While the ACA has been a super-duper failure, I don’t think the law should be overturned until there’s a replacement plan that will ensure we don’t have millions of people uninsured waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.
The Medicaid subsidies for low income people are still in place.
The individual mandate has been removed and so the planned overcharges on young healthy people that would subsidize older, sicker people mean the Death Spiral will eventually happen.
If you want to force people to buy overpriced insurance, be honest about it this time. Don’t play the Guber/Obama game of promising health insurance premium reductions that you know are never going to happen.
The Democrats built this mess on dishonesty. Let the Democrats propose how to fix it.
I get that the D’s lied about aspects of the ACA (lying is wrong). I get that the ACA is a super-duper failure (I’ve said it for years). Neither of those touches on the point of my comment.
The Republicans are the ones fighting to repeal the ACA. The onus is on them to have a replacement ready to be implemented to ensure people don’t lose coverage if they win.
I think it’s unfair to those who depend on the ACA for the R’s to fight tooth-and-nail to over-turn the ACA and then say “We’re sorry if you relied on the ACA and now don’t have any coverage, but it’s someone else’s problem to figure out how to fill the gaps our actions caused.”
But the Republicans DIDN’T repeal the ACA. Remember John McCain?
And why judge what hasn’t happened? Why not be fair? Where is the alternative from the Left? Single Payer/Medicare for All. One-size-fits-all. Exactly what more than half the country is afraid of. That’s the Dems’ alternative, no matter if the ACA is repealed or not.
The ACA is already on the way to bankruptcy and millions of Americans are glad they are no longer forced to buy insurance they don’t want. Are you saying you think they SHOULD be forced to buy?
You’re asking what I’m saying? Here, let me post it again for you:
I think it’s unfair to those who depend on the ACA for the R’s to fight tooth-and-nail to over-turn the ACA and then say “We’re sorry if you relied on the ACA and now don’t have any coverage, but it’s someone else’s problem to figure out how to fill the gaps our actions caused.”
March 3, 2020 at 8:57 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
3
…just because I’ve found I need to repeat myself to you….
My original argument was “I don’t think the law should be overturned until there’s a replacement plan that will ensure we don’t have millions of people uninsured waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.”
Your reply was “Let the Democrats propose how to fix it.”
Which caused me to reply with “I think it’s unfair to those who depend on the ACA for the R’s to fight tooth-and-nail…”
March 3, 2020 at 7:52 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
9
But the Republicans are NOT trying to repeal it. Where have you been for the past 2 years? They gave up on that with McCain
The article is about the Individual Mandate. Period. Who put the individual mandate in place? Democrats. And the American people hated it. For some reason people don’t like being forced to buy stuff.
And so since the DEMS created this mess, and the Repubs. are NOT trying to repeal it – no matter what you say – who should fix it?
March 4, 2020 at 9:14 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
8
3
Craig – are you REALLY under the belief that the R’s are NOT trying to repeal Obamacare?
The R’s are arguing four things under Texas v. United States. Let me cite the fourth argument:
“Fourth, if [the individual mandate is overturned], how much of the rest of the Act is inseverable from the individual mandate?”
When a court strikes down part of a law, it’s often asked whether other parts of that statute must fall as well — known as “severability.”
Severability asks a hypothetical — in this case “would the ACA have been enacted if the court had determined the individual mandate was invalid?”
If the answer the court renders is “no”, then the entire ACA is overturned.
By asking about severability, the R’s are saying “overturn the ACA in its entirety if you never would’ve approved the ACA without the individual mandate in place”
March 4, 2020 at 1:28 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
3
So I shall ask you an on-topic, non-emotional, non-sealioning, non-trolling, non-ad hominem, non-leading, non-any argument fallacy question:
Based on the fourth argument in Texas v. United States, do you still believe that “…the Republicans are NOT trying to repeal [the ACA]”?
March 4, 2020 at 1:35 pm
craig cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
8
WHO created the Individual Mandate? Dems. Who hated the Individual Mandate? America.
Who said the individual mandate would not be required when he was campaigning for President? Obama.
Who changed his mind when Gruber showed him the ACA wouldn’t work without forcing millions of young, healthy people to overpay for insurance? Obama.
Who created this mess? Democrats. Who refuses to take responsibility? Democrats.
Republicans just want to go back to the system in place before Obamacare dramatically raised everyone’s premiums, counter to what Obama lied about when he repeatedly said there would be $2,500. premium reductions per family (while his staff warned him not to say that because it wasn’t true.)
Whose fault is that?
March 4, 2020 at 1:42 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
I see I have to repeat myself to you once again….
I get that the D’s lied about aspects of the ACA (lying is wrong). I get that the ACA is a super-duper failure (I’ve said it for years).
Neither of those touches on the point of my last comment.
Based on the fourth argument in Texas v. United States, do you still believe that “…the Republicans are NOT trying to repeal [the ACA]” like you said last night?
March 4, 2020 at 3:47 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
repeal
verb
revoke or annul (a law or congressional act).
noun
the action of revoking or annulling a law or congressional act.
You are arguing nobody is trying to revoke or annul the law while the R’s LITERALLY asked the court to do just that RE: severability.
March 4, 2020 at 4:39 pm
Common Sense says:
Like or Dislike:
4
6
Craig, Pelosi said she would pole vault over the fence to get this done and we had to read it to see what was in it. 2,700 pages of Progressive nonsense which was a disaster from day 1.
March 4, 2020 at 5:00 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
I give up. You resort to dishonest twisting of words instead of admitting the truth.
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of repeal
transitive verb
1: to rescind or annul by authoritative act
especially : to revoke or abrogate by legislative enactment
BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT!
March 4, 2020 at 6:51 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Especially
very much; more than usual or more than other people or things:
Yes. Repeal is especially done via legislative efforts. That just means it happens that way more than other ways. It does not mean it’s solely done that way.
March 5, 2020 at 2:55 pm
SWFL Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
If the ACA would have substantially lowered the cost of the health insurance then I suspect most people would not have been opposed to the mandate portion of the law. We would have just moved on to the next problem at hand. The mandate was really the linchpin (at least I think Dems thought so) of the ACA and that younger, healthy participants were supposed to drive down the rates. That’s probably the biggest misconception that “non-insurance” people (politicians) have about insurance. Their thought – place more people in the pool and we’re all better off. Insurance, if we can really call it that now, doesn’t work well under those circumstances. We saw that with state mandated auto insurance in the past. The vast majority of the population easily pushed for mandatory auto insurance because, in their minds, there was nothing more egregious and unfair to be the hit by an uninsured driver. And most people felt that those uninsured miscreants drove up their auto insurance rates. What states discovered was that, over time, rates increased. The ACA is no different. I suspect health insurance company executives knew this but why raise the issue – the ACA gave them some financial guarantees.
March 2, 2020 at 6:47 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
5
11
What makes you think the Dems wouldn’t lie again, …. this time about their ‘plan’ to save the ACA, or the nature of MediCare4All?
They will lie, to try to get re-elected. So, change is necessary, and the responsible adults need to step in to make those changes. Chief Justice John Roberts cannot rely on the ‘tax’ reasoning now, so repeal is inevitable.
They already have, several times, and the democrats each time claim it does not exist, and you claim it does not exist.
No one depends on the ACA who would not receive Medicaid subsidies in it’s removal, or, from preexisting coverage being extended as it would be in every single law the republicans have suggested, sans a requirement to buy. The only difference is the amount of people forced to buy insurance would go down, making the number of uninsured by choice go down. Also, no one would lose coverage, made by the prior point.
You are being dishonest in your debate by putting words in my mouth saying I claim the replacement plans don’t exist. I never said that, bob. I am saying “I don’t think the law should be overturned…waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.”
There are plans. I never said otherwise. I said don’t overturn the law THEN debate the plan, vote on it and wait for it to be implemented. BIG difference in those two arguments.
The R’s are trying to overturn the ACA and don’t have an approved plan ready to take its place. That’s my issue. Got it?
March 5, 2020 at 5:35 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Trollsenblatt; there will be NO APPROVED PLAN waiting in the wings for a repeal! I’ve discussed this many times, but you refuse to acknowledge or accept the procedures used by Congress / The Federal government. They will not advance the plans, whether commonplace or proprietary until a repeal is imminent. The Republicans did so a few times, just to get the Dems on record for voting against them, so as to use their votes against them. Otherwise, no plans were introduced for YEARS.
Again; what right do you THINK you have to mandate how things will work in Washington, and what right do you THINK you have to DEMAND a plan be published BEFORE a repeal occurs? Whatever you posit, you’re wrong about it.
March 6, 2020 at 10:11 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
“I’ve discussed this many times, but you refuse to acknowledge or accept the procedures used by Congress / The Federal government.”
Yes Polar, I do not accept your argument the plans can’t be released and discussed because they lack copy write protection. Until you can show me one single bill that had such a stipulation surrounding it, I will continue to refuse to believe that’s how laws/bills are handled in our country.
March 5, 2020 at 2:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
Republicans create a plan without a mandate, study says people will lose insurance, (duh due to choice) you then say what about the people who will lose insurance? We then say, by choice. You then say it’s stupid to go without insurance. Well, they chose it. So, it’s not about the people going without insurance is it? Because you won’t let them make their own choices, and are talking for them about potential harm aren’t you?
Medicaid would help anyone who needed it who can’t afford it. Those income thresholds aren’t changing. You’re talking people who are out of college for the most part who don’t buy it, and if they have an issue (rare) then there are already fail safes. File for bankruptcy young, it barely matters. Then you build back up your life even better than before. It’s better than dragging down every single 20 something year old, the millions of them, to let say 1 out of 100,000 fall on their butt. That is what you don’t get. You say, well what about that guy that falls on his butt doing that? Yeah? How about we don’t harm millions because of a few irresponsible people yah? By charging them say double on health insurance. How about we let them save for a house those first 5 years after college, and have 95% of them succeed in that endeavor, if you’re going to tell me more than 5% will end up having catastrophic claims at that age you are completely full of it, you don’t care about the 95%, we do. Agent and I care MORE about the middle class than you, you just do not understand the consequences and dynamics of your belief system, or the programs available.
REMOVE YOUR ALTRUISM.
Or rather, ALL TRUE ISM. And you might have the ability to actually help people. Rosenblatt, most your arguments are really “but what about!” literal what aboutism. There are republican plans, what is your response to them?
You will say, I assure you, “but, what about”. Want to test that theory? Talk to me about them. They do exist. Stop pretending they don’t.
Honestly bob, after all of that, you STILL say “Stop pretending [the replacement plans] don’t [exist]”
I LITERALLY JUST TOLD YOU
“There are plans. I never said otherwise. I said don’t overturn the law THEN debate the plan, vote on it and wait for it to be implemented. BIG difference in those two arguments.
The R’s are trying to overturn the ACA and don’t have an approved plan ready to take its place. That’s my issue. Got it?”
Why are you continuing to argue I’m claiming they’re are no plans?
Why do I have to repeat my argument multiple times until you (and Craig, see above) actually comprehend what I’m arguing and stop making straw man arguments?
March 5, 2020 at 5:41 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Trollsenblatt; you previously demanded plans be published BEFORE a repeal occurs. Explain why YOUR demand should be met rather than follow established sequential norms..
March 6, 2020 at 10:13 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“you previously demanded plans be published BEFORE a repeal occurs”
Now we have 3 posters who are making me repeat myself.
Come on Polar, it’s in my first comment and I’ve restated this numerous times in this thread. I don’t know why you’re still asking.
But I go again.
I don’t think the law should be overturned until there’s a replacement plan that will ensure we don’t have people uninsured waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.
March 6, 2020 at 10:56 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
forgot to cite this “Explain why YOUR demand should be met…” before my reply
March 2, 2020 at 3:42 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
Just because I like to make statements and back them up with data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Credibility_polling Look, there’s a whole wikipedia article about Trump lying. Do you have a wikipedia article about the democrats lying? I’d love to see your facts! Since it’s really not hard to actually present them when making an argument. You should try it!
While we are talking about lying, your President lied at least 28 times in speeches about how wonderful his plan was. Something about keeping your doctor, keeping your plan and $2,500 savings for a family of four. All whoppers.
I’ve posted many times the descriptor of many such plans’ key components; HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS.
You asked for details of proprietary plans that hold the key to the toughest problems of adverse selection (i.e. prexers) and cost containment. Despite my repeated replies that they cannot be released until after the ACA is repealed and some aspects are taken up in legislation, state and federal, you insist that you have a RIGHT to know the proprietary details. I understand, as do others who read your comments that you are doing so to try to create the mistaken impression that the opponents of ACA do not have solutions. Troll on!
Are you still going to claim the replacement plans can’t be released until they’ve been copy-write protected or are you no longer arguing that since no bill in the history of this country has ever been copy-write protected before it’s been released?
Also, your reply does not address my point “….ensure we don’t have millions of people uninsured waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.”
Are you basically saying “there are replacement plans, but they WON’T be debated or voted on until after the ACA is repealed”? Because, if so, that does not resolve my concern that if the ACA is repealed, millions of people will be uninsured waiting for that process to take place.
The prior POTUS made sure to have private market plans cancelled so he could force people into his plan. Then, they didn’t have the website that would work. That sounds like the disaster that it was. Quit making excuses. Worst legislation ever passed.
Agent – can you please explain how you think I’m making excuses for it when I’ve said numerous times over the years that the ACA is a super-duper failure?
March 5, 2020 at 2:57 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Saying it is a failure in order to earn brownie points, without saying “HOW” it is a failure, or “HOW” it might be fixed, is not only not productive, it is unethical debating for the sake of it.
And every time you always say some version of “At least the democrats passed something” as part of that debate while claiming republicans do not have plans. So don’t tell me you’re actually going toward getting a plan passed. You’re not.
You are making excuses, you are preventing progress. The republicans do have plans. Your comment that they do not is incorrect. There has not been a plan put on the floor, that is a different statement, and, guess who has prevented debate on the floor for plans?
Oh please do guess!
March 5, 2020 at 3:02 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
This is very similar to, and this shows my lack of a bias, and an understanding of history, but it is very similar to the following lie from republicans Rosenblatt:
The democrats have not passed or presented a budget in several years!!! (Back when Obama was early into his tenure).
Technically, true. They had not put forward proposed budgets some years. Why? Rosenblatt, WHY?
The why matters here. Republicans stonewalled, they would not allow bills up for debate that didn’t have their ticket items. So for years, technically we did not have proposals put forward by democrats. It was not put on the floor. So can I then say that democrats did not pass a budget? They didn’t have budget plans? The latter is the more important of the two here. Did democrats or did they not have budget plans in 2010-2016, the time period republicans stone walled them and accused them of not having budget plans?
The answer is YES. The democrats did indeed of budget plans. Much like the republicans do indeed have health care plans, several, so many it is insane, for you to be saying they have not presented proposals.
Just like the republicans stopped those from going to floor, the democrats are stopping any republicans plans from going to the floor. Get your bias out of your politics. You have such an extremely high bar standard for republicans and low bar for democrats in contradicting ways it is easy to spot. You are not some intermediary moderate.
March 6, 2020 at 10:59 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I stopped reading when you falsely claimed once again that I am “claiming republicans do not have plans.”
Until you show the capacity to understand the point I am actually making rather than putting words in my mouth and making things up about what I’m saying, there’s no value in responding to anything you say since you’ll be emboldened to continue debate what you think I said instead of what I’m actually saying.
March 5, 2020 at 5:44 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Some can’t be released. Others were put up for votes so as to get the Dems on record as being against them, to their (Dems) future election chance peril. Many who voted for ACA were rejected in their reelection bids.
No plans will be proposed until the repeal is imminent. Horse. Cart. Sequencing matters.
Prey tell — WHY can’t they be released? What’s the hold up?
March 4, 2020 at 10:21 am
Common Sense says:
Like or Dislike:
4
10
There won’t be another plan put forth as long as Pelosi is in charge in the House. When Kevin McCarthy is installed and the Republicans are in control, perhaps another plan can be implemented that is not so Progressive and give people choices they can live with.
While the ACA has been a super-duper failure, I don’t think the law should be overturned until there’s a replacement plan that will ensure we don’t have millions of people uninsured waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.
The Medicaid subsidies for low income people are still in place.
The individual mandate has been removed and so the planned overcharges on young healthy people that would subsidize older, sicker people mean the Death Spiral will eventually happen.
If you want to force people to buy overpriced insurance, be honest about it this time. Don’t play the Guber/Obama game of promising health insurance premium reductions that you know are never going to happen.
The Democrats built this mess on dishonesty. Let the Democrats propose how to fix it.
I get that the D’s lied about aspects of the ACA (lying is wrong). I get that the ACA is a super-duper failure (I’ve said it for years). Neither of those touches on the point of my comment.
The Republicans are the ones fighting to repeal the ACA. The onus is on them to have a replacement ready to be implemented to ensure people don’t lose coverage if they win.
I think it’s unfair to those who depend on the ACA for the R’s to fight tooth-and-nail to over-turn the ACA and then say “We’re sorry if you relied on the ACA and now don’t have any coverage, but it’s someone else’s problem to figure out how to fill the gaps our actions caused.”
But the Republicans DIDN’T repeal the ACA. Remember John McCain?
And why judge what hasn’t happened? Why not be fair? Where is the alternative from the Left? Single Payer/Medicare for All. One-size-fits-all. Exactly what more than half the country is afraid of. That’s the Dems’ alternative, no matter if the ACA is repealed or not.
The ACA is already on the way to bankruptcy and millions of Americans are glad they are no longer forced to buy insurance they don’t want. Are you saying you think they SHOULD be forced to buy?
You’re asking what I’m saying? Here, let me post it again for you:
I think it’s unfair to those who depend on the ACA for the R’s to fight tooth-and-nail to over-turn the ACA and then say “We’re sorry if you relied on the ACA and now don’t have any coverage, but it’s someone else’s problem to figure out how to fill the gaps our actions caused.”
…just because I’ve found I need to repeat myself to you….
My original argument was “I don’t think the law should be overturned until there’s a replacement plan that will ensure we don’t have millions of people uninsured waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.”
Your reply was “Let the Democrats propose how to fix it.”
Which caused me to reply with “I think it’s unfair to those who depend on the ACA for the R’s to fight tooth-and-nail…”
But the Republicans are NOT trying to repeal it. Where have you been for the past 2 years? They gave up on that with McCain
The article is about the Individual Mandate. Period. Who put the individual mandate in place? Democrats. And the American people hated it. For some reason people don’t like being forced to buy stuff.
And so since the DEMS created this mess, and the Repubs. are NOT trying to repeal it – no matter what you say – who should fix it?
Craig – are you REALLY under the belief that the R’s are NOT trying to repeal Obamacare?
The R’s are arguing four things under Texas v. United States. Let me cite the fourth argument:
“Fourth, if [the individual mandate is overturned], how much of the rest of the Act is inseverable from the individual mandate?”
When a court strikes down part of a law, it’s often asked whether other parts of that statute must fall as well — known as “severability.”
Severability asks a hypothetical — in this case “would the ACA have been enacted if the court had determined the individual mandate was invalid?”
If the answer the court renders is “no”, then the entire ACA is overturned.
By asking about severability, the R’s are saying “overturn the ACA in its entirety if you never would’ve approved the ACA without the individual mandate in place”
So I shall ask you an on-topic, non-emotional, non-sealioning, non-trolling, non-ad hominem, non-leading, non-any argument fallacy question:
Based on the fourth argument in Texas v. United States, do you still believe that “…the Republicans are NOT trying to repeal [the ACA]”?
WHO created the Individual Mandate? Dems. Who hated the Individual Mandate? America.
Who said the individual mandate would not be required when he was campaigning for President? Obama.
Who changed his mind when Gruber showed him the ACA wouldn’t work without forcing millions of young, healthy people to overpay for insurance? Obama.
Who created this mess? Democrats. Who refuses to take responsibility? Democrats.
Republicans just want to go back to the system in place before Obamacare dramatically raised everyone’s premiums, counter to what Obama lied about when he repeatedly said there would be $2,500. premium reductions per family (while his staff warned him not to say that because it wasn’t true.)
Whose fault is that?
I see I have to repeat myself to you once again….
I get that the D’s lied about aspects of the ACA (lying is wrong). I get that the ACA is a super-duper failure (I’ve said it for years).
Neither of those touches on the point of my last comment.
Based on the fourth argument in Texas v. United States, do you still believe that “…the Republicans are NOT trying to repeal [the ACA]” like you said last night?
repeal
verb
revoke or annul (a law or congressional act).
noun
the action of revoking or annulling a law or congressional act.
You are arguing nobody is trying to revoke or annul the law while the R’s LITERALLY asked the court to do just that RE: severability.
Craig, Pelosi said she would pole vault over the fence to get this done and we had to read it to see what was in it. 2,700 pages of Progressive nonsense which was a disaster from day 1.
I give up. You resort to dishonest twisting of words instead of admitting the truth.
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of repeal
transitive verb
1: to rescind or annul by authoritative act
especially : to revoke or abrogate by legislative enactment
BY LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT!
Especially
very much; more than usual or more than other people or things:
Yes. Repeal is especially done via legislative efforts. That just means it happens that way more than other ways. It does not mean it’s solely done that way.
If the ACA would have substantially lowered the cost of the health insurance then I suspect most people would not have been opposed to the mandate portion of the law. We would have just moved on to the next problem at hand. The mandate was really the linchpin (at least I think Dems thought so) of the ACA and that younger, healthy participants were supposed to drive down the rates. That’s probably the biggest misconception that “non-insurance” people (politicians) have about insurance. Their thought – place more people in the pool and we’re all better off. Insurance, if we can really call it that now, doesn’t work well under those circumstances. We saw that with state mandated auto insurance in the past. The vast majority of the population easily pushed for mandatory auto insurance because, in their minds, there was nothing more egregious and unfair to be the hit by an uninsured driver. And most people felt that those uninsured miscreants drove up their auto insurance rates. What states discovered was that, over time, rates increased. The ACA is no different. I suspect health insurance company executives knew this but why raise the issue – the ACA gave them some financial guarantees.
What makes you think the Dems wouldn’t lie again, …. this time about their ‘plan’ to save the ACA, or the nature of MediCare4All?
They will lie, to try to get re-elected. So, change is necessary, and the responsible adults need to step in to make those changes. Chief Justice John Roberts cannot rely on the ‘tax’ reasoning now, so repeal is inevitable.
They already have, several times, and the democrats each time claim it does not exist, and you claim it does not exist.
No one depends on the ACA who would not receive Medicaid subsidies in it’s removal, or, from preexisting coverage being extended as it would be in every single law the republicans have suggested, sans a requirement to buy. The only difference is the amount of people forced to buy insurance would go down, making the number of uninsured by choice go down. Also, no one would lose coverage, made by the prior point.
You are being dishonest in your debate.
You are being dishonest in your debate by putting words in my mouth saying I claim the replacement plans don’t exist. I never said that, bob. I am saying “I don’t think the law should be overturned…waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.”
There are plans. I never said otherwise. I said don’t overturn the law THEN debate the plan, vote on it and wait for it to be implemented. BIG difference in those two arguments.
The R’s are trying to overturn the ACA and don’t have an approved plan ready to take its place. That’s my issue. Got it?
Trollsenblatt; there will be NO APPROVED PLAN waiting in the wings for a repeal! I’ve discussed this many times, but you refuse to acknowledge or accept the procedures used by Congress / The Federal government. They will not advance the plans, whether commonplace or proprietary until a repeal is imminent. The Republicans did so a few times, just to get the Dems on record for voting against them, so as to use their votes against them. Otherwise, no plans were introduced for YEARS.
Again; what right do you THINK you have to mandate how things will work in Washington, and what right do you THINK you have to DEMAND a plan be published BEFORE a repeal occurs? Whatever you posit, you’re wrong about it.
“I’ve discussed this many times, but you refuse to acknowledge or accept the procedures used by Congress / The Federal government.”
Yes Polar, I do not accept your argument the plans can’t be released and discussed because they lack copy write protection. Until you can show me one single bill that had such a stipulation surrounding it, I will continue to refuse to believe that’s how laws/bills are handled in our country.
Republicans create a plan without a mandate, study says people will lose insurance, (duh due to choice) you then say what about the people who will lose insurance? We then say, by choice. You then say it’s stupid to go without insurance. Well, they chose it. So, it’s not about the people going without insurance is it? Because you won’t let them make their own choices, and are talking for them about potential harm aren’t you?
Medicaid would help anyone who needed it who can’t afford it. Those income thresholds aren’t changing. You’re talking people who are out of college for the most part who don’t buy it, and if they have an issue (rare) then there are already fail safes. File for bankruptcy young, it barely matters. Then you build back up your life even better than before. It’s better than dragging down every single 20 something year old, the millions of them, to let say 1 out of 100,000 fall on their butt. That is what you don’t get. You say, well what about that guy that falls on his butt doing that? Yeah? How about we don’t harm millions because of a few irresponsible people yah? By charging them say double on health insurance. How about we let them save for a house those first 5 years after college, and have 95% of them succeed in that endeavor, if you’re going to tell me more than 5% will end up having catastrophic claims at that age you are completely full of it, you don’t care about the 95%, we do. Agent and I care MORE about the middle class than you, you just do not understand the consequences and dynamics of your belief system, or the programs available.
REMOVE YOUR ALTRUISM.
Or rather, ALL TRUE ISM. And you might have the ability to actually help people. Rosenblatt, most your arguments are really “but what about!” literal what aboutism. There are republican plans, what is your response to them?
You will say, I assure you, “but, what about”. Want to test that theory? Talk to me about them. They do exist. Stop pretending they don’t.
Honestly bob, after all of that, you STILL say “Stop pretending [the replacement plans] don’t [exist]”
I LITERALLY JUST TOLD YOU
“There are plans. I never said otherwise. I said don’t overturn the law THEN debate the plan, vote on it and wait for it to be implemented. BIG difference in those two arguments.
The R’s are trying to overturn the ACA and don’t have an approved plan ready to take its place. That’s my issue. Got it?”
Why are you continuing to argue I’m claiming they’re are no plans?
Why do I have to repeat my argument multiple times until you (and Craig, see above) actually comprehend what I’m arguing and stop making straw man arguments?
Trollsenblatt; you previously demanded plans be published BEFORE a repeal occurs. Explain why YOUR demand should be met rather than follow established sequential norms..
“you previously demanded plans be published BEFORE a repeal occurs”
Now we have 3 posters who are making me repeat myself.
Come on Polar, it’s in my first comment and I’ve restated this numerous times in this thread. I don’t know why you’re still asking.
But I go again.
I don’t think the law should be overturned until there’s a replacement plan that will ensure we don’t have people uninsured waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.
forgot to cite this “Explain why YOUR demand should be met…” before my reply
Just because I like to make statements and back them up with data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Credibility_polling Look, there’s a whole wikipedia article about Trump lying. Do you have a wikipedia article about the democrats lying? I’d love to see your facts! Since it’s really not hard to actually present them when making an argument. You should try it!
While we are talking about lying, your President lied at least 28 times in speeches about how wonderful his plan was. Something about keeping your doctor, keeping your plan and $2,500 savings for a family of four. All whoppers.
“… until there’s a replacement plan…”
I’ve posted many times the descriptor of many such plans’ key components; HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS.
You asked for details of proprietary plans that hold the key to the toughest problems of adverse selection (i.e. prexers) and cost containment. Despite my repeated replies that they cannot be released until after the ACA is repealed and some aspects are taken up in legislation, state and federal, you insist that you have a RIGHT to know the proprietary details. I understand, as do others who read your comments that you are doing so to try to create the mistaken impression that the opponents of ACA do not have solutions. Troll on!
Are you still going to claim the replacement plans can’t be released until they’ve been copy-write protected or are you no longer arguing that since no bill in the history of this country has ever been copy-write protected before it’s been released?
Also, your reply does not address my point “….ensure we don’t have millions of people uninsured waiting for the replacement to be debated, voted on and ultimately implemented as law.”
Are you basically saying “there are replacement plans, but they WON’T be debated or voted on until after the ACA is repealed”? Because, if so, that does not resolve my concern that if the ACA is repealed, millions of people will be uninsured waiting for that process to take place.
The prior POTUS made sure to have private market plans cancelled so he could force people into his plan. Then, they didn’t have the website that would work. That sounds like the disaster that it was. Quit making excuses. Worst legislation ever passed.
Agent – can you please explain how you think I’m making excuses for it when I’ve said numerous times over the years that the ACA is a super-duper failure?
Saying it is a failure in order to earn brownie points, without saying “HOW” it is a failure, or “HOW” it might be fixed, is not only not productive, it is unethical debating for the sake of it.
And every time you always say some version of “At least the democrats passed something” as part of that debate while claiming republicans do not have plans. So don’t tell me you’re actually going toward getting a plan passed. You’re not.
You are making excuses, you are preventing progress. The republicans do have plans. Your comment that they do not is incorrect. There has not been a plan put on the floor, that is a different statement, and, guess who has prevented debate on the floor for plans?
Oh please do guess!
This is very similar to, and this shows my lack of a bias, and an understanding of history, but it is very similar to the following lie from republicans Rosenblatt:
The democrats have not passed or presented a budget in several years!!! (Back when Obama was early into his tenure).
Technically, true. They had not put forward proposed budgets some years. Why? Rosenblatt, WHY?
The why matters here. Republicans stonewalled, they would not allow bills up for debate that didn’t have their ticket items. So for years, technically we did not have proposals put forward by democrats. It was not put on the floor. So can I then say that democrats did not pass a budget? They didn’t have budget plans? The latter is the more important of the two here. Did democrats or did they not have budget plans in 2010-2016, the time period republicans stone walled them and accused them of not having budget plans?
The answer is YES. The democrats did indeed of budget plans. Much like the republicans do indeed have health care plans, several, so many it is insane, for you to be saying they have not presented proposals.
Just like the republicans stopped those from going to floor, the democrats are stopping any republicans plans from going to the floor. Get your bias out of your politics. You have such an extremely high bar standard for republicans and low bar for democrats in contradicting ways it is easy to spot. You are not some intermediary moderate.
I stopped reading when you falsely claimed once again that I am “claiming republicans do not have plans.”
Until you show the capacity to understand the point I am actually making rather than putting words in my mouth and making things up about what I’m saying, there’s no value in responding to anything you say since you’ll be emboldened to continue debate what you think I said instead of what I’m actually saying.
Some can’t be released. Others were put up for votes so as to get the Dems on record as being against them, to their (Dems) future election chance peril. Many who voted for ACA were rejected in their reelection bids.
No plans will be proposed until the repeal is imminent. Horse. Cart. Sequencing matters.
“Some can’t be released.”
Prey tell — WHY can’t they be released? What’s the hold up?
There won’t be another plan put forth as long as Pelosi is in charge in the House. When Kevin McCarthy is installed and the Republicans are in control, perhaps another plan can be implemented that is not so Progressive and give people choices they can live with.
Easy to see why my comments keep getting deleted by Andrew who ran positive stories on Obamacare while watching it implode.