today. For seven years, all it's done is lower people's tax return amounts, and those who are paying for insurance are rewarded with increasing premiums that clearly indicate the ACA is broken and would need a monkey wrench and willing hands to fix.

 

The fee is less than the insurance and depending on how much you make, you may not even have to pay the fee. You just won't be covered if something actually happens to you. You still save money. But now more people are alive and healthier because now you have to pay a bit more than you used to. Just like you can feel safer and night now knowing you paid more taxes to expand and support the military. Or cut spending public education, television, and parks so you wouldn't have to pay more (directly).

 

Really, IM isn't exactly there to make people want to pay for coverage. It's there so that we have the real source of funding for the coverage. But isn't it your rich republican friend free market ideas at play here? If you're already paying and it's just a bit more, might as well get the extra large combo full coverage, right? It just makes sense, right? Unless you're really scrounging around for money, you gonna turn down that 12 oz soda upgrade for 20 more cents?

 

 

So many people voted for Trump because they hated Hillary. Which is basically cutting off your own nose to spite your face, as the saying goes. And the people are realizing that is what they did over these past couple of months. If all these demonstrations and disillusioned anger at republican meetings mean anything, it's that the majority of the people DON'T agree that what Trumpcare is trying to do and that at least Obamacare is better than that. There was a lot of misinformation and lies spread about Obamacare to republicans that there were some that thought the ACA and Obamacare were two different things and credited ACA as a Republican deal that replaced Obamacare. You don't have to like Obamacare the way I do, but you really can't defend it with a populist reason that isn't holding up.

 

You're right though, the fact that republican politicians don't like it because 'it is too close to Obamacare' really goes to show how much they care about money more than the overall welfare of other people. I mean, it wasn't because it didn't care for enough sick people or anything. They just hate that they're spending more money on people not themselves.

 

Look, there's that tiny circle of care again.

 

~You will know we are christians by our love~ song I heard in church back in the days when I was still forced to go. What love, hypocrites? rich folk and eyes of needles and whatnot...

 

 

Higher premiums, eh? Isn't it weird that we're talking about insurance like its a possible solution and not the problem? But hey, Obamacare is an actual step in the right direction. Jesus required(s) that his followers make sacrifices in order to accomplish his will and laws. If there's less money in your tax return in order to care for the sick and needy, then so be it, right? I mean, if you were really counting on it, you should have budgeted yourself better 'and not bought that iphone' (- some republican). Surely, one can learn to live within their means. I mean, when companies fire employees to deal with tax hikes instead of instead letting the company's overall profit take a small hit, those ex-employees had better do so. Well, unless they can force the politicians to give them more tax cuts they don't need and further drain the tax pool that enables the whole more effectively.

 

It's fucking stone soup, Chase. Republicans are the destitute villagers trying to hold onto what 'little' bit they have to themselves instead of uniting to create and do something better together than they could ever do for themselves, by themselves. It's the goddamn reason why we are a civilization and not mating pairs constantly fighting to control a bit of resources and territory.

 

 

....

 

 

I'd better not respond again for a while. I'd rather not regret something I might post while I'm this angry. Conservative thought is almost always for short term gain and with little thought to long term consequences. I also have a written essay response due in less than an hour and a half for Professional Ethics.

 

I am seriously tempted to include some of the back and forth from here for credit, as it discussion opening with ideas from both sides to explore....

 

Before I go, I would also like to recommend the Corean Chronicles (made up of 2 trilogies), or maybe anything, by L.E. Modesitt Jr. It's a great high fantasy series but I think it illustrates some important things...

[Chase]

At the end of the day, Mael, you're either paying for healthcare, or you're paying for healthcare. When it was a choice prior. Is it really that hard to see why people are upset about that? If you don't WANT healthcare (which admittedly, is beyond my personal understanding) that's fine sure, but you still have to pay for it. Many people actually take the individual mandate route because it's really all they -can- do.

 

Let's try and start a business on top of that. You need employees, but wait! if you get to 49 and your business isn't exactly Trump levels of successful, you may have to force yourself to STOP growing your business because that 50th employee will cause Big Daddy Government to force you to provide insurance to all of your employees or your fine goes up rather dramatically. There goes your dream of pulling your small business up by it's bootstraps - because all of a sudden, all of your profit isn't enough to cover the costs.

 

But that's okay, because Democrats don't care about people that are driven to go above and beyond what is actually necessary to make their families not only provided for, but also happier. Making too much money makes you an enemy of the State. And a prime target to aim your tax grievances at.

 

Jesus, on the other hand, wasn't a government official that was looking for policy advancement. His biggest goal was for people to believe in Him as the only way to salvation. Case in point, every money-grubbing Republican has no chance in hell at walking into the pearly gates simply because they went to church too. And no matter how much willing Democrats are for supporting the ACA, the same applies if they don't believe in Jesus as their Savior.

 

If Jesus is the only way for anyone else to get to Heaven, what's the point of having to love others? My friend, the acts of grace Christians commit are because they are compelled to do so and are a product of the Holy Spirit at work within them, not because they are forced to do so. We've already reached that impasse on God's intent for mankind before. God was big enough to allow mankind the choice to turn against one another. Unlike the government, which is supposed to be representative of all of us collectively - effectively making us as equally important as our Congressmen are.

 

Love, like kindness, can't be forced. If I am paying the individual mandate, I'm paying it because I'm a compliant American citizen who currently probably doesn't have a real choice in the matter. I'm not paying it because it's "the right thing to do."

 

I hope you do well on your paper - and I wasn't trying to anger you. I am truly sorry.

 

[Eviora]

Well, I don't think I would say politics are a passion of mine, despite how much I follow them. I would describe looking at articles and such as more akin to opening up an old newspaper and checking the obituaries to make sure no one you know has their name listed. It's not something I usually enjoy; in fact, it's a rather morbid obsession despite managing to occasionally be funny.

 

Fortunately, my personal situation regarding this particular matter - healthcare - gives me the luxury of enjoying the irony without worrying too much, because I'll be fine either way. if the topic were something that hit closer to home, I would definitely be in a far less friendly mood.

 

Opinions are something I have in abundance, but usually, people don't like me very much when I defend them logically. Frankly, I think I'm a little bit too good at it, and come off as horribly condescending. I also think I take a little personal offense when people say especially stupid things to me. (Example: A while back someone accused me of being bigoted against drugs because I voted in favor of marijuana legalization. I don't even...) As a result, probably strike back with contempt that is a little bit too obvious. It's not a good strategy for making friends. =p

 

(Oh, by the way, to keep this post tangentially on topic, Trump is indeed blaming Democrats for his Team-Rocket-tier level of incompetence. Shocking.)

[Chase]

Consider me odd then, but I appreciate any response - even contempt - if I learn from it. You simply have not done a good job at having me be opposed to befriending you.

 

--- 

 

in fairness to Trump, he was placing the Affordable Care Act on the Democrats in the news I've seen from CNN, Politico, and Fox. Which considering that's Obama's signature legislative victory that's not totally wrong. It is the GOP's fault the AHCA didn't pass though.

[Neo]

59 minutes ago, Wheat said:

My friend - the individual mandate is necessary if the goal of the nation regarding healthcare is to provide every American with insurance.

Here's a question, my guy. Why is that NOT the goal? Why is one's health considered a commodity to be bought and payed for? We are a nation founded upon the very idea that all people have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first of those three being the hot ticket here. One's health and life are one in the same, a point I highly doubt even a conservative with their head buried in the sand as deep as can possibly be, wouldn't deny.  Shouldn't the government have an obligation to ensure that the American citizen access to healthcare, as a means of protecting their right to life? Similar logic is used to justify the nation's ever expanding military that is guarding us from [insert external existential boogeyman].  Regardless of how one FEELS about the size of government and its hands being entrenched in the personal lives of the citizenry, there's really no solid argument for why our healthcare industry functions the way it does. I feel that the very lives of our citizens, and as such the life of our nation, really should not be measured in so much as dollars and cents. Now, whether the solution is a full single-payer system, or a hybrid in which a base single-payer is provided for all and an individual can have coverage outside of that, be it through their job or their own private purchase is up for debate. I'll never understand the mentality that comes with "well why should I pay for Joe Blow to receive care?" Hint hint: It's because Joe Blow and everyone else is paying so that you can do the same.

[Winter Angel]

Politics is sure an interesting topic... I've heard nothing but politics in the past 6 or so months from news media that breaks for the occasional disaster/shooting/whatever. In other words, it's making my head spin in trying to keep up with what our 'president' is doing and attempting not to release my anger on my pro-Trump friends. 

 

While I feel that I'm not actually contributing to the conversation, I would still like to give my two cents on how I feel since I find it better to post here where it appears to be a courteous and professional conversation unlike say Facebook or Twitter. I'm not a political science major, but it's good to be informed on what's going in with the world (and nation).

 

I get my news sources from fairly reputable news medias like ABC, BBC, NBC, etc. (the list is kinda long so I'll stop there - I'll admit that I prefer to read the articles from non-American news sites since they seem to be less biased as opposed to places like CNN and Fox News). Anyway, I check the news almost daily and I have to switch between news places like Nat Geo or the political cartoons and the news to avoid getting myself too angry. I'm a Democratic by heart, but choosing between Clinton and Trump when it came down to the elections was painful with old high school friends choosing 'the lesser of two evils' so I chose Clinton since Trump's an idiot (for the lack of a better term).

 

Imagine my surprise and horror when I woke up the day after the elections and see that our commander-in-chief was now toddler-in-chief as Eviora put it. Since Trump became president I've read how he 'tried' to put America first (what a complete load of BS) with issuing laws and executive orders that will destroy international relations and create inner turmoil. In all honesty, there would have been riots and all that jazz no matter who won the elections; the rest of the world just watched. 

 

On the matter of TrumpCare, I read that Ryan pulled the bill from the House this morning and I was kinda relieved in a way (my parents are covered under ACA in a way so at least they still have it for some time). While I agree with Hunter that it is GOP's fault that AHCA didn't pass through (Trump's blames the Democrats that that one too), I don't think universal healthcare is even possible in the US considering the population size and how many insurance companies are out there (and probably more factors are involved here too). I agree with Neo here that healthcare is still a fundamental right for everyone and I would not personally mind paying more to help others. Insert sigh here. I want to move to Canada now. Keep in mind that this is my opinion and that it is open for argument if I'm wrong with any information/logic. 

 

 

TL;DR: I hate Trump and the great US of A is doomed. On another note, what are some reputable news media out there with the least amount of bias compared to the rest? 

[Peanuts]

2 minutes ago, Winter Angel said:

I don't think universal healthcare is even possible in the US considering the population size and how many insurance companies are out there (and probably more factors are involved here too).

 

In terms of magnitude, universal healthcare in the US might be larger than most other countries, but it fundamentally should work the same as it does in all other countries that have implemented it. There is no real fundamental difference distributing insurance between the 50,000,000 people in South Korea (which has universal healthcare) or among the 300,000,000 people here in the United States. IMO what it comes down to is whether the citizens are willing to accept the premise of universal healthcare. And the overall sentiment here in america, especially from the republican party, shies away from the idea that universal healthcare would be beneficial for the american economy. There are a number of reasons that republicans dislike this, primarily the Obama, but basically everyone wants cheaper healthcare without having to pay for it. This is a gross oversimplification, but since we the citizens are not supportive enough of a unified plan to universalize healthcare, it simply has not happened here in America.

 

18 minutes ago, Winter Angel said:

On another note, what are some reputable news media out there with the least amount of bias compared to the rest? 

 

And there is no unbiased news source unfortunately, as much as I wish for one as well. The ones you have listed are pretty good imo. I've given up completely on following the news in a consistent manner, and resort to reddit at this point. Which is probably one of the worst sites you can go to. But hey, at least it's entertaining.

 

Moving to Canada does sound nice now...

[Chase]

Reuters, NPR are good places to look @Winter Angel .

 

@Neo

 

Another unpopular opinion. I do NOT believe that health and life are the same thing - and thus, I don't believe health insurance is a human right. You're dealing with a textualist here. If you're going to cite the Declaration of Independence the healthcare scene in Colonial America is the setting in which those pursuits were affirmed in the document. Health insurance would come onto the scene a CENTURY later and wasn't really fleshed out until Medicaid was a thing. Before 1850 Americans - who still had the right to live in the DOI - could not be insured.

 

Healthcare is not nessecary to live. It's encouraged for sure - however you don't need to have a child in a hospital, vaccinations (for some reason) are being debated, household remedies for illnesses are still employed, and so on and so forth.

 

Health, for a majority of history, wasn't a right. It was a luxury and a considerable blessing. People in this country - with the ACA - are PRAYING for health regularly. If it's a right most of us are being denied it regardless of being insured or not. 

 

Yes, being unhealthy leads to death. That much is crystal. That doesn't make health and life the same thing.

 

EDIT: Why isn't it the nation's goal. People decide the direction of the nation and free to believe otherwise.