Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

I don't think that's always true.  Taking an unpopular stand may make you unpopular with the majority, but it may make you wildly popular with a minority.  That may make it both very easy and very lucrative.  And I'm not saying that to imply base motives to those who take unpopular, but principled stands.  Just pointing out that guys like Levin, Limbaugh, etc., have made a very nice living, and have a great many fans, by stating opinions that are "unpopular" to the majority.  Heck, that's the whole premise off which a lot of cult leaders operate, right?  They want to be persecuted, because it is part of the "us v. them" image that is the core of being in a cult.

Point is, it may be hard to take an unpopular stand.  Then again, it may not be.

Maj. Bill, I think you're right.  One thing this thread points out is that some people revel in taking an unpopular, and in this case wrong, stance.  Some people obviously get their jollies by disagreeing with eminently agreeable points of view.  I stand corrected.

[DiogenesLamp]

I hope you enjoy the continued abomination of ObamaCare!

The WSJ's lead editorial this morning continued to pound the foolishness of the Freedom Caucus,  noting the AHCA's block-granting of Medicaid "would have put the program on a budget for the first time since it was created in 1965".   

Why sure.  That's a good reason to do it.   (As if they manage budgets responsibly in Washington DC) 



 

The Freedom Caucus's irresponsible behavior will be seen in future years as a tragedy for conservatism.   

What is wrong with you?

[Cyber Liberty]

Maj. Bill, I think you're right.  One thing this thread points out is that some people revel in taking an unpopular, and in this case wrong, stance.  Some people obviously get their jollies by disagreeing with eminently agreeable points of view.  I stand corrected.

I'd like to stand corrected too, but I'm more confused now than I was on page 1.   

[Sanguine]

I'd like to stand corrected too, but I'm more confused now than I was on page 1.   

Six-dimensional chess, Cyber.  It's beyond us mere mortals.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Maj. Bill, I think you're right.  One thing this thread points out is that some people revel in taking an unpopular, and in this case wrong, stance.  Some people obviously get their jollies by disagreeing with eminently agreeable points of view.  I stand corrected.

I restrained myself from using this thread as an example, so your insight is appreciated.

[Bigun]

I'd like to stand corrected too, but I'm more confused now than I was on page 1.   

Perhaps I can help you with that!

This was then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7aRKhgusi0&feature=youtu.be.

[Cyber Liberty]

Perhaps I can help you with that!

This was then:
http://youtu.be/A7aRKhgusi0

LOL.  Clears one thing up...I'm afraid I was always one of the cynics who never believed what he said.  Now maybe I was correct to be that way.  Doesn't help my friends who got thrown out of their plans and such, though. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, then, so does the Wall Street Journal.   The WSJ's take is that the Freedom Caucus has foolishly set back the cause of conservatism and free markets,  and has blown a chance to fundamentally reform Medicaid that may never come again. 

This concept of "free markets"  has been sold to us as part of Conservative boilerplate for the last 50 years or so,   but the theory that this is indeed a fundamental conservative principle has developed a lot of cracks as of late.   

When companies in other nations do not have to comply with our pollution or safety standards,  when they can employ slave labor or near slave labor to manufacture products for sale in our country,   how is this system equitable for those companies who have to live under our rules and compete with these people who don't?   

Free Markets with Free Societies might be a valid point,  but Free Markets with oligarchical or tyrannical societies are just foolish.   


Yes,  the Wall Street Journal is more concerned with financial bottom lines than they are of any question of fundamental principles of freedom.   We had the same sort of people doing business deals with the Nazis back in the 1930s.   





 

Of course, to the unwashed here,  even the WSJ is a bunch of wicked commies.   

I would put them more in the category of "Crony Capitalists",  the closest analogy of which is the German Industrialists of the 1930s.   
 

[DiogenesLamp]

@Jazzhead


Some people on our side likes to live in a safe space. WSJ did state the truth..

The "truth"  huh?  When does someone's opinion constitute the "Truth"?   It remains to be seen if their opinion becomes "the truth"  or not.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Six-dimensional chess, Cyber.  It's beyond us mere mortals.

Fortunately we have "betters" who are more than happy to straighten us out. 

[musiclady]

@musiclady

Well you could head west. Although I must admit, fall in a deciduous forest is a wonderland. The Taiga won't give you that... It's pretty here in the fall, but back east is spectacular. But I wouldn't trade the majesty of these Rocky Mountains for anything.

We're going to visit the majesty of the Rockies this summer and enjoy their magnificence.

This entire country is filled with glorious beauty of all kinds (well.......... except that NW Colorado part that looks like Siberia without snow, and creates all sorts of images of roaming dinosaurs in one's mind.  ^-^).

We, who live here are truly blessed, because there is no other land so remarkable and touched by God, on the whole earth.

@roamer_1

[DiogenesLamp]

And over here on the right, we tend to focus on the practicalities and principles, and seem often to forget about the real people who will be affected, usually for the worse, if our ideas become law.  It's not that the principles are bad, it's just that we tend to demand sudden changes -- e.g., today you're covered, and tomorrow you're not.  Real people get hurt when that sort of thing occurs.

Of course nobody got hurt when they used to be free to chose whether or not to get health insurance,  and then suddenly they were going to be fined $2,500.00 per year if they didn't.  If you are going to apply a standard,  apply it to both sides. 


Sudden changes are what the Liberals always do.  Roe v Wade was a sudden change.  Gay marriage was a sudden change.  Health care insurance being forced on us all was a sudden change.   
Nobody cared that people got hurt as a result.   

 

There's a middle ground, of sorts, where the people and practicalities should be considered at the same time, but it's a very delicate balancing act.  And yet that is where political compromise has to be found.  If the Freedom Caucus cannot admit the consequences of their policies, or the "moderates" cannot accept the economic realities of their concerns, then no good changes are possible -- and we're left with the fetid mess that is Obamacare.

Obamacare was suddenly forced upon us.   Let it be suddenly rendered Null and Void.   The  blame for all this suffering and misery caused by this stupidity should rest squarely at the feet of that Affirmative Action fool who caused it,  and the Media that enabled that fool to take power.   

[Cyber Liberty]

Of course nobody got hurt when they used to be free to chose whether or not to get health insurance,  and then suddenly they were going to be fined $2,500.00 per year if they didn't.  If you are going to apply a standard,  apply it to both sides. 


Sudden changes are what the Liberals always do.  Roe v Wade was a sudden change.  Gay marriage was a sudden change.  Health care insurance being forced on us all was a sudden change.   
Nobody cared that people got hurt as a result.   

 


Obamacare was suddenly forced upon us.   Let it be suddenly rendered Null and Void.   The  blame for all this suffering and misery caused by this stupidity should rest squarely at the feet of that Affirmative Action fool who caused it,  and the Media that enabled that fool to take power.

It seems like sudden changes are only good if the lurch is to the left.   

[bigheadfred]

What I think you're saying is that you cannot afford insurance in the current system.  I'm not sure what you do if/when you need to go to a doctor or need to fill a prescription, but without some sort of medical plan that's often prohibitive as well.

Any solution -- whatever form it may take -- ultimately has to result in medical care that doesn't bankrupt the patient.  I honestly don't know what that solution would look like, except that it probably doesn't bear much resemblance to the system that we have now.

Affordable health care should be that. Affordable. Paying more for the same service with insurance isn't the answer. Since I am neither an economist or a businessman, though I've had a lot of exposure, it seems like some type of competitiveness would help. There isn''t much of that happening now. That I can see, anyway.

Fundamental transformation is that. Fundamental transformation. Pointed in any direction and made to happen with enough impetus.

[bigheadfred]

This is a general statement not pointed at anyone.

If you think the person depicted on the cross, or the cross matter, I think you missed the point. And I do feel sorry for you.

[r9etb]

Of course nobody got hurt when they used to be free to chose whether or not to get health insurance,  and then suddenly they were going to be fined $2,500.00 per year if they didn't.  If you are going to apply a standard,  apply it to both sides. 

I do apply it to both sides.  Obamacare was a disaster for millions of people who first lost their existing plans, and then saw the new, "better" plans cost a whole lot more.  But that doesn't change the fact that "repeal" will apparently result in the loss of coverage for people who are now covered, and political realism says you've got to avoid that, whatever one's principles are.

Sudden changes are what the Liberals always do.  Roe v Wade was a sudden change.  Gay marriage was a sudden change.  Health care insurance being forced on us all was a sudden change.   Nobody cared that people got hurt as a result.   

Well, the world ain't fair, where matters of left vs. right are concerned.  But it's the world we live in.

Obamacare was suddenly forced upon us.   Let it be suddenly rendered Null and Void.   The  blame for all this suffering and misery caused by this stupidity should rest squarely at the feet of that Affirmative Action fool who caused it,  and the Media that enabled that fool to take power.

A fair assessment, but you'll notice that the case still isn't being effectively made. 

I really don't understand the hurry to get the AHCA bill on the floor, when September (at the earliest) would have had the advantage of allowing more time for comments and revisions, and also for laying the groundwork as you've laid it out.

I'd suggest also that making the case for what's wrong with Obamacare would also be a good place to start for addressing the issues piecemeal, rather than all at once.

[DiogenesLamp]

Such a sunset clause IS repeal. It is automatic and unstoppable. And of course the Freedom Caucus would go for it. I don't think anyone sees it overturned overnight. Shoot, It will take half a year to a year just for the insurance companies to find equilibrium, and normalize their policies.

The problem is stretching it past that to 3 years, where simply losing a house in the election might well stop or reverse it, and certainly, CERTAINLY not 5 years, which is just a way for everyone to say they did it without it did at all. A reasonable, committed disassembly is perfectly acceptable, and very possible if written into the repeal. AS LONG AS IT IS A COMPLETE REPEAL. Not a vestige left.

Keep your promises.

This.   They promised to repeal it.   They've voted to repeal it numerous times.  Either they were lying to us through a "Legislation Drama"  show they've been playing at,  or they need to simply do what they've already done before.   


Why was a repeal acceptable last year when Obama was going to veto it but that same repeal is suddenly now unacceptable now that Trump would be the one who would have to sign it? 

[skeeter]

If you are going to apply a standard,  apply it to both sides. 

Never gonna happen. Progressivism will only work when the issue is defined by them in black and white terms. They are never conflicted on what they should do, the losers be damned.

We are only enjoined to consider all sides when their agenda is threatened, and then only to paralyze the opposition.

[r9etb]

Affordable health care should be that. Affordable. Paying more for the same service with insurance isn't the answer. Since I am neither an economist or a businessman, though I've had a lot of exposure, it seems like some type of competitiveness would help. There isn''t much of that happening now. That I can see, anyway.

Fundamental transformation is that. Fundamental transformation. Pointed in any direction and made to happen with enough impetus.

One possibility is the move of some doctors toward offering "concierge medicine," where they don't accept insurance.  For routine medical care you either pay as you go, or you can buy a yearly "subscription."  The rationale is twofold: first, it gives the doctors a lot more leeway in how they practice medicine, and second, it significantly reduces their operating overhead.  I've known a few doctors who have gone this route, and apparently they like it. 

I don't know how well it would work as a general system, and it doesn't cover things like hospitalization and catastrophic care.  But in conjunction with true insurance (as opposed to the overarching cost-sharing system we have now) it is a possible approach.

[skeeter]

If you are going to apply a standard, apply it to both sides.

Never gonna happen. Progressivism will only work when the issue is defined by them in black and white terms. They are never conflicted on what they should do, the losers be damned.

We are only enjoined by them to consider all sides when their agenda is threatened, and then the intent is only to paralyze and prevent action.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Sudden changes are what the Liberals always do.  Roe v Wade was a sudden change.  Gay marriage was a sudden change.  Health care insurance being forced on us all was a sudden change.   

Obamacare was suddenly forced upon us.   

I think it's fair to note that Roe v. Wade and Gay Marriage both came through the courts, as did the Supreme Court striking down state gun control laws.  The Courts aren't constrained by having to assemble political majorities in three different entities.

Obamacare arguable was a "sudden" change, but that has to be put into context.  The left has been pushing for some form of national health care since the 70's, and repeatedly tried and failed.  Even with control of both houses and the Presidency in the first two years of the Clinton Administration, they failed.  Eventually, after nearly a half-century of trying, they managed to get ObamaCare through.  But even then without the large public option for which the left has been pushing. 

I don't want to wait for a half century to get rid of it, so unless those straight repeal votes appear somehow in both the House and Senate (and I don't think they will), I'll take getting rid of as much of it as we can now, even if that means leaving some of it in place.

[DiogenesLamp]

As I was saying....  Liberty, individualism, taking care of your own -- they all sound fine until you run up against a policy that causes somebody's mother to lose coverage.  We forget that at our political peril.

I fully believe that changes which cause significant impact to people should be done slowly enough that people can adjust their affairs to deal with the changes.   

Of course Obama didn't follow this common sense policy,  and so I am less inclined to follow it concerning anything that bastard did.  Make his people suffer.   He made ours suffer.   Teach the ignorant little sh*t why he shouldn't have acted like an ignorant little sh*t.   

Actually he would learn nothing,  but some of his supporters might.   

But again: the political realities are probably against this, because the implication is that after two years there are people who will be left with nothing.  The necessary political compromise would result in some measure to prevent that from happening -- some level of replacement, rather than outright repeal -- while at the same time reducing the scope of such replacement.

And the Liberal ratchet effect never quite clicks back in the other direction.   

Whereas I think that insistence on "COMPLETE REPEAL" would probably help to ensure a Democrat majority in 2018 in at least one house.  We've already seen how it would be used as a specific example that the Democrats could use as they run against the general political noxiousness of the Trump administration.

You mean it gives the New York Controlled Liberal Democrat propaganda system an excuse to constantly attack people who voted for freedom.   

I've got an idea.   How about we drop a nuke hammer on that propaganda system and destroy it so they won't be able to manipulate the public?    Wouldn't that actually solve some problems instead of just papering them over with concessions to the Eternal Left?   


The Left has a massive Trillion dollar voice.   We have blogs and websites.    Let us take over or destroy the left's Trillion dollar propaganda system,  and a lot of problems would simply disappear. 

[DiogenesLamp]

It is real easy for people like Levin to govern from behind the microphone.

It is even easier for people like George Stephanopolous to govern from behind the Studio cameras. 


Which they do.   

[DiogenesLamp]

This is why I get really sick of the crap that comes from the faces of "brilliant theoreticians."

‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

[Cyber Liberty]

This.   They promised to repeal it.   They've voted to repeal it numerous times.  Either they were lying to us through a "Legislation Drama"  show they've been playing at,  or they need to simply do what they've already done before.   

They were lying to us the whole time, it was "drama," as you put it.  A cynical lie to get votes, never meaning to follow through.  I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.  What's surprising are some of the arguments I've heard in favor of the crap sandwich that was just defeated.