Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Ocare!
7:21 AM - 26 Mar 2017
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
The irony is that the Freedom Caucus, which is very pro-life and against Planned Parenthood, allows P.P. to continue if they stop this plan!
7:23 AM - 24 Mar 2017
"This is not the end of the debate ... It's like saying that Tom Brady lost at halftime."
—Rep. Mark Meadows
In a Fox News interview Sunday, he said some conservatives may have been overly perfectionist
"may have been overly perfectionist"?? Well, this is certainly diplomatic. :smokin:
"may have been overly perfectionist"?? Well, this is certainly diplomatic. :smokin:
The bill that fully repeals obamacare is sitting in committee right now. It is the same as the 2015 bill that passed both Houses. All that needs to be done is for a majority (216) of member to sign off on it.
That's "all"? Ok, then if enough support actually exists to pass a clean repeal, then why doesn't the House just pass it? Put the onus on Trump to veto it if he doesn't like it.
Outside of pulling PP funding, conservatives got absolutely nothing from Ryan's bill.@skeeter
Outside of pulling PP funding, conservatives got absolutely nothing from Ryan's bill.
@skeeter
And that pulling of funding for PP had a 1 year limit on it, subject to renewal at each interval, I read somewhere.
Outside of pulling PP funding, conservatives got absolutely nothing from Ryan's bill.
Yes ... and neither do the people @skeeter, neither does small business.
But, hell .. as long as conservatives are happy ... I guess it's worth all of the pain their myopic vision inflicts.
Off the top of my head, they also got the elimination of the business mandate/tax penalty, and the elimination of the "essential health benefits" requirement. The former would have helped a lot of small/medium businesses, and the latter would have reduced costs for most people.
Instead, we got bupkis.
Wanna bet the Turtle won't let it to the floor?
So you're blaming conservatives for taking candidate Trump seriously too?
If Trump had half the brains he claims to have he would have formed a committee of conservative representatives and senators to study and come up with a workable plan that would actually stand a chance of passage.
Instead he was in such a rush for something to pass so he could slap his name on it and declare victory that he didn't care what it was as long as it passed and he could call it a win for himself. Unfortunately he didn't count on it being unpopular and him taking the blame.
Now rather than learning from his mistake he's decided to launch attacks on moderates and conservatives alike.
No. I'm saying that you are wrong to claim that the only thing conservatives would have gotten is the Planned Parenthood funding cut. I'm saying they also would have gotten (again, just off the top of my head):
1) elimination of the "essential health benefits" requirement:
2) Elimination of the business mandate/tax, and:
3) Medicaid expansion conversion to block grant, with phase-out date set.
And that instead, we got bupkis. Is that correct, or not?
That's "all"? Ok, then if enough support actually exists to pass a clean repeal, then why doesn't the House just pass it? Put the onus on Trump to veto it if he doesn't like it.
Wanna bet the Turtle won't let it to the floor?
I'm sure it is correct.
Do you believe this is what voters understood Trump and the GOP to be promising to do with Obamacare when they elected them to the White House and both houses of congress?
If you've truly got a majority who want to pass it, he's got no choice. Same in the House with Ryan.
So why isn't that happening?
Yes ... and neither do the people @skeeter, neither does small business.
But, hell .. as long as conservatives are happy ... I guess it's worth all of the pain their myopic vision inflicts.
The Campaign cry of 'FIX IT' just doesn't ring like 'Repeal & Replace'.
Good point also @bilo
I was totally opposed to the obamacare 2.0, without a complete repeal the next Rat POTUS can put everything right back in place because of all the authority the original bill gave to the HHS Secty.
If you've truly got a majority who want to pass it, he's got no choice. Same in the House with Ryan.
So why isn't that happening?
TADA! Somebody gets it.
888high58888 888high58888 888high58888
Seems the 'Talking Points' have been disseminated, I for one am not bothered by this at all.
Let these morons pontificate, their words mean nothing to Conservatives.
Pete King: Freedom Caucus to blame for failed healthcare bill
By Max Greenwood - 03/26/17 07:00 AM EDT
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) on Sunday pinned the failure of the GOP healthcare bill on the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, saying the GOP faction wanted a "total repeal" of the Affordable Care Act.
"[The Freedom Caucus] was insisting on virtually a total repeal of ObamaCare, which sounds good," King told radio host John Catsimatidis on AM 970 in New York. "You can't end that overnight."
President Trump was handed the first legislative defeat of his presidency on Friday, after Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) pulled the American Health Care Act amid dwindling support among Republicans.
King himself had indicated before the bill was killed that he was leaning against it.
But he blamed the Freedom Caucus on Sunday for attempting to push the bill too far to the right and warned Republicans that they would have to build bipartisan support on any other major legislative undertakings.
"We're going to have to realize whether it's healthcare, whether it's tax reform coming up, that we're going to have to find a way to get legislation through that is not just all Republican," he said. "Because then it becomes all or nothing, and it's going to end up becoming nothing."
<..snip..>
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325799-gop-rep-freedom-caucus-to-blame-for-failed-healthcare-bill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325799-gop-rep-freedom-caucus-to-blame-for-failed-healthcare-bill)
If Trump had half the brains he claims to have he would have formed a committee of conservative representatives and senators to study and come up with a workable plan that would actually stand a chance of passage.
Instead he was in such a rush for something to pass so he could slap his name on it and declare victory that he didn't care what it was as long as it passed and he could call it a win for himself. Unfortunately he didn't count on it being unpopular and him taking the blame.
Now rather than learning from his mistake he's decided to launch attacks on moderates and conservatives alike.
That is not true. Leadership can bury it in committee.
@skeeter
And that pulling of funding for PP had a 1 year limit on it, subject to renewal at each interval, I read somewhere.
Yes ... and neither do the people @skeeter, neither does small business.
But, hell .. as long as conservatives are happy ... I guess it's worth all of the pain their myopic vision inflicts.
Seems the 'Talking Points' have been disseminated, I for one am not bothered by this at all.
Let these morons pontificate, their words mean nothing to Conservatives.
Pete King: Freedom Caucus to blame for failed healthcare bill
By Max Greenwood - 03/26/17 07:00 AM EDT
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) on Sunday pinned the failure of the GOP healthcare bill on the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, saying the GOP faction wanted a "total repeal" of the Affordable Care Act.
"[The Freedom Caucus] was insisting on virtually a total repeal of ObamaCare, which sounds good," King told radio host John Catsimatidis on AM 970 in New York. "You can't end that overnight."
President Trump was handed the first legislative defeat of his presidency on Friday, after Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) pulled the American Health Care Act amid dwindling support among Republicans.
King himself had indicated before the bill was killed that he was leaning against it.
But he blamed the Freedom Caucus on Sunday for attempting to push the bill too far to the right and warned Republicans that they would have to build bipartisan support on any other major legislative undertakings.
"We're going to have to realize whether it's healthcare, whether it's tax reform coming up, that we're going to have to find a way to get legislation through that is not just all Republican," he said. "Because then it becomes all or nothing, and it's going to end up becoming nothing."
<..snip..>
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325799-gop-rep-freedom-caucus-to-blame-for-failed-healthcare-bill (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325799-gop-rep-freedom-caucus-to-blame-for-failed-healthcare-bill)
Yes ... and neither do the people @skeeter, neither does small business.
But, hell .. as long as conservatives are happy ... I guess it's worth all of the pain their myopic vision inflicts.
I'll certainly join the criticism of Speaker Ryan for coming out with a bill that fell far short of repeated Republican promises, and for wrapping that bill in the arcane Senate strategy of reconciliation and presenting it as a binary choice. Ryan and the Congressional Republican leadership deserve all the criticism they're getting for not having a plan, or even a consensus, ready after 7 years.
But to me the unmistakable conclusion is that the Not-A-Politician-Greatest-Dealmaker-Who-Ever-Lived was unable to facilitate a deal within his own party when they hold the majority in both houses and the oval office, and now his sycophants are spinning his Not-A-Politician brand not as a strength, but rather a weakness which should exempt him from accountability.
@HoustonSam
Amanda CarpenterVerified account @amandacarpenter 3h3 hours ago
Dear R's in Congress: Ignore Trump in negotiations and send bills to his desk. He'll take those as wins bc he has no other choice.
Guess DT knows he can't burn all the bridges. His bullying days are over. No one is afraid of the big bad wolf anymore.@Rivergirl
Yes ... and neither do the people @skeeter, neither does small business.
But, hell .. as long as conservatives are happy ... I guess it's worth all of the pain their myopic vision inflicts.
Amanda Carpenter is right
@Right_in_Virginia
I'm happy as can be. Those liars weren't able to inflict a barely-tweaked version of Obamacare onto the American people. Happy? Oh, yeah.
Amanda Carpenter is right
Anybody else notice the buyer's remorse at TOS?
@goodwithagun
I don't read the comments over there, but I noted a couple of days ago, that 'buyers remorse' was noticeable here, even if by just a couple of people.
The bill that fully repeals obamacare is sitting in committee right now. It is the same as the 2015 bill that passed both Houses. All that needs to be done is for a majority (216) of member to sign off on it. Pres. Trump can move to the right and embrace this, or he can move to the left and support the status quo. From his tweets it looks like he's moving to the left. As someone who didn't vote for him in part because I didn't believe he would be a reliable conservative I hope I'm wrong, but early indications are I'm not.Trump moves left on this first big ticket item. I voted for Trump and I've been happy with his performance up until now, but my early opinion of Trump, that he was a centrist at best, appears to be coming true.
Careful...comments like that will get you mistaken for a Liberal.
Just sayin... :whistle:
The bill that fully repeals obamacare is sitting in committee right now. It is the same as the 2015 bill that passed both Houses. All that needs to be done is for a majority (216) of member to sign off on it. Pres. Trump can move to the right and embrace this, or he can move to the left and support the status quo. From his tweets it looks like he's moving to the left. As someone who didn't vote for him in part because I didn't believe he would be a reliable conservative I hope I'm wrong, but early indications are I'm not.
@skeeter
And that pulling of funding for PP had a 1 year limit on it, subject to renewal at each interval, I read somewhere.
Aren't you being a little ..... perfectionist?
Thanks, @CatherineofAragon. I appreciate your candor more than you'll comprehend. I've often suspected sanctimonious conservatives have no concern for the people living with the consequences of their purity and zero faith in anyone other than themselves; that conservatives are limited by their political inbreeding having bled all strategic thinking from their gene pool.
And now I know.
There are a few diehards that still throw around the nevertrump accusations but nobody really takes them seriously any more. Two months ago one had to defend himself quite a bit if nevertrump was hurled at him, but now it's almost a joke. If Jimbo doesn't rebrand soon TOS will be done. The Internet is forever, that means all of their hypocrisy is recorded for posterity.
Thanks, @CatherineofAragon. I appreciate your candor more than you'll comprehend. I've often suspected sanctimonious conservatives have no concern for the people living with the consequences of their purity and zero faith in anyone other than themselves; that conservatives are limited by their political inbreeding having bled all strategic thinking from their gene pool.
And now I know.
Just a reminder and reality check: while the Freedom Caucus did present a strong resistance to 0bamacare 2.0. their numbers are very small and there would have had to have been a whole lot of non Freedom Caucus types threatening to vote "no". It's easy to blame the few conservatives, but that is simply an effort to shift the blame.
Jordan: Freedom Caucus ‘Did the Country a Favor’ in Killing AHCA
Breitbart, Mar 26, 2017, Pam Key
On this weekend’s broadcast “Fox News Sunday,” House Freedom Caucus vice chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) said the Freedom Caucus did the “country a favor” when they refused to support the House Republican health care bill.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/26/gop-rep-jordan-freedom-caucus-did-the-country-a-favor-in-killing-ahca/
Then why is Jim Jordan taking credit for the outcome the bill @Sanguine
Yeah....riiiight! It's the conservatives that's the problem.
About the most asinine comment I've seen from you yet.
That's not what his quote says, RIV. Try reading it more slowly.
What choice would he have if Trump supported it?
What choice would he have if the House [passed it?
What choice would he have if the Pub base made it clear that this was a condition of them having a majority (which the base has done!).
Trump moves left on this first big ticket item. I voted for Trump and I've been happy with his performance up until now, but my early opinion of Trump, that he was a centrist at best, appears to be coming true.
Thanks, @CatherineofAragon. I appreciate your candor more than you'll comprehend. I've often suspected sanctimonious conservatives have no concern for the people living with the consequences of their purity and zero faith in anyone other than themselves; that conservatives are limited by their political inbreeding having bled all strategic thinking from their gene pool.
And now I know.
Actually @XenaLee , "asinine" is lacking strategic vision and acumen .... and choosing politics for a career.
He's just letting off steam and venting in his tweets. The bill that was offered was not worthy but I've noticed that perfectionism thing in conservatives a lot.
Nobody thought Trump would be a reliable anything but by the time we could vote, he was the obvious choice.
Anybody else notice the buyer's remorse at TOS?
@Right_in_Virginia
See what I mean about being real (or not)? We've been posting on the same threads for days; I think we posted to each other once or twice. You know fully well that I've been against the GOP bill. So why are you acting as though it was just revealed to you? So you can pretend some dramatic revelation?
Unless you expect me to be unhappy that a bill I hated was pulled, which makes no sense.
Besides, as I said earlier, your opinion elsewhere is that anger directed solely at Ryan is a mistake, since Trump was all over the bill as well. Geez, just drop the pretense, why don't you.
What was perfectionist in saying obamacare must be repealed? The Pubs have been running on this for 7 years. Conservatives gave the Pubs majorities in the House and Senate because they said they would repeal it.
It wasn't just conservatives who gave Republicans that majority. There also were a lot of non-conservative populists, as well as a lot of swing voters who didn't like Hillary.
The point is that there is no "conservative" majority. There is a Republican majority. So for conservatives to insist on getting exactly what they want, when they don't have the votes to do that, is perfectionism.
It wasn't just conservatives who gave Republicans that majority. There also were a lot of non-conservative populists, as well as a lot of swing voters who didn't like Hillary.
The point is that there is no "conservative" majority. There is a Republican majority. So for conservatives to insist on getting exactly what they want, when they don't have the votes to do that, is perfectionism.
Um.... I think I'm starting to see the problem here. As I previously suspected (during the primary)...
you're nuts.
How about insisting on getting exactly what was promised? Is that, in your world view, perfectionism???
Just like at TOS a lot of "conservatives" are being revealed as populists worshipping a cult of personality.Worshipping personalities over there didn't exactly begin with Donaldus Minimus. For years you could see
I voted for Trump given the alternative and hoped to be pleasantly surprised. So far I haven't been surprised at all. It's sad that the true believers will never see the truth. 8888crybabyI'm even more grateful now that my state had the "None of These Candidates" option.
Just like at TOS a lot of "conservatives" are being revealed as populists worshipping a cult of personality. I voted for Trump given the alternative and hoped to be pleasantly surprised. So far I haven't been surprised at all. It's sad that the true believers will never see the truth. 8888crybaby
Just like at TOS a lot of "conservatives" are being revealed as populists worshipping a cult of personality. I voted for Trump given the alternative and hoped to be pleasantly surprised. So far I haven't been surprised at all. It's sad that the true believers will never see the truth. 8888crybaby
Worshipping personalities over there didn't exactly begin with Donaldus Minimus. For years you could see
the personality cultists hoisting their idols while big government continued to metastasise under enough
of those idols, when they weren't running to Daddy to have those who dared to stand athwart big government
were rousted and run.
I'm even more grateful now that my state had the "None of These Candidates" option.
It wasn't just conservatives who gave Republicans that majority. There also were a lot of non-conservative populists, as well as a lot of swing voters who didn't like Hillary.
The point is that there is no "conservative" majority. There is a Republican majority. So for conservatives to insist on getting exactly what they want, when they don't have the votes to do that, is perfectionism.
I'm not going to allow some Trumpist to berate me
@XenaLee Your post is Exhibit A for this wise adage:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/fa/99/65fa99d5b68f83d3d3e4508ab779992d.jpg)
@Mom MD
@Right_in_Virginia
And I understand your reasoning, though I voted third party myself. After the election I decided that I would give Trump credit for whatever good he does and criticize his mistakes. But I'm done with that. Anything decent which comes out of this administration will be an accident.
I'm not going to allow some Trumpist to berate me for the same misgivings she voices with her other face when she goes elsewhere.
It would be most helpful @CatherineofAragon if you would explain your definition of "berate". --- Take your time, I'll be offline and involved in life for the next few hours.
Thanks.
Yeah, well.... making conservatives out to be the problem and ergo, the scapegoat in this fiasco is the very definition of nuts in my book. And I have my own adage....
if the truth (what you're calling an insult) fits...
wear it.
It wasn't just conservatives who gave Republicans that majority. There also were a lot of non-conservative populists, as well as a lot of swing voters who didn't like Hillary.
The point is that there is no "conservative" majority. There is a Republican majority. So for conservatives to insist on getting exactly what they want, when they don't have the votes to do that, is perfectionism.
Or, keeping promises and standing on principle. I guess it depends on your particular worldview.
Yeah, well.... making conservatives out to be the problem and ergo, the scapegoat in this fiasco is the very definition of nuts in my book. And I have my own adage....
if the truth (what you're calling an insult) fits...
wear it.
@XenaLee, you might as well give it up - you are arguing with a master in the insult game. Just admit you're lacking in this area and move on. :beer:
It would be most helpful @CatherineofAragon if you would explain your definition of "berate". --- Take your time, I'll be offline and involved in life for the next few hours.
Thanks.
Same here. Unless he soon changes who he is willing to pay attention to on serious matters the best opportunity for meaningful change in Washington will go by the way side.
@Bigun
Personally I don't expect that he will. He's seventy years old and set in his ways. It would be a miracle, IMO, They do happen, of course, but...
It wasn't just conservatives who gave Republicans that majority. There also were a lot of non-conservative populists, as well as a lot of swing voters who didn't like Hillary.
The point is that there is no "conservative" majority. There is a Republican majority. So for conservatives to insist on getting exactly what they want, when they don't have the votes to do that, is perfectionism.
Off the top of my head, they also got the elimination of the business mandate/tax penalty, and the elimination of the "essential health benefits" requirement. The former would have helped a lot of small/medium businesses, and the latter would have reduced costs for most people. We also got a transitioning of the Medicaid supplement to block grants, and a date for beginning phase-out.
Instead, we got bupkis.
As House leaders struggled to negotiate with holdouts in the hopes of rescheduling the vote, Mr. Trump sent senior officials to the Capitol with a blunt message: He would agree to no additional changes, and Republicans must either support the bill or resign themselves to leaving President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement in place.
Trump himself warned House Republicans in a meeting on Tuesday that their seats will be at risk next year if they do not support his healthcare bill, which would modify but not eliminate Obamacare ...
I know there were faults with the bill but what about take what you can get now and then get more?Where in recent history have you ever known the republican party to not take what it was allowed and then give away the store? It's funny how unlike your view of them, the democrats will stick to their guns and their demands while republican leadership will always fold like a cheap beach chair and be happy the dems let them play a little. I thought the whole purpose and point of this election was that we weren't going to play the same old tired losing strategy the republican leadership has been using. Here we are with the democrats playing hardball while the republicans are playing tiddly winks and happy if they get the crumbs from the cookie. To quote the great Donald "Very sad! "
It's an art the dems have perfected.
As far as overly perfectionist, yeah, when I was on TOS there was a bill up for passage in Mississippi that would have classified unborn babies as 'persons' .... so they would have rights. There was one old codger who was against it because it had no provisions for killing the doctors who had previously performed abortions.
Where in recent history have you ever known the republican party to not take what it was allowed and then give away the store? It's funny how unlike your view of them, the democrats will stick to their guns and their demands while republican leadership will always fold like a cheap beach chair and be happy the dems let them play a little. I thought the whole purpose and point of this election was that we weren't going to play the same old tired losing strategy the republican leadership has been using. Here we are with the democrats playing hardball while the republicans are playing tiddly winks and happy if they get the crumbs from the cookie. To quote the great Donald "Very sad! "
I think I know one reason this site is popular.... people are allowed to spout inane opinions and also insult without getting slapped.
Where in recent history have you ever known the republican party to not take what it was allowed and then give away the store? It's funny how unlike your view of them, the democrats will stick to their guns and their demands while republican leadership will always fold like a cheap beach chair and be happy the dems let them play a little. I thought the whole purpose and point of this election was that we weren't going to play the same old tired losing strategy the republican leadership has been using. Here we are with the democrats playing hardball while the republicans are playing tiddly winks and happy if they get the crumbs from the cookie. To quote the great Donald "Very sad! "
As far as I know Obama had the presidency and both houses. Most of what he got done fell into the negative column. He succeeded in promoting Muslims and sanctuary cities and he got Obamacare.
The result: We now have a Republican President, House and Senate.
But ... nobody's happy.
Or, keeping promises and standing on principle.
I know there were faults with the bill but what about take what you can get now and then get more?
It's an art the dems have perfected.
@Emjay
They've figured out that two steps forward, one back is a formula for long-term success. We haven't. For some, a partial repeal is worse than no repeal at all.
I honestly can't figure it out.
First casualty and a TEXAN (Houston) to boot, wussy!
GOP Rep Quits Freedom Caucus over Trumpcare Vote
Richard Carson/Reuters
Republican Rep. Ted Poe has quit the hardline House Freedom Caucus over the group’s opposition to an Obamacare replacement plan heralded by President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan. Poe was reportedly inclined to vote in favor of the American Health Care Act, before Ryan and Trump pulled it from the floor when they realized they did not have enough votes. “Leaving this caucus will allow me to be a more effective Member of Congress and advocate for the people of Texas. It is time to lead,” Poe said in a statement. Trump lashed out at the Freedom Caucus on Twitter Sunday morning, accusing them of having “saved” Planned Parenthood and Obamacare.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/26/gop-rep-quits-freedom-caucus-over-trumpcare-vote.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl (http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/26/gop-rep-quits-freedom-caucus-over-trumpcare-vote.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl)
I can't figure some of these people out at all. I had to go get my dog.
First person to want to free himself of an organization that demanded lockstep obedience. Not a crime, in my book.
You got that all wrong, @Emjay
The Freedom Caucus is entirely voluntary, like remaining at the Alamo after Santa Anna raised the 'no quarter' flag. One person left then too, the others stayed to fight and die so this State could become a Republic.
Always, there's more glory and dignity in doing the right thing. JS
You got that all wrong, @Emjay
The Freedom Caucus is entirely voluntary, like remaining at the Alamo after Santa Anna raised the 'no quarter' flag. One person left then too, the others stayed to fight and die so this State could become a Republic.
Always, there's more glory and dignity in doing the right thing. JS
Same here. Unless he soon changes who he is willing to pay attention to on serious matters the best opportunity for meaningful change in Washington we've seen in ages will go by the way side.
You got that all wrong, @Emjay
The Freedom Caucus is entirely voluntary, like remaining at the Alamo after Santa Anna raised the 'no quarter' flag. One person left then too, the others stayed to fight and die so this State could become a Republic.
Always, there's more glory and dignity in doing the right thing. JS
Because a lot of people here are WHIIINERS. Like on the old SNL show. They are so determined to prove they were right in not wanting Trump, they refuse to give him the slightest break.
He made a mistake with supporting a bad replacement for Obamacare.
So, yeah, that's the end of the world as we know it.
What about all the great people he's appointed? Do you think Obama's people were like this? No, they STILL worship him. Talk about worshipping a false god.
I'm accused of Trump drooling because I want to support him and give him a break. I happen to live in the world where Trump is president. I remember when Rush said about Obama,"I hope he fails."
Rush took a lot of flack but he was right. I take considerable flack because I don't hope Trump fails.
Someone's crazy ... hope it's not me.
@Emjay
They've figured out that two steps forward, one back is a formula for long-term success. We haven't. For some, a partial repeal is worse than no repeal at all.
Because a lot of people here are WHIIINERS. Like on the old SNL show. They are so determined to prove they were right in not wanting Trump, they refuse to give him the slightest break.
He made a mistake with supporting a bad replacement for Obamacare.
So, yeah, that's the end of the world as we know it.
What about all the great people he's appointed? Do you think Obama's people were like this? No, they STILL worship him. Talk about worshipping a false god.
I'm accused of Trump drooling because I want to support him and give him a break. I happen to live in the world where Trump is president. I remember when Rush said about Obama,"I hope he fails."
Rush took a lot of flack but he was right. I take considerable flack because I don't hope Trump fails.
Someone's crazy ... hope it's not me.
That's "all"? Ok, then if enough support actually exists to pass a clean repeal, then why doesn't the House just pass it? Put the onus on Trump to veto it if he doesn't like it.
@EasyAce
Sarah Palin, anyone? Good grief, anyone who dared to offer less than effusive praise on her threads instantly attracted a pack of hyenas.
Including one BobJ...
My experience with him in a subsequent forum didn't have me thinking highly of him.
I keep in touch with someone who left TOS who happens to know Limbaugh, or used to. He told me that Rush's Trump fanboyishness (is that a word) is nothing but Rush's childhood, which he never got over...he was always the fat ostracized kid longing to be in with the cool kids. He'll do anything to stay a member of Trump's golfing group, even to sticking some kind of slavish "I trust Trump" graphic on his site.
@Emjay, the thing is, Trump is a public servant. An employee. Last night you said that you owe him so much. No, you don't. It's actually the other way around. He owes you.
Are you going to excuse him every time with "he made a mistake", as though he were a five year old who spilled a glass of milk? If so, why?
Speaking for myself, if I cared about being right, I wouldn't have come on here the morning after the election, congratulated the Trump supporters, admitted I was totally wrong about his chances of winning, and stating that I would credit him whenever he did something right. I would much, much rather be completely wrong about him. But it doesn't look like it, unfortunately, and the country will be the worse for it.
Now I figure I'm going to be real and go with what I always knew about him, no matter how many times I get scolded for doing so, and I know I'm not crazy. I'm just realistic about Trump.
I'm just thinking about the country instead of how much Trump embarrasses me.
They are not Mutually Exclusive @Emjay
They are not Mutually Exclusive @Emjay
They kinda are. Do you think it is better for conservatives and the country if Trump gets laughed out of office?
Or driven out some other way?
I do not see how this is good for the country or conservatives. I think we should .... well, if you can't support him because you are too dam noble ... then at least back off and give him a chance for say 120 days instead of 60.
Trump is embarrassing the country.
Trump is embarrassing the country.
I thought he started out pretty well, but failing to repeal obamacare is one of the biggest lies ever. I thought it was going well when he met with the Freedom Caucus, but now I find out he wouldn't discuss any particulars of the bill. He met with them to tell them they must vote for the bill as is.
Part of the problem is this lamebrained talking point that "the govt. will see that you get good healthcare". I don't want govt dictating my healthcare. If I did I would want obamacare.
We will see what happens between now and 2018, but if blaming conservatives and moving to the left is how the Pubs and Pres. Trump are going to respond I don't see any reason to support any of them.
Because a lot of people here are WHIIINERS. Like on the old SNL show. They are so determined to prove they were right in not wanting Trump, they refuse to give him the slightest break.
He made a mistake with supporting a bad replacement for Obamacare.
So, yeah, that's the end of the world as we know it.
What about all the great people he's appointed? Do you think Obama's people were like this? No, they STILL worship him. Talk about worshipping a false god.
I'm accused of Trump drooling because I want to support him and give him a break. I happen to live in the world where Trump is president. I remember when Rush said about Obama,"I hope he fails."
Rush took a lot of flack but he was right. I take considerable flack because I don't hope Trump fails.
Someone's crazy ... hope it's not me.
They kinda are. Do you think it is better for conservatives and the country if Trump gets laughed out of office?
Or driven out some other way?
I do not see how this is good for the country or conservatives. I think we should .... well, if you can't support him because you are too dam noble ... then at least back off and give him a chance for say 120 days instead of 60.
I do not see him moving to the left on any major issues.
I thought he started out pretty well, but failing to repeal obamacare is one of the biggest lies ever. I thought it was going well when he met with the Freedom Caucus, but now I find out he wouldn't discuss any particulars of the bill. He met with them to tell them they must vote for the bill as is.
The GOP’s Obamacare Repeal Bill Is Dead Because Trump Doesn’t Understand How Health Policy Works
It's hard to make a deal on a policy deal when you don't care about the policy. (http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/24/the-gops-obamacare-repeal-bill-is-dead-b)
Riiiight. You don't see him moving Left at all.
White House looks past conservatives on tax reform - to Democrats (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,255725.0.html)
Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,255531.0.html)
Well, see, he hasn't failed to repeal Obamacare. His first try failed. I do not see him moving to the left on any major issues.
As far as blaming conservatives, democrats and Darth Vader for the bill not passing, we all know that Trump is almost as good a blamer as a lot of people here. Don't take it seriously.
I'm just suggesting that we not bail on Trump yet. Don't think it would be a positive thing for the country if our first Republican president failed. Forget his silly tweets and watch what he does.
Ridicule seems to inspire him to noble heights, or stupid tweets, but either way, remember that Correspondents Dinner when obummer tore into him, it fired him up and now He's OUR President, I'll compromise with ya @Emjay I'll give him 90 days, then I'm gonna join the Warren team and get him out of there. do I really need to add the /s
Ridicule seems to inspire him to noble heights, or stupid tweets, but either way, remember that Correspondents Dinner when obummer tore into him, it fired him up and now He's OUR President, I'll compromise with ya @Emjay I'll give him 90 days, then I'm gonna join the Warren team and get him out of there. do I really need to add the /s
I hope the orange hoard here now realizes that Trump is fully committed to be at war with conservatives.
That is not true. Leadership can bury it in committee.
If that's not moving to the left I don't know what is.
The really sad part is that this was a golden opportunity to elect a real conservative. Like we haven't seen in years and may not see again. I can't help but wonder what President Cruz would have accomplished. Or even one of the other less conservative but still better than what we have candidates.
Nope, it's just 12th dimensional chess. He's actually winning bigly. Srsly.
If that's not moving to the left I don't know what is.It's not moving to the left because he's always been on the left.
You have a friend who used to know Rush? Wow, and you can totally psychoanalyze him. You and your friend should go into business.
Look, I've read enough of your posts to know your opinions pretty well. You will never get 'scolded' here for anti-Trump sentiments...you're in the majority with those.
So, you know, have fun if it makes you feel all virtuous.
I'm just thinking about the country instead of how much Trump embarrasses me.
Rep. Kinzinger tells RCP: it’s time to forsake Freedom Caucus & work w centrist Dems. “I think that’s going to have to be the new coalition”
— Rebecca Berg (@rebeccagberg) March 25, 2017
Kinzinger says GOP & POTUS must publicly take on HFC. “I’ve been keeping pretty quiet on internal divisions. Now we have to expose them.”
— Rebecca Berg (@rebeccagberg) March 25, 2017
Respectfully, Obamacare 2.0 has a likely FAR bigger impact on our lives and our future than all of Trump's appointments. This is where the rubber meets the road and actually matters. When something is wrong, it is wrong no matter how much you want to believe/hope otherwise.
@Right_in_Virginia
Maybe this evening we can discuss why
Riiiight. You don't see him moving Left at all.
It's not moving to the left because he's always been on the left.
@Emjay
No, my friend told me what he knew about Rush, and he's in more of a position to do so than you or I. All I know about Limbaugh is that he's a boring, stale, repetitive old gasbag.
Honestly, I think I've tried to be pretty polite with you, but you continue to try and assign false motivations and do your little snark thing, so I'm sick of making the effort. So you think what you want and defend that fraud who couldn't care less about you or any of us, but don't expect it from me.
If that's not moving to the left I don't know what is.
From Ted Poes official web site:But how can the Federal Government do this without a Government takeover of Health Care?
Healthcare: Patient-Centered, not Government-Driven
I will continue to fight to repeal this expensive, government takeover of health care and replace it with a patient-centered, cost-effective system that keeps the federal government out of our doctor’s office and out of our private lives.[/i]
Yeah, well.... making conservatives out to be the problem
They kinda are. Do you think it is better for conservatives and the country if Trump gets laughed out of office?If Trump is right I will support him, if he is wrong, I won't. It is that simple, and that is as it should be.
Or driven out some other way?
I do not see how this is good for the country or conservatives. I think we should .... well, if you can't support him because you are too dam noble ... then at least back off and give him a chance for say 120 days instead of 60.
Like it or not @XenaLee === sometimes conservatives are the problem.How many Republicans voted for the ACA?
Lately conservatives are the faction of "no" ... content to wait for the impossible, no matter the consequences.
This is not helpful or productive in an environment requiring strategic thinking and compromise.
@Emjay
No, my friend told me what he knew about Rush, and he's in more of a position to do so than you or I. All I know about Limbaugh is that he's a boring, stale, repetitive old gasbag.
Honestly, I think I've tried to be pretty polite with you, but you continue to try and assign false motivations and do your little snark thing, so I'm sick of making the effort. So you think what you want and defend that fraud who couldn't care less about you or any of us, but don't expect it from me.
But how can the Federal Government do this without a Government takeover of Health Care?
His statement is self-contradictory.
By what Constitutional Authority is Congress even messing with the doctor/patient relationship at all?
How many Republicans voted for the ACA?
Right.
Now Republicans won't vote against it?
Dust off the 2015 bill and call for question. We'll see who is who.
Like it or not sometimes conservatives are the problem.
Lately conservatives are the faction of "no" ... content to wait for the impossible, no matter the consequences.
This is not helpful or productive in an environment requiring strategic thinking and compromise.
What in the world is inane about this truth GtHawk posted?
Nothing he posted there was either inane or insulting unless you are a Party Hack cheerleader, which in that case I could imagine your feathers getting ruffled.
Because the principles of liberty as imbued within the principles of Conservatism are no longer part of any discussion or policy on this people's minds, hearts or lips.
The only principles being argued about is how much Socialism/Marxism and Leftism we are supposed to swallow and get along with and call it good.
Which will magically end up being demanded that we give him 1460 days before we are 'permitted' to hold Trump to account and stop giving him a 'chance'.
Riiiight. You don't see him moving Left at all.
White House looks past conservatives on tax reform - to Democrats (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,255725.0.html)
Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,255531.0.html)
I thought he started out pretty well, but failing to repeal obamacare is one of the biggest lies ever. I thought it was going well when he met with the Freedom Caucus, but now I find out he wouldn't discuss any particulars of the bill. He met with them to tell them they must vote for the bill as is.
Actually, those votes on the Democrat side of the Republican Party were ever sham votes when it came to other Bills for repeal of the ACA, Kabuki for the rubes back home so those Representatives could keep their seats.
The problem for Trump and congressional leadership is that when they give too much on the right, they lose votes on the left, and vice-versa.
@Emjay @Maj. Bill Martin
Ted Poe is from Texas, not Germany or Russia, that's why I used the Alamo analogy.
Granted my analogy is weak but he's still a wuss for skipping out, but so be it now it's up to his constituents to do something about it, as I'm sure he campaigned on Repeal & Replace not as another member so brilliantly put it, rename and resuscitate.
@corbeEvery battle is a learning opportunity. For Conservatives, it's time to learn who stands where, and that takes a call for question, win, lose, or draw. Many of those we had been told were allies in this have turned coat, and it would be nice to have a roster of who stands where--we won't get that without a vote.
I understand and appreciate that. I was simply using a different analogy -- that of the "no retreat for any reason" order issued by Hitler later in the war. That kind of rigidity absolutely doomed the Germans, forcing them to lose huge numbers of men, and making them unable to gather reserves for effective counter attacks.
ObamaCare is a terrible law, and we'd be much better off without it. But the reality is that we have it, and we can't magically blink it away like Jeanie because we don't have the votes. Insist on total victory, and we'll lose. But if we're willing to grab the best deal possible, we can weaken it and maybe do better later.
Every battle is a learning opportunity. For Conservatives, it's time to learn who stands where, and that takes a call for question, win, lose, or draw. Many of those we had been told were allies in this have turned coat, and it would be nice to have a roster of who stands where--we won't get that without a vote.
I understand that and can appreciate it to some extent. But I do think the value of "taking names" is being over-estimated by those who believe that people "went back on their word." LIke I've been saying, the truth is that the moderates didn't run on a full repeal without replacement, and their refusal to give up some things they liked in ObamaCare actually is consistent with where they've been. Those people generally are not in conservative districts/states, and won't "pay a price" for not getting rid of ObamaCare entirely.Just knowing where Conservatives needed to push, and who had promised but backed down would be a plus. As for the ones who made no such promise, compare that vote to the 2015 act and ask the inevitable "why change now?" question. We don't even know who to fight if we don't know who backed down, and we will never make any progress that way.
And as you note, we didn't even get a vote. I go back and forth on this -- I think that holding a vote on just a straight repeal may be a good way to demonstrate that the votes aren't there for it. But the reality is that we'll never get that vote in the Senate. Even if the House managed to pass it, it would go over to the Senate and just sit there. Conservatives would keep insisting that it be voted on, McConnell won't hold a vote he knows he's going to lose, and we'd spend the next 18 months arguing about giving that bill a vote rather than passing something. I think it might become the ultimate red herring that would prevent anything from being passed, which would be a massive victory for the Democrats.
Like it or not @XenaLee === sometimes conservatives are the problem.
Lately conservatives are the faction of "no" ... content to wait for the impossible, no matter the consequences.
This is not helpful or productive in an environment requiring strategic thinking and compromise.
@Right_in_Virginia
Do you realize how much this sound like the unprincipled left, and that it could ripped from the cyber-pages of du?
We've been comprising with the left zealots and RINO's for decades now. Look where it has got us.
@Right_in_Virginia
We've been comprising with the left zealots and RINO's for decades now. Look where it has got us.
Seriously, when have conservatives done that?
Much of the Reagan and Clinton administration's legislative agenda for one.
Like it or not @XenaLee === sometimes conservatives are the problem.
Lately conservatives are the faction of "no" ... content to wait for the impossible, no matter the consequences.
This is not helpful or productive in an environment requiring strategic thinking and compromise.
Such as, specifically?
That's misleading.
He met with them, heard their complaints, and the bill was adjusted a few times. One example was the incorporation of the conservative demand for elimination of minimal essential coverages. But it got to the point where they would be losing too many moderate votes if they gave any more, so they said no more - this is it. That was based on headcounting votes and knowing what could pass.
The FC said "no" at that point, at which time there weren't enough votes for passage. So some moderates who had been convinced to vote yes then backed off as well, because they weren't willing to cast a controversial vote in a losing cause.
The problem for Trump and congressional leadership is that when they give too much on the right, they lose votes on the left, and vice-versa.
@Maj. Bill Martin @catfish1957
Well let's see you can start with the reforms to Social Security and Medicare that Newt and Billy Jeff worked on together
Then there's W letting Ted Kennedy write NCLB...having to put a sunset on the tax cuts he implemented.
Is that a good start for specifics?
Thank you for proving that besides being overly emotional where Trump is concerned...you like most Trump supporters just want vengeance and “winning” no matter what that means.
The FC screwed this pooch, and the ripples will constrain the ability to enact conservative reforms for the foreseeable future.
We will now, I presume, pivot to tax reform, but without that $1 trillion reduction in the budget baseline (over ten years) that repeal of the ACA subsidies would have achieved. So tax reform - at least tax reform along conservative principles - has just gotten that much harder. And there's no reason to think the FC will take yes for an answer on tax reform either.
The way ahead for Trump is now clear - he needs to build a coalition that doesn't include the Freedom Caucus. That means reaching out to moderates of both parties. The Dems, so focused on "resistance", may not oblige, but there's nothing in Trump's background to suggest he won't cut deals with centrists to get results.
The GOP's majority after 2018 depends on its achieving tangible results in doing the peoples' business. It is time to jettison those conservatives who ache only for confrontation and battle, the casualties be damned.
We cannot partner with fools.
If the FC doesn't learn anything from this, and doesn't become any more willing to compromise, then you're right. I just hope you're wrong.
Actually @CatherineofAragon you stated you feel berated. My only interest is in knowing why.
If that doesn't interest you ... well, so be it.
Take care.
Like it or not @XenaLee === sometimes conservatives are the problem.
Lately conservatives are the faction of "no" ... content to wait for the impossible, no matter the consequences.
This is not helpful or productive in an environment requiring strategic thinking and compromise.
No, @Right_in_Virginia, I don't "feel" anything. I don't base things on feelings, like Trump supporters who squeal over that gross liar for some unknowable, unfathomable reason.
I understand why you don't want to discuss the discrepancies in your postings about Trump. When you're called out for two-faced hypocrisy, it's uncomfortable.
But when you start in with me, with your defend-Trump-to-the-end BS as though you haven't voiced
a single concern of your own, I'll remind you of it every time.
No, @Right_in_Virginia, I don't "feel" anything. I don't base things on feelings, like Trump supporters who squeal over that gross liar for some unknowable, unfathomable reason.
The GOP's majority after 2018 depends on its achieving tangible results in doing the peoples' business. It is time to jettison those conservatives who ache only for confrontation and battle, the casualties be damned.
We cannot partner with fools.
The GOP got their majorities by promising conservative solutions. Now, in your view, they should maintain those majorities by jettisoning those solutions and tack to the "middle", read left.
Who's the fool?
That's misleading.
He met with them, heard their complaints, and the bill was adjusted a few times. One example was the incorporation of the conservative demand for elimination of minimal essential coverages. But it got to the point where they would be losing too many moderate votes if they gave any more, so they said no more - this is it. That was based on headcounting votes and knowing what could pass.
The FC said "no" at that point, at which time there weren't enough votes for passage. So some moderates who had been convinced to vote yes then backed off as well, because they weren't willing to cast a controversial vote in a losing cause.
The problem for Trump and congressional leadership is that when they give too much on the right, they lose votes on the left, and vice-versa.
The GOP leadership sought conservative solutions, only to be rebuffed by the Freedom Caucus. Why should it be so foolish as to try to partner with them again?
It is up to conservatives to make themselves relevant. Trump doesn't care about ideology, he wants results. So do I.
If the FC doesn't learn anything from this, and doesn't become any more willing to compromise, then you're right. I just hope you're wrong.
Trump doesn't care about ideology, he wants results. So do I.
You're about to get them. Bernie Sanders' single payer style.
You're about to get them. Bernie Sanders' single payer style.
The GOP's lack of ideology has created a vacuum of principle. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Your attitude is exactly why Washington DC has made such a hash of everything they touch.
Its real simple. Trump and the GOP promised repeal. They lied.
Thanks, Freedom Caucus!
Trump and the GOP leadership delivered repeal of the mandates that the voters demanded. The Freedom Caucus spit the bit. They couldn't take yes for an answer. Listen to Rep. Poe - he speaks the honest truth.
So we're stuck with the mandates, and stuck with ObamaCare.
You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything...
Great song.
Must be a lot of prone and supine Republicans today.
Thanks, Freedom Caucus!
Thank you for proving that besides being overly emotional where Trump is concerned...you like most Trump supporters just want vengeance and “winning” no matter what that means.
This thing ain't over by a long shot. I just have no idea where the heck it is going.
Translation: When it comes to welshing on deals and betraying your constituents, it becomes necessary to toss out previous values and standards in order to shaft the voters, once again, in true establishment RINO fashion.
Just another bloviating miasma of bullshit
Sometimes @XenaLee it's better to let folks guess how little you understand and not prove it. This may be one of those times. :shrug:
@CatherineofAragon
Of course you do, humans are emotional. So unless you're a blood relation to Spock and not in Pon farr then most of the decisions you make every day are impacted by your emotions.
Leftists understand this and leverage it to their benefit. Conservatives are still trying to pretend.
Oh, good grief @txradioguy . Had the FC supported this bill (in which many of their requests were met)...there's a pretty good chance the bill would now be in reconciliation with the Senate where more changes could have been made with more time build a larger coalition.
This is the type of strategic thinking missing from most conservatives in today's congress --- making it harder, if not impossible, to move their ideas from the cerebral into law.
Sometimes @XenaLee it's better to let folks guess how little you understand rather than prove it. This may be one of those times. :shrug:
You're about to get them. Bernie Sanders' single payer style.
@Right_in_Virginia, you were doing so well for a couple of days, very little snark and contempt - you actually communicated respectfully with other posters. What happened? You've gone back to snarknado with a vengence.
@XenaLee has a far better and more realistic grasp of the situation than you do.
The GOP's lack of ideology has created a vacuum of principle. Nature abhors a vacuum.
It's apparent my very presence offends you @Sanguine --- You've had nothing but ill will for me for months, (mis)judging my posts while ignoring the posts I respond to. It's enough. I'm weary of your trashing and do not want to want to engage in a forum war with you.
So please find a way to live with me or put me on ignore.
It must be all an act over here. Or....is it an act over there? (confused) It's amazing how she's not quite so ""devout"" over at TOS. Are there two different RIVs posting on the net? Or.. is it merely a case of (split) multiple personality syndrome? Inquiring minds want to know. :laugh:
It's apparent my very presence offends you @Sanguine --- You've had nothing but ill will for me for months, (mis)judging my posts while ignoring the posts I respond to. It's enough. I'm weary of your trashing and do not want to want to engage in a forum war with you.
So please find a way to live with me or put me on ignore.
It's apparent my very presence offends you @Sanguine --- You've had nothing but ill will for me for months, (mis)judging my posts while ignoring the posts I respond to. It's enough. I'm weary of your trashing and do not want to want to engage in a forum war with you.
So please find a way to live with me or put me on ignore.
Sometimes @XenaLee it's better to let folks guess how little you understand rather than prove it. This may be one of those times. :shrug:
@XenaLee
@Right_in_Virginia
IMO it boils down to wanting to save face....or, in other words, pride. It's okay to criticize Trump when you're among those who "love" him.
I still think she'd get a lot less blowback here if she would drop the pretense and the smarmy condescension and be real. That's her choice, though.
Now, @Right_in_Virginia, you're slipping - that wasn't even a good diversion. Why don't you try responding to what I actually wrote instead of what you want to respond to?
Oh, go away. I'm hoping to have intelligent discussions with intelligent people. I do wish you'd stop interrupting @Sanguine
Except... maybe.... she's not capable of dropping it. In which case, I still feel sorry for her. Just...not enough to let her get away with her crap rhetoric. She needs to be called on her BS every single time.
Unlike you the FC doesn't cave or compromise their principles for the first cheerleaders Nationalism spewing politician like you do.
And neither do most of us here.
:seeya: @mystery-ak
Oh, go away. I'm hoping to have intelligent discussions with intelligent people. I do wish you'd stop interrupting @Sanguine
Caving and compromising on crap legislation is what RINOs do. It's what got us into this mess in the first place via letting the Democrats get away with far too much for far too long. Somebody somewhere and at some time has got to take a stand. Instead, it's open season (once again and per usual) on the very conservatives that take that stand. Disgusting.
Its what RINOs do and it was what was going to end with the new administration.
Frankly I'm shocked to see those who assured us things were going to change now defending the status quo.
Oh....trust me. Your presence offends a lot of folks here. It's just that most of us on the right (real conservatives) are more tolerant than the idiot left ....or the people you call 'your friends'. :laugh:
Unfortunately I fear it's going towards single payer which is where Trump wanted to take it all along.
Trump wants to solve problems. He's no doubt bored by the conservative circle-jerk. If he goes in the direction of single payer, don't blame him, blame yourselves.
Oh, rest assured, Xenalee, the idiot right is very well represented on this forum - and "tolerance" from these bozos is a cruel joke.
Trump wants to solve problems. He's no doubt bored by the conservative circle-jerk. If he goes in the direction of single payer, don't blame him, blame yourselves.
@Jazzhead, as I've pointed out several times earlier, there were only 15 CC members who were committed to voting no, and more rinos who were committed to voting no. Factually, your circle-jerk doesn't hold up.
Oh, rest assured, Xenalee, the idiot right is very well represented on this forum - and "tolerance" from these bozos is a cruel joke.
straight to the insults, I see @Jazzhead I know you like ACA and it's red headed step child AHCA, let's debate that, surely you can win an argument with "idiots" and "bozos" without the name calling.
Oh, good grief @txradioguy . Had the FC supported this bill (in which many of their requests were met)...there's a pretty good chance the bill would now be in reconciliation with the Senate where more changes could have been made with more time build a larger coalition.
Oh, rest assured, Xenalee, the idiot right is very well represented on this forum - and "tolerance" from these bozos is a cruel joke.
Louie Gohmert has also said that more non caucus members intended to vote against it than caucus members.
Im betting that if it had gone to a vote the numbers against would have been 50 or 60 no votes from republicans.
Which.... he's already stated that he'd be ok with.
Looks like we maybe have been sold out.... yet again. Apparently, Kabuki Theatre is the only show in town in Trumpsville. (and yet another Trojan Horse scenario for Americans)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-heart-healthcare-everybody/2016/01/31/id/712069/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/sep/11/reid-ribble/donald-trump-wants-replace-obamacare-single-payer-/
Oh, go away. I'm hoping to have intelligent discussions with intelligent people.
Ah, the pitfalls of making it up as you go. It reveals you to be a complete fool. The drawback to reconciliation is that no Senate changes can be made.
Here's an idea. How about giving honesty a try for once? It will set you free.
Trump on Obamacare (2/2016):
I like the mandate (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/19/trump-on-obamacare-i-like-the-mandate-video/)
We were NOT SOLD OUT. We warned the vengent morons wanting Trump for King that their prince was going to push for Single Payer total top-on-down Government-run Healthcare.
They were duped fools who seig-heiled just another form of 'ism with the added ingredient of nationalist populist punishment for their perceive domestic enemies.
Which right now, is Conservatives who will not compromise their principles to accommodate Socialism. The vitriol and hatred being expressed for the FC and those who applaud their intransigence against creeping Marxism is more concentrated than it was for Obama.
We were not sold out.
We knew what Trump was and where he would take everything.
THEY - the Trump Faithful were the duped.
They bought the lie because they lied to themselves and believed it. Trump was their messiah who was going to take us to the promised land, save the country and deliver us from illegals and ObamaCare.
Trump is simply going to save the country for a Uniparty embrace of the fundamental transformation Obama started - and he will call that 'winning'.
They voted for a con-man who deceived them that he was not the lifelong liberal NY Democrat we warned them he was all along.
straight to the insults, I see @Jazzhead I know you like ACA and it's red headed step child AHCA, let's debate that, surely you can win an argument with "idiots" and "bozos" without the name calling.
Trump wants to solve problems. He's no doubt bored by the conservative circle-jerk. If he goes in the direction of single payer, don't blame him, blame yourselves.
Careful there, Jazzhead. Your leftism is showing (ooops).
I support the responsible right.
We were NOT SOLD OUT. We warned the vengent morons wanting Trump for King that their prince was going to push for Single Payer total top-on-down Government-run Healthcare.
They were duped fools who seig-heiled just another form of 'ism with the added ingredient of nationalist populist punishment for their perceive domestic enemies.
Which right now, is Conservatives who will not compromise their principles to accommodate Socialism. The vitriol and hatred being expressed for the FC and those who applaud their intransigence against creeping Marxism is more concentrated than it was for Obama.
We were not sold out.
We knew what Trump was and where he would take everything.
THEY - the Trump Faithful were the duped.
They bought the lie because they lied to themselves and believed it. Trump was their messiah who was going to take us to the promised land, save the country and deliver us from illegals and ObamaCare.
Trump is simply going to save the country for a Uniparty embrace of the fundamental transformation Obama started - and he will call that 'winning'.
They voted for a con-man who deceived them that he was not the lifelong liberal NY Democrat we warned them he was all along.
Don't want to dredge up the garbage from election but we had two choices, Trump or Hillary.
@driftdiver
That's a fair point. I'm a woman, and I don't pretend to be a Vulcan.
I should have phrased it differently. "I don't base my politics on emotion" is more accurate. I research, I learn, I judge candidates by their histories and their records. I don't get into political crushes or idol worship.
I support the responsible right. I fight the idiot right.Hmm who was telling me the other side was getting caught up in labeling. Sheesh. :whistle:
...this place has become a haven for bullying.
We had two choices - Cruz or Trump. Conservative or progressive. This election was decided in the summer.
@INVAR
Don't want to dredge up the garbage from election but we had two choices, Trump or Hillary. Yes we could have cast a vote for a 3rd party or not voted but that doesn't change that there were only 2 people who had a chance of winning the general election. I chose to vote against Hillary and still think what we have is better than her.
Its still a bad choice and we have to be on guard to limit his damage.
What we should really be doing is looking ahead 3 years to the next election. If we could get someone more moderate it would be fantastic. Maybe Pence is that guy.
I'd wager that Trump will be bored with being President by this fall and won't want to run for another 4.
@INVAR
Don't want to dredge up the garbage from election but we had two choices, Trump or Hillary.
We had two choices - Cruz or Trump. Conservative or progressive. This election was decided in the summer.
Then dispense with the insults yourself. I think it's disgraceful how folks have turned on RIV. Not that she needs help defending herself, but this place has become a haven for bullying.
Then dispense with the insults yourself. I think it's disgraceful how folks have turned on RIV. Not that she needs help defending herself, but this place has become a haven for bullying.
I never bought into that false paradigm. When presented with two evils as the only 'choice', I will always opt for truth - and we had other choices, despite the claims we did not.
The country has been enslaved into a mindset that we are limited to one choice or the other to root for and cheer - because politics is become just another sporting event for so many invested in their 'team'.
I'm beholden to principles. Not a person. Not a team.
If the country wants to become another European haven of Socialism, they will do it without any help or aid from me. I will stand on principle, even if I am the only one left standing on it.
I have a Higher Judge I am accountable to.
I support the responsible right. I fight the idiot right.
Then dispense with the insults yourself. I think it's disgraceful how folks have turned on RIV.
Not that she needs help defending herself, but this place has become a haven for bullying.
but this place has become a haven for bullying.
Thus proving.... just because you don't self-identify as the idiot left....
doesn't mean you're not a party to their idiocy via your leftist stances on issues.
Does anyone really know where Trump stands on the bill? I have heard conflicting sound bites from him. While it was still alive he said it's a great bill and people are going to love it. Just after it was pulled to save face said he had problems with parts of the bill, shortly followed by the blame game sound bites.
My "leftist stance" is to repeal the mandates to allow smaller employers the liberty to begin hiring again, short-circuit an open-ended entitlement program by means of block grants to the states, and create room in the federal government's budgeting baseline - by means of replacing subsidies with refundable tax credits - to create room for pro-growth tax reform.
These things would all have been accomplished by the AHCA - except that the Freedom Caucus wouldn't take yes for an answer. Rep. Poe - that "leftist" - agrees with me.
I can understand the position the Freedom Caucus took and I can understand the position Ryan was in and what was realistic and not to achieve.
It sucks that we are in this position because the Democrats decided to ram through a bill no one read and now we are stuck with this monstrosity and the burden is now on the GOP to find a way to try to fix the damage.
Once people become accustomed to getting something from the government, it's difficult to take it away. It's not just politics. It's human nature.
My "leftist stance" is to repeal the mandates to allow smaller employers the liberty to begin hiring again, short-circuit an open-ended entitlement program by means of block grants to the states, and create room in the federal government's budgeting baseline - by means of replacing subsidies with refundable tax credits - to create room for pro-growth tax reform.
These things would all have been accomplished by the AHCA - except that the Freedom Caucus wouldn't take yes for an answer. Rep. Poe - that "leftist" - agrees with me.
Like you...RiV brings what happens on herself.
Is that a step up or down from when you called this place a dump? :shrug:
Except that.... the Freedom Caucus members were not the only Reps that wouldn't "take yes for an answer". Yet, for 'some' reason, you choose to blame ONLY the Freedom Caucus.
Why is that?
Except that.... the Freedom Caucus members were not the only Reps that wouldn't "take yes for an answer". Yet, for 'some' reason, you choose to blame ONLY the Freedom Caucus.Scapegoat.
Why is that?
Scapegoat.
Except that.... the Freedom Caucus members were not the only Reps that wouldn't "take yes for an answer". Yet, for 'some' reason, you choose to blame ONLY the Freedom Caucus.
Why is that?
Because it fits the predetermined script? Or, more likely, Jazz just doesn't like those pesky darned conservatives.
I missed Jazz calling this place a dump. If so, Jazz I hope you find the door and let yourself out. That is an insult to everyone in here. I consider this forum above the rest because of the caliber of most of the people in here.
One added thought on this....
Tax credits for "some" (but not for others) is just another form of subsidies (akin to the subsidies in ObamaCare for "some" but not for others) and ergo, is still socialism re: this healthcare debacle.
Get government THE HELL OUT of our personal business, which includes what kind or type of insurance OF ANY KIND we choose to have or not to have. It ain't rocket surgery. Except to those with leftist political stances, that is.
Because Trump blames them? :shrug:
Yes! Look how they mucked up Social Security, lied, betrayed our trust and stole money that they swore would never be touched.
But I digress. There is a really good article about this on Red State that helped me to understand the whole thing a lot better.
I never bought into that false paradigm. When presented with two evils as the only 'choice', I will always opt for truth - and we had other choices, despite the claims we did not.
The country has been enslaved into a mindset that we are limited to one choice or the other to root for and cheer - because politics is become just another sporting event for so many invested in their 'team'.
I'm beholden to principles. Not a person. Not a team.
If the country wants to become another European haven of Socialism, they will do it without any help or aid from me. I will stand on principle, even if I am the only one left standing on it.
I have a Higher Judge I am accountable to.
Trump has never been a fan of the conservative movement, has he.
As a few here have said, more or less, this issue and how he handles it will make or break the illusion of him being a rightie (now vs. before deciding to run for president). That's the reality.
Yes! Look how they mucked up Social Security, lied, betrayed our trust and stole money that they swore would never be touched.
I missed Jazz calling this place a dump. If so, Jazz I hope you find the door and let yourself out. That is an insult to everyone in here. I consider this forum above the rest because of the caliber of most of the people in here.
One can wonder why this is so difficult for the GOP but the Democrats had no issues throwing together garbage and passing it.The Democrats have always been willing to advance their agenda one step at a time. Any increase in regulation/tyranny is a win and they will go for any step in the right direction.
The Democrats and leftists march in lockstep. Sure, minor differences will erupt but they share one common belief and that is the expansion of the power of the state. The GOP doesn't have that. That could be a good thing or bad
@XenaLee She may be talking about this, I posted it earlier
@Emjay
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,255836.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,255836.0.html)
I don't understand why the pile on when it comes to @Jazzhead. :shrug:
Nope. Did you see how he got Jeanine Pirro to do his dirty work this weekend in calling for Ryan to step down as Speaker?
What sucks for me is that he was starting to do some things I could get behind...namely putting some teeth back into the military and creating that list of agencies that need to be shut down.
But it seems like with him it's 2 steps forward and three back.
Reality is about to bite a few folks here in the butt.
@XenaLee and anyone who's interested in a really good article on the health care problem,
http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2017/03/27/next-step-repealing-obamacare-ted-cruz-answer/
Nope. Did you see how he got Jeanine Pirro to do his dirty work this weekend in calling for Ryan to step down as Speaker?
What sucks for me is that he was starting to do some things I could get behind...namely putting some teeth back into the military and creating that list of agencies that need to be shut down.
But it seems like with him it's 2 steps forward and three back.
Reality is about to bite a few folks here in the butt.
Scapegoat.
@INVAR
How quaint.
When fighting a war do you fight the battle in front of you or do you fight the battle you wish it was?
When driving and the oncoming semi crosses the center lane do you take evasive action or do you stay in your lane because you have the right of way?
There is a reason conservationism is losing and your post is a classic example. You think that just because you think you're right that everyone will believe and fall in line. Most kids coming out of our socialist schools these days don't even understand the concept of freedom or individual responsibility.
@Right_in_Virginia
I don't think I've seen anyone less likely to go on personal vendettas than @Sanguine. Seriously, RIV. She's fair no matter who she's posting to.
Sooo.....the answer is, in your world view, to just give up on conservative principles since they're not working or not popular enough currently? Wow. Good thing you (and others like you) weren't in control back during the founding of this nation. Thank God, at least, for that.
We had two choices - Cruz or Trump. Conservative or progressive. This election was decided in the summer.
I heard that same kind of crap from Ross Perot voters. Even after they managed to get Clinton elected, they would parade around in t-shirts saying, "Don't Blame Me, I voted for Perot."
Self-righteousness may be emotionally satisfying but it ain't that great a virtue.
@XenaLeeThe Anti-federalist were willing to walk away if they didn't get a bill of rights.
What exactly did they do when they were drafting the Constitution? hmmmmm? Did they all try to hit a home run and insist they get everything they wanted? nope, if they had we wouldn't have the Constitution we have and probably would still be British subjects.
They compromised. Each person fought to get what they wanted and got the best they could. They didn't run home crying and act like insolent children.
So take your insults and cram it.
Obamacare was a rather large step in the wrong direction. I'd like to see better than a minor shuffle back in the right direction.
The Anti-federalist were willing to walk away if they didn't get a bill of rights.
I want the most conservative bill that can be passed
@XenaLee
What exactly did they do when they were drafting the Constitution? hmmmmm? Did they all try to hit a home run and insist they get everything they wanted? nope, if they had we wouldn't have the Constitution we have and probably would still be British subjects.
They compromised. Each person fought to get what they wanted and got the best they could. They didn't run home crying and act like insolent children.
....
So would I. I want a complete repeal, and am probably more hardcore on entitlements than most.
But if there aren't the votes for that, I want the most conservative bill that can be passed, even if it is only a minor shuffle back in the right direction. Maybe that's all there is, or maybe it succeeds in building momentum for more change subsequently. But in either case, it is better than doing nothing and handing Democrats the argument that they're the only ones who can fix it.
The problem we "idiots" have with half-steps is Congress always stops after the first one and calls it Done. It's like trying to get a kid to stick to his spelling assignments: He can't seem to understand why there is a new set of words every week.
So would I. I want a complete repeal, and am probably more hardcore on entitlements than most.Agreed. In the house we had the votes for repeal back in 2015. We ought to at least give it a chance and if the senate can't pass it we go back to the drawing board. From a negotiating standpoint I don't think this was a very strong opening move on Trump and Ryan's part.
But if there aren't the votes for that, I want the most conservative bill that can be passed, even if it is only a minor shuffle back in the right direction. Maybe that's all there is, or maybe it succeeds in building momentum for more change subsequently. But in either case, it is better than doing nothing and handing Democrats the argument that they're the only ones who can fix it.
@XenaLee
What exactly did they do when they were drafting the Constitution? hmmmmm? Did they all try to hit a home run and insist they get everything they wanted? nope, if they had we wouldn't have the Constitution we have and probably would still be British subjects.
They compromised. Each person fought to get what they wanted and got the best they could. They didn't run home crying and act like insolent children.
So take your insults and cram it.
My "leftist stance" is to repeal the mandates to allow smaller employers the liberty to begin hiring again, short-circuit an open-ended entitlement program by means of block grants to the states, and create room in the federal government's budgeting baseline - by means of replacing subsidies with refundable tax credits - to create room for pro-growth tax reform.
But, you have some foundational issues and some things you can compromise on. It seems like many here want the conservatives to compromise everything. (Which makes it not compromise) No, everything should not be up for compromise.
But, you have some foundational issues and some things you can compromise on. It seems like many here want the conservatives to compromise everything. (Which makes it not compromise) No, everything should not be up for compromise.
The Anti-federalist were willing to walk away if they didn't get a bill of rights.
Patrick Henry's declaration of 'Freedom or Death' is now considered childish and 'unrealistic' by a vast majority of those who self-identify as Conservatives these days.
We either oppose tyranny, or we submit to tyranny.
I read too many willing slaves nowadays who will justify submitting to much-promised but never seen lesser lash and the lighter yoke of government tyranny.
Patrick Henry's declaration of 'Freedom or Death' is now considered childish and 'unrealistic' by a vast majority of those who self-identify as Conservatives these days.
We either oppose tyranny, or we submit to tyranny.
I read too many willing slaves nowadays who will justify submitting to much-promised but never seen lesser lash and the lighter yoke of government tyranny.
Indeed.
And "we" chose personality over principles, so we ended up with a President who shares Hillary's view that single payer healthcare is what America needs.
@Idaho_Cowboy
And the others compromised and we got the Bill of Rights. Thank you for proving my point.
Or are you trying to say they didn't compromise?
@Idaho_CowboyOr it proves the Freedom Caucus should stick to their guns and be willing to walk away if the rights of Americans are protected. History always has more than one lesson to teach the question is which one is applicable.
And the others compromised and we got the Bill of Rights. Thank you for proving my point.
Or are you trying to say they didn't compromise?
OK you stand and fight and die. Others will continue to fight the fight you won't.
@CatherineofAragon
I don't mean to quibble but every decision we make is an emotional decision. Its how we are wired. You research the issues because it makes you feel better about making the decision you make. Im not saying you engage in idol worship but its a mistake to discount how much emotion actually controls our lives.
You also didn't have half the population getting some kind of government largess in Patrick Henry's days who would riot if that spigot is closed.
Eventually, math and the laws of economics will probably force major reductions in the size of government.
@Sanguine @CatherineofAragon
Truer words were ne'er spoken.
When you're flailing, you just flail, and never hit your mark. :shrug:
The amount of blood spilled when that happens will dwarf anything we have ever experienced before.
Patrick Henry's declaration of 'Freedom or Death' is now considered childish and 'unrealistic' by a vast majority of those who self-identify as Conservatives these days.
We either oppose tyranny, or we submit to tyranny.
I read too many willing slaves nowadays who will justify submitting to much-promised but never seen lesser lash and the lighter yoke of government tyranny.
But we have a Federal Reserve than can create money out of thin air to keep the population somewhat pacified
@INVARYeah this would not have been winning one for the Gipper.
As I saw on another forum: "Trump has done so much for us. He struggled and won the election. Now, if he wants this bill passed, we should do it for him."
Dear God in heaven...
@INVAR
As I saw on another forum: "Trump has done so much for us. He struggled and won the election. Now, if he wants this bill passed, we should do it for him."
Dear God in heaven...
Heh. You said it yourself - there are LAWS of economics. Laws that the best Alchemists cannot prevent the consequences of when a society violates those laws.
The bill will always come due.
Don't lie to yourself.
This is not fighting. What I am reading is the argument over how to surrender to tyranny, piecemeal and accept the tiny crumbs of liberty that were robbed from us by the Beast at Mordor on the Potomac, and blaming the Principled for refusing to surrender to 'the best soft-tyranny we can get votes for'.
@driftdiver
Well, I can't agree with you that researching candidates and deciding who to support is based on emotion, nor that every decision we make is emotional by default.
The amount of blood spilled when that happens will dwarf anything we have ever experienced before.
.. I want the most conservative bill that can be passed...,
Yes the bill will eventually come due. And painfully so. I was being a little tongue and cheek with my previous statement
But our ability to print money out of thin air to fund all of this delays the inevitable. Doesn't stop. Just delays. And of course, there's the inflation risk. That works in the political class's favor as they can blame capitalism for the rising prices.
Which is exactly why people on the right have been 'arming up' over the past eight years. We know it's coming. We just don't know the day or hour. But we know the gimmedats will be rioting and looting and scavenging from anyone that has what they want.
Don't lie to yourself.
This is not fighting. What I am reading is the argument over how to surrender to tyranny, piecemeal and accept the tiny crumbs of liberty that were robbed from us by the Beast at Mordor on the Potomac, and blaming the Principled for refusing to surrender to 'the best soft-tyranny we can get votes for'.
@musiclady
I'm pretty sure that was said by someone here over a year ago but I'm not interested enough now to go find it. The fact is that many of us KNEW what Trump is all along but hoped for the best after he was elected. I'm still doing that rather than coming out with my told you so book.
@CatherineofAragon
Of course not, because that would make you feel like you're doing something wrong. Do facts and figures play into our decisions? Yes of course but in the end humans are emotional creatures and emotions are a very important part of what we do.
@CatherineofAragon
Of course not, because that would make you feel like you're doing something wrong. Do facts and figures play into our decisions? Yes of course but in the end humans are emotional creatures and emotions are a very important part of what we do.
@Driftdriver, I've been following your argument, and I have to disagree. Some of us usually make decisions based on emotion, and some of us frequently don't. It's a long and difficult process to become able to be able to learn to discern the difference between what we want and what we should do, but it's very possible. I think you're giving too much weight to emotion.
Scripture disagrees with you.
And so do the Founders.
I stand in better company.
I still maintain that no good decisions are made in anger.
That emotion was the prime mover in this election, and we will all pay the penalty for the thoughtlessness of a plurality of primary voters.
And that's just it. Capitulating (their word for it is "compromise") to non-conservative values is what it is. There's no fight there. It's the opposite of fight.
My position. And most importantly, I do NOT want them to give up and quit, due to some schedule. Keep at it.
@INVAR
Seems like you WANT things to go down in flames and everyone to die.
@Driftdriver, I've been following your argument, and I have to disagree. Some of us usually make decisions based on emotion, and some of us frequently don't. It's a long and difficult process to become able to be able to learn to discern the difference between what we want and what we should do, but it's very possible. I think you're giving too much weight to emotion.
Well, it's not really everyone dying. It's the "Galt's Gulch" view, where everything going down in flames ultimately results in conservatives winning.
I've been working on an article regarding how the belief in Galt's Gulch cripples the ability of conservatives to affect change. Suppose I really ought to get back to it....
Yeah this would not have been winning one for the Gipper.
I still maintain that no good decisions are made in anger.
That emotion was the prime mover in this election, and we will all pay the penalty for the thoughtlessness of a plurality of primary voters.
@CatherineofAragon
Of course not, because that would make you feel like you're doing something wrong. Do facts and figures play into our decisions? Yes of course but in the end humans are emotional creatures and emotions are a very important part of what we do.
So far, the only thing I am getting from the early pages of this thread is that several members should not post before lunch on Mondays.
@Sanguine @CatherineofAragon
Perhaps and I think the typical "conservative" gives it far too little consideration.
Lets look at the average person on an average day.
They wake up, possibly to an alarm clock they bought because they liked it. Sleeping in a bed they bought because its comfortable using a pillow that feels good.
They take a hot shower because a hot shower feels better then a cold show.
They use soaps that make their skin feel good and maybe smell good (smell triggering an emotional response).
They fix their hair in a way they feel comfortable with and put on clothes they bought because they look good, feel good.
They eat a breakfast that they like, because it tastes good (another emotional response).
They drive to work in a car they bought because they like it.
They work at a job that gives them satisfaction.
They married a wife/husband because they loved them.
They get pleasure out of watching their daughter play a sport, their son hit a baseball.
They visit this site because they like to argue.
They watch movies they find interesting.
Then they repeat. yes facts and figures play a part but its naive to think emotions aren't important and that the majority of people in the world aren't ruled by their emotions.
@Sanguine @CatherineofAragon
Perhaps and I think the typical "conservative" gives it far too little consideration.
Lets look at the average person on an average day.
They wake up, possibly to an alarm clock they bought because they liked it. Sleeping in a bed they bought because its comfortable using a pillow that feels good.
They take a hot shower because a hot shower feels better then a cold show.
They use soaps that make their skin feel good and maybe smell good (smell triggering an emotional response).
They fix their hair in a way they feel comfortable with and put on clothes they bought because they look good, feel good.
They eat a breakfast that they like, because it tastes good (another emotional response).
They drive to work in a car they bought because they like it.
They work at a job that gives them satisfaction.
They married a wife/husband because they loved them.
They get pleasure out of watching their daughter play a sport, their son hit a baseball.
They visit this site because they like to argue.
They watch movies they find interesting.
Then they repeat. yes facts and figures play a part but its naive to think emotions aren't important and that the majority of people in the world aren't ruled by their emotions.
Those are all decisions that don't require much thought or have much importance.
The real ones are more along the lines of:
Do I get up when the alarm clock goes off because if I don't I'll be late for work and inconvenience my coworkers, or do I hit snooze because it feels good and I probably won't get in trouble?
Do I put that money in savings instead of buying that really, really cute pair of sandals?
Do I flip that stupid driver the bird, or do I control my temper and admit that I might have caused that bit of road conflict?
Do I eat the damned salad instead of going and getting some chips and a Snickers for lunch because cholesterol?
Do I tell that poster what I really think of their stupid, insulting argument, or do I temper my words because it's the right thing to do and they are God's children too and they just might have a point?
Do I get up and get dressed and go to church on Sunday even though I would so much rather sit on the back porch and read the news because it's good for my soul and God knows I need it?
I think agreeing to something that makes the status quo more liberal is giving in to non-conservative values. I see that as different than compromising to make the status quo more conservative, even if it is not as conservative as you would like.
So far, the only thing I am getting from the early pages of this thread is that several members should not post before lunch on Mondays.
Except for my very cogent posts and those of a few others, I think you may be right.
@Sanguine
Your answer was better than mine, lol.
Then you aren't reading the right stuff. Man you are a defeatist.
Seems like you WANT things to go down in flames and everyone to die.
Or before happy hour :beer:
@driftdiver
@Sanguine
All of that is true, but again, we've been discussing the role of emotion in making political decisions. Liberals have always run wild in that aspect, and in 2016 we saw a faction of conservatives allow their emotions do the same, unfortunately. I can only speak for myself. I still view Ted Cruz as the man I'd most like to see elected president, but that isn't a feelings-based stance.
So far, the only thing I am getting from the early pages of this thread is that several members should not post before lunch on Mondays.
Your statement that you stand in better company makes me seriously wonder who you stand with?
Well, it's not really everyone dying. It's the "Galt's Gulch" view, where everything going down in flames ultimately results in conservatives winning.
Your faith is in men and their corrupted institutions.
Mine is elsewhere along with the principles a majority now disdain.
@CatherineofAragon
Trump won the nomination because he appealed to peoples emotions. You can't make a rational fact based argument in the 15 second attention span that most people have. Their mind is made up in about 7 seconds and the next 8 are simply reinforcement.
All of his arguments against Cruz (and others) were emotional, and people bought it. Cruz made rational arguments as to why he was the better candidate and lost almost every single state.
I wish Cruz was our President but he's not and we have to make orange juice out of what we've been handed.
I don't accept the premise that most conservatives have such short attention spans. I think many of the people who voted for him in the primaries wanted to indulge their anger.
@INVAR
Most people (especially the younger generation) don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Because they have never been taught.
The truth is not diminished simply because they are ignorant of it.
The fact is that most put their faith and hope in men and politics and government to be their god, even if they are offended at the notion. Too many look to government for everything. Too many want to empower the government to do everything.
I don't. THAT is idolatry - and too many of this people idolize the Federal Beast and the tyranny they want to massage and make more palatable for the rest of us simpletons.
The principles Conservatives used to stand upon are today demanded to be compromised for votes to bring about a kinder, gentler Socialism. That those principles are held in such contempt by so many who self-identify as Conservatives, is a harbinger that does not bode well for what remains of liberty to exist for much longer.
They can argue with that and declare I am a defeatist all the day long. I'm speaking the truth, whether they would accept it as such or not.
Get back to work. Write a better bill, the last one was slip-shod work. This is too important to just give up.
@INVAR
The truth is irrelevant if nobody knows it exists. the winners write the school books as we have seen.
It wasn't slip-shod work. It was carefully crafted by the GOP leadership to be acceptable to the entire GOP coalition - moderate to conservative. Given the reality that Dems will not support any bill that "repeals" ObamaCare, it is a waste of time to continue to beat this dead horse if the Freedom Caucus is unwilling to respect the GOP leadership.
It is time to move on to other priorities. ObamaCare lives.
The truth is irrelevant if nobody knows it exists. the winners write the school books as we have seen.
Wow. I hope that idea doesn't drive your theology, @driftdiver .
You're in a heap of trouble if you don't acknowledge truth that other people can't or won't see......
It wasn't slip-shod work. It was carefully crafted by the GOP leadership to be acceptable to the entire GOP coalition - moderate to conservative.
It's really nice that some here are into self-exposure of their real ideology...lol.
Truth doesn't matter or exist if everyone is dumbed down to it, IOW.
Wrong.... on SOOOOO many levels. The truth always matters. It's all that matters to some. Apparently, not to others....tsk tsk.
The truth is irrelevant if nobody knows it exists. the winners write the school books as we have seen.
Cut it out, @Jazzhead . You're better than this. Don't live down to other people's expectations of you.
They need to craft a better bill, and not this one that they jammed through to make some kind of point.
Obamacare "lived" in Trumpcare, and it needed to be scrapped.
Time to roll up their sleeves and do what they promised to do. Get rid of the behemoth.
It's a waste of time at this point, musiclady. As one poster has said, there's no middle ground that will satisfy both GOP moderates and conservatives. And the Freedom Caucus won't respect party leadership enough to compromise in the short term for long term gain. The Freedom Caucus got what it wanted, and so did the Dems. We've got a rump faction of obstructionists, musiclady. I see no way to resurrect an ACA repeal-and-replace based only on the GOP coalition. That coalition was kicked to the curb by the Freedom Caucus.
I'm with Trump on this one - his time is best spent on priorities that the GOP coalition can unite on, or priorities where a coalition of Reps and Dems can be assembled. ObamaCare isn't one of them, so ObamaCare lives.
Deal with it.
It's a waste of time at this point, musiclady. As one poster has said, there's no middle ground that will satisfy both GOP moderates and conservatives. And the Freedom Caucus won't respect party leadership enough to compromise in the short term for long term gain. We've got a rump faction of obstructionists, musiclady. I see no way to resurrect an ACA repeal-and-replace based only on the GOP coalition. That coalition was kicked to the curb by the Freedom Caucus.
I'm with Trump on this one - his time is best spent on priorities that the GOP coalition can unite on, or priorities where a coalition of Reps and Dems can be assembled. ObamaCare isn't one of them, so ObamaCare lives.
Deal with it.
And like anything else crafted to appeal to all...it appeals to none.
It was slip-shod, despite your affection for it. You would think that for something they'd been promising for 7-8 years they'd have worked on it harder than 63 days, but the fact they've given up (and then blamed somebody else) just tells me they were never serious about repealing Obamacare.
I pretty much disagree with every single word you posted here. It's emotional nonsense, IMO, completely divorced from reality.
Deal with it.
GOP leadership didn't "give up" - they expended tremendous political capital only to be disrespected by a rump faction. Unfortunately, in the absence of Dem cooperation, that rump faction can essentially veto GOP priorities.
That's the way it goes, folks. Kiss it goodbye. Now on to tax reform, and the same dilemma will present itself - GOP needs to be unified or nothing gets done.
It's not hot enough for our courageous congresspeople.
We voters will just have to turn up the heat some more.
It won't be members of the freedom caucus with puckered sphincters on Election Day.
Reality is that without GOP unity, nothing can get done. Do you deny it? WHY SHOULD TRUMP WASTE HIS TIME on this endeavor when unity cannot be achieved?
Reality is that without GOP unity, nothing can get done. Do you deny it? WHY SHOULD TRUMP WASTE HIS TIME on this endeavor when unity cannot be achieved?
The leftists always think they have the upper hand, and superior intellect, no matter how badly they get beaten or how foolish they are made to realize.
Why the turnaround on Trump, Jazz?Because Jazzy doesn't really agree with anything Republicans - of any stripe - ever do, maybe. :shrug:
Because Jazzy doesn't really agree with anything Republicans - of any stripe - ever do, maybe. :shrug:
That fact dawned on me weeks ago.
It's not hot enough for our courageous congresspeople.
We voters will just have to turn up the heat some more.
It won't be members of the freedom caucus with puckered sphincters on Election Day.
Conservatives cannot parley with those who believe not that government has no business running our lives, but how deeply it should be involved. There is no basis for discussion.
GOP leadership didn't "give up" - they expended tremendous political capital only to be disrespected by a rump faction. Unfortunately, in the absence of Dem cooperation, that rump faction can essentially veto GOP priorities.
That's the way it goes, folks. Kiss it goodbye. Now on to tax reform, and the same dilemma will present itself - GOP needs to be unified or nothing gets done.
You're right about the Freedom Caucus -- they're generally in safe districts. But for a lot of the rest, there also will be non-conservatives calling them up and demanding that they save guaranteed issue, 26 year olds, etc..
The whole "they don't have spines/betrayed us" mantra overlooks that a lot of the GOP moderates who wouldn't support a more conservative bill promised their voters that they'd save some parts of ObamaCare. The inability of the GOP Caucus to agree to a replacement bill even before the election was well-known. The failure to pass a clean repeal bill shouldn't have surprised anyone who was actually paying attention.
Conservatives cannot parley with those who believe not that government has no business running our lives, but how deeply it should be involved. There is no basis for discussion.
So no loaf at all is better than 90% of one? Or rather, getting rid of 90% of a rotten loaf isn't acceptable, because it still leaves 10%?
You're right about the Freedom Caucus -- they're generally in safe districts. But for a lot of the rest, there also will be non-conservatives calling them up and demanding that they save guaranteed issue, 26 year olds, etc..
The whole "they don't have spines/betrayed us" mantra overlooks that a lot of the GOP moderates who wouldn't support a more conservative bill promised their voters that they'd save some parts of ObamaCare. The inability of the GOP Caucus to agree to a replacement bill even before the election was well-known. The failure to pass a clean repeal bill shouldn't have surprised anyone who was actually paying attention.
You have no idea how close I came to posting an Eeyore meme, @Idaho_Cowboy !I think at this point I am required to say: "Thanks for noticing." in an Eeyore like voice :laugh:
Great minds, and all that..... ^-^
So no loaf at all is better than 90% of one? Or rather, getting rid of 90% of a rotten loaf isn't acceptable, because it still leaves 10%?
I urge those moderates to run on how they saved those wonderful aspects of Obamacare next time. We'll see how well they do.
I think at this point I am required to say: "Thanks for noticing." in an Eeyore like voice :laugh:
I always do the best imitating Eeyore's voice when I read to the kids.
I think you
may have inadvertently transposed your numbers in that statement. In fact, I'm damned sure you did!
I like what Dan Calabrese over at Canada Free Press has to say. "You've been promising this for the better part of 8 years, and you give up after 63 days?"
http://canadafreepress.com/article/thats-it-theyre-just-giving-up
Get back to work. Write a better bill, the last one was slip-shod work. This is too important to just give up.
I think after eight years of being mocked and watching Obastard take undeserved victory laps they just wanted to win, principles were of secondary importance. They just wanted the damned Democrats the hell out. Look at the massive sigh of relief that went out when it became certain Hillary Clinton lost it.
@Cyber Liberty
Yes, I think that was part of it, too.
Trump wants to solve problems. He's no doubt bored by the conservative circle-jerk. If he goes in the direction of single payer, don't blame him, blame yourselves.Not me, pal, I didn't vote for him.
@driftdiverWell said!
No, the truth is all that matters, whether folks are ignorant of it or not... Because the truth will out.
Sooner or later, folks will come to understand that the arguments on these pages that discount Conservative principles are nothing more than a disagreement on the size of one's chains.
There s no third way. There is no other way. There is only one truth.
@INVAR
I think you may have inadvertently transposed your numbers in that statement. In fact, I'm damned sure you did!
Actually, I didn't, because the numbers are irrelevant when the position I'm arguing against is "complete repeal or nothing." If you're willing to accept something less than full repeal, then at least there's a basis for discussion. But it's pretty clear that at least some posters around here are very much "all or nothing" when it comes to repealing ObamaCare. And in that case, it is perfectly fair to ask if they'd turn down a 90% deal.
As to the actual percentages, it's obviously just a euphemism. But I'd say that ending the business and employer mandates, and especially converting the Medicaid expansion to a block grant to states rather than an individual entitlement, gets you up to around 40% or so repeal.
@driftdiver
No, the truth is all that matters, whether folks are ignorant of it or not... Because the truth will out.
Sooner or later, folks will come to understand that the arguments on these pages that discount Conservative principles are nothing more than a disagreement on the size of one's chains.
There s no third way. There is no other way. There is only one truth.
@INVAR
If Obama had presented the very same bill to the public 7 years ago that Trump and the House tried to force on us...not one single Republican would have voted for it and there would have been an uproar from the public.
If Obama had presented the very same bill to the public 7 years ago that Trump and the House tried to force on us...not one single Republican would have voted for it and there would have been an uproar from the public.
I disagree. The changes made by the ACHA would have converted the ACA into a true bipartisan bill. It would have picked up its share of GOP support - unless you're of the view that the GOP back then - like the Dems now - would simply have refused to work with the party in power on anything whatsoever.
Which is why it's completely asinine and 100% wrong to suggest that we need to "reach across the aisle" now to find a bipartisian agreement with them.
Everything that's in the bill now...Republicans and Conservatives 7 years ago rejected. They didn't want ANY kind of government run healthcare. And the ones that stay true to their principles now don't want it either.
You seem to forget that when Pelosi and Reid rammed Obamacare down our throats they cut out Republicans entirely from having anything at all to do with the bill.
San Fran nan said Republicans weren't needed or wanted. We didn't refuse to work with them...they shut and locked tohe doors to the chambers and left the Republicans out in the cold.
Which is why it's completely asinine and 100% wrong to suggest that we need to "reach across the aisle" now to find a bipartisian agreement with them.
The GOP is the battered wife and the Dems are the abuser and some people for some reason thinking that one day they will change.
Well said.
Well, we sure as hell can't depend on the Freedom Caucus.
Unless you just want to extend partisan gridlock for another four years
we need coalition partners. Trump is, thankfully, not as head-in-the-sand foolish as you.
It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.Pot meet kettle, kettle pot. Yesterday you were whining like you got robbed by the Freedom Caucus led by Jessie James himself.
It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.]
anyone here really think it would have been a good thing for the new and improved O care to have premiums keep on going UP UP UP and AWAY for the next few years?
It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.
Oh yes. You will be told that having a 10% sandwich is better than having none at all, and you are merely an unrealistic child throwing a tantrum if you are upset your premiums would continue to skyrocket regardless of whatever 'fix' was passed.
I disagree. The changes made by the ACHA would have converted the ACA into a true bipartisan bill. It would have picked up its share of GOP support - unless you're of the view that the GOP back then - like the Dems now - would simply have refused to work with the party in power on anything whatsoever.
Well, we sure as hell can't depend on the Freedom Caucus. Unless you just want to extend partisan gridlock for another four years, we need coalition partners. Trump is, thankfully, not as head-in-the-sand foolish as you."We", who? I'm depending on them to keep their promises. So far, so good.
It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.
It's fascinating how so many conservatives rush to embrace the victim meme.
@Jazzhead
We'd be victims if Trump and Ryan had succeeded in inflicting that lousy bill on all of us. As it is, we escaped victimhood, thanks to the Freedom Caucus.
I disagree. The changes made by the ACHA would have converted the ACA into a true bipartisan bill. It would have picked up its share of GOP support - unless you're of the view that the GOP back then - like the Dems now - would simply have refused to work with the party in power on anything whatsoever.
I think you're wrong here.
The absolute worst thing about the ACA wasn't the exchanges -- it was the creation of a new entitlement program in the form of Medicaid expansion and subsidies. That was going to be the core of any Democrat plan, because the Progressives would have rebelled without that. The GOP was absolutely correct in going to the mattresses to try to defeat it, without giving it even a single vote in Congress. Cooperating on a bill that makes us a more statist country is a horrible idea, in any form. And the GOP actually did come very, very close to defeating it.
We should never, ever support a bill if we think it makes the status quo worse, and the enactment of the ACA did that. You don't "compromise" with Democrats to water down something we don't want in the first place.
You might argue that we'd have been "better off" making some concessions to get a slightly better bill, but I think that's wrong. The party-line opposition to the ACA paid huge electoral dividends, and gave us a Republican Congress. Having that Republican Congress meant that a bunch of things Obama wanted to do in terms of global warming, immigration, etc., couldn't get through Congress, and had to address via Executive Order, many of which are already being undone. And I'd say that our opposition to the ACA is what has presented us with an opportunity to, among other things, convert an entitlement to a block grant. If the GOP had "worked with" the Democrat to get a "better" ACA, we'd have had zero chance of ever repealing any of it now. We'd own it just as much as they would.
Compromising with the AHCA may make sense because it would move the ball in our direction. In contrast, passage of the ACA was always going to move the ball in theirs.
It's telling how you separate yourself from Conservatives.I'm afraid the attempts of myself and others on this forum have pushed him well into Das Kapital thinking. @Jazzhead no longer believes in freedom; but I think he'll come around some day.
I'm afraid the attempts of myself and others on this forum have pushed him well into Das Kapital thinking. @Jazzhead no longer believes in freedom; but I think he'll come around some day.
I think he's just playing us. I think he likes being the devil's advocate, and likes to tweak all of us and get everyone worked up.
Who knows what he believes; he evidences some confusion on that issue himself.
I think he's just playing us. I think he likes being the devil's advocate, and likes to tweak all of us and get everyone worked up.
Who knows what he believes; he evidences some confusion on that issue himself.
Who knows what he believes; he evidences some confusion on that issue himself.
@Jazzhead
We'd be victims if Trump and Ryan had succeeded in inflicting that lousy bill on all of us. As it is, we escaped victimhood, thanks to the Freedom Caucus.
@Jazzhead
We'd be victims if Trump and Ryan had succeeded in inflicting that lousy bill on all of us. As it is, we escaped victimhood, thanks to the Freedom Caucus.
Instead, ObamaCare lives, with its mandates and subsidies intact. Your logic in declaring you've escaped victimhood sure as heck escapes me.
For now. Did you not read that it is being reexamined right now? What a weak argument.
For now. Did you not read that it is being reexamined right now? What a weak argument.
The White House said yesterday there's no timetable for resurrecting the repeal effort. Read between the lines - it's dead for now. Trump knows the GOP caucus isn't unified, and likely will never be.
Will the Freedom Caucus sink tax reform too?
Jazz, it's not up to the White House.
The White House said yesterday there's no timetable for resurrecting the repeal effort. Read between the lines - it's dead for now. Trump knows the GOP caucus isn't unified, and likely will never be.
Blasphemer
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ddI0jqImguKRy/giphy.gif)
Instead, ObamaCare lives, with its mandates and subsidies intact. Your logic in declaring you've escaped victimhood sure as heck escapes me.Let me make a medical analogy. Instead of making a mess of chopping up a tumor and only removing part of it, necessitating further surgeries and likely fraught with complications, we have referred it to some folks who want to remove the whole thing. Let's get this excision right instead of make a mess of it in haste.
Let me make a medical analogy. Instead of making a mess of chopping up a tumor and only removing part of it, necessitating further surgeries and likely fraught with complications, we have referred it to some folks who want to remove the whole thing. Let's get this excision right instead of make a mess of it in haste.
Blasphemer
After a little-noticed meeting with Senate Democrats in March 2013, Obama personally committed to illegally exempt Congress from Obamacare. And he delivered.
Simply repealing the ACA with no provision for the consequences is what will create the mess.
Hardship for ordinary Americans who obtained health coverage in good faith, and political blowback that will deliver the House to the Dems in 2018.
welfare dependent slaves the entire program was supposedly crafted to benefit.
Donald Trump Could Get Obamacare Repealed Tomorrow If He Did This
By Erick Erickson | March 29, 2017, 05:00am | @ewerickson
If Donald Trump really wants to get Obamacare repealed, there is one easy thing he and he alone could do tomorrow that would force the congressional GOP to act.
As Phil Kerpen noted, President Obama gave Congress an illegal Obamacare exemption that allows members of congress and committee staff to avoid going into Obamacare.
Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to issue a rule (78 Fed. Reg. 60653-01) purporting that Congress, which has thousands of employees, is a small business and therefore: “the DC Health Link Small Business Market administered by the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority, is the appropriate SHOP from which Members of Congress and designated congressional staff will purchase health insurance in order to receive a Government contribution.”
This fraud of instructing Congress to masquerade as a small business was the key to the scheme, because if members of Congress and their staff had signed up for Obamacare under the individual exchange – as any other American losing employer coverage would have – they would have had to pay their own premiums.
To implement this scheme, the House and Senate each filed a false declaration with the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority claiming to have less than 50 employees – a fact that was never publicly disclosed.
<..snip..>
http://theresurgent.com/donald-trump-could-get-obamacare-repealed-tomorrow-if-he-did-this/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com (http://theresurgent.com/donald-trump-could-get-obamacare-repealed-tomorrow-if-he-did-this/?utm_source=thenewamericana.com)
What an bleep you are. Plenty of good folks lost their jobs in the last recession and have been able to acquire peace of mind by the ability to obtain health coverage under the ACA. I understand the ACA's problems, and the need to fix it fundamentally. But these folks are as virtuous, if not more so, than you. And for you to deride them as "welfare dependent slaves"? You are as despicable a human being as I've ever encountered on the internet.The truth hurts.
The truth hurts.
That reminds me. Have you ever considered reading the Road to Serfdom by FA Hayek? I think it might be the best book out there on the problems of central planning and government run markets vs. free markets including the consequences. -Serfdom It's a classic:
https://smile.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-F-Hayek/dp/B001HWT06U/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_g2609328962?_encoding=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0&ie=UTF8
Yes, IC, I've read The Road to Serfdom. An iconic book that any conservative should be familiar with.Good, I think it ought to be required reading in every high school. Given the pure mass of regulation under Obama care I think it is very much central planning. Set prices, set goods (very strict regulation in terms of the plans and coverage). It may not be old style command and control, but the effect on our freedoms are the same -The government has already decided what you need and what you are going to pay, Comrade. Hillary care was even closer with the government deciding what specialists doctors could be etc. As Hayek points out all regulation moves the market away from the real price and quantity; therefore good regulation is minimal. The more regulation the more the costs rise and the more inefficient the allocation of whatever resource. In this case health insurance and care.
But let's not exaggerate - government regulation of the private insurance industry neither amounts to "central planning" nor the abrogation of "free markets". Indeed, sound government regulation can set the conditions for free markets to flourish, by establishing a playing field that allows competition to proceed fairly, and instills confidence by consumers.
Like everything else, there is bad regulation and good regulation. The trick is knowing the difference, and not just waving about asinine slogans concerning "tyranny". We aren't living under King George; our laws are the result of the rules set in place by the Constitution for our democratic representative republic.
But these folks are as virtuous, if not more so, than you. And for you to deride them as "welfare dependent slaves"? You are as despicable a human being as I've ever encountered on the internet.
Welcome to Jazzy's shitlist, you bleep. @INVAR and I are disgraces. I wonder what he thinks of the management for allowing the likes of us to grace these pages? Whatever it is, he has no self-respect to keep wallowing in our mire, dontchathink?
I'm not talking about individual virtue. We are talking about the agenda you are pushing which is: From Each According To Their Ability - TO EACH According To Their Need.Nailed it. It's the same reason national parks put up signs saying don't feed the bears.
Anyone needing to get a handout or subsidy from the government, which is money robbed from fellow countrymen via a gun to their heads, is a welfare dependent slave.
I do not care that you think I am despicable. In fact, it is exactly what I expect Statists and tyrants to think of me.
But let's not exaggerate - government regulation of the private insurance industry neither amounts to "central planning" nor the abrogation of "free markets".
Indeed, sound government regulation can set the conditions for free markets to flourish,
by establishing a playing field that allows competition to proceed fairly, and instills confidence by consumers.
The trick is knowing the difference, and not just waving about asinine slogans concerning "tyranny".
We aren't living under King George; our laws are the result of the rules set in place by the Constitution for our democratic representative republic.
What an bleep you are. Plenty of good folks lost their jobs in the last recession and have been able to acquire peace of mind by the ability to obtain health coverage under the ACA. I understand the ACA's problems, and the need to fix it fundamentally. But these folks are as virtuous, if not more so, than you. And for you to deride them as "welfare dependent slaves"? You are as despicable a human being as I've ever encountered on the internet.
Only a Communist would think that government regulation of private industry, business and property sets and creates the conditions for the free market.
There it is. Government is there to create "fairness" and "Equality". Right out of Marx and Engels.
Indeed, sound government regulation can set the conditions for free markets to flourish, by establishing a playing field that allows competition to proceed fairly, and instills confidence by consumers.
I had to scroll back a bit. The boy actually said that. My extraordinarily sad cranium is swaying back and forth. Just heck. It calls itself a conservative Republican.
It's a deliberate deception.
We know why he is here and why he posts what he does.
He is not deceiving anyone, though he thinks that those who read the forum and do not reply very often are going to be persuaded by his rebranding of Communism as "Pragmatic Conservatism", which of course is neither pragmatic or Conservative.
It's Marx. It's Engels. It's Das Kapital. It's tyranny hidden under the clever Liberal guises of 'fairness', 'equality', and 'level playing fields' against we 'lucky winners of life's lottery'.
You really should check a mirror once in a while.
So do you think your dad on Social Security is a welfare dependent slave?
So do you think your dad on Social Security is a welfare dependent slave?
So do you think your dad on Social Security is a welfare dependent slave?
So do you think your dad on Social Security is a welfare dependent slave?
Care to defend INVAR's cruelty as conservative?
Simply repealing the ACA with no provision for the consequences is what will create the mess. Hardship for ordinary Americans who obtained health coverage in good faith, and political blowback that will deliver the House to the Dems in 2018.NOT repealing it is what will deliver the House to the Dems. Why in the Hell should anyone vote for someone who goes back on their promises?
What an bleep you are. Plenty of good folks lost their jobs in the last recession and have been able to acquire peace of mind by the ability to obtain health coverage under the ACA.With what? Their good looks? No money. That means Medicaid. Let me tell you something about Medicaid. Although the rules vary from state to state, here, at least you aren't eligible unless you have under 10K in assets. You're 48, worked hard all your life, have equity in your home, two cars in the garage, a little investment portfolio and lose your job. The COBRA plan payments are way beyond what you can afford, even with a trickle of unemployment, which won't last, and barely pays the bills. In order to get Medicaid, though you have to either: Divorce and let your wife get it without assets. Divest yourself of your assets (and it is a Felony to 'dump' them to a trustworthy relative to hold for you at below market value), or do without. You may even have lost your job because of the ACA. If you acquired a diagnosis of an ongoing or even 'cured' ailment, now you have no job, no insurance, a 'preexisting condition' when you go to get health insurance again (yes the ACA created a huge pool of folks in that category now, even though they had things under control). The ACA is a huge turd that splashed down in the healthcare punch bowl and splashing around the edges isn't going to make the punch potable again. Six percent of Americans were not covered before, now it is worse.
Horse biscuits!
I understand the ACA's problems, and the need to fix it fundamentally.
But these folks are as virtuous, if not more so, than you.What folks? The 1.3 million who mostly acquired that nasty incurable "lifestyle-related" disease that made them uninsurable? Who at present are projected to have a trillion dollar doctor bill on the way over their lifetimes? Was this a favor to the guys who hang out over by the Iwo Jima Statue late at night, or the K-street crowd? It sure didn't do anything to help the people.
And for you to deride them as "welfare dependent slaves"?It wasn't the average working stiff who benefited, so suppose you dump some demographic data as to who is benefiting? Give sources, too.
With what? Their good looks? No money. That means Medicaid. Let me tell you something about Medicaid. Although the rules vary from state to state, here, at least you aren't eligible unless you have under 10K in assets. You're 48, worked hard all your life, have equity in your home, two cars in the garage, a little investment portfolio and lose your job. The COBRA plan payments are way beyond what you can afford, even with a trickle of unemployment, which won't last, and barely pays the bills. In order to get Medicaid, though you have to either: Divorce and let your wife get it without assets. Divest yourself of your assets (and it is a Felony to 'dump' them to a trustworthy relative to hold for you at below market value), or do without. You may even have lost your job because of the ACA. If you acquired a diagnosis of an ongoing or even 'cured' ailment, now you have no job, no insurance, a 'preexisting condition' when you go to get health insurance again (yes the ACA created a huge pool of folks in that category now, even though they had things under control). The ACA is a huge turd that splashed down in the healthcare punch bowl and splashing around the edges isn't going to make the punch potable again. Six percent of Americans were not covered before, now it is worse. Horse biscuits! What folks? The 1.3 million who mostly acquired that nasty incurable "lifestyle-related" disease that made them uninsurable? Who at present are projected to have a trillion dollar doctor bill on the way over their lifetimes? Was this a favor to the guys who hang out over by the Iwo Jima Statue late at night, or the K-street crowd? It sure didn't do anything to help the people.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/31/more-people-have-lost-insurance-under-obamacare-than-signed-up-for-it/ (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/31/more-people-have-lost-insurance-under-obamacare-than-signed-up-for-it/)
http://nypost.com/2014/01/14/another-25-million-obamacare-victims/ (http://nypost.com/2014/01/14/another-25-million-obamacare-victims/)
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/212961/13-people-lost-health-insurance-every-person-daniel-greenfield (http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/212961/13-people-lost-health-insurance-every-person-daniel-greenfield)
I personally lost my insurance when my carrier quit offering health policies, period, thanks to the ACA. Some wonderful program. On the exchanges, replacing that policy with one which has nearly 3X the deductible, higher co-pays, and premiums that are over 5X what I paid before, is not only not an option, but not going to happen. Being fined for not doing so is criminal.It wasn't the average working stiff who benefited, so suppose you dump some demographic data as to who is benefiting? Give sources, too.
As I see it there is nothing more cruel thanpenalizingI mean taxing people who can't afford a product. I think being forced to buy a product simply because one is breathing as being anathema to freedom.
You are a cruel, selfish, racist, xenophobic, homophobic Fascist, who hopes poor people, the elderly and puppies die in agony while you bask in your white privilege and your stolen wealth taken from minorities and the homosexually persecuted.You forgot that I want them to eat Alpo. :laugh:
Just channeling the resident Liberal response for you.
As I see it there is nothing more cruel thanpenalizingI mean taxing people who can't afford a product. I think being forced to buy a product simply because one is breathing as being anathema to freedom.
You forgot that I want them to eat Alpo. :laugh:
You forgot that I want them to eat Alpo. :laugh:
@Idaho_Cowboy @INVAR
You both forgot "A**hole." We're all A-holes. And without virtue.
Y'all may be a-holes...but I'm the Pope! :tongue2:
@Idaho_Cowboy @INVAR
You both forgot "A**hole." We're all A-holes. And without virtue.
Y'all may be a-holes...but I'm the Pope! :tongue2:
Pope of a Dump, you mean. :whistle:
No, we should not forget we are hubris, selfish, homophobic, forcing women to reproduce reprehensible a**holes in this pope of a dump according to our resident Leftist.
I'm guessing you don't have a small business.
My business was turned upside down by obamacare. The limited policy I could offer employees was no longer available. I had to let most employees go and hire back some as contractors. My own insurance tripled in cost until I joined a Christian Healthcare co-op. I stopped my plans for growth in the USA and began investing a part of my business in Central America.
I personally lost my insurance when my carrier quit offering health policies, period, thanks to the ACA. Some wonderful program. On the exchanges, replacing that policy with one which has nearly 3X the deductible, higher co-pays, and premiums that are over 5X what I paid before, is not only not an option, but not going to happen. Being fined for not doing so is criminal.It wasn't the average working stiff who benefited, so suppose you dump some demographic data as to who is benefiting? Give sources, too.
I just want to point out that the AHCA would have repealed the employer mandate, and repealed the individual mandate, so you wouldn't be fined for not having a policy. More importantly, one of the last compromises offered would have eliminated the "essential health benefits", which were a big reason that the costs ran up on policies because policies were required to offer certain things that a great many people didn't want.
It honestly would have made legally viable, once again, the kind of policies a lot of people had prior to ObamaCare.
I just want to point out that the AHCA would have repealed the employer mandate, and repealed the individual mandate, so you wouldn't be fined for not having a policy. More importantly, one of the last compromises offered would have eliminated the "essential health benefits", which were a big reason that the costs ran up on policies because policies were required to offer certain things that a great many people didn't want.
It honestly would have made legally viable, once again, the kind of policies a lot of people had prior to ObamaCare.
You do not leave parts of the tumor in the patient because it is the best you can get in negotiating with your surgeon.
You cut it all out, not leave the pieces that are too hard to dislodge from the body.
You do not leave parts of the tumor in the patient because it is the best you can get in negotiating with your surgeon. You cut it all out, not leave the pieces that are too hard to dislodge from the body.
Excellent post, Thank you @Maj. Bill Martin
There's some confusion. I thought the new, improved AHCA bill still had the "Individual Shared Responsibility Payment," but instead of being tax to the government it was to go to the insurance companies. I could be wrong about this, Google is not helpful.
Obamacare shifted the paradigm you're still clinging to.
Yes, you're wrong. The AHCA would have repealed the individual mandate. The IRS would no longer be snooping into whether you've purchased health insurance. Instead, as Major Bill points out, insurance companies would be able to charge free riders higher rates. I agree with him that that's a fundamentally CONSERVATIVE approach.
The fact that a clean repeal could actually preserve insurance coverage for more Americans underscores the complexities and tradeoffs in health care policy, where an imbalanced mix of policy carrots and sticks can lead to a perfect storm of market chaos.
Full-fledged Obamacare repeal without a replacement would lead different people to lose coverage compared with the AHCA, as the Times notes. For instance, the AHCA would disproportionately affect people with employer-provided insurance and older, poorer Americans.
You go ahead then and cling to the new paradigm of Communism and tyranny you have surrendered to as your new normal.
There is nothing conservative at all about the Government running health care in any form.
http://fortune.com/2017/03/21/trumpcare-worse-than-obamacare-repeal/
Except that.... there is also nothing conservative about labeling and targeting folks that just happened (they just got "lucky") to reach a certain age ....as being "free riders", qualifying them for premiums five times higher than someone in their 30's, despite how good their health may be. It's just more government tyranny, IMO.
The resident leftist would disagree, I'm certain.
Except that.... there is also nothing conservative about labeling and targeting folks that just happened (they just got "lucky") to reach a certain age ....as being "free riders", qualifying them for premiums five times higher than someone in their 30's, despite how good their health may be. It's just more government tyranny, IMO.
The resident leftist would disagree, I'm certain.
WHICH resident leftist? :smokin:
Well, if we were discussing medical procedures @INVAR, I would agree with you. But we are talking about political processes ... and refighting battles already lost is counterproductive. Obamacare shifted the paradigm you're still clinging to. We all will be better served if we stop looking behind us for the battlefield that was and fight on the battlefield that is.Why, that'd be as bad as the Yankees coming back to Bull Run.
Imagine if the patriots of 1775 kept refighting the Battles of Lexington and Concord hoping for a different outcome. Not only would we have continued to lose the battles, we would have ultimately lost the war.
Why do you feel such inflammatory drama helps you @INVAR ?I'd go for an 80% repeal of Obamacare. Just remove all the nouns, adjectives, and verbs.
I happen to agree with many of your "principles". I'm just asking you to go about achieving your goals in a smarter way---take 75-80% of what you want today. Give our citizens a little time to acknowledge the earth is still rotating on its axis and the sun is still rising in the East --- then go for the rest. You'll ultimately have much more support and respect.
There is nothing conservative at all about the Government running health care in any form.
http://fortune.com/2017/03/21/trumpcare-worse-than-obamacare-repeal/
Imagine if the patriots of 1775 kept refighting the Battles of Lexington and Concord hoping for a different outcome. Not only would we have continued to lose the battles, we would have ultimately lost the war.
Except that.... there is also nothing conservative about labeling and targeting folks that just happened (they just got "lucky") to reach a certain age ....as being "free riders", qualifying them for premiums five times higher than someone in their 30's, despite how good their health may be. It's just more government tyranny, IMO.
The resident leftist would disagree, I'm certain.
@Jazzhead
The bill would have REQUIRED insurance companies to charge people 30% more if they went 63 days or more without health insurance in the last 365 days. Now allow, but REQUIRE.
Now how is someone who is not a customer a "freerider"?
How is it a conservative value to require private companies to enforce government policy which involves paying a "tax"?
@txradioguy
@Jazzhead
The bill would have REQUIRED insurance companies to charge people 30% more if they went 63 days or more without health insurance in the last 365 days. Now allow, but REQUIRE.
Now how is someone who is not a customer a "freerider"?
How is it a conservative value to require private companies to enforce government policy which involves paying a "tax"?
@txradioguy
In a free market, insurers would rationally charge older folks five times the premiums they charge for younger folks. That's what actuarial analysis would justify. The ACA prohibited insurers from charging older folks more than three times more. That's a blatant attempt to alter what the free market would otherwise provide (forcing the young to subsidize the old). The result, of course, is that premiums for younger folks soared, and many demurred, taking their healthy lives out of the pool. That in turn caused premiums for older folks to soar.
It's a vicious cycle caused directly by government meddling. The AHCA would have fixed that. Thanks to the FC, it won't.
You raise a point here that I really think needs to be addressed (probably even make it a chapter in my book....) There's been this myth propagated that the Founders wouldn't compromise, it was all or nothing, etc. That's complete hogwash. The Founders signed the Declaration knowing they might lose the war, but also believing they had a good chance to win. If it would have gotten to the point where defeat was inevitable, and further fighting would just have cost the lives of soldiers, they'd rightfully have surrendered. Patrick Henry aside, they weren't aiming for martyrdom. They were aiming for victory.Good points. Especially about confusing tactics and principles.
And look at how we actually fought that war. Washington didn't follow some idiotic "no retreat" directive. For much of the war, his immediate tactical goal was to simply keep an army in the field, not win battles. One of his best moves as a general was escaping New York in August 1776. Less than two months after the Declaration was signed, Washington abandoned New York when surrounded by the British. He gave up a critical city, but did so because he wanted to preserve his army. Some here would no likely have denigrated him as a moral coward for refusing to fight to the bitter end to save New York. Some back then actually did. But had he stayed and fought with a "no retreat" mindset, his entire army would have been bagged, and the Revolution over.
In the south, we pretty much lost every important battle for a good stretch. Our best general was Nathanael Greene, and it was his strategy that led to the victory at Yorktown. But he actually lost every pitched battle he fought. He had a brilliant strategic plan, never stopped nipping at the heels of the British, and eventually compelled them to retreat through strategic maneuver.
The point is that in a war, you cannot insist on always attacking/never retreating. You have to fight hard, but also fight smart. Know when to attack, when to push your advantage, and when to take what you can get and not leave yourself open to a counterattack by getting too greedy. That was part of the genius of Washington at Trenton and Princeton. He attacked, did his damage, and then retreated before getting cutoff. The absolutists -- and there were some of those back then -- criticized him for not pushing his advantage harder and launching a general attack. But he did the right thing in grabbing those victories and not risking too much.
My point is that we are essentially in a war right now with the left, and to win, it is not enough to just be principled and fight hard. We must also fight smart. It means fighting tough rear-guard actions when we lose, like we did in 2008. And it means taking victories whenever we can, even if they are not as complete and overwhelming as we might like. The "give me everything, or nothing at all" mentality will doom us to certain defeat, just as certainly as it doomed the entire German Sixth Army when Hitler issued his asinine "no retreat" order for Stalingrad.
We cannot confuse disagreements on strategy/tactics, with disagreements on principles. Most (not all, obviously) of us here are pretty staunch conservatives, and would like to bring the country to a much better place, which means much less government interference and control in our lives. Where we disagree is how best to get from here, to there. And it would be a real tragedy if we left that kind of disagreement divide us to the point where we are unable to achieve anything.
It's a flawed analogy. We're not talking about a patient, who has an individual, sovereign right to make all decisions about their own body.
You're admitted purpose in discussing these issues is not to propose solutions that might help, because you believe we're already lost. You're only purpose is to be a "witness" to it -- those are your own words.
You want people to become more and more miserable so you can sit back and say "see, I told you so!" And I'm not even exaggerating.
I can't figure out why anyone would pay attention to any of your policy recommendations.
You're deliberately trying to drill holes in the bottom of a leaky boat, while the rest of us are trying to plug them and bail like hell.
@Jazzhead
The bill would have REQUIRED insurance companies to charge people 30% more if they went 63 days or more without health insurance in the last 365 days. Now allow, but REQUIRE.
Now how is someone who is not a customer a "freerider"?
How is it a conservative value to require private companies to enforce government policy which involves paying a "tax"?
@txradioguy
I agree with this. The bill should permit insurance companies to charge more, but not require it.
In that case, it's dishonest to say "the individual mandate is gone."
No, it's not gone. It's still there, only payable to the insurance companies instead of the government.
My understanding is that the ACHA would have allowed insurance companies to charge higher rates to free riders.
Why do you feel such inflammatory drama helps you @INVAR ?
I happen to agree with many of your "principles".
I'm just asking you to go about achieving your goals in a smarter way---take 75-80% of what you want today.
You'll ultimately have much more support and respect.
So..... if you're a healthy 60 year old that has never done drugs, smoked, indulged in alcohol or overeating.... let's say maybe even a health nut.... you think it's fair for, under RyanCare, insurers to be able to charge you five times higher premiums than someone in their 30's that may or may NOT be as healthy as you.... and all based solely on how many more years you have managed to be on planet earth?
In that case, it's dishonest to say "the individual mandate is gone."
No, it's not gone. It's still there, only payable to the insurance companies instead of the government.
My understanding is that the ACHA would have allowed insurance companies to charge higher rates to free riders.
Wait a minute. If you repealed ObamaCare, insurance companies would be perfectly free to do exactly that. They could charge older people whatever they wanted.
Do you support that?
@Maj. Bill Martin @XenaLee
But its ok to charge a young person more than their share? Simply to make up for the older people who tend to get sick more often?
How about using the free market and get the govt out of the picture. reduce some regulations. Put a limit on lawyers and the liability healthcare providers have to contend with.
Not true. The individual mandate taxed people if they didn't buy insurance. Under the AHCA, you were neither taxed nor required to pay anything to insurance companies if you chose to opt out of insurance entirely.
Under the AHCA, you only paid that extra to the insurance company if you chose to go without insurance, and then chose to sign up later. That's to prevent people from free riding by only buying insurance after they get sick.
But i still agree with you that should be left up to the insurance companies. They'd all do it anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
QFT
@Maj. Bill Martin @XenaLee
But its ok to charge a young person more than their share? Simply to make up for the older people who tend to get sick more often?
How about using the free market and get the govt out of the picture. reduce some regulations. Put a limit on lawyers and the liability healthcare providers have to contend with.
Whats that mean?
@driftdiver
I agree. I was just pointing to @XenaLee that the complete repeal he/she advocates actually would permit insurance companies to charge more than five times higher premiums to older people.
My understanding is that the ACHA would have allowed insurance companies to charge higher rates to free riders.You mean those who were unlucky let their insurance lap due to a losing set of life's lotto numbers?
Wait a minute. If you repealed ObamaCare, insurance companies would be perfectly free to do exactly that. They could charge older people whatever they wanted.
Do you support that?
@Jazzhead
Text of the bill in reference to the forced 30% penalty
"“SEC. 2710A. ENCOURAGING CONTINUOUS HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.
“(a) Penalty Applied.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 2701, subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, a health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in the individual or small group market shall, in the case of an individual who is an applicable policyholder of such coverage with respect to an enforcement period applicable to enrollments for a plan year beginning with plan year 2019 (or, in the case of enrollments during a special enrollment period, beginning with plan year 2018), increase the monthly premium rate otherwise applicable to such individual for such coverage during each month of such period, by an amount determined under paragraph (2).
“(2) AMOUNT OF PENALTY.—The amount determined under this paragraph for an applicable policyholder enrolling in health insurance coverage described in paragraph (1) for a plan year, with respect to each month during the enforcement period applicable to enrollments for such plan year, is the amount that is equal to 30 percent of the monthly premium rate otherwise applicable to such applicable policyholder for such coverage during such month.
It's true. If an insurance company wants to charge 50X, they can. Of course, with a functioning market those insurance companies would promptly collapse because the entire senior sector would take a hike to a more reasonable company advertising more reasonable rates. Having Uncle Sugar setting the rates short-circuits that market effect.
Reminds me of a Steve Martin routine: "I like to imagine I can charge the 1,000 people here 1,000,000 per ticket. One show and GOODBYE!"
Um.... did you not know that RyanCare allowed insurers to charge older persons not three times more, but FIVE times more, than folks in their 30's, for instance? Hell no I don't support that. Get government the HELL out of it completely and let the damned free market readjust back to normal.
:silly:
You sure that's what you want? Then insurance companies will be charging even more to older folks.
@Jazzhead
you really don't understand how the free market works, or as suggested on another thread you're really just a liberal troll.
Thanks, driftdiver, for that clarification. I would prefer that insurance companies be allowed but not required to charge higher premiums (no more than designated amount). But I can't say I have an ounce of sympathy for free riders. If they choose to game the system, they should pay the price so those who play by the rules don't have to.
I marvel at the fact that the discussion among those advocating compromise instead of repeal, rarely discuss ending big government statism, but rather argue how much we must accept and compromise with it while denouncing the free market sans government regulation.I also marvel. It is the equivalent of debating how large or small the turd will be in the punch bowl.
@Jazzhead
How about people who lost their job or otherwise couldn't afford insurance? Your continued use of the term 'freerider' is quite laughable. Any other products you'd like to force people to buy?
That's BS. Before ObamaCare.... ie before the leftists forced government controls down our throats, the free market system worked and insurers were not charging more for older folks for health insurance provided through your employers.
And neither did the AHCA. The five-times premium permitted by the AHCA - versus three times under the ACA, and unlimited prior to the ACA - applies only to the individual market.There's a somewhat bitter sweet irony in not even knowing what died till we are doing the autopsy. Personally, I still say it was a turkey and we can do better, but I could just be optimistic.
So, to the extent you believed that the AHCA was going to apply that "5" multiple to employer-based policies, you are mistaken.
That's BS. Before ObamaCare.... ie before the leftists forced government controls down our throats, the free market system worked and insurers were not charging more for older folks for health insurance provided through your employers. Everyone paid the same damned rate/premium, no matter your age.
Nice try. No ceegar.
He's already a cheerleader for forcing businesses to cater to homosexual marriages and keeping death camps for killing infants open and available because shutting them down is forcing a woman to procreate in his sick twisted estimation.
That's the law, bub.
It's true. If an insurance company wants to charge 50X, they can. Of course, with a functioning market those insurance companies would promptly collapse because the entire senior sector would take a hike to a more reasonable company advertising more reasonable rates. Having Uncle Sugar setting the rates short-circuits that market effect.
There's a somewhat bitter sweet irony in not even knowing what died till we are doing the autopsy. Personally, I still say it was a turkey and we can do better, but I could just be optimistic.
Obviously, they wouldn't charge 50X. They'd charge whatever multiple is actuarial sound. For example, pre-ACA, a 27 year old person would pay $117/month for a policy that would cost a 60 year old person $735/month. That's a multiple of about 6.3
http://khn.org/news/age-rating/
The ACA capped that multiple at 3, and the AHCA capped it at 5. So if you repeal the ACA without replacing that provision, you could expect prices for older people on the individual market to see an increase to pre-ACA levels - a 6.3 multiple.
Of course, you're right -- if a company tried to jack up that multiple above the actuarial sound rate, older people would flee to companies that charge a more reasonable rate, and those other companies would make more money. But on the flip side, if a company charged less than that actuarial sound rate -- say, 3.0 without a government mandate, then older people would flock to that company. But that company would then be taking in much less in premiums from older people than it was paying out in claims, so it would have to jack up premiums for everyone younger. Those younger people would then start moving to plans that were cheaper for them, and the company charging below-cost for older workers would go belly-up.
Bottom line is that in the absence of a government mandate limiting what insurers can charge on the open individual market, the repeal and non-replacement of the ACA would result in costs for older workers more than doubling -- from the ACA multiple limit of 3, to the market rate of over 6.
I still support moving to the freer market. But it seems as those some of those advocating for a complete repeal want to have their cake and eat it too -- repeal, but retain the non-market based restriction on how much older people can be charged on the open market.
@Jazzhead
Funny how that's not your response to issues you don't like. It was against the law to perform an abortion at one time ya know.
Yup. Over 40 years ago. That's why I think it's a waste of time and resources to overturn Roe. Too many women have relied on it and the liberty it guarantees for too long. The better route - the more EFFICACIOUS route - is to persuade women to do the right thing.
There are plenty of laws I don't like. And my attitude towards them is the same - they were Constitutionally enacted by the peoples' elected representatives, and they can be changed or rescinded in just the same way.
So, before O-Care, they were charging that group more than 6X? Not arguing with you, I just don't know. I'm only just now getting to the point in life where it matters to me.
So, before O-Care, they were charging that group more than 6X? Not arguing with you, I just don't know. I'm only just now getting to the point in life where it matters to me.
@Jazzhead
Funny how that's not your response to issues you don't like. It was against the law to perform an abortion at one time ya know.
The free market is dispassionate and unemotional. Older folks get charged six times more because actuarially they are six times riskier to insure.
Sometimes the community makes the determination that that's a hardship, and requires insurers to set rates requiring the young to subsidize the old. But that ACA's 3 to 1 ratio simply made a mess of the individual marketplace; it's such a bad deal for young folks that they rationally decide to withdraw from the market.
Again - the AHCA would have fixed that, but the FC's stubbornness nixed it.
Yes - on the individual (not employer-based) market. It made sense for the insurers because older people cost so much more in terms of claims. And the thing is that any insurance company that didn't do that would necessarily be charging younger people more to make up the difference, so they'd end up fleeing to other policies that were cheaper for them.
Here's the article -- it's August 2009, pre-ACA:
Health Insurance: How Much More Should Older People Pay?
Chris Denny, who runs a small marketing firm in Santa Rosa, Calif., buys his own health insurance for $117 a month. An avid gardener, Denny, 27, describes himself as healthy and fit.
The same policy, from the same insurer, would cost a 60-year-old man $735 a month, according to an estimate on eHealthInsurance.com, an online marketplace that lists quotes and coverage from a variety of insurers. Such a difference in cost – common around the country – doesn’t surprise Denny, who says older people use more medical care: “So is it unfair to charge them five times more? I don’t think so.”
For years, insurers have charged older customers far more than younger ones, in part because of older residents’ higher use of medical services. Now, as Congress wrestles with a health care overhaul aimed at covering the majority of the 46 million uninsured, that discrepancy is one area targeted for change. The outcome could affect tens of millions of people – young and old – who don’t get insurance through their jobs and buy it on their own, as well as some small businesses. It would not affect people 65 and older, who are covered by Medicare, or people who work for large companies, which usually get group rates for health coverage.
Lawmakers face a delicate balancing act involving fundamental issues of fairness and cost. Limit insurers to charging only a small difference in monthly premiums between older and younger people, and the younger ones would likely pay far more than they do now. Allow a larger spread, and older residents may be priced out of coverage.....
http://khn.org/news/age-rating/
The ACA limited that multiple to 3, the AHCA limited it to 5 which is closer to what the market would set. So if you repeal the ACA, the multiple will jump from 3 to around 6, essentially doubling the cost.
Again, as the article points out, this is not for group policies used by employers. This is on the individual market, which covers the self-employed, etc..
Yes - on the individual (not employer-based) market. It made sense for the insurers because older people cost so much more in terms of claims. And the thing is that any insurance company that didn't do that would necessarily be charging younger people more to make up the difference, so they'd end up fleeing to other policies that were cheaper for them.
Here's the article -- it's August 2009, pre-ACA:
Health Insurance: How Much More Should Older People Pay?
Chris Denny, who runs a small marketing firm in Santa Rosa, Calif., buys his own health insurance for $117 a month. An avid gardener, Denny, 27, describes himself as healthy and fit.
The same policy, from the same insurer, would cost a 60-year-old man $735 a month, according to an estimate on eHealthInsurance.com, an online marketplace that lists quotes and coverage from a variety of insurers. Such a difference in cost – common around the country – doesn’t surprise Denny, who says older people use more medical care: “So is it unfair to charge them five times more? I don’t think so.”
For years, insurers have charged older customers far more than younger ones, in part because of older residents’ higher use of medical services. Now, as Congress wrestles with a health care overhaul aimed at covering the majority of the 46 million uninsured, that discrepancy is one area targeted for change. The outcome could affect tens of millions of people – young and old – who don’t get insurance through their jobs and buy it on their own, as well as some small businesses. It would not affect people 65 and older, who are covered by Medicare, or people who work for large companies, which usually get group rates for health coverage.
Lawmakers face a delicate balancing act involving fundamental issues of fairness and cost. Limit insurers to charging only a small difference in monthly premiums between older and younger people, and the younger ones would likely pay far more than they do now. Allow a larger spread, and older residents may be priced out of coverage.....
http://khn.org/news/age-rating/
The ACA limited that multiple to 3, the AHCA limited it to 5 which is closer to what the market would set. So if you repeal the ACA, the multiple will jump from 3 to around 6, essentially doubling the cost.
Again, as the article points out, this is not for group policies used by employers. This is on the individual market, which covers the self-employed, etc..
That's the law, bub.
We didn't have a free market before ACA.
Health co-ops exist. One I know of charges $300 per person regardless of age. They manage it. Of course they don't have huge profits and bonuses for executives.
Liberals have been chipping away at free market Healthcare for as long as I've been alive.
IMO they first set us on this path with the Kennedy authored HMO Bill passed in IIRC 1972.
Until their first attempt with Hillary in 1992 they'd been taking baby steps...they regrouped after that failure and waited until they could shove the ACA down our throats on a one sided vote with a little bit of trickery tossed in for good measure.
I don't get your point. Remember, I'm arguing with idiots who claim that any law enacted by the peoples' representatives that they don't like amounts to "tyranny".
But but but...it's the law! Bub. *****rollingeyes*****
It is tyranny.... or soft tyranny.... when government rams down our throats something so unpopular that most Americans are against it (like with ObamaCare). What the hell else would it be???The Law-uh (two syllables like the preachers say it.) Did you know that Bub? :laugh:
LOL at one point the rule of thumb was "the law" too.Pretty sure the invention of the cast iron frying pan put an end to that one. 22222frying pan
Pretty sure the invention of the cast iron frying pan put an end to that one. 22222frying pan
And neither did the AHCA. The five-times premium permitted by the AHCA - versus three times under the ACA, and unlimited prior to the ACA - applies only to the individual market.
So, to the extent you believed that the AHCA was going to apply that "5" multiple to employer-based policies, you are mistaken.
The Law-uh (two syllables like the preachers say it.) Did you know that Bub? :laugh:
You raise a point here that I really think needs to be addressed (probably even make it a chapter in my book....) There's been this myth propagated that the Founders wouldn't compromise, it was all or nothing, etc. That's complete hogwash. The Founders signed the Declaration knowing they might lose the war, but also believing they had a good chance to win. If it would have gotten to the point where defeat was inevitable, and further fighting would just have cost the lives of soldiers, they'd rightfully have surrendered. Patrick Henry aside, they weren't aiming for martyrdom. They were aiming for victory.
And look at how we actually fought that war. Washington didn't follow some idiotic "no retreat" directive. For much of the war, his immediate tactical goal was to simply keep an army in the field, not win battles. One of his best moves as a general was escaping New York in August 1776. Less than two months after the Declaration was signed, Washington abandoned New York when surrounded by the British. He gave up a critical city, but did so because he wanted to preserve his army. Some here would no likely have denigrated him as a moral coward for refusing to fight to the bitter end to save New York. Some back then actually did. But had he stayed and fought with a "no retreat" mindset, his entire army would have been bagged, and the Revolution over.
In the south, we pretty much lost every important battle for a good stretch. Our best general was Nathanael Greene, and it was his strategy that led to the victory at Yorktown. But he actually lost every pitched battle he fought. He had a brilliant strategic plan, never stopped nipping at the heels of the British, and eventually compelled them to retreat through strategic maneuver.
The point is that in a war, you cannot insist on always attacking/never retreating. You have to fight hard, but also fight smart. Know when to attack, when to push your advantage, and when to take what you can get and not leave yourself open to a counterattack by getting too greedy. That was part of the genius of Washington at Trenton and Princeton. He attacked, did his damage, and then retreated before getting cutoff. The absolutists -- and there were some of those back then -- criticized him for not pushing his advantage harder and launching a general attack. But he did the right thing in grabbing those victories and not risking too much.
My point is that we are essentially in a war right now with the left, and to win, it is not enough to just be principled and fight hard. We must also fight smart. It means fighting tough rear-guard actions when we lose, like we did in 2008. And it means taking victories whenever we can, even if they are not as complete and overwhelming as we might like. The "give me everything, or nothing at all" mentality will doom us to certain defeat, just as certainly as it doomed the entire German Sixth Army when Hitler issued his asinine "no retreat" order for Stalingrad.
We cannot confuse disagreements on strategy/tactics, with disagreements on principles. Most (not all, obviously) of us here are pretty staunch conservatives, and would like to bring the country to a much better place, which means much less government interference and control in our lives. Where we disagree is how best to get from here, to there. And it would be a real tragedy if we left that kind of disagreement divide us to the point where we are unable to achieve anything.
The point is that in a war, you cannot insist on always attacking/never retreating
Patton and MacArthur would beg to differ with you on that.
@Maj. Bill Martin @XenaLee
But its ok to charge a young person more than their share? Simply to make up for the older people who tend to get sick more often?
How about using the free market and get the govt out of the picture. reduce some regulations. Put a limit on lawyers and the liability healthcare providers have to contend with.
Umm the Philippines? Korea?
The point is that in a war, you cannot insist on always attacking/never retreating. You have to fight hard, but also fight smart. Know when to attack, when to push your advantage, and when to take what you can get and not leave yourself open to a counterattack by getting too greedy.
My point is that we are essentially in a war right now with the left, and to win, it is not enough to just be principled and fight hard. We must also fight smart.
We cannot confuse disagreements on strategy/tactics, with disagreements on principles.That is exactly what your position demands. Your strategy is to surrender principles and promises for the sake of supposedly advancing them in small increments against a people and party who hate our principles with every fiber of their being and are at war with those principles for the purpose of eradicating them.
Where we disagree is how best to get from here, to there. And it would be a real tragedy if we left that kind of disagreement divide us to the point where we are unable to achieve anything.
We didn't have a free market before ACA.
Health co-ops exist. One I know of charges $300 per person regardless of age. They manage it. Of course they don't have huge profits and bonuses for executives.
The point is.... without government interference.... the system we HAD was fair. I challenge you to find an instance or proof of an insurer charging someone over 60 five times what they charged a 40 year old for basic healthcare coverage under that "individual market" before ObamaCare.
Mac had to be given a direct order by FDR to vacate to Australia and was fired by Truman for refusing to pull back.
It is tyranny.... or soft tyranny.... when government rams down our throats something so unpopular that most Americans are against it (like with ObamaCare). What the hell else would it be???
No! It's not tyranny because we have the means to change it!
... tyranny was not overcome by protracted negotiations that ceded to the tyranny of the crown in incremental measures and granted the rule of tyranny over the colonies as legitimate.People are comparing this to the land war of the Revolution. It had those who were content to live in servitude to the Crown, to continue in chains, and it had its Benedict Arnold, too.
The Left, yes - the Left is at war - their Glorious Peoples Revolution. They are willing to lie, cheat, steal, swindle, deceive, burn, riot, kill and subjugate whomever they need to in order to achieve their ends. Your side - the GOP - they are busy playing 'politics' and vying for the largest piece of the pie that the Left is able to achieve for them. They cannot and will not even call evil, tyranny, Marxism, Communism or sin what they are. They are too busy learning to get along with it and coercing their constituents to accept it.
>snip <
But you, like so many others refuse to even call this abomination foisted on us via corruption as tyranny. We can argue whether or not this is a soft or hard tyranny - but it is tyranny nonetheless. This post- Constitutional democracy has made such tyranny legitimate and that is the starting point for all these 'compromises' we are told we have to make.
In a 'democracy' a people will always vote themselves into slavery by empowering tyranny. As such, this "democracy" that we have devolved ourselves into was only ever going to last as long as the plundered national treasury, was solvent. Imposing tyranny therefore is the object necessary to continue that plunder even after it has been completely depleted.
You are arguing from a point of politics as if the ACA is not tyranny - but just another random piece of legal legislation that is unpopular. I consider that idea ceding the entire cause of liberty itself by accepting the premise that this particular imposition of tyranny is legal. With the precedent now standing - more overt forms of tyranny that you will end up actually recognizing and feeling will also be made 'legal', making any resistance to such tyranny declared to be treason. A little leaven, leavens the entire lump.
Corruption and lies, forged to pass tyranny in the middle of the night - or without consent upon a people is not something that is overturned by the rules that tyrants have usurped and corrupted for themselves in order to evince the designs to subjugate the people under absolute despotism.
Resisting them and refusing to bend is our duty. Otherwise we are just going along with tyranny to eek out what liberty remains until the next time we are told to compromise.
That is exactly what your position demands. Your strategy is to surrender principles and promises for the sake of supposedly advancing them in small increments against a people and party who hate our principles with every fiber of their being and are at war with those principles for the purpose of eradicating them.
If as you assert, the Liberals, Democrats and Moderates who want Obamacare to remain are the largest bloc and the FC has no voice or power to engender repeal - then there is nothing lost with them standing their ground and refusing to be seen as reneging on their promise to repeal. Let them come to the FC to compromise their positions.
But no. All the talk of compromise is aimed at the FC, which tells me all I need to know.
We have spent the last 30 years following the advice of surrender, retreat, regroup and negotiate with the Left. I'm done supporting olive branch petitions.
We have already lost the entire culture of the country by following that advice and watched the Federal Beast grow beyond the constraints of the rule of law. The foundational principles that once united us as a people are hated and rejected by more than half the population and they want a government that is their god.
We lost because we would not fight. We lost the culture because we refused to call things what they were and no longer recognized that the very ideas anathema to the existence of liberty and the civil society were being embraced by our own people under the lies we bought from the enemy about tolerance and compromise. We willfully ignored it, laughed at it and then compromised with it in 'good faith'.
If the GOP and Trump do not repeal ObamaCare - then they simply sign their names to the entire Obamination and own Government-Run Healthcare as their own. Single Payer will indeed be imposed by the necessity of the entire system collapsing as a result of what ObamaCare has done, and is doing to healthcare itself - by design. The AHCA was never going to stop what ObamaCare started and making health insurance an inviolable 'right' to have is absurd. I imagine the 'right' to food, a job, housing and free internet for everyone is next on the agenda.
Repeal in full. Sunset it. Work to empower the private sector to take up the mantle and educate the people about the personal responsibility they need to take for themselves.
People are comparing this to the land war of the Revolution. It had those who were content to live in servitude to the Crown, to continue in chains, and it had its Benedict Arnold, too.
While terrain was ceded in delaying battles, and in some the Colonial Armies prevailed, the army survived to fight another day, and eventually prevail. That war was not one of real estate so much as one of attrition, and a matter of surviving to gain the support of the skeptics in Europe who could assist with the war for their own motives. Why send assistance to a force that might not exist by the time the ships arrived?
Franklin, et. al. achieved much through diplomacy to gain the necessary implements of war and the blocking force which kept Cornwallis' forces from evacuating by sea, but in the meantime, Washington, Marion, and others had to keep the dream alive by not surrendering their principles, even as they ceded territory and only won occasional victories.
Had they not stood fast upon those principles, the military actions would have been moot.
This is a war of principles, which unlike terrain are far more difficult to retake, because they do not occupy a fixed point on the globe, but reside within the hearts and minds of every individual. Such 'terrain' once surrendered, once rationalized to the enemy side, is difficult to regain indeed, where the first ramparts to be overcome are the rationalizations of those who have accepted even a little bondage rather than fight.
It is far tougher to retake than mere real estate, and is lost or gained often without firing a shot, fought over with little fear for life or limb.
The time is long past, but those of us who have long warned of this situation find ourselves once again trying to dissuade those who claim they oppose creeping statism, this time, the ACA (who would never have argued before that this legislation should even have existed as law) from keeping it--any of it.
There are no bombs bursting, no wrecked towns, burned crops, slaughtered livestock or displaced multitudes as a result of this legislation. Instead that battlefield of principles is littered with the withered spiritual husks of patriots who have become something less, who demand less than the full measure of Liberty which is their birthright and should be their goal.
For those who remain, and those who wish to join us in fighting this and other usurpations of our rights and powers, that spiritual battlefield cannot be ceded. There can be no retreat from the principles we hold, any more than the Colonial Army's leaders whom we revere retreated from their principles and their ultimate goal, even as they maneuvered on the map.
The one who sold out and turned coat is recalled with revulsion, and has been mentioned here, his name carved from the wall of the chapel at West Point, despite his great generalship in the Colonial cause (and shabby treatment at the hands of politicians, likely a factor in his defection).
The comparison is not with Washington, not even with Lee, but with more Chamberlain and Churchill.
Will we be remembered as those who stood and fought? or those who proclaimed "Peace in our time", even as they were betrayed.
The choice, the battlefield, the hearts and minds are individually ours first, to be retained at all costs without compromise of principle, to be recaptured when the ability to reason and the spirit of freedom can be revived, but never lightly surrendered.
If people will give in and submit in such a war of words, what hope for a future when even more may be required?
I literally just posted a story from 2009, pre-Obamacare, a 27 year old was charged $117/month for a policy, and a 60 year old was charged $735/month for the exact same policy. Did you not see it?
Today, the 27-year-old is charged $300 for that policy, and the 60-year-old is charged $1200. Except now their deductible is three times bigger. But at least now the 60-year-old has maternity coverage.And free contraceptives! Yippie! :thud:
No! It's not tyranny because we have the means to change it!
We have a Republican Congress and a Republican President.
Fat lot of good that did us the last time we had that . . .
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51zxG4YNGBL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
All the last such triumvirate got us was the regime of His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama
Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Have-Been Life President of the Republic Formerly Known as the United States. Based
on the early going, I don't even want to think about what this Republican Congress and this Republican President
are going to bequeath us.
People have willfully short memories, because to recognize and admit certain truths, abolishes their need to make their party and their candidates their saviors and their Deliverers.
So today, because of the aforementioned, we have a lifelong New York Liberal Democrat, who is now the titular head of the Republican Party - AT WAR with Tea Party Conservatives whom he and the Establishment Oligarchy that also hates them, are threatening to get rid of because they did not support their version of ObamaCare, so they can make it into their own image and likeness.
BOTH parties want giant, behemoth central planning for government. They just differ on who runs it and how.
Limited government Conservatives, have been triangulated for political elimination by their own party leadership and the Democrats whom they have an alliance with.
Philippines aside (where MacArthur did retreat), MacArthur repeatedly ordered retreats and consolidations of his own volition -- without any order from Truman -- when the NK's first invaded the South in June 1950.Perhaps like the Marines we need to understand that there are times you have to 'attack in a different direction'.
What you're apparently referring to is the subsequent Chinese intervention in late November 1950, and frankly, MacArthur screwed the pooch so massively with his over-aggressiveness that he should have been relieved right then. The entire Eighth Army engaged in the "Big Bug-Out", and X Corps was spared from annihilation only because the First Marine Division managed a rather miraculous fighting retreat after MacArthur's staff had written them off.
In any case, MacArthur's handling of the Korea campaign is a classic example of what happens when someone gets overconfident, and pushes for too much.
If people will give in and submit in such a war of words, what hope for a future when even more may be required?
They are advocating taking half a loaf rather than none.
Perhaps like the Marines we need to understand that there are times you have to 'attack in a different direction'.
No, they are advocating taking a third of a loaf while baking a few croissants for the other side with a brand new 'entitlement'.
What part of 'Repeal Obamacare' do you not get?
No, they are advocating taking a third of a loaf while baking a few croissants for the other side with a brand new 'entitlement'. What part of 'Repeal Obamacare' do you not get?
All of it, obviously. We've been trying to drill that reality into their brains here at the forum for far too long now. I think it's time to admit defeat and stop trying. Either they are incapable of gleening the effing obvious... that the promise to repeal needs to be kept first....or they are unwilling to accept that truth. Either way, it's a waste of time and energy. (Like arguing with a leftie always is)
We've been trying to drill that reality into their brains here at the forum for far too long now.
Generic Republican Congresscritter: "Now look, I know we told you we were going to repeal Obamacare...but what you folks think repeal means and what WE think real means are two completely different things..."
What is the "brand new entitlement?"
The problem is that the moderates of the Tuesday Group don't get it, and they have the votes to stop it. How do you propose getting around that?
So what?
So what if everything you just said is true, and the Tuesday Group is a bunch of lying hypocrites? Pointing that out still isn't going to get us to 218 votes.
Amen. The First Marine Division was lucky that it had O.P. Smith in command, who could see the stupidity of MacArthur and Almond's overly-aggressive plan, and so deliberately dragged his feet on the advance. If he hadn't, the entire division would have been cutoff and annihilated.Your post from the other day really had me thinking. One of the problems with Republicans is they tend to rest on their laurels whenever they do get a victory. Democrats always want more, give them a tax increase and they'll squeal it isn't enough. But at the end of the day they'll sulk and say "fine will take it, but we want more".
But in this case, we're not even talking about a retreat at all. We're talking about an advance. It's not as far an advance as some would prefer, but it is certainly better than doing nothing, and much better than a retreat.
What "reality" is that? The "reality" appears to be that there are enough members of the Tuesday group who oppose complete repeal to prevent it from happening. You can call them liars, betrayers, RINO's, liberals, RATS, or whatever perjorative you want. You can claim (wrongly) that each of them promised a full repeal, and should be held to that. That all makes nice chest-beating on a message board, but it isn't going to get the GOP to 218 votes in the House, or to 50 in the Senate.
That's reality.
Nobody is advocating submitting to the other side. They are advocating taking half a loaf rather than none. Moving the ball in the right direction, even if it is not as far as you'd like, it not "submitting".
If you insist on all or nothing, you'll get nothing. And sorry, but the only people who support that are defeatists who believe we've already lost. In which case, you're no longer an ally of those who wish to keep fighting.
Let's put it this way. Any one of those ""moderates"" that rode the GOP coattails to victory and majority control on the promise of full repeal....and that now are going back on that promise just cuz they think they can.... need to be voted the HELL out as soon as possible. That's justice, payback and karma. That is also reality.
Refundable tax credits, meaning that people who don't even have jobs or pay taxes will be getting 'refund' [sic] checks from the IRS.
In a few months, these same so-called 'moderates' will be voting to fund Obamacare for another year with taxpayer money. And not a single Conservative is to blame for that.
So let's stop with the lie that Conservatives are going to have to vote in favor of giving up two-thirds of the loaf while baking a few croissants in addition while moderates aren't willing to give up a damn thing when it comes to the product we have right now.
Let's put it this way. Any one of those ""moderates"" that rode the GOP coattails to victory and majority control on the promise of full repeal....and that now are going back on that promise just cuz they think they can.... need to be voted the HELL out as soon as possible.
That's justice, payback and karma.
There's only one way to expose the duplicitous members who promise one way and deliver another: Have votes, even though we know they will not pass, so we can get the liars on record. It's hard to throw them out in elections when Leadership won't make them take any sort of stand.
The Mob's thugs take control of our town, and come by each week and rough us up and rob us and our businesses for 'protection money'. We want it stopped. In total. Completely.
And the new Sheriff in town whom we just put there for the purpose of stopping this weekly robbery, makes a deal with the Mob and tells us that we will get a 20% reduction in the amount they take each week and that we should shut up, eat our peas and take this offer, because this is all the relief from tyranny that we are going to get.
We are told that this 'tax' we have to hand over to the Mob is now permanent, and we should get used to it and be grateful we are able to keep just a little bit more of what is stolen from us.
It's the price we are told we have to pay now that the Mob has control of the town.
You become permanent victims and never get your liberty back because you have submitted to "reality".
Well, given that most of them actually ran on preserving parts of ObamaCare, you're not going to get rid of them that easily. And if the GOP passes nothing by 2018, we'll lose the House. So, perhaps you'll get your wish and some of them will be gone. But we won't have a majority anymore, so it won't matter.
In other words, nothing except smug satisfaction. A "moral" victory, but practical defeat. Because the law that all of us hate will still be fully on the books in all its glory, and we'll have squandered our only shot at repealing any of it.
So let's stop with the lie that Conservatives are going to have to vote in favor of giving up two-thirds of the loaf while baking a few croissants in addition while moderates aren't willing to give up a damn thing when it comes to the product we have right now.
Your post from the other day really had me thinking. One of the problems with Republicans is they tend to rest on their laurels whenever they do get a victory. Democrats always want more, give them a tax increase and they'll squeal it isn't enough. But at the end of the day they'll sulk and say "fine will take it, but we want more".
It should be possible for a politician to have a deep abiding love of freedom and be willing to work at it incrementally too, but they seem very rare. They get something minor done and they say: this is enough, look what we did.
I say no loaf at all.
I agree completely. And I'll add that once this stuff is in place more people become accustom to the federal government doing these sort of things and it becomes "normal". That new normal then expands into what wasn't normal in other areas as well. Either you close the door on it ASAP or you don't and it takes hold and grows like a cancer.
And I'll add that once this stuff is in place more people become accustom to the federal government doing these sort of things and it becomes "normal".
Of course you do. You have already stated your absolute conviction that we are doomed and that everything will fall apart. So for you, the faster we hit bottom, the better.
The only way addicts ever get clean of dependence is to hit complete bottom and in the midst of the destruction their own choices have wrought, wake up and realize if they do not stop and overcome it - they are going to die.
The only way addicts ever get clean of dependence is to hit complete bottom and in the midst of the destruction their own choices have wrought, wake up and realize if they do not stop and overcome it - they are going to die.Usually I agree with you @INVAR, but at some point there's we have to make sure we have our taget identification figured out. To use another example. Do you demand Christ-like perfection out of new believers or let them grow and change over time. You can't just jump to destinations. At some point it becomes simply asking the impossible, which is pointless however "right" it may be.
And one does not overcome an addiction by continuing to partake in their dependence.
This adage also applies to sin as well.
I hope your fans here read this, and realize exactly what you are advocating. Maybe not all of them are willing to follow you so merrily into your abyss.History tells us most countries/civilizations don't. After enough destruction people embrace the strong man savior type and things get even worse.
By the way, what makes you so certain that after we hit "rock bottom", and force our kids to dwell down there, we'll actually pick up with your ideas? You have said before that you see yourself as a "witness" to all this, and that nobody will be able to say that you didn't tell them this would happen.
But what you're apparently not recognizing is that 99.99999% of this country doesn't know who you are, and doesn't care what you say. You're "warning" is not being heard by anyone except those who already agree with you. And even if the majority of the country did actually hear you, one of the core features of liberalism (according to von Hayek, and I think he was right), is that they always blame their failures on their opponents not giving them enough power. So it is entirely possible that the failure of democratic socialism will be outright violent communism, or thug-o-cratic fascism, anarcho-syndicalism, or some other orthodoxy that is even more foul than the one that currently plagues us.
We could head into your abyss, and never emerge.
History tells us most countries/civilizations don't. After enough destruction people embrace the strong man savior type and things get even worse.
Generally speaking people don't take up arms till they get hungry and hungry mobs don't make good decisions.
We are a unique nation. We were born out of ideas, not ethnicity or tribalism. When the Revolution was won, the Marquis de Lafayette said:Double Amen to that.
"Humanity has won its battle. Liberty now has a Country."
I will not just give that country up, cash in my chips, and help shove that country into the abyss on the wild hope that it will magically re-emerge as if it is 1776 all over again. As you say, human history does not give good odds on that. So, we have to fight, tooth and nail, to preserve what we have as best as we can, for as long as we can. Anything else is just nihilism. And self-congratulatory nihilism as that.
I personally will not discard the sacrifices of all those who came before us by helping to shove this country into a gutter.
We are a unique nation. We were born out of ideas, not ethnicity or tribalism. When the Revolution was won, the Marquis de Lafayette said:
"Humanity has won its battle. Liberty now has a Country."
I will not just give that country up, cash in my chips, and help shove that country into the abyss on the wild hope that it will magically re-emerge as if it is 1776 all over again. As you say, human history does not give good odds on that. So, we have to fight, tooth and nail, to preserve what we have as best as we can, for as long as we can. Anything else is just nihilism. And self-congratulatory nihilism as that.
I personally will not discard the sacrifices of all those who came before us by helping to shove this country into a gutter.
When the Revolution was won, the Marquis de Lafayette said:
"Humanity has won its battle. Liberty now has a Country."
Let's put it this way. Any one of those ""moderates"" that rode the GOP coattails to victory and majority control on the promise of full repeal....and that now are going back on that promise just cuz they think they can.... need to be voted the HELL out as soon as possible. That's justice, payback and karma. That is also reality.
This is one reason we need to get another bill out there quickly. We wouldn't have to scrape something together... I understand a bill was drafted in 2015 that repeals Obamacare.
Once we get it out there, Congress needs to vote on it. Show their cards...if they won't vote for it, let them explain why.
@Emjay, they've voted over 50 times to repeal 0bamacare, and both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have alternate plans. There is simply no excuse for the bill they presented last week. None.
@Emjay, they've voted over 50 times to repeal 0bamacare, and both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul have alternate plans. There is simply no excuse for the bill they presented last week. None.
Oh, and there is a bill in committee that could have been moved forward.
This is one reason we need to get another bill out there quickly. We wouldn't have to scrape something together... I understand a bill was drafted in 2015 that repeals Obamacare.
Once we get it out there, Congress needs to vote on it. Show their cards...if they won't vote for it, let them explain why.
That might help. The potential downside is that it would pass the House, and never come to a vote in the Senate. And since it will never come to a vote, the no-voters won't have to say "why".
Although to be honest, some of them already have. I've posted previously comments from 4 Senators saying they will not vote for a bill that does not preserve the expansion of Medicaid to a significant extent.
Because a lot of people here are WHIIINERS. Like on the old SNL show. They are so determined to prove they were right in not wanting Trump, they refuse to give him the slightest break.
Sure there's an excuse. Those other bills won't pass.
Given the numbers, I can't see how a future bill to fix the ACA will be more conservative than the AHCA.
Sure there's an excuse. Those other bills won't pass. The AHCA was likely conservatives' best shot.
Just because he declares conservatives the enemy and says he's going to primary them doesn't make him bad. lol
Oh, and there is a bill in committee that could have been moved forward.
Do you demand Christ-like perfection out of new believers or let them grow and change over time. You can't just jump to destinations. At some point it becomes simply asking the impossible, which is pointless however "right" it may be.
It is the same with tax reform. There is an honest true reform bill languishing in W&M. Instead of that we will get another round of tinkering around the edges of the Marxist income tax that will be played up as "reform".
That's how they do things in Washington these days. Throw the great unwashed a crumb or two and tell them its nirvana. They will buy it hook, line, and sinker.
Destination is predetermined based on both biblical, moral and historical fact when we have deviated from the right path set before us. We are supposed to strive for perfection and overcome our imperfections, not accommodate them and settle for existing alongside them.See you didn't' give up on your kids when they were working to get better. Same principle.
"This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live" - Deuteronomy 30:19
God made things pretty plain in terms of consequences that will come when breaking and living in opposition to His Laws. Likewise, there are laws of physics and laws of economics and laws of societal morality. When we break those laws - consequences will come, even if delayed by kicking the can down the road.
My own kids were told that there were consequences that would come from bad behavior, and that if they chose those behaviors, they would suffer those consequences. And, when they did bad behavior - I did not save them from the consequences they earned. I forgave them when they were sorry and when they worked to change that bad behavior.
Either one stops the bad behavior, or the consequences are going to manifest themselves over time, if they are not suffered immediately. Usually the longer it takes to arrest the bad behavior, the more permanent the consequential damage.
So it is true of a society.
I've read so many comments like this lately.
Where is the joy? The hope, the optimism; the willingness to work until you achieve the goal.
We've come a ways since Obama ... he had everything: the house, the Senate; a lot of governors and a real mean streak.
We now have a Republican president (who is a work in progress, admittedly) the House, the Senate and a majority of governors.
We have become a far more conservative country and we can get things done but don't expect it before you wake up tomorrow.
I hope your fans here read this, and realize exactly what you are advocating. Maybe not all of them are willing to follow you so merrily into your abyss.
By the way, what makes you so certain that after we hit "rock bottom", and force our kids to dwell down there, we'll actually pick up with your ideas? You have said before that you see yourself as a "witness" to all this, and that nobody will be able to say that you didn't tell them this would happen.
But what you're apparently not recognizing is that 99.99999% of this country doesn't know who you are, and doesn't care what you say. You're "warning" is not being heard by anyone except those who already agree with you.
And even if the majority of the country did actually hear you, one of the core features of liberalism (according to von Hayek, and I think he was right), is that they always blame their failures on their opponents not giving them enough power.
So it is entirely possible that the failure of democratic socialism will be outright violent communism, or thug-o-cratic fascism, anarcho-syndicalism, or some other orthodoxy that is even more foul than the one that currently plagues us.
We could head into your abyss, and never emerge.
Are you saying we can never get anything passed? And why does Medicaid need to be expanded?Medicaid already was expanded under Obamacare. That's what I'm referring to.
It ishttp://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?action=post;quote=1277656;topic=255662.625;last_msg=1277701# the same with tax reform. There is an honest true reform bill languishing in W&M. Instead of that we will get another round of tinkering around the edges of the Marxist income tax that will be played up as "reform".
That's how they do things in Washington these days. Throw the great unwashed a crumb or two and tell them its nirvana. They will buy it hook, line, and sinker.
'My abyss'???? Look bub, the consequences of stupidity and Statism are coming whether you want to pretend they will happen or not. You demand we capitulate to tyranny and accept the entire premise that it is our job to compromise with tyranny because we do not have votes to overcome it. Somehow because a few people refuse to compromise and surrender their principles to have the crown of Government-run Healthcare put on their heads - we have doomed society to the 'abyss'.
You are arguing like a liberal.
To paraphrase what God warned of in Deuteronomy 30:19 - we had set before us, liberty or tyranny. Therefore choose liberty that our descendants might be free.
Choosing 30% of liberty and 70% tyranny because that is all we can hope for - is stupid if liberty is indeed the objective.
LOL! But what about my 'Abyss' that you just said everyone was following me into?? If I am so inconsequential (and I agree with you that I am), why are you so bent out of shape that I post my opinions and statements in regards to where this country is going to end up?
So why are you giving them more power to begin with? You surrendered the entire premise of liberty by willing to compromise with tyranny, which I assume you do not recognize. You seem to proceed from the position and premise that ObamaCare is perfectly legitimate, lawful and righteous and was achieved by lawful means that did not involve corruption, secrecy, coercion, threat and imposition, and we simply have to accept it and do away with this silly notion to end it.
And yet you get pissed off at me for asserting and announcing these are the consequences and achievements this country is sowing for itself?
or is it that you are pissed off that I'm not lending a hand to support half-measures and olive branch petitions to hold off those inevitable consequences a little while longer?
Such is the fate of all Republics and all democracies that abandon their foundational principles and accept ideas anathema to their charters. There is not a single one that has not committed suicide.
But if that is what this people and their representatives want - that is what they will have. I have no power to stop everyone from leaping off the cliff. You said so yourself.
So I simply write and say what I do as a witness. We will have no excuse.
“The people of America have now the best opportunity and the greatest trust in their hands that Providence ever committed to so small a number, since the transgression of the first pair (Adam and Eve); if they betray this trust, their guilt will merit even greater punishment than other nations have suffered, and the indignation Heaven." - John Adams 1787
See you didn't' give up on your kids when they were working to get better. Same principle.
Aren't you overlooking all of the Kings God blessed in Judah even if they didn't bring the nation all the way back to where it had been udner David; He even his stayed his of judgement on Ahab when he turned (sort of).Repentance came first. That meant ending the wicked and sinful practices that were antithetical to what Gods' laws laid down.
I've read so many comments like this lately.
Where is the joy? The hope, the optimism; the willingness to work until you achieve the goal.
Is it?Considering I can't find a biblical command for or against your method of advancing the truth; I'm not sure first analogy really holds. I'd rather have a kid not listen once a week than back talk every day; I'd rather have A's but I'll take B's etc. As far as Our righteousness is as filthy rags if you set a bar of perfection why would any bother to try.
If my kid was doing crack - I shouldn't give up on him because he is only smoking two crack pipes a day instead of ten?
We used to call that 'enabling'.
And I have no part in enabling bad behavior.
Repentance came first. That meant ending the wicked and sinful practices that were antithetical to what Gods' laws laid down.
Did the consequences and judgment named upon Judah for their sins eventually come or not?
Every single time Israel and Judah abandoned God or compromised God's Laws with those practices anathema to what was laid down as foundational - they were ultimately destroyed and sent into slavery.
The consequences for compromising with practices and ideas contrary to the foundational principles and laws agreed to, always come upon a people - and none escape.
To answer it directly, I think it is because those arguing for all or nothing probably believe that means nothing, and are resigned to that. There is no joy because they are already defeated.
As a broader point, it makes me think that some people treat politics like religion - that faith and purity themselves are virtues, and an end in themselves.
And that's the problem with the "all or nothing" approach, because if ideological purity for its own sake results in a society that is less free than if you'd accepted something less, what have you gained? Your kids now live in a worse country, with less of a chance for success and happiness. And so do you.
Considering I can't find a biblical command for or against your method of advancing the truth; I'm not sure first analogy really holds. I'd rather have a kid not listen once a week than back talk every day; I'd rather have A's but I'll take B's etc.
As far as Our righteousness is as filthy rags if you set a bar of perfection why would any bother to try.
For example Daniel, Esther, Obadiah, Joseph and others were not condemned for doing what they could within the system they had.
God did not command them to stand outside and root for everything to crash into the ground so they could rebuild.
There were lines that you do not cross, and you can't compromise with evil.
Things with clear biblical commands times when it is better to Obey god than men.
Here we are dealing with how to advance principles.
No, I do not accept that analogy. I'm not going to sugarcoat Socialism and Marxism by suggesting this issue is an allegory of kids struggling over getting good grades.And are you perfect as your father in heaven?
The crack analogy fits because this government and this people are ADDICTED to big government Socialism. This whole idea of government-run healthcare is the biggest camel's nose of despotism under the tent of liberty we had since LBJ. And like meth or crack - it only takes one use to get society addicted and another permanent entitlement is established that puts government in control of every aspect of our lives - in order to control costs. The Left has been working to impose this for a century - because they knew that was the lynchpin towards turning the republic into a total Communist state.
The only way to stop an addiction that leads to death - is to END the addiction. Not reward the addict who cut down their use for a time.
"Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is Perfect" Matthew 5:48
""Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? - Luke 6:46
"He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father on his throne." - Revelation 3:21
We were not born under bondage as they were. We were not born under a despotic king. We were born in the most unique and free nation in the history of mankind and we keep hearing the wisdom of men telling us that we must sell our birthright for a bowl of soup and free healthcare. We were not born into a nation whereby we are forced to work within an established tyranny of a monarchy or other oppressive regime.
Ours was a republic, if we could KEEP IT. That meant eschewing evil and efforts to impose ideas anathema to the liberty established for us every single time it was encountered.
We did not do that - so we are losing it - because we keep giving into it the voices that tell us that we must surrender principles to achieve a little movement of the ball down the field towards our side.
Read the books of Jeremiah, Joel and Zechariah for starters and get back to me.
We already have. Abortion a generation ago, Healthcare a few years ago, homosexual marriage last year and so on. In each case we hear the voices that tell us that we are never going to be able to stop or overturn those evils, so we have to compromise our opposition to them in order to get a little bit of what we want. Meanwhile the choir for normalizing pedophelia rights is warming up now that the transgender band is finishing up their performance on stage. A little leaven, leavens the the entire lump.
That is true of sin. It is also true of Socialism, Communism and Statism.
Not according to our 'betters' who insist that we, whom have no voice, are infinitesimally irrelevant and have no one listening to us are suddenly a cog in the wheel of making life better and Joyous for them.
You state them plainly and you make certain they understand that they are not negotiable or movable.
Otherwise they are not principles at all, just guidelines when the sailing winds are in your favor.
No, I do not accept that analogy. I'm not going to sugarcoat Socialism and Marxism by suggesting this issue is an allegory of kids struggling over getting good grades.You most be really old or from the future if you've ever seen America perfect. It was messed up well before I was born. You can always find an excuse to stand aside and let it burn. Slavery, the treatment of the Indians, Income tax, FDR's new deal, farm aid, rural free delivery. You don't overcome challenges by demanding perfection, you get there by striving for it.
The crack analogy fits because this government and this people are ADDICTED to big government Socialism. This whole idea of government-run healthcare is the biggest camel's nose of despotism under the tent of liberty we had since LBJ. And like meth or crack - it only takes one use to get society addicted and another permanent entitlement is established that puts government in control of every aspect of our lives - in order to control costs. The Left has been working to impose this for a century - because they knew that was the lynchpin towards turning the republic into a total Communist state.
The only way to stop an addiction that leads to death - is to END the addiction. Not reward the addict who cut down their use for a time.
"Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is Perfect" Matthew 5:48
""Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? - Luke 6:46
"He who overcomes, I will give to him to sit down with me on my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father on his throne." - Revelation 3:21
We were not born under bondage as they were. We were not born under a despotic king. We were born in the most unique and free nation in the history of mankind and we keep hearing the wisdom of men telling us that we must sell our birthright for a bowl of soup and free healthcare. We were not born into a nation whereby we are forced to work within an established tyranny of a monarchy or other oppressive regime.
Ours was a republic, if we could KEEP IT. That meant eschewing evil and efforts to impose ideas anathema to the liberty established for us every single time it was encountered.
We did not do that - so we are losing it - because we keep giving into it the voices that tell us that we must surrender principles to achieve a little movement of the ball down the field towards our side.
Read the books of Jeremiah, Joel and Zechariah for starters and get back to me.
We already have. Abortion a generation ago, Healthcare a few years ago, homosexual marriage last year and so on. In each case we hear the voices that tell us that we are never going to be able to stop or overturn those evils, so we have to compromise our opposition to them in order to get a little bit of what we want. Meanwhile the choir for normalizing pedophelia rights is warming up now that the transgender band is finishing up their performance on stage. A little leaven, leavens the the entire lump.
That is true of sin. It is also true of Socialism, Communism and Statism.
Not according to our 'betters' who insist that we, whom have no voice, are infinitesimally irrelevant and have no one listening to us are suddenly a cog in the wheel of making life better and Joyous for them.
You state them plainly and you make certain they understand that they are not negotiable or movable.
Otherwise they are not principles at all, just guidelines when the sailing winds are in your favor.
And are you perfect as your father in heaven?
Do you have a verse that says trying to stop sin is a sin? That's what you are arguing.
You most be really old or from the future if you've ever seen America perfect. It was messed up well before I was born.
You can always find an excuse to stand aside and let it burn.
You don't overcome challenges by demanding perfection, you get there by striving for it.
Incidentally, while I like you analogy in some respects, because I too want to see every last word of this god forsaken law repealed; it does have some flaws. Depending on the addiction you know quitting cold turkey can kill the patient right?
Nobody is advocating submitting to the other side. They are advocating taking half a loaf rather than none. Moving the ball in the right direction, even if it is not as far as you'd like, it not "submitting".That is one of the finest pieces of circular reasoning I have ever seen.
If you insist on all or nothing, you'll get nothing. And sorry, but the only people who support that are defeatists who believe we've already lost. In which case, you're no longer an ally of those who wish to keep fighting.
So what?After a couple more years of pain, and those guys getting hit with primary challenges, it might sink in. When reprobates don't repent, it is usually because they're just fine with their pain levels.
So what if everything you just said is true, and the Tuesday Group is a bunch of lying hypocrites? Pointing that out still isn't going to get us to 218 votes.
I hope your fans here read this, and realize exactly what you are advocating. Maybe not all of them are willing to follow you so merrily into your abyss.Hello? We didn't make this mess, we are the ones advocating getting rid of it. If the Dems can pass it in one fell swoop, then the GOP should be able to remove it the same way. The only difference is one of commitment. The wishy-washy among the GOP, especially those from liberal districts don't want it gone.
By the way, what makes you so certain that after we hit "rock bottom", and force our kids to dwell down there, we'll actually pick up with your ideas? You have said before that you see yourself as a "witness" to all this, and that nobody will be able to say that you didn't tell them this would happen.We're already there, paying out of pocket. They know how it got this way, and thy don't have any love lost for any of the "moderates/progressives/communists/criminals" on either side of the aisle who let this persist.
But what you're apparently not recognizing is that 99.99999% of this country doesn't know who you are, and doesn't care what you say. You're "warning" is not being heard by anyone except those who already agree with you. And even if the majority of the country did actually hear you, one of the core features of liberalism (according to von Hayek, and I think he was right), is that they always blame their failures on their opponents not giving them enough power.Just like every 'moderate who has posted on this, blaming the FC for not giving them enough power to enshrine 80% of Obamacare (conservative estimate), and rebrand it "Republican".
So it is entirely possible that the failure of democratic socialism will be outright violent communism, or thug-o-cratic fascism, anarcho-syndicalism, or some other orthodoxy that is even more foul than the one that currently plagues us.We're already on the way. Only it isn't our abyss, we didn't build that, we didn't vote for that, we did not approve, and we even tried to get y'all to advocate the elimination of it along with us. No way in Hell we're going to own it.
We could head into your abyss, and never emerge.
History tells us most countries/civilizations don't. After enough destruction people embrace the strong man savior type and things get even worse.:nometalk:
Generally speaking people don't take up arms till they get hungry and hungry mobs don't make good decisions.Angry people do stupid things. The next American Revolution will look more like the French Revolution (and the Terror), not 1776.
We are a unique nation. We were born out of ideas, not ethnicity or tribalism. When the Revolution was won, the Marquis de Lafayette said:We aren't shoving anything into a gutter, we're advocating pulling it all out.
"Humanity has won its battle. Liberty now has a Country."
I will not just give that country up, cash in my chips, and help shove that country into the abyss on the wild hope that it will magically re-emerge as if it is 1776 all over again. As you say, human history does not give good odds on that. So, we have to fight, tooth and nail, to preserve what we have as best as we can, for as long as we can. Anything else is just nihilism. And self-congratulatory nihilism as that.
I personally will not discard the sacrifices of all those who came before us by helping to shove this country into a gutter.
Sure there's an excuse. Those other bills won't pass. The AHCA was likely conservatives' best shot. Given the numbers, I can't see how a future bill to fix the ACA will be more conservative than the AHCA.What numbers? No one voted on anything. Let them go on record. (And let them get feedback from their districts).
In the middle of all this I keep thinking about a) Jesus's distinction between Caesar and God, and b) enough people
thinking it's a license to let Caesar make off with the whole pot.
@Emjay
That's a pretty profound point that raises a bunch of issues. To answer it directly, I think it is because those arguing for all or nothing probably believe that means nothing, and are resigned to that. There is no joy because they are already defeated.
As a broader point, it makes me think that some people treat politics like religion - that faith and purity themselves are virtues, and an end in themselves.
But politics is, and should be, different. We all (well, most of us) have lives outside politics, that include family, friends, hobbies, work, and religion. We should be able to be happy even if the nation's politics are not exactly what we would prefer. The goal of politics is to establish policies that maximize the potential for happiness, so it is a continuum, not an absolute standard. It is a means, not an end in itself.
So okay, we don't live in a perfectly free, laissez-faire society. But that doesn't make our lives without meaning or value otherwise, or that we can't still be happy. We can still try to live the best, more free lives possible, both for ourselves and our children. And that's the problem with the "all or nothing" approach, because if ideological purity for its own sake results in a society that is less free than if you'd accepted something less, what have you gained? Your kids now live in a worse country, with less of a chance for success and happiness. And so do you.
If all we're doing is fighting a rearguard action, that is still worthwhile, because it means our children will get to live in a somewhat better country than they would have if we just gave up. We still fight. We get big victories if we can, small ones if that's all we can get, and try to make our defeats as small as possible. And if we're really on the road that inevitably leads to serfdom, then isn't it best to resist that as long as possible, to preserve as much as can be preserved for as long as it can be preserved? We can still lead good lives, and obtain happiness. Even if our society is not as ideologically pure as some might wish. Politics is not religion.
I'd add that the Declaration of Independence didn't promise us a state of happiness or perfection. Happiness is something we're supposed to pursue, to work for. Which means sometimes life isn't going to give us what we want, and we're going to have to struggle for the best we can get. But this whole defeatist mindset -- this "if we don't have perfect liberty we don't have any liberty at all" is simply madness. It is a blackness of the soul, and a recipe for misery for those who elevate politics to religion.
Screw that. I think we should fight for the best political environment we can obtain, even if it isn't perfect, and enjoy the hell out of the rest of our lives.
Considering I can't find a biblical command for or against your method of advancing the truth; I'm not sure first analogy really holds. I'd rather have a kid not listen once a week than back talk every day; I'd rather have A's but I'll take B's etc. As far as Our righteousness is as filthy rags if you set a bar of perfection why would any bother to try.Yet that righteousness is perfection. We don't cast that aside and set the bar lower, we retain it to strive for.
For example Daniel, Esther, Obadiah, Joseph and others were not condemned for doing what they could within the system they had. God did not command them to stand outside and root for everything to crash into the ground so they could rebuild.We aren't rooting for that to happen, we are predicting it as a consequence. there is a difference. See above, and tell me how that kid will make the Honor Roll. They won't.
There were lines that you do not cross, and you can't compromise with evil. Things with clear biblical commands times when it is better to Obey god than men. Keep in mind, most folks only get thrown in the Lions den once, asking your representative in congress to do it on every issue an impossibility.This is the issue they claimed they needed the majority to deal with, and the White House, too. Now, we are being blamed because poor legislation fails? They chose this hill to stand on, this issue for the reason to elect them. Now they can take that stand.
Here we are dealing with how to advance principles. It's not a question of which side we are dealing with. Moderates and those who don't believe in freedom we have to be careful with but to refuse to work with those who have the same goals and different tactics is a losing strategy. If we reject everyone but those who meet are incredibly pure standard of pureness, then of course all we can do is let things crash and burn.How many more years of chanting "repeal" will it take? Joshua and his army only had to circle Jericho seven times. We've been all around the issue here more than that. The Republicans voted for repeal when it didn't count, it is their duplicity which makes the issue even in doubt now. Blame them, if you must blame someone. Blame the Democrats who broke their own rules to pass it. But not those who continue to advocate repeal.
Angry people do stupid things. The next American Revolution will look more like the French Revolution (and the Terror), not 1776.
I just get really tired of reading that kind of thing that presents no intent to fight on but just resigned to living forever in No No Land.
I've read so many comments like this lately.
Where is the joy? The hope, the optimism; the willingness to work until you achieve the goal.
We're already on the way. Only it isn't our abyss, we didn't build that, we didn't vote for that, we did not approve, and we even tried to get y'all to advocate the elimination of it along with us. No way in Hell we're going to own it.
@Smokin Joe, this is the exact concept I was talking about in my response to @Emjay . You're ignoring the human cost to us, to our children, and to the entire country of ending up in the abyss, instead consoling yourself with finger pointing. "Sure, everything has fallen apart, people are starving, there is violence everywhere....but you can't blame me!" But I'm pretty sure our grandchildren are going to care much less about how brought us to that end compared to the fact that they have to actually live in it.
You're ignoring the human cost to us, to our children, and to the entire country of ending up in the abyss, instead consoling yourself with finger pointing.
Even if we're "already on our way" on Hayek's Road to Serfdom, doesn't it make sense to slam on the brakes as hard as we can, rather than just waving ?
But instead of holding on as long as we can to what liberty remains, you guys are advocating sitting back, enjoying the ride, and blaming the driver as he heads off the cliff. The fact that we're all going to be stuck in that same care regardless of whose fault it was doesn't seem to matter.
That's bullhit, Bill, I and my family were among the early casualties of Obamacare. We still pay out of pocket for everything, because the insurance carrier said "hell no" to carrying health insurance under the ACA. They're a major insurer, and I had had insurance with them for over 20 years.
@Smokin Joe, this is the exact concept I was talking about in my response to @Emjay . You're ignoring the human cost to us, to our children, and to the entire country of ending up in the abyss, instead consoling yourself with finger pointing.
"Sure, everything has fallen apart, people are starving, there is violence everywhere....but you can't blame me!" But I'm pretty sure our grandchildren are going to care much less about how brought us to that end compared to the fact that they have to actually live in it.Maybe you'd like to talk with my grandchildren? All 13 of them are 'living the dream' thanks to the ACA, including the two we are raising, and they know it will take time for things to get back to normal after it is gone or they will lose that freedom. So get with the program and repeal it. They know full well where I stand on this and why. They'd rather have their birthright than a mass of pottage.
I honestly can't even fathom that mindset.Well, Bill, that makes two of us. I can't understand why anyone in Congress who had voted before to repeal this crap would balk now. I can't understand why in the Hell people who claim to be against this crap aren't pushing just as hard as we are for full repeal, instead of pushing back against it and whining about how WE are the ones who supposedly are perpetrating the very disaster YOU, by the minor and ineffective nature of your gestures would continue. Git 'er done!
Even if we're "already on our way" on Hayek's Road to Serfdom, doesn't it make sense to slam on the brakes as hard as we can, rather than just waving ?Oh, Hell yeah! That's what we are advocating, no half measures, no baby steps, quit pissing around and repeal it.
Why not try to preserve the best life we possibly can for those that follow us?That is what we are trying to do. The Federal Government has no business doing this, has usurped the power, and we want it back, not just for us, but for our children's children's children and, incidentally, yours too. We just don't want to have to wait for our great great grandchildren to recover that liberty.
When you buy time and keep fighting, you never know - you may get lucky and start winning a few.That's a textbook quagmire. The only winners are the feather merchants and arms sellers but the war never ends. It's invading Japan instead of dropping the bomb. That may pass for "strategery", but something decisive would end it. Less suffering in the long run, so get with the program, and drag those liberal pubbies along with you.
But instead of holding on as long as we can to what liberty remains, you guys are advocating sitting back, enjoying the ride, and blaming the driver as he heads off the cliff. The fact that we're all going to be stuck in that same care regardless of whose fault it was doesn't seem to matter.You are content with crumbs, from your own table, and call that 'free'. Really? Think about that.
Nonsense. Allowing it to stand is acquiescence. To participate in making it more palatable ensures it will be there for our grandchildren and beyond. It has become 'part of the furniture' already to many of y'all.
And for all you'd care to say about half-loaves and such, the first time the Dems are back in power, it will be right back where it was, and probably even worse, because the heavy lifting of it will already be done - because we didn't have the cajones to stand up and call a spade a spade.
Appeasement is never going to work. your argument has been the norm all of my life, and it never has worked.
Dems do NOTHING to appease. They run roughshod, by hook or by crook, and get what they want.
Republicans are lily-livered cowards, with very few notable exceptions, who bend over backwards to appease, which s why I am a Republican no longer.
Knock yourself out. All you will do is secure single-payer for generations to come. And once again, Republicans will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I'll have *nothing* to do with it.
You can't reason with a vampire.
With a few exceptions, like the FC, Congress is merrily rolling along on it's do nothing path. And things won't change until they run over enough people to get the rest up in arms. Literally.
People who want to go the reargaurd route, which is the majority, are lost in a storm, in their fear of running off the edge of the cliff in the storm, they are running full circle right for it.
Congress has stepped outside the purview of the American people. Since this place was founded on the concept of "We The People" they are no longer a part of that. They don't represent me. Neither do the zombies or vampires running the circle.
I think they are under reporting the facts on health care. Or grossly misrepresenting them. IMO, there is a big group of people WITH insurance that are praying nothing bad happens to them. Because of the way policies are structured/priced, added expenditure towards it, the things not covered, will break the bank in their paycheck to paycheck world.
There are 12 people where I work. Including myself. Two recently dropped their insurance because of the rate increases. One young married has some because his wife works. He told me they are on the line. One other has enough Indian in him to go to the Rez doctor. The rest of us have none. My employer talks to a large number of people who are self employed in the trades. Of the few of those that have insurance, they report paying too much and there is little left for other things.
So if your expenditures are such that all you do is work and pay, then that, IMO, is slavery. We are a nation of slaves. And I spit on every person unwilling to break the chains.
If Mordor ceased to exist in one brilliant flash I would be of good cheer.
That's bullhit, Bill, I and my family were among the early casualties of Obamacare. We still pay out of pocket for everything, because the insurance carrier said "hell no" to carrying health insurance under the ACA. They're a major insurer, and I had had insurance with them for over 20 years. Maybe you'd like to talk with my grandchildren? All 13 of them are 'living the dream' thanks to the ACA, including the two we are raising, and they know it will take time for things to get back to normal after it is gone or they will lose that freedom. So get with the program and repeal it. They know full well where I stand on this and why. They'd rather have their birthright than a mass of pottage.
Quit pulling the tooth a tiny bit at a time, and get the damned job done so it can start healing. Well, Bill, that makes two of us. I can't understand why anyone in Congress who had voted before to repeal this crap would balk now. I can't understand why in the Hell people who claim to be against this crap aren't pushing just as hard as we are for full repeal, instead of pushing back against it and whining about how WE are the ones who supposedly are perpetrating the very disaster YOU, by the minor and ineffective nature of your gestures would continue. Git 'er done! Oh, Hell yeah! That's what we are advocating, no half measures, no baby steps, quit pissing around and repeal it.
Your version of 'as hard as we can' is a pretty lousy stopping distance....as in never. Like dragging your feet on a motorcycle doing 90. It isn't happening. If you want to stop going down this road, SHUT. IT. DOWN. That is what we are trying to do. The Federal Government has no business doing this, has usurped the power, and we want it back, not just for us, but for our children's children's children and, incidentally, yours too. We just don't want to have to wait for our great great grandchildren to recover that liberty. That's a textbook quagmire. The only winners are the feather merchants and arms sellers but the war never ends. It's invading Japan instead of dropping the bomb. That may pass for "strategery", but something decisive would end it. Less suffering in the long run, so get with the program, and drag those liberal pubbies along with you.You are content with crumbs, from your own table, and call that 'free'. Really? Think about that.
We said to turn right, the 'driver' turned left, we try to get to the wheel, and the rest of you stand in the way. We say stop the bus, and you guys want to keep going.
How are we anything but just along for the ride?
You may want to go off the cliff slower, but that doesn't make the drop any shorter. The only reason for delay is to kick that can down the road and hope the benefits don't run out before you take the big dirtnap. At least have either the guts to stand and fight for repeal or the balls to own the results. If you think I'm enjoying this ride, I have another think for you. But I am under no illusions that the 'moderates' (that's a liberal, only in RINOspeak) are the ones driving--either that, or asleep at the wheel. They finally have both the houses of Congress and the White House, as we were told they needed, and despite the votes to repeal when it would never be signed, now REFUSE to vote on repeal.
Sorry, we did our part, and if y'all are having troubles with us reminding people that it's time to get the job done, well, whose fault is that? We delivered. Don't blame us for your collective failure to toe the line.
That's bullhit, Bill, I and my family were among the early casualties of Obamacare. We still pay out of pocket for everything, because the insurance carrier said "hell no" to carrying health insurance under the ACA. They're a major insurer, and I had had insurance with them for over 20 years. Maybe you'd like to talk with my grandchildren? All 13 of them are 'living the dream' thanks to the ACA, including the two we are raising, and they know it will take time for things to get back to normal after it is gone or they will lose that freedom.
So get with the program and repeal it.
You'll get no argument from me that it was a horrible bill. My point is that the all or nothing approach ignores that something in the middle may not have resulted in you losing your insurance. That does not mean that "nothing" isn't still the preferred option. But if that is not attainable politically, then a weakened version of it may result fewer people being hurt. And that is better than nothing.
You can't repeal it. I can't repeal it. It takes 218 Representatives and 50 Senators plus Pence to repeal it. If the votes are actually there, right now when it really counts as opposed to symbolic votes back in 2015, then great. And before you tell me that those votes for repeal are actually there, please note that the head of the Freedom Caucus has come out and indicated that with two specific changes, the HFC would vote for the AHCA. He wouldn't be doing that if he knew the votes are there for a full repeal. He knows he has to compromise.
So let's got back to your insistence on a full repeal, or nothing. If the HFC gets its two changes to the AHCA, will you oppose that bill just because some of ObamaCare will still remain?
I hesitate to criticize someone whose suffered so much under Obamacare but as The Major says, the votes are there for a compromise plan that would do a lot to relieve your current problems.@Maj. Bill Martin
It's the price we pay for living in a democracy. 218 people from all parts of the country have to agree and not sure how strong the leadership in the house is right now.
I just wonder. I mean if Hillary had been elected we would have full speed ahead Obamacare that might die on its on vine but would never be repealed.
The minute we have hope, some people give up. It's stopping short of the finish line when you are close enough to see it.
It's the price we pay for living in a democracy.
I hesitate to criticize someone whose suffered so much under Obamacare but as The Major says, the votes are there for a compromise plan that would do a lot to relieve your current problems.
It's the price we pay for living in a democracy. 218 people from all parts of the country have to agree and not sure how strong the leadership in the house is right now.
I just wonder. I mean if Hillary had been elected we would have full speed ahead Obamacare that might die on its on vine but would never be repealed.
The minute we have hope, some people give up. It's stopping short of the finish line when you are close enough to see it.
Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.Wow. Powerful brevity. Encapsulated the entire argument against compromise in one sentence.
Wow. Powerful brevity. Encapsulated the entire argument against compromise in one sentence.
Thank you.
You'll get no argument from me that it was a horrible bill. My point is that the all or nothing approach ignores that something in the middle may not have resulted in you losing your insurance. That does not mean that "nothing" isn't still the preferred option. But if that is not attainable politically, then a weakened version of it may result fewer people being hurt. And that is better than nothing.The problem with a half step is that that will get a check mark next to that, and the thundering herd will move on, until the Democrats come back and load the wagon again.
You can't repeal it. I can't repeal it. It takes 218 Representatives and 50 Senators plus Pence to repeal it. If the votes are actually there, right now when it really counts as opposed to symbolic votes back in 2015, then great. And before you tell me that those votes for repeal are actually there, please note that the head of the Freedom Caucus has come out and indicated that with two specific changes, the HFC would vote for the AHCA. He wouldn't be doing that if he knew the votes are there for a full repeal. He knows he has to compromise.
So let's got back to your insistence on a full repeal, or nothing. If the HFC gets its two changes to the AHCA, will you oppose that bill just because some of ObamaCare will still remain?
I hesitate to criticize someone whose suffered so much under Obamacare but as The Major says, the votes are there for a compromise plan that would do a lot to relieve your current problems.It isn't a "democracy', emjay, it's a Republic.
It's the price we pay for living in a democracy.
218 people from all parts of the country have to agree and not sure how strong the leadership in the house is right now.Strong leadership or not, the direction it is headed has been the problem for decades.
I just wonder. I mean if Hillary had been elected we would have full speed ahead Obamacare that might die on its on vine but would never be repealed.This isn't a POTUS issue, the POTUS will sign or veto. It has to get to this desk first, and that's on the Congress, more specifically, the GOP who so readily voted to repeal when they knew it would be vetoed (but, still, ensuring their own (re)election by that vote or stated intent) who, now that the POTUS would likely sign a Bill for repeal, will not vote to do so.
Precisely as I see it. Kill Obamacare. Repeal it. Or have yet another instance in a long history of the GOP of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As for changing it, we rebuilt Japan after unconditional surrender, we didn't tinker around the edges. Had anyone suggested the latter, they'd have been jailed. That was also the last war we had a decisive victory, despite the tremendous performance of our military, because the politicians did not have the resolve to get the job done.
The minute we have hope, some people give up. It's stopping short of the finish line when you are close enough to see it.
@Maj. Bill Martin
I could more readily agree with your outlook if I thought the endgame was better private insurance overall. But I don't think it is. I think it is single payer big government crap they want. All of them. And I object. In full.
@bigheadfred
A Trump supporter "in academia" is already urging Trump to go for single payer.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256424.0.html
(http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256424.0.html)
@bigheadfred
A Trump supporter "in academia" is already urging Trump to go for single payer.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256424.0.html
(http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256424.0.html)
Well since the 'pragmatists' and 'Good-Trumps-Perfect' compromisers in the GOP and in the country at-large have already sold out to the notion that government has a role in administrating, running and parceling out our healthcare - the haggling over how much Single Payer we must be subject to is all that is left us.
the haggling over how much Single Payer we must be subject to is all that is left us@bigheadfred @INVAR
The new tax percent to pay for it.
@bigheadfred @INVAR
In other words, as was pointed out up thread, it isn't haggling over the act, just how much it will cost.
The new payroll tax. And maybe some added sin tax.Well, considering the wages of sin...they can take 50%. (Maybe they'll do less damage if they're half dead. :tongue2:)
The new payroll tax. And maybe some added sin tax.
Essentially Moochelle's North Korean School Lunch program gone national.Some of that ties in with the post Prohibition mentality that the federal government has any Constitutional Authority to regulate anything you consume. Note, that in order to ban the consumption of alcoholic beverages, it took a Constitutional Amendment granting the government that authority, and one to repeal that ban.
Dare to buy chips or soda? If they do not outrightly ban them because they will be declared a national security issue and a drain on the taxpayers subsidizing healthcare for everyone - then you do not get any care for that broken ankle you just suffered.
Because you know - we have to compromise with the "reality" that government has a legitimate role in regulating and administrating food, healthcare, clothing, housing and thinking, even if the means by which they achieved that authority was on their own volition.
@Maj. Bill Martin
I could more readily agree with your outlook if I thought the endgame was better private insurance overall. But I don't think it is. I think it is single payer big government crap they want. All of them. And I object. In full.
The problem with a half step is that that will get a check mark next to that, and the thundering herd will move on, until the Democrats come back and load the wagon again.
Unfortunately, it will also remove many of the objections people have and water down the the entire idea that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO BE IN THE HEALTHCARE BUSINESS WHATSOEVER.
If I had a shred of confidence that the GOP would continue to attempt to reverse the notion that the Federal Government had the authority to demand we buy a product and fine/tax us all for not doing so, simply because we are breathing, I might be less recalcitrant, but I have little faith that will be the case.
So do I, but I don't think that's what all of them want. Trump really was all over the place prior to the election. There were times when he sounded like he wanted government-provided insurance, and other times when he castigated it.
At this point, I think he would sign any deal that would pass Congress. That puts the onus on the GOP factions to come together with the best plan they can, because that will inevitably be more conservative than what the Dems would produce.
That puts the onus on the GOP factions to come together with the best plan they can, because that will inevitably be more conservative than what the Dems would produce.
But our lives under half of ObamaCare will be better than our lives under full-strength ObamaCare, and the longer we can live under that before moving left again, the better. ... I'll take a 10% chance of success over a 0% chance of success ten times out of ten. Not to mention that our lives will be better under that half step back then they would if we took no step back at all.
Once you've allowed yourself to be sold, all that remains is for how much.
That's a great argument if you're starting with a clean slate. The problem is we're not -- we're already been "sold", and ObamaCare already is the law of the land.
The question is in which direction do we move from here.
We can move further towards statism, we can be stubborn and end up right where we are, or we can start taking steps back in the direction of liberty.
The refusal to agree to any movement that doesn't instantly result in complete liberty is simply an excuse to remain right were we are, or worse.
I believe there was a character like you in the Bible. He washed his hands of the whole thing.
Maybe that's being a lily livered coward?
You may well be right about that -- it's impossible to predict the outcome with certainty. But our lives under half of ObamaCare will be better than our lives under full-strength ObamaCare, and the longer we can live under that before moving left again, the better.How can you even assert that? Half of a half assed program that has wreaked destruction through the middle class, through small businesses, has obliterated opportunities that will not return and you assert keeping any part of it will be better?
And I'd point out that the Democrats only managed to get ObamaCare when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency all at the same time. So we may well be able to hold only whatever lessening of the statist burden we can get for quite a awhile.But we can't get rid of it holding all three?
"I'll only have a drink now and then..." "Dude, I can quit any time...any time I want to, it's not like I'm an addict or anything..." "I'm not addicted to power and your money, I'll just make a little rule here and there, to fine tune stuff..."To some of us those lines will sound familiar. They are the sound of addicts in denial.
Plus, if/when they do get that level of control again, they'll be starting lower down the socialist mountain than they would have been otherwise.
Look -- I agree with you. I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian on the economy, and think the Supreme Court has been wrong on the commerce clause since the late 30's. The problem is that most Americans simply are not yet comfortable with that. Before we can convince them that very little government is best, we have to show them that less actually works. If we can restore more of the free market, even if not completely, that's going to give the free market more credibility in the eyes of the voters, and so we can push further next time. I know there's no guarantee that will happen, but as a practical matter, that's the only chance we've really got. Because the truth is that the percentage of the population who believes as you and I do on the substance probably is below 25%.If enough Americans supposedly didn't think the free market worked before, how is getting half way back to that with disrupted socialist programs making a mess of things going to convince them less government is more? Make a clean break. Quit cold turkey. It's the only way.
There are no guarantees, and it is entirely possible that you are right But it is also possible that this is just the first step in the right direction, and at least, it puts us one step closer to where we want to be than walking away with nothing. I'll take a 10% chance of success over a 0% chance of success ten times out of ten. Not to mention that our lives will be better under that half step back then they would if we took no step back at all.If you want to jump a crevasse, a step in the right direction isn't enough. It's almost certain death.
That's a great argument if you're starting with a clean slate. The problem is we're not -- we're already been "sold", and ObamaCare already is the law of the land.Nope. We are where we need to be. The reason the GOP has morphed left is that has been the default direction it has been going, even before the negotiations start.
So the idea that you're going to stand immovable just freezes us right where we are. The question is in which direction do we move from here. We can move further towards statism, we can be stubborn and end up right where we are, or we can start taking steps back in the direction of liberty. The refusal to agree to any movement that doesn't instantly result in complete liberty is simply an excuse to remain right were we are, or worse.
Back when I was 11 I was struggling with going to church. It wasn't church. It was the people. I thought how can they not understand this? Then I realized they understood alright. They didn't care. I quit going to church and never went back.Well said, Fred! :amen: :patriot: :beer: 888high58888
When I was 17 we did an exercise in a class in school that involved money and trust. Trust each other and everyone gets something. No one got anything because they didn't trust each other. I thought well it is money and the love of money is the root of all evil. So I avoided the pitfalls of loving money.
It really was hammered home when I was 35. In a legal matter. My 'peers' threw me to the wolves to save themselves. They couldn't stand for freedom, liberty, or truth. This isn't a supposition on my part. THEY ADMITTED IT.
I have traveled some and my perception is that the world is full of vampires and zombies. The majority of people aren't worth being around. I don't interact with them. On a subsistence level.
TIME is what lets you percieve the Creation. The opposite of that is EMIT. The light, energy, essence of your self you return to the Creator.
So to some when I say I stand fast, and appear to be doing nothing, and that I am accomplishing NOTHING my reply is simple. I stand unmoveable and unmoved as the change winds blow. I EMIT that steadfastness back to the Creator because that is what HE EMITS to me. Love, strength, courage, freedom, liberty, and TRUTH. That is the TRUST I have. Not in man or the inventions of man.
I was born with FREE WILL. I EMIT that back to the Creator. Freely given as it is freely given. HIS will be done.
Anyone else who can't do that is untrustworthy. They will betray themselves, those around them and the Source. To SAVE themselves. uh huh They can suck rocks. Of the brimstone variety.
That is the majority in government. That is the majority of the people.
The problem as I see it is this: If the Republican Party cannot form a coalition against Obamacare and the moderates are willing to side with the democrats on single payer (no doubt in exchange for an empty promise on some other issue) we are going to be stuck even worse off then we are now.
This is what happens when the representatives of the people decide they are rulers not representatives.
You are missing a vital point to consider. ObamaCare was and is designed to get the government's nose into every aspect of our lives by asserting authority in mandating healthcare decisions; it's purpose is to collapse the existing health insurance market and pave the way via misery and suffering for the public to cry out for Single Payer - which the government through ObamaCare is already then in a position to impose.Correct! In the 1980s, there were motorcycle 'safety' studies done which harped on "The Public Cost of Motorcycle Trauma". Regardless of the serious flaws in that study, the complaint was that accidents cost the public money, so the public had the right to demand that people on motorcycles wear what the public thought would make them safe (without letting the people actually riding motorcycles decide). That concept suffered when in the debunking of the 'study' the alleged costs were shown to be inflated, not only by bad math, but by assuming all injuries could have been prevented by a helmet (even though helmet use by the accident victims had not been ascertained).
We are going to be stuck with Single Payer and even worse off than we are now REGARDLESS of what "deal" is struck to tweak the misery of O'care. If ObamaCare is left to exist in any way shape or form, the ultimate purpose for it's existence will still carry out it's payload. The only difference will be the timeframe when it will happen. We can push it off on our kids if we like and massage the current hybrid of fascism and free market for awhile - but then our kids will suffer Universal Single Payer for certain. Laws of economics were breached. Socialism only lasts until you run out of other people's money. Then overt Communism takes over to FORCE everyone into compliance.
We are going to die from this cancer, unless we excise it completely.
That happened some time ago to much applause.
Correct! In the 1980s, there were motorcycle 'safety' studies done which harped on "The Public Cost of Motorcycle Trauma". Regardless of the serious flaws in that study, the complaint was that accidents cost the public money, so the public had the right to demand that people on motorcycles wear what the public thought would make them safe (without letting the people actually riding motorcycles decide). That concept suffered when in the debunking of the 'study' the alleged costs were shown to be inflated, not only by bad math, but by assuming all injuries could have been prevented by a helmet (even though helmet use by the accident victims had not been ascertained).
Still the idea that the public could determine private behaviour if the public had to pick up any part of the tab had been emplaced. The next step was to actually get the public's skin in the game. This is the back door to regulating everything from automobiles (power, engine displacement, speed, emissions, you name it) to firearms, to what you eat on Saturday night when you are watching TV, and even how much of that you do, because despite the stretch, someone somewhere can make a case that your doing what you do will cause someone somewhere to have to pay for your medical bills which result--and if you don't think it will cost anything, someone will concoct a study to prove it.
It is the back entrance to a totalitarian government.
Heh. You allowed yourself to be sold
You are as "sold" as any of the rest of us. Your principles don't change the fact that the exact same laws that apply to the rest of us still apply to you, whether you "accept" them or not.
You are as "sold" as any of the rest of us. Your principles don't change the fact that the exact same laws that apply to the rest of us still apply to you, whether you "accept" them or not.Well, then Apply them to the people who wrote them, and then exempted themselves. How about some of that "equal protection" stuff?
Which you do, incidentally.
You are as "sold" as any of the rest of us.
Well, then Apply them to the people who wrote them, and then exempted themselves. How about some of that "equal protection" stuff?
We have maintained since the Magna Carta that none is immune to the law, and that was a part the Congress wrote in for themselves.
Repeal it.
Spoken like a true slave. I wonder if you would utter these same words if and when "laws" are passed to prohibit your religion and any exercise of it? Or political speech? Or private property rights? My guess would be yes.
If the Congress passed a ban on any practice of the Christian religion or it's existence in the middle of the night - and SCOTUS came up with a magical twist of convoluted logic to hand them the authority to do so, your position I imagine would be the same as it is here.
You would be insisting that such "laws" are "laws" that apply to everyone, except of course those granted exemption because they are the constituencies of the Beast. I imagine as in this case, you would petition us to compromise our principles of resistance so that you can have whatever breadcrumbs of permissions they promise you.
For some of us, disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God. I know that concept is absurd to you, but it is a primary principle of a good chunk of us.
Repeal it.
Why don't you repeal it?Is that all you have, Bill? If I could, i would, and I wouldn't stop repealing things there.
Is that all you have, Bill? If I could, i would, and I wouldn't stop repealing things there.
You keep arguing against the repeal of Obamacare.
First, the idea that the Federal Government has any place in the provision or distribution of health insurance.
That's a nonsensical response that doesn't even attempt to address the point.
So unless you are openly refusing to pay your taxes, openly defying laws with which you disagree, and taking up armed opposition to government acts you deem uncontroversial, your self-righteousness is nothing but a big bag of hot air.
It accomplishes nothing, changes nothing, and suggests nothing more than a keyboard warrior who talks a tough game but actually complies meekly with everything demanded of him.
You are no more and no less a "slave" than are any of us upon whom you look down because all of those laws remain on the books and are applied to you as well.
What exactly have you accomplished, personally, to undo ObamaCare or any of the other governmental actions of which you complain?
The reality is that we all live in representative republics where the course of public policy is determined by elections. Which means that we are all required to live under laws and policies in which each of us only has a 1/140,000,000 share of control.
Neither high-minded rhetoric or braggadocio changes that reality, either for yourself or for anyone else.
One that always elevates yourself to a position of greater nobility of spirit than everyone else. Congratulations!
Well, this really gets to the heart of it, doesn't it? Because you've characterized ObamaCare as such a loss of liberty that it makes us into slaves. So...what have you done about it?
By your own words, your decision to obey these tyrants means you have disobeyed God.
See, those of us who are still trying to fight back...and so do our utmost to reverse/resist policies with which we disagree in the only means presently open to us
This thread is rife with crazy (but unfortunately) prolific people.
This thread is rife with crazy (but unfortunately) prolific people.
ObamaCare was intended as a form of slavery. The ultimate "gotcha by the short hairs" power grab by DC leftists. Which is why only a FULL REPEAL will reverse this travesty against Americans.
Gods, this thread is still running?
Maj Bill, you missed out one thing in your last sentence. You mentioned desirable and achievable - what about right?
It absolutely does address the point. If you are going bend over and accept tyranny as 'law' in this case, you have surrendered all of your liberty - because as Joe explained - every aspect of your life can now be infringed and imposed upon by diktat of bureaucrats who will ensure costs for universal health care are arrested as the consumer level based on how we live our lives.
For some of us, disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God. I know that concept is absurd to you, but it is a primary principle of a good chunk of us.
A lot of hot air was spewed by Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Henry, Adams, Franklin and so forth in the years preceding actual armed resistance to the crown's imposition of tyranny. The war is always first waged in the minds and views of a people as to whether they are going to surrender and subject themselves to being ruled, or to resist.
I suppose you will assert my 'keyboard warrior' stance accomplishes nothing but braving a storm in a skiff made of paper.
I'm stoking brushfires in the minds of people reading this board and others that I participate. Reminding them of that which they are entrusted to defend with every fiber of their being. because once it is surrendered and gone, it is gone forever. It never comes back.
Funny how you would be silly enough in this very thread to tell us we are all required to live under laws and policies that the "representatives" in D.C. exempt themselves from having to live under.
So I ask you again...what exactly have you donw about it? You haven't resisted -- you've submitted.
Most of us can recognize middle grounds, and so not be held to such absurdities.
However, it is hypocritical coming from you given your loudly-proclaimed refusal to live under tyranny, accusing others of doing the same, while somehow ignoring the glaring reality that we all live in the same country, under the same laws, and under the same "tyranny".
Heck, you've even said that your goal isn't to actually change anything. It is just to be a "witness" so that nobody can say you didn't tell them. But again, being a "witness" isn't actively resisting anything. It's just...talk.
Please explain how that is "silly", or even better, please explain how it is untrue. You are required to live under those laws, even though you disagree with them, and even if Congress exempts itself from them.