Republicans’ Replacement for Obamacare Taking Shape

By , and | February 27, 2017

  • February 27, 2017 at 7:01 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 21

    Here it is, in a nutshell; restoration of personal liberty and restoration of sanity to the market.

    I’ve used ‘HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS’ to describe what it should entail.

    Review the details as they emerge, and I’ll explain each detail they get right, and where they missed…. but no where near as badly as Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Emmanuel, Gruber, Jarett, etc. missed 7 years ago.

    It’s going to take a while to implement all aspects, some of which are yet undecided.

    The first criticism I expected is that fewer will be covered by the ACA R&R. That is true, and it reflects PERSONAL LIBERTY to choose… which is a good thing, and which follows the US Constitution.

    Elections have consequences… and great benefits, such as this one.

    • February 27, 2017 at 7:06 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 12
      Thumb down 21

      PS to Democrats holding recent Town Hall meetings, and their followers; ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Citizens in the US who follow the US Constitution, rather than trample on it like you, spoke loudly on 11/8/16. Listen to THEIR message, not that of the loser Dems who gave us the catastrophic legislation called ‘ACA’ in 2010.

    • February 27, 2017 at 2:27 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 10

      Polar, I can think of 2,700 reasons to get rid of the current law.

  • February 27, 2017 at 7:14 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 23

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    • February 27, 2017 at 3:58 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 9

      Polar, saw the outline on the Republican Plan on Townhall. 106 pages sounds 27 times better than the ACA.

      • February 27, 2017 at 5:35 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 6

        Sounds good.

        I hope PwC isn’t given the responsibility for providing the final version to the news media.

  • February 27, 2017 at 10:21 am
    Brandon says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 35
    Thumb down 10

    Senator Chaffee in 1993 introduced the mandatory enrollment requirement in the HEART legislation back in 1993. This was an idea pushed by many conservative think tanks back in the day as a way to ensure a plan would work and to eliminate adverse selection resulting in a death spiral.

    Why now is that idea so repulsive?

    • February 27, 2017 at 11:01 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Hot debate. What do you think?
      Thumb up 17
      Thumb down 24

      Um… because it has been proven to not work. In fact, it was proven to be a major failure in the form passed by Democrats – with too small a penalty to discourage not insuring.

      The CURRENT death spiral of the ACA marketplace is partly due to extraction of over 2,000 risks via employer/ union exemptions AND small companies cutting workers hours to less than 30 per week.

      Further, the ‘no-insurance’ tax penalty increments over time, from small to large, were designed to LATER make it fail, which would coerce angry citizens to request a SINGLE PAYER system with 100% control of 1/6th of the US economy by the Federal government.

      Oh, by the way;

      In what year did that happen?

      What are the SPECIFIC names of the “Conservative think tanks” you mentioned, from “back in the day”?

      Finally, in what “days” were those Conservative think tanks “back in”?

      • February 27, 2017 at 2:25 pm
        Dave says:
        Hot debate. What do you think?
        Thumb up 11
        Thumb down 16

        PolarBear, when debating a liberal you need to understand they do not understand basic math. Many of them don’t even see or understand the collapse of Obamacare that is going on right now, a collapse that even the architects are seeing and acknowledging. So good luck in your debate which should probably include a course in basic math.

        • February 27, 2017 at 5:42 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 5
          Thumb down 11

          Here’s a few numbers that Libitterals need to track down;

          2000 to 2200 firms/ unions that were exempted from ACA, mainly as a political favor to supporters of Dem politicians.

          29 hours per week jobs growing by hyuuuuge numbers after ACA was approved – without even one Republican supporting vote.

          Both of the above items provide a substantive explanation of the adverse selection that occurred in ACA – perhaps by design – and which resulted in a death spiral.

    • February 27, 2017 at 6:30 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 3

      You’re forgetting that Senator Chaffee bowed to massive demand from Bill Clinton, and the inclusion of a mandate was a compromise.

      This was not their go to idea.

      Why don’t you go ahead and show me which conservative think tanks pushed this idea? Provide links. I’m aware of the plan name even, and when you google it and restrict the time frame to 1993, you cannot find a single think conservative think tank supporting it or even studying it, or at least I can’t.

      Go ahead and check my work:

      Health equity and access act of 1993. Go see if you can pull up some think tanks that were conservative that said this was a perfect plan that conservatives should get behind.

      • February 27, 2017 at 8:43 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 9

        @bob;

        I suspected half or more of what was written by Brandon was false or slanted to mislead. Thanks for pushing for the links to the mysterious ‘conservative think tanks’.

        I suspected JOHN (not Lincoln) Chafee was more RINO than conservative, and when I reviewed his record, I realize he was a RINO and that I confused him with Lincoln Chafee – who converted to Democrat circa 2006. And his (JOHN’s) track record per Wiki was truly that of a Dem more than a RINO.

        Brandon used an extra ‘f’ in Chafee to mislead, or out of ignorance. I also wonder if he knows ‘John’ from ‘Lincoln’.

        Fake news. Fake claims on comment boards.

      • February 28, 2017 at 2:26 am
        Actu says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 2

        “Why don’t you go ahead and show me which conservative think tanks pushed this idea? Provide links. I’m aware of the plan name even, and when you google it and restrict the time frame to 1993, you cannot find a single think conservative think tank supporting it or even studying it, or at least I can’t.”

        Which of course means it doesn’t exist. Of course, selecting 1993 as a cutoff is dishonest, because you know the Heritage Foundation plan was written before this. The Heritage Lectures, 218, “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” Butler. 1989.

        >All Citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable health care.

        >Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.

        In ’92-93, Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, or HEART, was proposed by Republicans and sponsored by 1/2 of Republicans in the Senate.

        Gingrich supported an individual mandate until pretty recently:

        >The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle

        ht tps://web.archive.org/web/20060822061158/http:/www.healthtransformation.net/News/E_newsletters/index.cfm?newsletterid=20

        Plus Romneycare, the health care plan that had it. Plus other Heritage publications, plus Miltion Friedman, and on and on. But, I am sure none of these count. Heritage later said they did not support a full mandate, a lie, and Gingrich also lied, and even removed from the web the page I link above. They moved far, far to the right, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t push the idea.

        Shortest, easiest link I could find for someone on your level.

        ht tps://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/#536603c455fe

        Your brutal ignorance on every topic, and condescending, arrogance with strident willful ignorance is just shocking.

        • February 28, 2017 at 7:21 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 7

          If Heritage said it didn’t support a full mandate, and you claim they and Gingrich lied, you should be able to prove that, easily, right?

          You conveniently ignored the quoted qualifier ‘if they earn enough…’ Why?

          Do you understand that Medicare is such an Act that mandates coverage if you earn enough… via payroll tax?

          Please list ALL Republicans who sponsored HEART.

          John Chafee is a RINO, per his voting record and behavior. He is often confused with Lincoln Chafee, who changed from a Republican to a Democrat.

          Romney is a RINO, not a Republican.

          I don’t have time for more refutations at this time.

          • February 28, 2017 at 8:39 am
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 4
            Thumb down 2

            “If Heritage said it didn’t support a full mandate, and you claim they and Gingrich lied, you should be able to prove that, easily, right?”

            He did.

          • February 28, 2017 at 8:41 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 8

            LOL @ typical libitteral interpretation of ‘proof’.

          • February 28, 2017 at 10:02 am
            actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 3
            Thumb down 1

            I also left out the part about subsidies if they cannot afford it, but did include the part about supporting a mandate.

            Yogi ironically conplains and creates fictions about bots, but he is so uninformed, and so incurious intellectually he is essentially a bot. See line you disagree with, write ehat you wish reality was, and then return “fake news” to say replies.Idiotic.

            Lol, you do not have time. You do not work, you post all day. You have nothing but time, but no brainpower to do anything other than paste “fake news.”

          • February 28, 2017 at 12:55 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 1

            Ok ACTU, I’m getting sick of you. I did not manipulate the cut off, he quoted a Bill and I asked him to reference to support at the time from republicans in that they suggested it, and it was not a compromise.

            I didn’t make a cut off, he referred to Chaffee’s bill!

            More to come on this.

            I checked your first website: It’s a quote from a republican backing a bill, which was again, likely a compromise, and is not a study itself with them selling this as their only and or best idea to deal with the insurance issues, it is a plan. You have not provided proof this was not a compromise.

            Read your second link, did you notice that the democrats insisted on an employer mandate? As I said, Clinton insisted on some sort of a mandate, and the republicans conceded. It even says this on your link:

            “The employer mandate as an alternative to single-payer”

            With regards to democrats, that was their alternative as republicans wouldn’t allow single payer, and the republicans needed to give something, which was, the employee mandate.

            These are none the less, descriptions from someone else, not of your own making, and you didn’t fully read them.

            Show me evidence that these people did this of their own accord and praised it as such.

            I can show you them not offering it during 2009, nor in any of their bills at the time. So you are the one manipulating the data.

            They did not in large numbers support a mandate, and furthermore, they are not currently.

            Also, I noticed you left out their other options.

            http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/23/us/clinton-s-health-plan-the-republican-alternatives.html

            2 of the 3 did not have a mandate. If they were really pushing a mandate, why did 2 in 3 not have it? Want me to pull up every single bill that was offered by republicans since Nixon? Let’s have some real research kid.

          • February 28, 2017 at 1:27 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            Furthermore:

            All the while your side keeps saying the republicans never had healthcare options. They just lie and lie.

            In 1993 they presented 3. And the only one that is remembered is the one that fits the democrat’s (and corrupt media, which Trump is correct regarding) agenda!

          • February 28, 2017 at 1:31 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/obama-vox-interview-obamacare-alternative-aca/

            Obama saying they had no plans, just a lot of no.

            Do words now not matter when they are deliberate lies?

            What you and confused and Ron are doing is derailing and allowing this to happen again. This is not you keeping it in check as you all believe you are.

            This is idiotic and will go nowhere.

            Time to do what you did with Obama, sit down, shut up, and say this is normal, and wait for the plans. If they are bad, criticize them. As I will.

            Watch this:

            I have already contacted Trump about increasing military spending, that I disagree with it.

            WOW!

            Criticizing actions instead of words!

          • February 28, 2017 at 2:21 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 2

            LOL at actu, who is irked that I “post all day”, “do not work”, etc.

            actu is more irked with WHAT I post because he censors stuff he and other Libitterals don’t want others to read.

          • February 28, 2017 at 2:51 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Also Actu:

            I could very well be wrong, which is the real reason I ask for these things. It’s very annoying that instead I get punk replies.

            I have now googled Heritage study insurance mandate, Heritage insurance mandate, and included from 1980-1993, I am doing this cut off, because anything past 2009, is biased. I need to see a study from the time.

            Nothing is coming up. I’ve given you some of what I’ve seen in study compilations.

            You keep calling me ignorant, but I’m trying to do this research for you now, to see who supported what, as I am in fact interested, but all I get from you is ignorant types of quotes while you crap on the chess board and say how amazing your arguments are and how willfully ignorant I am, how I mislead, and how I’m a socialist pedophile that needs to be potentially killed in the case of UW, or harmed in your case, because I say hate speech.

            And I’m the indoctrinated one, for demanding FACTS.

          • March 1, 2017 at 12:28 am
            Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            >I checked your first website: It’s a quote from a republican backing a bill, which was again, likely a compromise, and is not a study itself with them selling this as their only and or best idea to deal with the insurance issues, it is a plan. You have not provided proof this was not a compromise.

            No, it’s not, you illiterate, lying, POS. It is Newt Gingrich supporting Romneycare, and explicitly saying he supports a mandate, which he supported for 2 decades. Much, much different. Stop lying, for the love of God. The entire thing is a “quote,” genius, because he wrote it.

            >Read your second link, did you notice that the democrats insisted on an employer mandate?”

            Yes, I read the Forbes article, and I actually comprehended it, unlike you. The key part from Romney:

            > we got the idea of an individual mandate…from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation.

            >The employer mandate as an alternative to single-payer

            You might not be aware of it, but, genius, single-payer and a mandate are not the same thing. It’s not really clear what you are even trying to argue in your idiotic post. It is also irrelevant in this context whether it was a compromise or not; Romney wanted it and he specifically cited Gingrich and the most prominent conservative think tank in the nation explicitly supporting an individual mandate as policy for the nation. You are so focused on fighting, and doing anything possible to defend your Precious Team Red you cannot even remember what you are fighting about; combined with your level of education it is a bad combination.

            I didn’t read the rest past the first few sentences, because it is all BS. Get a grip, get mental help, or stop posting.

            >It’s very annoying that instead I get punk replies.

            You are a POS, punk replies are more than you deserve. I provided actual links proving exactly what you said did not exist, Republicans calling for an individual mandate, and you freak out, mis-characterize the stories you clearly did not read past what you thought made your point and then threw insults, as always.

            Same with your CNN debate, same with your debate on violence in Chicago, same with your debate on productivity in the US, same with your debate on Russian links to Trump, same with everything you have ever commented on. Lying trash is what each comment you make is. I would love to treat you with respect, but you have never done anything to deserve it.

          • March 1, 2017 at 1:24 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            >I checked your first website: It’s a quote from a republican backing a bill, which was again, likely a compromise, and is not a study itself with them selling this as their only and or best idea to deal with the insurance issues, it is a plan. You have not provided proof this was not a compromise.

            “No, it’s not, you illiterate, lying, POS. It is Newt Gingrich supporting Romneycare, and explicitly saying he supports a mandate, which he supported for 2 decades.”

            And what is Romneycare? A BILL. So it is a republican backing a bill. He did not support a mandate for 2 decades, you are wrong. And if you are right, show me HALF of republicans supporting this bill. Again, in the speeches Gingrich said he did this as a compromise. If he supports a mandate WHERE ARE THE FEDERAL BILLS SUGGESTED????? He supported it for a decade right? So then where are the bills in Bush W’s tenure, of which he was majority speaker around that time, that he crafted (as it would have been him as majority speaker) with a mandate??? SHOW ME ONE. You are taking phrases out of context, and don’t know crap!

            “Much, much different. Stop lying, for the love of God. The entire thing is a “quote,” genius, because he wrote it. ”

            NO ONE IS LYING. THEY ARE SAYING WHAT THEY BELIEVE, YOU MODERN DAY NAZI.

            >Read your second link, did you notice that the democrats insisted on an employer mandate?”

            Yes, I read the Forbes article, and I actually comprehended it, unlike you. The key part from Romney:”

            I understood it well, and I simply recapped the article in as small as a way of possible, for your childish idiotic mind. And if you understood that article, a mandate as a compromise to universal healthcare was the republican thing. It was not the democrat thing.

            > we got the idea of an individual mandate…from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation.

            Yes, a minority idea. One of three bills, and, in that same speech, he said it was AGAINST Hillary care. This suggestion, which was put up in a bill ONE GOD DAMN TIME was NOT a republican majority idea, it was a republican minority compromise. That is extremely carefully worded, use your head as to what that means.

            >The employer mandate as an alternative to single-payer
            You might not be aware of it, but, genius, single-payer and a mandate are not the same thing.”

            I think you’re not aware of it. When I say that it was a compromise, you usually compromise to different things on both sides, not to what the side wants that is popular. I know you think that is how it works, because that’s how democrats compromise, like idiots and overbearing pricks, but that isn’t a compromise. The mandate was offered as a compromise ONE TIME to Bill Clinton. End of story. If the republicans wanted it, they would have suggested it during their majority in congress from 1995-2006, with a republican president in 2001-2006 matching that time frame. Yet Gingrich, DIDN’T!!!!

            “It’s not really clear what you are even trying to argue in your idiotic post. It is also irrelevant in this context whether it was a compromise or not; Romney wanted it and he specifically cited Gingrich and the most prominent conservative think tank in the nation”

            Gingrich is not a think tank. His actions stand alone. Heritage didn’t do any serous push for a mandate. Romney, one republican, tried it. One. An outlier for one, and for two, tried it in a state basis, not a federal. There is in fact a difference! And he determined it is not a good program. Ergo why he wasn’t going to offer it. Saying that the mandate is a good thing because republicans suggested it, or that is must be good because republicans are hypocrites, is insane. The question is what is YOUR POINT?

            “explicitly supporting an individual mandate as policy for the nation.”

            Wrong. Explicitly supporting it in his state, and as for the republicans as a whole, they explicitly did not present it in 2001-2006 while Newt would have had control over such things.

            “You are so focused on fighting, and doing anything possible to defend your Precious Team Red you cannot even remember what you are fighting about;”

            That’s you.

            “combined with your level of education it is a bad combination.”

            STOP INSULTING MY INTELLIGENCE WHEN I KEEP GIVING VASTLY MORE INFO THAN YOU.

            “I didn’t read the rest past the first few sentences, because it is all BS. Get a grip, get mental help, or stop posting.”

            Screw you. You’re the extremist.

            >It’s very annoying that instead I get punk replies.

            “You are a POS, punk replies are more than you deserve”

            Harkening back to your punching of Fascists are we? No. I say what I believe, and I deserve a solid argument, You have not ONCE admitted you were wrong and you call me a psycho. Everyone here, even the moderates knows you’re a piece of crap, not me.

            “I provided actual links proving exactly what you said did not exist,”

            No you didn’t. One book, and one lecture does not equate to a major think tank study or support.

            “Republicans calling for an individual mandate,”

            Without evidence that they supported one, it was a compromise. Two of the three bills had no such mandate, no bills were presented other than one.

            “and you freak out, mis-characterize the stories you clearly did not read past what you thought made your point and then threw insults, as always.”

            Only a sith deals in absolutes, ahem, I mean only an idiot says “always” regarding not reading. I clearly read. I do not freak out for any other reason than your harassment.

            “Same with your CNN debate,”

            Wrong, on the CNN debate you freaked out, and I proved you wrong.

            “same with your debate on violence in Chicago,”

            Which one? When you considered the college university the only credible source and threw everyone else out with an opinion like a true fascist?

            “same with your debate on productivity in the US,”

            Hahaha, explain how I’m wrong on this one?

            “same with your debate on Russian links to Trump,”

            Which you cannot prove, and is the same as the CNN issue actually, so right now you’re trying to compile a long list and are willing to double list to make it appear longer.

            “same with everything you have ever commented on.”

            Only a sith deals in absolutes, ahem, I mean facist Nazi piece of crap.

            “Lying trash is what each comment you make is.”

            Which is why people agree with and like them eh?

            “I would love to treat you with respect, but you have never done anything to deserve it.”

            Ah, typical abuser. It’s now my fault that you want to harass me and engage in violence.

            Just like you would love to give respect to people who go to colleges, but you have to be violent since they say hate speech right?

          • March 1, 2017 at 11:44 pm
            Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            >Gingrich said he did this as a compromise. If he supports a mandate WHERE ARE THE FEDERAL BILLS SUGGESTED????? He supported it for a decade right?

            I cannot go line-by-line and explain every word of every story to you. He specifically says,

            >The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan.

            Or, because you cannot comprehend anything you read (Although I don’t think you read it, because you never do):

            >The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage […] We agree strongly with this principle[…].

            >Again, in the speeches Gingrich said he did this as a compromise.

            Which goes against what he wrote, multiple times, and deleted from the internet. A person with even below average intelligence would see this and stop taking him as a credible source. He supported it for decades until the Republican Party went so far to the right he couldn’t anymore, same with the Heritage Foundation.

            >I understood it well, and I simply recapped the article in as small as a way of possible,

            Incorrectly though, which is what matters.

            >I think you’re not aware of it. When I say that it was a compromise, you usually compromise to different things on both sides[…]

            This has nothing to do with what single-payer is. Incompetent,dishonest, fraud.

            >Gingrich is not a think tank.

            No, L. Bob, but The Heritage Foundation, which he cites as do I is, but you ignore that repeatedly. I cited a publication

            >Wrong. Explicitly supporting it in his state, and as for the republicans as a whole, they explicitly did not present it in 2001-2006 while Newt would have had control over such things.

            This is a lie or abject stupidity. Disagreeing with a principle does not change reality, idiot. As quoted above Gingrich explicitly supported it. You cannot deny it if you exist in reality. Same with Heritage in the document I cited, and same with Romney.

            >STOP INSULTING MY INTELLIGENCE WHEN I KEEP GIVING VASTLY MORE INFO THAN YOU.

            Your “info” is what you claim and directly contradicts facts presented. You are not intelligent; an intelligent person comprehends what they read.

            Did you read the Gingrich writing I posted? Did you read the Heritage publication I cited?

            >I say what I believe, and I deserve a solid argument,

            I cited Gingrich writing and saying he supported single-payer; I cited a Heritage publication saying the same. You denied both when it is not debatable. You cannot distinguish a good or bad argument, which is why you only make bad, and ignore reality.

            You do not even say they changed their views, they did it for political expediency, etc., you actually claim they never said what is clearly written right in front of you, so yes, I give you the exact level of respect your intellectual ability, intelligence, and level of education deserve–none. You are insane. You make insane arguments. You are a pretend smart guy who wants nothing more than to be taken seriously intellectually.

            > One book, and one lecture does not equate to a major think tank study or support.

            The “book” is a think tank study from the leading conservative think tank, genius. They did many, many more, but you claimed there were none, so I provided one, which you still say does not contain what it contains. Gingrich’s was not a speech, it was a written policy paper, and he made many speeches saying the same.

            >Wrong, on the CNN debate you freaked out, and I proved you wrong.

            No. L Bob. You said they reported the details.They did not. Lie.

            >YOU MODERN DAY NAZI.

            >for your childish idiotic min

            >Screw you.

            >even the moderates knows you’re a piece of crap, (learn how to use “know” and “knows,” just like “effect” and “affect,” very educated Bob.

            >Only a sith deals in absolutes

            > I mean only an idiot says “always”

            >Only a sith deals in absolutes, ahem, I mean facist Nazi piece of crap.

            > typical abuser (says the self-admitted serial rapist who supports grabbing innocent women by the p****)

            >Ah, typical abuser. It’s now my fault that you want to harass me and engage in violence.

            I haven never engaged in violence, you lying, deplorable trash. I cannot deal with a person this insane and this detached from reality. I would not be surprised to read about yet another right-wing terrorist attack and then read your words from here and elsewhere presented as the rantings of the attacker one day.

            Get help. Stop lying, and for sure do not whine about insults anymore.

          • March 27, 2017 at 9:22 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            I have asked you a dozen times, Bob, leave me alone. Do not comment about me. Stop lying about me. You are a mentally damaged individual and need professional help. Stop committing libel against me.

        • February 28, 2017 at 12:57 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Also, asking for him to provide evidence, is not arrogance. Willful ignorance, is bullcrap. I am well educated. If I missed something, I can be corrected, but it would not make me ignorant. You on the other hand are.

          Regarding Gingrich moving to support another republican, that’s called politics. That is not him supporting a plan in the house. The house plan I just showed you, which would be the republican average so to speak, in that that would be their main plan (Chaffee would be the alternative plan, the minority one) did not include a mandate. As a whole republicans have not pushed this.

          • March 1, 2017 at 9:32 am
            Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Sorry, you are not educated. You cannot do math, don’t know basic things, and have no historical knowledge. You didn’t even know about the Southern Strategy,or any other political or world history, and what you do know is at the very best superficial, and in most cases outright wrong. Not everyone is educated highly educated, it is alright.

          • March 1, 2017 at 12:58 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “Sorry, you are not educated. You cannot do math, don’t know basic things, and have no historical knowledge.”

            I was correct about the college conviction terminology. I do have knowledge, and I was correct about the NOAA flaw for data consolidation, and was able to break down that study myself. Why do you think the public was surprised about the whistle blower while I was not?

            “You didn’t even know about the Southern Strategy,”

            No. I don’t. And there’s no real evidence corroborating it. To say that republicans try to use racism to win is insane. However, your side, as always, uses identity politics, and, before the 60’s, used race. There was no flip.

            “or any other political or world history,”

            Wrong. And the fact that you would say this shows how much of scum you are. You’re free to disagree with me, to say I know nothing, is actual the signs of being a Nazi, you’re extremely polarized.

            “and what you do know is at the very best superficial,”

            Ah ha! Now I do know things! Yay! You’re contradicting yourself.

            “and in most cases outright wrong.”

            Show your work.

            “Not everyone is educated highly educated, it is alright”

            What classes did you take on this? What are your sources if you didn’t take classes?

            I’m very well read on the issues I talk about.

          • March 2, 2017 at 12:21 am
            Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            >No. I don’t. And there’s no real evidence corroborating it. To say that republicans try to use racism to win is insane. However, your side, as always, uses identity politics, and, before the 60’s, used race. There was no flip.

            This is BS to say the least. You know nothing. There are decades of academic research on it; Republicans are on tape talking about it; Nixon’s aides who started the program have openly talked about it and admitted it.

            When you do not know something you do not look into it, you immediately dismiss it, lie and say it doesn’t exist and look up articles “disproving” it.

            >You’re free to disagree with me, to say I know nothing, is actual the signs of being a Nazi, you’re extremely polarized.

            Actually no. The signs of being a Nazi have nothing to do with debate. It was a political ideology. Furthermore, idiot, it was a far right-wing political ideology, and you constantly accuse me of being too far left-wing. You aren’t competent.

            >“and in most cases outright wrong.”

            Show your work.

            I have, you deny it matters and switch to “theory matters”. See crime rates, productivity, climate change, climate change data with Confused and Planet, unemployment with UW, your fake retirement numbers, not knowing most people aren’t over an average, and on and on literally on every topic you write about.

            >I’m very well read on the issues I talk about.

            No, you are not. You say you are, but do not know anything that isn’t on Fox, Breitbart or other similar sites. For example, you did not know what the Steele Dossier was. If you don’t recognize the name you haven’t looked into it, but that did not stop you from writing pages on it claiming to be right. You were wrong, and you were lying. You cannot stop lying. You also made claims about CNN that were false.

            You also lied about what was in the dossier you did not know existed minutes beforehand. You are not well read on anything, much less what you rant about.

            >What classes did you take on this? What are your sources if you didn’t take classes?

            I have a degree in economics and political science, and studied additional statistics courses. I have an actual academic background, unlike you, and unlike your compatriots, like Yogi who lies about his degree.

            BTW, genius, what a coincidence AG Sessions was caught committing perjury today about those non-existent Russian ties. WHAT A COINCIDENCE! Surely you must support his immediate removal and believe he should be investigated and jailed, right?

            Weird so many people in the administration keep getting caught up in this, even though not 1 other person on his Senate committee communicated with the guy, there was no reason to, and he lied about it.

            Lock him up!

        • February 28, 2017 at 1:06 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 1

          Furthermore:

          I asked for a think tank example. You didn’t provide any. If the republicans in mass wanted this, you would have examples of them as think tanks pushing it.

          Where is your think tank example, your studies over time with republicans pushing it, or examples of it being the house plan?

          I’ll wait.

          I already attempted googling this, and it was not my bias that didn’t have me find it.

          I googled the name of the act, and I expect if think tanks wanted it, it should be in 1993 as a study somewhere. However, I don’t see a single think tank reporting on it.

          Apparently neither do you.

          Show your work!

          • March 1, 2017 at 12:35 am
            Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            >Furthermore:

            I asked for a think tank example. You didn’t provide any. If the republicans in mass wanted this, you would have examples of them as think tanks pushing it.

            This is pure, 100%, abject stupidity or a lie. I specifically cited an article by The Heritage Foundation, a far right-wing think tank. So, you are at best confused. If you were competent you would also know The Heritage Foundation, AEI, and most right-wing think tanks are fundamentally dishonest, like you, and delete many publications that do not support their current arguments; that is why the Gingrich example had to be taken from the internet archive, he deleted it. But, you are lying, multiple examples were given, including the Heritage Foundation.

            But wait, you actually mentioned Heritage, so you know I provided it, meaning, without a doubt you are lying.

            Also, you say specifically you will not accept ANY EVIDENCE OR DATA after Obamacare because you view it as biased even though you HAVEN’T SEEN IT and do not know what any study would consist of. It cannot be understated just what a joke you are. You are a pseudo-intellectual, they are right. You pretend to be smart, but are an ultra biased extremist.

            So you won’t accept ANY data on health care, and you won’t accept ANY data on climate change. What a pattern. Hey, just the math, unless you decide before seeing the study and data you do not agree with it, even before knowing what is about, how the data was gathered, how it was analyzed, or if the study actually even exists. Freaking clown supporting clown fascism.

          • March 1, 2017 at 1:04 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “I asked for a think tank example. You didn’t provide any. If the republicans in mass wanted this, you would have examples of them as think tanks pushing it.
            This is pure, 100%, abject stupidity or a lie. I specifically cited an article by The Heritage Foundation, a far right-wing think tank”

            No you didn’t. You mentioned a lecture. Confused showed a link that showed and proved that Heritage has nothing currently online regarding it, because it is in one book and one lecture. Does that sound like something that Heritage pushed? Also, I see no studies regarding it. It was the minority opinion. Get over it.

            ” So, you are at best confused. If you were competent you would also know The Heritage Foundation, AEI, and most right-wing think tanks are fundamentally dishonest, like you, and delete many publications that do not support their current arguments; that is why the Gingrich example had to be taken from the internet archive, he deleted it. But, you are lying, multiple examples were given, including the Heritage Foundation. ”

            Wrong. This is bullcrap. Gingrich doesn’t have to keep a full list of his personal statements online, and they don’t remove their study pieces ACTU. At some point or another, after ten years, they go down. However, you manipulated his prior support of one of three bills that had a mandate, and was the only one to my knowledge they ever presented with one. I provided another link with about 15 plans, none had it. The mandate was not their main idea. Get over it.

            “But wait, you actually mentioned Heritage, so you know I provided it, meaning, without a doubt you are lying.”

            No, you provided heritage, I asked for a right wing think tank, showing that they pushed the plan. One book, is not context, if this book for example says one way to deal with the risk averse issue would be to offer a mandate, and then they never did a study on it, I would call this NOT pushing an individual mandate. Show me the right wing studies pushing this. I will continue to wait.

            “Also, you say specifically you will not accept ANY EVIDENCE OR DATA after Obamacare because you view it as biased even though you HAVEN’T SEEN IT”

            I have seen it. In fact, after Obamacare would help YOUR CASE kiddo. When I say it would be biased, it would be biased in MY FAVOR and YOU would reject it, by saying that they had previously suggested it, as you are now. This is my allowing you to be fair.

            “and do not know what any study would consist of.”

            Apparently neither do you, prick. Show me the study.

            “It cannot be understated just what a joke you are. You are a pseudo-intellectual, they are right. You pretend to be smart, but are an ultra biased extremist. ”

            Nope. I’m ten times the capacity you are. You’re a punk kid. Show your work.

          • March 1, 2017 at 1:09 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            https://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/102nd%20Congress/Health-Care%20Reform%20-%20How%20to%20Push%20Less%20Paper%20and%20Treat%20More%20Patients%20(1578).pdf

            Did you digest this study ACTU?

            It sources the colleges and organizations that gave work regarding it.

            It goes over Heritage. Heritage is not manipulating their studies here. You are insane.

            Does it mention a mandate when it comes to Heritage? Read it yourself!

            You have ONE example of Heritage mandates, I wonder why they didn’t report on it any further after that time period and only did one lecture?

            I will ask you again: If this was pushed for a long period of time as a main go to option, and not a compromise, why do you have one lecture, nothing online, and one book over the course of 30 years?

            Does that sound like it was pushed?

            Show me a bill with a mandate. There is only one to my knowledge, offered as a compromise to Bill Clinton, at the time, democrats consistently had an employer mandate, to deal with the same issue. They created this long before Clinton to deal with the high risk issues.

            You are clueless on this history kid! Show me bills!!!

            You hold up the anomaly as the norm. It is clearly against science.

          • March 1, 2017 at 11:54 pm
            Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Illiterate Bob:
            >I asked for a think tank example. You didn’t provide any.

            Then I said I did and corrected you. Your response:

            >No you didn’t. You mentioned a lecture.

            Me:

            >The Heritage Lectures, 218, “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” Butler. 1989.

            >All Citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable health care.

            >Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.

            You are not literate, honest or credible. Delete your account. Leave.

          • March 2, 2017 at 1:22 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            0
            0
            Illiterate Bob:
            >I asked for a think tank example. You didn’t provide any.
            Then I said I did and corrected you. Your response:
            >No you didn’t. You mentioned a lecture.
            Me:
            >The Heritage Lectures, 218, “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” Butler. 1989.

            This is one lecture, that was not available in mass. This is not evidence that they pushed the idea for any prolonged period of time. I just mentioned it, and you call me illiterate. This is not a think Tank study. My ACTUAL STUDY that compiled the ideas from MULTIPLE STUDIES did not mention a mandate and yet mentioned Heritage, and better yet, it was A STUDY that was not biased.

            >All Citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable health care.

            >Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.
            You are not literate, honest or credible. Delete your account. Leave.”

            No. You’re wrong, end of story. These two next ones mean nothing. You lost this one. Give up, shut up, move on.

          • March 2, 2017 at 2:28 pm
            Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            comes up on multiple sites.

            I cannot teach you to read, do math, learn statistics, and use the internet. Is there anything you know how to do, other than rant and lie?

            Your “study” above is a dead 404 link. But yes, a Senate “study” proves nobody at Heritage did a study or supported it more than actual documents from there saying otherwise.Total freaking clown.

            Only an imbecile would say no bill proves they did not prefer that plan for reform. Like with Bush they were obstructing during Clinton’s term. We know their real preferred plan: Don’t get sick, and if you do, die quickly.

            You cannot find this with enough citation, you certainly are not qualified to determine what is widely available. Peoppe like you are ruining the country, and you are ruining the site.

            Do you notice every regular poster that is intelligent and educated, like me, Planet, Ron, UW, Confused, Celtica despises you and thinks you are a joke, and the clearly unintelligent, uneducated people like Agent, Pattidolt and Yogi agree with you, while the fewer intelligent conservatives do not even engage with you?

            You are a clown, but hey you said quotes and papers do not count, so YOU WIN, YAAAAAAY!! Moronic.

          • March 2, 2017 at 2:43 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            “Only an imbecile would say…”

            I’d like to add one to this line of thinking:

            Only an imbecile would argue when someone says I literally mean this we should know they were being sarcastic and hyperbolic and not take them literally.

          • March 2, 2017 at 2:58 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            ““Only an imbecile would say…”
            I’d like to add one to this line of thinking:
            Only an imbecile would argue when someone says I literally mean this we should know they were being sarcastic and hyperbolic and not take them literally.”

            Screw you kid. When he says they literally created ISIS, we know what he meant.

            Only an idiot would create a scandal out of it instead of policy.

          • March 2, 2017 at 3:13 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            Confused:

            Read. When he calls him literally the founder of ISIS, in that his actions created ISIS, that is correct phrasing from his personality, and he did mean it. Obama’s actions lead to the foundation of ISIS, literally.

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-literally-not-sarcastic-obama-founder-isis/

            He even explained himself, and you are having a huge hang up on phrasing, because you’re an immature, ignorant, prick.

            Shut your mouth, you’re not better researched than anyone here, and YOU’RE the reason behind the polarization of politics.

            This is sheer stupidity.

          • March 2, 2017 at 3:28 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “that is correct phrasing from his personality.”

            Hahaha. What an absurd argument. If definitions of words varied based on personality, there would be no need for dictionaries. But hey, let’s say I agree with you here (and I don’t). In that case…

            You wrote “Screw you kid”

            Words vary based on personality, and we all know your personality quite well by now, so I know you actually meant “You are an intelligent rational adult, Confused, and I wish everyone acted and thought like you.”

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            PS: from your link

            “Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant,” Hewitt said. “You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.”

            But Trump wouldn’t play along.

            “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” Trump said.

          • March 3, 2017 at 4:32 pm
            UW says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Nice points, Confused. Just the facts,oh and alternate definitions for every word based on personality. Unbelievable.

          • March 4, 2017 at 6:21 pm
            Actu says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Bob got owned, time to disappear and then cite this as an example of him “winning” in a week as if it discredits evidence. Idiot

        • February 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 1

          Let me show you why I’m better versed than you with an example and a question that I will explain:

          Why did the democrats not offer single payer?

          I know your answer. Because of the republicans.

          Why did the republicans offer a mandate? Because of the democrats.

          These are both the same action.

          Why do we not have a single payer OPTION which I want?

          Because of both of them.

          Why am I more angered by democrats? They actually passed a plan, that republicans did not want, without republican votes, and BLAMED THE REPUBLICANS instead of taking ownership of their own plan.

          This mandate at this point in time, that the republicans offered in good faith in the past, is now being used against them. It’s better politics, sure, and democrats are certainly better at that game, and that’s precisely why it pisses me the hell off!

          Grow up.

          I’m really sick of how dumb kids my age are.

          • February 28, 2017 at 1:25 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            If you didn’t catch, while I said that would be your answer, YOU ARE CORRECT on that answer.

            I’m telling you to follow the course of logic to it’s logical conclusion ACTU.

            Instead, you will only follow a conclusion that leads the way you want it to.

            My logics are balanced, yours are not.

          • February 28, 2017 at 2:25 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            actu and confused will go silent after your request to supply names of Conservative think tanks and to follow the logic to the reasonable and best conclusion.

          • February 28, 2017 at 2:56 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

            GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

            ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.

            GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

            ROMNEY: And you never supported them?

            GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.

            (CROSSTALK)

            ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

            GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.

            ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?

            ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.

            GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.

            ROMNEY: OK.

          • February 28, 2017 at 2:57 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”

            As a junior publicist, we weren’t being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. “Universal health care” was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of “quality, affordable health care” to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: “I thought we were supposed to be for freedom.”

            The plan was introduced in a 1989 book, “A National Health System for America” by Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier. We seem to have mislaid our copy, and we couldn’t find it online, but we did track down a 1990 Backgrounder and a 1991 lecture by Butler that outline the plan. One of its two major planks, the equalization of tax treatment for individually purchased and employer-provided health insurance, seemed sensible and unobjectionable, at least in principle.

          • February 28, 2017 at 3:02 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            In other words:

            The republicans say they don’t like the mandate or the plan.

            To dislodge all debate they say: You suggested it in the past!

            Instead of saying: Ok, well what do you have?

            And then saying what they don’t like on it, instead, we had mostly:

            You guys suggested this!

            What does that do for the healthcare debate right now?

            What have you, confused, and Ron done for progress by screaming hypocrite every three and a half seconds?

            In the case of Ron, I just showed that the voters don’t care about golf gate 2017, and he labeled everyone on that basis.

            What it does is cause the type of ignorance that can destroy this nation.

            I do not allow, nor tolerate it. Golf gate is not happening, I will not allow it, the words matter catch phrase isn’t going to become a thing over policy, I will not allow it.

            I will fight for what is right, and I will get people to start debating in dollars, cents, and facts.

            This ad hominem junk, and the “no, you did it!” back and forth is getting on my nerves.

            I noticed that at first Ron tried to criticize the elements of the plan, elements he himself wanted, (pre existing conditions) because he cares more about hypocrisy than getting what the voters want! And thus, disregards the will of the voter for scandals!

            Now, Ron has dropped that, but is instead not waiting to see what the plan is, and is criticizing the phrasing of the president, and is saying on one hand it sounds like a dictator, (while not backing that up) and on the other hand, that he is a liar about when the plan would come out (delays happen, this isn’t lying) and won’t simply wait for the plan to roll out on a similar time line to Obama (which started coming down the pipe February 26th 2009).

            I don’t care for your belligerent, divisive, hoo ha! Darn it!

            And at very minimum I better get Confused agreeing with this, as he has the most common sense of the three of you.

          • February 28, 2017 at 3:27 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            “ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
            GINGRICH: That’s not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
            ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
            GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
            ROMNEY: And you never supported them?
            GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I’m just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn’t true.
            (CROSSTALK)
            ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?

            “GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.”

            This is absolutely the most important part of this piece, you are trying hard to conflate some areas, I will go over this more in a moment.

            “ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?
            ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That’s what I’m saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.
            GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
            ROMNEY: OK.”

          • February 28, 2017 at 3:30 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            “Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:

            Heritage did put forward the idea of an individual mandate, though it predated HillaryCare by several years. We know this because we were there: In 1988-90, we were employed at Heritage as a public relations associate (a junior writer and editor), and we wrote at least one press release for a publication touting Heritage’s plan for comprehensive legislation to provide universal “quality, affordable health care.”
            As a junior publicist, we weren’t being paid for our personal opinions. But we are now, so you will be the first to know that when we worked at Heritage, we hated the Heritage plan, especially the individual mandate. “Universal health care” was neither already established nor inevitable, and we thought the foundation had made a serious philosophical and strategic error in accepting rather than disputing the left-liberal notion that the provision of “quality, affordable health care” to everyone was a proper role of government. As to the mandate, we remember reading about it and thinking: “I thought we were supposed to be for freedom.”
            The plan was introduced in a 1989 book, “A National Health System for America” by Stuart Butler and Edmund Haislmaier. We seem to have mislaid our copy, and we couldn’t find it online, but we did track down a 1990 Backgrounder and a 1991 lecture by Butler that outline the plan. One of its two major planks, the equalization of tax treatment for individually purchased and employer-provided health insurance, seemed sensible and unobjectionable, at least in principle.”

            Putting forward the idea in one lecture (supposedly without proof) and one book, is not synonymous with any degree of large support for the plan. In what context? did they say they could deal with the risk averse issue by putting in a mandate?

            If it is now gone, and has only been suggested in Romneycare, as well as one 1993 plan, which itself was introduced clearly in reply to single payer and employer requirements (which were widespread for decades in the democrat party and were studied and supported) then we know for sure it was not a primary republican plan.

            And as usual, you are stretching crap Confused.

            This was not, a republican backed or main republican plan.

            And I will see you admit it.

          • February 28, 2017 at 3:32 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Confused,

            I forgot to address your conflation, which you clearly are intentionally misleading regarding, and are ignorant on yourself:

            Gingrich supported the Heritage mandate against Hillarycare.

            Gingrich is not Heritage. The fact that heritage introduced it before Hillary care is irrelevant, except that you tried to conflate Gingrich with Heritage’s clear minority suggestion. I need to stress, suggestion. Gingrich was not lying. He backs up what I said entirely, they offered this as a compromise, and it was one of three plans, two of which didn’t have it.

            If it were at all a main source, it would have a CBO rating, or a government study backed by the republicans and think tanks to be pushed to mainstream. Guess what? It doesn’t. And your source confirms that. It was mentioned once then disappeared.

          • February 28, 2017 at 6:35 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            How many of these included mandates for health insurance?

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/seriously-the-republicans-have-no-health-plan/2/#6165da7feca7

            It turns out it’s fairly difficult to find an entire list since Reagan, but this is a pretty good one.

            He even references my quote about Obama saying there were not options. This is what I call a good article.

            Of course, Confused, you will say it’s wrong, even though you constantly say the right is guilty of saying things are fake news, you disregard articles all the time that have good points.

            So we would have Heritage supporting a mandate, once, in a book, and once in a supposed lecture, and then one bill during Clinton’s Tenure, whereas 2 other bills presented at the same time didn’t. The vast majority, greater than 90% of the bills had no mandate.

            The vast majority, greater than half, of democrat bills included an employer mandate. This is where the idea for the employee mandate came from. There is no doubt, and it was surely a compromise.

            But, of course, the screw up you are, you will try to say the republicans came up with the mandate, because oh my God, you totes magotes figured it out and these darn old people are such hypocrites!

            You’re a child, and if you were my child, I would have kicked you out at 16.

        • February 28, 2017 at 2:24 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Here is a huge study of healthcare plans from 1991.

          When they quote heritage, they mention tax credits, funny that they don’t mention a mandate isn’t it? This study has dozens upon dozens of study sources. The only mandate mentioned in the study is the employer mandate, numerous times suggested by democrats. This wasn’t a minority plan. It was Clinton’s suggestion, and as I said, Clinton pushed for a mandate of some sort to deal with the issues in a healthcare system without one, if he didn’t push single payer. I understand though disagree with him. I am not mad at him for doing this. It’s politics. But it would be wildly disingenuous to claim that republicans offered a mandate as a primary option, or of their own volition without being pushed.

          https://www.jec.senate.gov/reports/102nd%20Congress/Health-Care%20Reform%20-%20How%20to%20Push%20Less%20Paper%20and%20Treat%20More%20Patients%20(1578).pdf

      • February 28, 2017 at 9:22 am
        Confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        Besides quoting the person verbatim, how else would you like us to prove that someone actually said something?

        • February 28, 2017 at 12:59 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          That’s not the point. At all. The point here is did he support it as an alternative, or for PR, or because he wanted it.

          As I just showed, the Chaffee plan was an alternative. The main house plan didn’t have the mandate. If they wanted it, it would have been the house plan. It wasn’t.

          But regardless, this is you and ACTU acting like punk kids, trying to decry hypocrisy as opposed to what is best. We don’t need to debate every perceived hypocrite action.

          As a millennial, and you both are, you both need to grow up, and knock it off. This is what causes grid lock.

          Y to the O-U.

    • February 28, 2017 at 1:15 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      “Senator Chaffee in 1993 introduced the mandatory enrollment requirement in the HEART legislation back in 1993. This was an idea pushed by many conservative think tanks back in the day as a way to ensure a plan would work and to eliminate adverse selection resulting in a death spiral.
      Why now is that idea so repulsive?”

      This is what I replied to ACTU. It was restricted to the act in 1993. He claimed it was at the heart, but 2 plans didn’t have it. He said it was pushed by “many” conservative think tanks.

      I asked for evidence.

      If you guys cannot give evidence regarding this, and no, the articles you gave are not think tank studies pushing it, we have an issue.

      There is no source data here, no evidence, at all.

      And you said I manipulated the data. What data??? His own words? That’s all I have to go on! Show your work to the class guys!

      This is why you guys lost the election, and while Podunk trailer trash like you and confused try to seem better than everyone, like all kids do, the adults see a bunch of hooligan idiots. Maybe to them you’re a monkey wearing a tie, and you don’t get it yet, since you’re not grown up.

      This is not how you debate. ACTU, Confused, Ron, you all debate ignorantly while telling others they do. It’s childish, you all need to gain some self reflection and stop speaking to hear yourself speak, on hypocrite issues that you perceive you have figured out.

      It’s time to focus on data.

      • February 28, 2017 at 8:36 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        bob;
        Thank you for all of the above. I can’t waste anymore time with the 3 millenials who search the internet and dont understand what they are reading.

        The plan that is being pulled together now has many brilliant minds working on it, hence Trump’s recent comment about how complicated health insurance is, and how the plan will be great (paraphrased).

        I’ve projected that some of the key details are in this ‘clue’ HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS, and will explain what that means AFTER the final plan is revealed. Stay tuned.

        • March 1, 2017 at 1:34 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Me either.

          And ACTU is back to his insanity too. This kid has serious issues.

          I’m very proud of being ahead for my age. What I do not like however is kids like ACTU are a dime a dozen.

          They seem to think they know more than everyone else, just like the prior generations at their age did, only worse.

          There is a reason older voters vote differently consistently through our history, and it is that younger voters typically don’t know what they are talking about.

          ACTU is one of those. But what is bad in the now, is younger voters are genuinely unwilling to hear other opinions or accept things outside of extreme partisan beliefs. I’m not talking democrat or republican beliefs right now, though it does push toward a democrat allegiance. I’m talking a triggering of sorts. They are teaching kids such malarkey the kids are coming out of college dumber than they went in, ready to call something racist, bigoted, fascist, hate speech, and think they are the great unifiers, if only the old would just die, we are the new greater generation!

          BULL, CRAP.

          One of my favorite generations are the Baby boomers, and it’s for a reason. These guys voted against Carter the second time, (didn’t fall for class warfare) for Reagan twice by a landslide, and turned against George HW, showing they were willing to change their mind.

          I love baby boomers. When I converse with them they are not easily offended, they have a mental fortitude and a free speech focus for the most part, much more than the youth.

  • February 27, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    Bs says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 12

    I like how conservatives so quickly forget that it was the republican house that gutted ACA at the state exchanges level. Making it destined to be more expensive. Conservatives Stop sabotaging America for money! I mean you want healthy people who can work right? You don’t want tax payers paying for emergency room visits right? Screw 25 million sick Americans…..that’s why we have grave yards right? How greedy can you guys be?

    • February 27, 2017 at 2:25 pm
      InTheMiddle57 says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 8

      This is too much truth and information for some people to handle.

    • February 27, 2017 at 2:37 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 4
      Thumb down 13

      More lies. Fake news by commenters.

    • February 27, 2017 at 3:19 pm
      integrity matters says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 8

      @Bs: I like how quickly liberals forget that the Dems had to lie and bribe other Dems to get Obamacare passed. The problem wasn’t at the state exchange level, it was with the original legislation. The state legislators were wise to recognize a failure in the making and did not want to burden their constituents.

      • February 27, 2017 at 3:48 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 4

        integrity, gee, I wonder why all those states sued due to the Medicaid expansion that would cripple their state budgets.

    • February 27, 2017 at 8:45 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 2

      @Bs;

      The death spiral was caused by specific union or company exemptions granted by Dems (2,000 to 2,200 at last count) and the 29 hour rule exemption.

      Your theory holds no water.

  • February 27, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    PhilaUW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    “…some people just don’t care enough about their own care,”

    Excuse me?!

    • February 27, 2017 at 5:44 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      Are you claiming that NO ONE paid the tax penalty of ACA because they didn’t buy insurance?

      ‘k, thanx.

  • February 27, 2017 at 1:27 pm
    Realist says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 28
    Thumb down 2

    If you sold homeowner’s insurance and the only people buying it were people with their houses already on fire, how long would you last?

  • February 27, 2017 at 2:23 pm
    InTheMiddle57 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 7

    So to summarize the republican replacement, we are going back to the bad old days where lower income and individuals with pre-existing conditions cannot afford healthcare. If the old lie was”you can keep your doctor”, the new lie will be “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,”. The real answer is the poor and sickly need to go and die quickly so we can decrease the surplus population of these burdensome people sheesh! Hell we are not our brother’s keeper.

    • February 27, 2017 at 2:39 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 8

      Nope. You didn’t get it right. Lying and hyperbole just won’t cut it to advance the socialist liberal’s agenda when there are ways to circumvent the LYING liberal media.

    • February 27, 2017 at 3:32 pm
      integrity matters says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 5

      @inthemiddle57:
      First of all, the lower income people had Medicaid prior to Obamacare.
      Second, the Republicans have said they intend to keep the pre-existing condition (as well as other beneficial aspects) in the replacement program.
      Third, people will likely still have Medicaid or something similar under the replacement plan. People who do not qualify for Medicaid will still likely get some subsidy so they have insurance.
      Fourth, its funny how you are claiming that the republicans want the poor and sickly “to go and die quickly” without realizing that under Obamacare that the govt was going to decide if grandma was too old to pay for that hip surgery. If they thought she was too old, they were not going to approve the coverage. Obama himself said that “sometimes we should just make them comfortable”.

      • February 27, 2017 at 3:46 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 3

        integrity, Good one. The Medicaid/Medicare people are still going to have access to Healthcare no matter what is passed. The poor folks have the free Medicaid so no cause for alarm. What we want is for the rest of the population to have access to affordable care without having the terrible mandates associated with Obamacare.

        • February 27, 2017 at 4:21 pm
          integrity matters says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 4
          Thumb down 1

          Agent,

          The reality is that it will still be unaffordable unless they also do something legislatively to expand competition and institute some tort limitations.

          Doctors are going to continue to over-test to cover their butts unless there is a reasonableness standard that can be followed and protect them from frivolous lawsuits.

          • February 27, 2017 at 5:47 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            @integrity matters;

            I understand some of the ‘late implementation’ features include tort reform, by state. Deep blue states will likely fight against it. But most state legislatures and governor seats are held by Republicans.

            Licensing of health insurance companies across state lines will help increase competition, but that too is a tricky political football.

          • February 28, 2017 at 3:06 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            I have to comment here:

            This is legitimate concern coming from conservatives over the bill ACTU, Ron, and Confused.

            The right is not beyond criticizing common fears.

            And a good point Integrity.

          • March 1, 2017 at 12:27 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            @bob;

            The left has a right to be fearful of things that are unknown or hidden.

            But much of the plan being considered has been publicly disclosed; e.g. write across state lines, no mandate, insurance for ‘everyone’, etc.

            Libitterals have been acting snarky about the lack of a formal plan being published “IMMEDIATELY”, and it is both childish and a waste of time to address with facts or questions thay NEVER answer; i.e. why must a plan be published immediately to be successful?

            If you care to appease them in their childish, divisive, trolling, go for it. I have limited time to rebut their claims and googled mis-information.

          • March 1, 2017 at 2:08 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Maybe if you understood the nuance of what we post and didn’t ask questions that imply we’re saying something besides what we actually wrote, we’d be able to communicate better.

            I shall post this again in hopes you (Yogi) can wrap your head around the point I’m trying to make.

            “BOB -> D: Explain how the roll out of about 3 weeks past the date is bad?
            ME -> No. I never said it was bad. Let me try saying it again…

            All politicians should say what they mean and mean what they say. If we can’t take our elected leaders’ words literally, especially when they say “I literally mean this”, that’s a problem. If we don’t hold our elected officials accountable for their promises and failure to deliver on those promises, that’s a problem.

            Listen. This isn’t me railing against Trump. Obama lied & lies. Hillary lied & lies. Bill lied & lies. All are bad. All should have been held accountable for their lies. I am not holding Trump to a different standard.”

            I NEVER claimed that a plan must be published immediately to be successful — you just keep posting that’s what I said.

            I simply said the reason we believed a plan would be immediate is because that’s what Trump told us he would do, and he should be held accountable for not keeping his word.

          • March 1, 2017 at 3:26 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            This is politics Confused. Deadlines get missed.

            That’s the shortest way I can say it.

            If you keep calling into question the president before he’s had the chance to get anything done, nothing will get done!

            SIT DOWN

            SHUT UP

            Let the president do SOMETHING. ANYTHING. PICK AN ITEM!!!

            Stop focusing on ignorant phrases and wording, and start focusing on your issues with the policies, when they come down the pipeline.

            If you don’t have a structural argument against said policies, THEN SHUT THE HELL UP.

          • March 1, 2017 at 3:51 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            1) I was replying to Yogi, not you Bob. You took my post very personally when it was not directed at you.

            2) I have praised Trump multiple times already, most recently on the IJ article THIS WEEK talking about him bringing in the insurance companies to discuss his replacement plan

            3) “If you think so lowly of the public that they cannot understand past an 8th grade reading level”

            The reason we can’t understand Trump is because he uses words to mean things they don’t mean. LITERALLY literally means literally – saying “I literally mean this” then trying to call it sarcasm or hyperbole is nonsensical.

            Any 8th grade teacher would tell you if you literally say something, that cannot be sarcasm or hyperbole as those words are diametrically opposed to each other. Trying to argue otherwise is absurd.

            4) “You have trivial quotes that mean nothing! Show me an example of a big one that has altered public at large”

            There is no way I could PROVE and SHOW MY WORK that a quote has altered the public at large, so it’s impossible to adhere to your request/criteria.

            5) “We are willing to allow lies that are a big deal be held to someone, we are not willing to nearly shut down the government…”

            I never said anything about filibustering or trying to shut down the government. I am talking about an elected official making a pledge and either adhering to it or being held accountable if they don’t.

            6) “I’ll show you the media trying to make lies about Trump 24/7”

            I agree the media lies, and does so with Trump all the time. They should be held accountable for their lies too, just like the Dem’s when they lie.

            7) “If you don’t have a structural argument against said policies THEN SHUT THE HELL UP.

            Well, there is no policy yet. Are you really saying we can’t hold politicians accountable for acting in opposition to their promises unless they put some legislation forward?

            If you are, here’s why I think that stance is 100% insane: Obama PROMISED to close GITMO, but he never put legislation forward to do it. I guess that means I can’t hold him accountable because he never put a policy forward to actually close it (only where the people would go if it’s closed), right?

            8) “Podunk piece of trash” – “moron” – “whine[r]” – “prick”

            Hi BobTroll! Thanks for the insults. It was nice to read your off-topic comments with the deliberate intent of provoking me into an emotional response.

  • February 27, 2017 at 2:39 pm
    Mr. Mister says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    Here’s Trump’s campaign promise on the ACA replacement:
    https://youtu.be/y8mcN0zweQE
    “Everybody’s got to be covered”

    • February 27, 2017 at 5:49 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 6

      And you interpret that literally, so as to have something to complain about when not everyone insures because the ACA R&R will preserve the freedom of choice for US citizens?

      • February 28, 2017 at 8:41 am
        Confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 1

        WORDS MATTER, especially when you’re the President of the United States.

        • February 28, 2017 at 3:17 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          No, Constitutional rights matter more than words, including the words of the POTUS.

          • March 2, 2017 at 4:34 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Constitutional rights are just words, thereby lending further credence to my original comment: WORDS MATTER

  • February 27, 2017 at 2:40 pm
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 10

    REPOSTED DUE TO CENSORING BY LOSER LIBITTERAL BOTTERS:

    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 19

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Here it is, in a nutshell; restoration of personal liberty and restoration of sanity to the market.

    I’ve used ‘HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS’ to describe what it should entail.

    Review the details as they emerge, and I’ll explain each detail they get right, and where they missed…. but no where near as badly as Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Emmanuel, Gruber, Jarett, etc. missed 7 years ago.

    It’s going to take a while to implement all aspects, some of which are yet undecided.

    The first criticism I expected is that fewer will be covered by the ACA R&R. That is true, and it reflects PERSONAL LIBERTY to choose… which is a good thing, and which follows the US Constitution.

    Elections have consequences… and great benefits, such as this one.
    Reply

  • February 27, 2017 at 2:41 pm
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 10

    REPOSTED DUE TO CENSORING BY LOSER LIBITTERAL BOTTERS:

    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 19

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    PS to Democrats holding recent Town Hall meetings, and their followers; ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Citizens in the US who follow the US Constitution, rather than trample on it like you, spoke loudly on 11/8/16. Listen to THEIR message, not that of the loser Dems who gave us the catastrophic legislation called ‘ACA’ in 2010.
    Reply

  • February 27, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 12

    REMINDER TO SORE LOSER LIBITTERALS:

    Gorsuch will be confirmed as the replacement for Justice Scalia.

    That will yield 5 Conservative Justices on SCOTUS.

    Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg will later be replaced by another Conservative Justice, making the SCOTUS a 6-3 Conservative majority court. Please keep that in mind when you think BOTTING conservative posts will do ANYTHING to help your liberal Socialist/ Communist agendas.

    • February 27, 2017 at 2:52 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 8

      Good one Polar. I like the sound of 6-3 or even 7-2 when Kennedy hangs them up.

  • February 27, 2017 at 3:37 pm
    Ron says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 4

    I’ll just keep posting this quote. Then we will see if President Trump will keeps this promise:

    “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “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.”

    This may very well become the new, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan”.

    • February 27, 2017 at 5:28 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 4

      @Ron;

      Please DO keep posting that quote.

      The phrase ‘we’re going to have’ means the subject that follows (i.e. {health} insurance) is what will be AVAILABLE for everybody’.

      Alternately, it does NOT mean everybody MUST buy HI, because that is a CLEAR violation of The US Constitution. Recall that SCOTUS Chief Justice got around the ACA mandate violation by erroneously / politically interpreting the mandate as a ‘tax’…. despite the fact that the architects of ACA stated several times that it was NOT a tax bill.

      As regards individuals’ inability to pay for HI, that is resolved by application for Medicaid.

      As regards affordability in general, YOU’LL just have to wait to see how that is addressed by the Republicans. But clues lie in my oft-posted phrase: ‘HEALTH CARE SPECIFICCS’.

      PLEASE DO CONTINUE to post that quote… as often as possible.

    • February 27, 2017 at 5:30 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 5

      @Ron; the simple fact is that people who buy HI going forward WILL be able to keep it… figure out why after you read the proposal to be published in 3-4 weeks.

    • February 27, 2017 at 5:53 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 3

      Such bias, by the way Ron:

      I noticed you ran off mid conversation, did you leave because you couldn’t win the debate like you keep saying I do?

      Hi buddy!

      Also, Trump’s statement is very conceivable that what he was mentioning was equal access available for everybody. This is not the new you will keep your healthcare plan, which in no way can be misconstrued, besides which:

      We grade plans on how they perform, not based on what people say. Style over substance eh?

      You yourself don’t like the ACA, and here you are focused on what people are saying about a plan you haven’t yet seen, that appears it will be revealed tomorrow, which is Feb 28th, compared to Obama’s being mentioned the first time in final form in mid Feb, and you waited for that one before criticizing it.

      You’re a fraud, a nit wit, and a fake moderate, and I’m going to hold you accountable buddy boy.

    • February 27, 2017 at 5:56 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 3

      http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/obama.health.care/

      Proof of what I said, and I actually recalled wrong. It was late February with him too.

      Feb 26th article date, 2009. This is idiotic, I’m sick of your inability to do anything but attempt false equivalency quotes from people, and compare phrasing to dictatorship. If you have a problem with a bill from Trump, say the bill.

      If you’re saying his healthcare progress is unique, it’s not. He’s not speaking about a bill that isn’t even fully formed yet, and he will soon, mirroring times from Obama.

      You’re going to have to show your work in the “unique” ways you are allowing yourself to criticize Trump in which you did not Obama, and explain why you are not biased.

      SHOW, YOUR, WORK!!!

  • February 28, 2017 at 1:02 am
    Boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    Why all of this unnecessary dialogue? Trump has already said that he has a beautiful plan to replace ACA that will give EVERYONE, including those with preexisting conditions much BETTER coverage, at FAR LESS price.

    How come the CEO’s of the private health insurers he met with today didn’t announce their roll out of such policies? Anyone think that Trump will announce during his Tuesday speech that the Trump Companies will now enter the health insurance business so that he too can take advantage of this GREAT enterprise opportunity?

    • February 28, 2017 at 7:50 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 4

      No one in their right mind expects an immediate roll out of a plan after a meeting. But, of course, Democrats did, and their supporters do. And we’re ALL in a terrible situation as a result. So, the ACA R&R will take time, first to unwind ACA, and next, to address the costs rather than subsidize them via mandated coverage and tax penalties.

      I don’t think the Trump companies will enter he insurance biz. Trump is a RE and hospitality industry guy, as well as a celebrity. Why enter insurance (facetious question)?

      I think they have a few plans that are being melded into one plan. But, because of what Pelosi and Reid did in 2010, I hope Trump does NOT publish it any time soon…

      Saying that Trump ‘hasn’t revealed his plan’ is libitterals only way of venting their frustration with the abrupt collapse of their Socialist Dreams on 11/8/16. It has no merit in intelligent, polite, adult discussion/ debate of the topic.

      • February 28, 2017 at 8:47 am
        Confused says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 1

        “No one in their right mind expects an immediate roll out of a plan after a meeting”

        Except that Trump said a “repeal-and-replace” plan would be submitted as soon as the Senate approves Tom Price for secretary of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department.

        “It will be essentially simultaneously,” Trump said. “The same day or the same week…”

        It’s now been 18 days since Price was put in place. That is not “essentially simultaneously” nor the “same day or same week” as Trump told us.

        • February 28, 2017 at 9:34 am
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 0

          Confused,

          It must have been one of those statements where we were to take him seriously, but not literally, or literally, but not seriously.

          Either way, President Trump needs to understand that when the POTUS speaks/tweets, he will be taken seriously and literally.

          • February 28, 2017 at 10:55 am
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 2
            Thumb down 0

            “I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally” -Trump

            “…reports so seriously that I call President Obama…”the founder” of ISIS & MVP. THEY DON’T GET SARCASM?” -Trump

            WORDS MATTER & WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

            He should not be using phrases like “literally” to mean “sarcastically” or saying something is a “Military Operation” but meaning it as adjective.

            To all politicians (Hillary, Obama, Trump, EVERYONE – and to those who post here) mean what you say and say what you mean. It’s really not that hard. Words matter.

          • February 28, 2017 at 1:03 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            A: Being overly ambitious is not a bad thing.
            B: Words don’t @%#@#ing matter on things like this. He promised a plan. We will get a plan.
            C: He’s so far par for the course.
            D: Explain how the roll out of about 3 weeks past the date is bad?

            Or is this just the he speaks badly and he’s such a bad leader argument, which always leads to Marxism?

            You will note in the quote, you didn’t take the full quote. All he was pressing is he would act fast on it. He went a bit far saying same day, considering the democrats have attempted to shut down and create fires everywhere, detracting form his ability to focus his attention, but he meant what he said.

            Now it’s time for the democrats to shut up on phrasing and get the Hell to work!

          • February 28, 2017 at 1:19 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            ““I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally” -Trump

            Hyperbole, ironically, and is a valid thing to accuse Obama of having caused ISIS to form.

            I also don’t see you making any comment about people saying Trump is literally in bed with Russia, without evidence. Style over substance? Trump’s substance could be true. The style is your issue. The substance of whether Trump has Russian ties being repeated all day, when it is not studied or proven, is the far greater sin. You need to shift your focus.

            “…reports so seriously that I call President Obama…”the founder” of ISIS & MVP. THEY DON’T GET SARCASM?” -Trump

            Nothing wrong with this statement. At all.

            “WORDS MATTER & WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES”

            NO THEY F@#%@ING DON’T. Words don’t have consequences, ACTIONS DO. As my father taught me: Actions speak louder than words, and when it comes to politicians, policy speaks louder than either! When we analyze someone based on words, it is the primary assault method of actual Marxism to shift focus away from what is logical and has substance! Dumb #%@!!

            He should not be using phrases like “literally” to mean “sarcastically” or saying something is a “Military Operation” but meaning it as adjective.
            To all politicians (Hillary, Obama, Trump, EVERYONE – and to those who post here) mean what you say and say what you mean. It’s really not that hard. Words matter.”

            Don’t give a flying @#%@# about the rest of this. I’m getting mad because this right here, excuses the actual poor behavior. I have seen countless kids triggered by phrasing, and refuse to learn, you all here included, who are in fact, children. Full grown children.

            Grow up!

          • February 28, 2017 at 2:21 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            A: Being overly ambitious is not a bad thing.
            Agreed. I did say otherwise.

            B: Words don’t @%#@#ing matter on things like this. He promised a plan. We will get a plan.

            Well, here is where we disagree big time. Words matter in law and in politics, and definitely when discussing those topics and speaking to a nation of 300+ billion people (let alone the rest of the world) who are relying on those words as being truthful.

            Have you ever tried to argue contract law or any statute interpretations in front of a judge? Or maybe you had to argue in traffic court that you were cited for something but the way the law is written really says your actions were legal?

            I have done both. Know what I learned?

            Words matter in the laws and when discussing laws.

            What is the ACA & Trump’s replacement going to be? Statute. Law. Words matter here 100%. Not just how the law is written, but what the writers of the law really intend it to be.

            D: Explain how the roll out of about 3 weeks past the date is bad?
            No. I never said it was bad. Let me try saying it again…

            All politicians should say what they mean and mean what they say. If we can’t take our elected leaders’ words literally, especially when they say “I literally mean this”, that’s a problem. If we don’t hold our elected officials accountable for their promises and failure to deliver on those promises, that’s a problem.

            Listen. This isn’t me railing against Trump. Obama lied & lies. Hillary lied & lies. Bill lied & lies. All are bad. All should have been held accountable for their lies. I am not holding Trump to a different standard.

            I only brought up Trump’s lies in response to Yogi saying “No one in their right mind expects an immediate roll out of a plan after a meeting” because Trump literally said otherwise.

          • February 28, 2017 at 2:24 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            PS: You said “Words don’t have consequences, ACTIONS DO.”

            That is naive. Yelling “fire” in a theater has consequences, hence why it’s not protected as free speech.

            Posting “I’m going to k1ll cops” online has consequences, even if you don’t take any action.

            Those are just two examples of words without actions having major consequences for the person who said them.

          • February 28, 2017 at 3:24 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            Someone is being a ‘phrasehole’ about what Trump is quoted as saying.

            Nothing worthwhile can come from arguments over what someone said informally about a project or plan. Debating it is a hyuuuuge waste of time.

          • February 28, 2017 at 3:53 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            “Nothing worthwhile can come from arguments over what someone said informally about a project or plan.”

            When do you think informal comments become formal comments to which we need to pay attention? During a press conference? In the inauguration address? If it’s posted on Twitter directly from the POTUS?

            Please tell us at what point you will consider Trump’s statements to be his formal arguments on topic(s).

          • February 28, 2017 at 10:25 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            @confused;

            YOU are the one who is holding POTUS accountable to INSTANTANEOUSLY announcing a replacement plan.

            Please explain why SPEED is an important criteria for success of a Health Care and Insurance Industrial Complex Revision Plan.

            Try to use 100 words or less.

            Ready, steady, GO!

          • March 1, 2017 at 3:54 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 1

            I will answer your question about speed of legislation after you answer my previous question to you.

            “Nothing worthwhile can come from arguments over what someone said informally about a project or plan.”

            When do you think informal comments become formal comments to which we need to pay attention? During a press conference? In the inauguration address? If it’s posted on Twitter directly from the POTUS?

        • February 28, 2017 at 3:20 pm
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          What does “submitted” mean to you, in the context of Price’s approval / conformation?

          Play your word games elsewhere, junior.

          • February 28, 2017 at 3:55 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 2

            Based on Trump’s words (informal as they may be depending on your answer to my question above), Price was confirmed on 2/10 so we should use that date to start the “immediate — same day or same week” clock.

          • February 28, 2017 at 5:57 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            Polar, does Madonna saying she wanted to blow up the White House have any consequences? Apparently not to the leftists. Taken out of context, right?

          • February 28, 2017 at 6:22 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            If she had called for the white house to be blown up, sure, but saying she wants to blow it up I don’t care.

            Here’s my question for confused:

            After a plan is passed, if that plan does well, then will the words matter, and what damage will they have done?

            I imagine the only damage you can find, would be people who USED THOSE WORDS for an agenda. At which point, the words were not the issue, the ones who used them did.

            What matters is if this plan is good. Not whether or not he over promised when the plan would arrive by a few weeks for God’s sakes.

          • February 28, 2017 at 10:32 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            @Agent;

            It should be clear by now that Libitterals Confused, ACTU, and Ron are grasping at straws to be able to criticize TrumPresident because they know they have no power in either Chamber of Congress, The White House, and soon, SCOTUS.

            Further, Libitterals have very few states run by Dems, either the governor or their legislatures.

            So, again, Confused and the other two ‘word-fanatics’ are trying to bait Conservatives into defending insignificant comments made by TrumPresident with hyperbole and exaggeration.

            Ignore the trolls. Think positive thoughts instead of allowing the libitterals to drag you down to their level of intolerance and disdain for winners.

          • February 28, 2017 at 10:36 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 1

            @bob; your comment about the significance of the words relative to the results is spot on. That is what I was trying to convey with my post above, at the point where I mention ‘insignificant comments’ (spoken by Trump).

  • March 1, 2017 at 2:58 pm
    Whaaat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    One provision that will be eliminated, and no one has mentioned it: 80% of the premiums must be returned in claim payments.
    You think this might drive up premiums?

    • March 1, 2017 at 3:32 pm
      bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 1

      This was an argument I made years ago.

      It just hasn’t since come up. A good point.

    • March 6, 2017 at 2:59 pm
      FFA says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I don’t think so. They would be able to spend an adequate amount of Fraud & Security as 20 cents on the dollar has proven to not be enough.

      We never heard about the carriers being hacked prior to the 80 / 20 rule. I always heard they spent 30 cents on the dollar just for fraud control & security.

      Now, all you hear about is hacking and fraud.

      • March 7, 2017 at 1:10 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        FFA, ask Blue Cross whether they have been hacked or not.

        • March 7, 2017 at 1:16 pm
          FFA says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          I don’t need to ask that. Since their ability to spend some money on security / fraud has been hindered, well you know. Snowdens of the world are having a field day.

  • March 7, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    FFA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Seeing the replacement plan being released. No mention on getting rid of the awful web site, going back to agency distribution. no mention of how they are going to reduce the cost. No mention of breaking up enrollment.

    Of course, I have not had time to read & digest it all. I started barfing when Pelosi came on and just started bashing on it. Released Monday night and first thin in the Am she is out bashing on it. She hasn’t had time to read & digest it all, but yet she is some sort of expert.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*