I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Yup, you're the devil.
I'm the devil I can do what I want Whatever I got I'm gonna flaunt There's never been a rock off that I've ever lost.
I was browsing around on Positive Force DC's Facebook page this afternoon and found this gem. For those of you who want to DO SOMETHING, give it a look. It's exactly what needs to happen over the next two years:
I found this just an hour after attending a local Democratic precinct meeting, organizing with people in my neighborhood to bring in more concerned citizens around the issues we care about. Feeling energized and empowered to DO SOMETHING today!!!
^^^ I couldn't care less about the boycotts. No matter what President Trump will be official.
John Lewis leading the charge. So the other day I replied to a fascinating post by benjs and asked a few questions that I believe went unaddressed. I read that piece about the boycotts along with remembering some of Hilliarys campaign campaign rhetoric against women that don't vote for Hilliary, Bernie bros and Trump, my question: Do democrats use race and gender like a political weapon against their opposition?
^^^ I couldn't care less about the boycotts. No matter what President Trump will be official.
John Lewis leading the charge. So the other day I replied to a fascinating post by benjs and asked a few questions that I believe went unaddressed. I read that piece about the boycotts along with remembering some of Hilliarys campaign campaign rhetoric against women that don't vote for Hilliary, Bernie bros and Trump, my question: Do democrats use race and gender like a political weapon against their opposition?
It gets highlighted that women and racial minorities voting republican are voting against the interests of their gender and race as a whole.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
As a student of history like you fanch is I'm sure well aware, until about 1900 the Democrats were considered the conservative party and Republicans were the progressive party.
What about today's Republican Party makes you of the belief that they would champion causes of equality for minoroties or women? Hell, we can't even get them to agree to the belief that a woman should be paid equally as a man for equal work.
So please continue telling us how minorities and women have their freedoms because of conservative ideas present in today's Republican Party.
The parting words, which were also his signature catch phrase during his time as host of “Celebrity Apprentice,” came in the context of Trump discussing his plan to have his two eldest sons run his business ventures while he’s president.
“I hope at the end of eight years I’ll come back and I’ll say, ‘Oh, you did a good job,’” he said. “Otherwise, if they do a bad job, I’ll say ...”
At that exact moment, the president-elect pulled out a finger gun and said, “You’re fired.”
And with that, his first press conference in six months was over.
good god what a fucking buffoon.
It's mind-blowing how many people support this guy. Common sense & critical thinking are a thing of the past.
it isn't really. remember GWB? he was not only elected but REELECTED by the same people.
Trump recognized the post-truth era quickly and unapologetically managed his campaign accordingly. Trump's opportunity existed almost exclusively because of the sleazy and incestuous world of Washington, big money, and the mainstream media, who have been colluding to manufacture news, policies, and collective opinions where serving themselves was the goal, and serving the public was incidental. This kind of nefarious behaviour trained the American population not to think and not to care (because they couldn't do anything about it anyways). People were willing to, in stages, reduce their engagement for a few reasons: mental laziness leaving them susceptible to undue thought control, or a reluctance or incapacity to unify to lay down the ground ethical rules for what should and shouldn't be tolerated by government, corporation, and media (which you could effectively aggregate into one group since they help each other so exclusively and wholly) to the pathetically low point of engagement we see today.
Today, when awakened by the crude but often correct rhetoric by Trump (particularly when analyzing the ineffectual nature of current-state media and government at being agents of change), people have begun to realize how complacent they had become. Clinton embodied everything that complacency encapsulated. There's something about seeing that a vote is effectively useless at driving change, that produces anger and rage, replacing reason and logic (so much so that Trump could point fingers at nefarious actions, and that resonated far more than the fact that he partakes in the same nefarious actions). The populace was then left with a few choices, and I'm guessing that split was something like this: complacent citizens who don't believe change is realistic with either candidate, choose Clinton. Everyone else, choose Trump. Of course, there were the ones who found both unpalatable, and didn't vote. I'm really not sure the inner dialogue went further than that in most cases. As for the "deplorables", Trump clearly subscribes to the "no press is bad press" train of thought (and clearly with good reason), so the best way to do that is a grassroots effort to hijack megaphones, which don't concern themselves with what spews out of them - just that it's loud. When Trump effectively refused to disavow David Duke of the KKK, the KKK became a megaphone sending pro-Trump messages. Extremists are particularly great at bearing megaphones - they are used to screaming loudly to ensure that their messages are heard.
Democracy gives the intelligent and the not-so-intelligent, the critical thinkers and the not-so-critical thinkers, equal ability to elect. It stands to reason, then, that a proper democracy needs to convert the not-so-intelligent, the not-so-critical thinkers, or the people who fall under both - into intelligent, critical thinkers, in order to hold elected officials accountable, and to ensure that further elected officials are elected for the right reasons. This is an uphill battle when the systems (political, social, economic, legal) are designed to make not-so-critical thinkers out of as many as possible, and I wish I could see a light at the end of a tunnel, but I honestly can't think of a road that doesn't lead to destruction, when factoring in our fatal human flaws of greed and selfishness. If there is a way, it must start with tremendous education reform.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++not sure why its doing that, me below
Nice post for sure, in reference to your last thought paragraph: Which group do you think better helps those that are un-intelligent or those that find it difficult to think critically? a. the group that only questions or points out what they see wrong with their opposing political party b. the group that questions government, politics, both partys in general, regardless of their political party affiliation or leanings
The problem specifically that I see in todays climate, which has been going on for years now, is that people do not criticize, question, or point out what is wrong with their own political parties or representatives. Democrats dont hold democrats accountable and republicans dont hold republicans accountable, they just point fingers at each other. Actually, its much worse then not holding their own party accountable, they go so far as to make excuses and defend actions that are in direct contrast to their beliefs leanings. No better example then wars bombs between Bush Obama.
Would anyone agree that the faction of democrats that supported Bernie, held the democrats and DNC that clearly favored Hilliary, to account? Assuming Berners stayed home or went so far as to vote trump in spite.
I equate unaffordable health insurance to no insurance at all. At least the health insurance companies are suffering too as they predicted leading up to ACA. That's one consolation. Very trendy...pay more get less
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.
I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.
I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.
Of course he wouldn't have won. He hit his ceiling in the primaries. It is alternate universe thinking.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.
I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.
So Americans relate "socialism" to Russia? Interesting.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.
I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.
So Americans relate "socialism" to Russia? Interesting.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.
I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.
So Americans relate "socialism" to Russia? Interesting.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.
I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.
Of course he wouldn't have won. He hit his ceiling in the primaries. It is alternate universe thinking.
Not alternate universe thinking. Sanders was up 10 to 12 points in head to head polls with trump. Combine that with no emails and no Benghazi.
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.
I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.
Of course he wouldn't have won. He hit his ceiling in the primaries. It is alternate universe thinking.
Not alternate universe thinking. Sanders was up 10 to 12 points in head to head polls with trump. Combine that with no emails and no Benghazi.
Numbers and polls again huh? In six days all that shit doesn't matter. Numbers and polls President Trump won w/ low polls
I was serious. I don't want the president of this great nation to do a bad job.
Okay. Well, he's not even in office yet and step one of the ACA repeal has happened without replacement plan that I've seen. I don't see that as a good thing or anything to support, but maybe you do?
Over the past 8 years the GOPs only platform has been to be against whatever the Democrats were for. They have no solutions themselves so of course they don't have a replacement plan. Their plan is to "replace it with something better." That's something a 3rd grader would come up with. They are going to have to come up ideas of their own now. Based on their track record I don't have much faith that they will.
They don't actually have to replace it with anything. Prior to Obamacare 80% of people were satisfied with their own healthcare coverage. The purpose of Obamacare was to get coverage for the 40 million people who were without but instead it mainly threw a ton of people on to medicare and medicaid while screwing up a decent system for most everybody else. "If you like your doctor you can keep it" was a massive lie and a death spiral of the entire system is happening. Many would be satisfied to return to the system that existed before this moronic big government failure. That being said you can't necessarily put Humpty Dumpty back together again so some type of "replacement" will be necessary to protect those during the transition back to the old system. Throw on top of that some minor free market solutions and that should satisfy enough of the electorate. Further demands for "replace" will disappear into the wind like Obama's presidency.
Got a link to the 80% satisfied number? Remember, polls don't matter.
What's a "ton of people?" Thrown onto Medicare and Medicaid? 2,000? Or 8 average weighted Americans?
What's this "death spiral" you speak of? Sara Palin death panels? Or the collapse of our healthcare system? Do expound.
How many would like to return to the system? Is many two from Canada?
By what measure do you determine it's a failure? And that "big government is moronic?"
So satisfying just enough of the electorate is justification to fuck everyone else?
Do you not have any facts nor compassion, herr distinguished professor?
The classic Halifax "ask 10 question response" which really isn't a response at all. Compassion is important but that is not what is actually being discussed here. What is being discussed is that from a political perspective "replacement" is not as necessary as many keep stating. There will be no electoral punishment for those who vote to repeal. If anything it will be the exact opposite. This is the harsh reality.
But in your own mind you toss out percentages, make claims and throw BS as fact. Yea, I could also post inconsequential rumblings of an alternative universe altright neocon but I try to at least be somewhat realistic for the arguments that have the biggest impact on me personally and my country. But like an evangelist, anyone who disagrees with your sermon is wrong or the devil.
Was there a question in your diatribe, herr professor or are you the only worthy to spew? Reading comprehension or being challenged aren't your strong suits, are they?
You posted this too soon. I just "tossed you some percentages" backing up my "claims". You aren't the devil but you are wrong.
Also...you still have troubles comprehending the different branches of the right. The "altright" and the "neocons" are not the same. The way you throw these terms around shows you have never really given much thought to the different ideologies. It is all just name calling to you. Who is really calling who "the devil"?
Does the poll of 2009 include the 20 million Americans of the 40 million who previously didn't have health insurance? The whole object of Obamacare? So, your poll is correct, I'll concede, but polls don't matter and what about the rest of your claims that follow? And, wouldn't you also have to ask whether they used their health insurance and to what degree? Prior to asking whether they're satisfied? I mean, I have health insurance, haven't been to the doctor or hospital in three years, it's excellent!? Is the debate about satisfaction or cost effectiveness?
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
The answer to your question is in the same poll. The uninsured had a 50% level of satisfaction. What they weren't satisfied with was cost. The grander point of all this was that Obama era Healthcare Reform was a solution in search of a problem. On the whole it was not something anybody really wanted. It was a massive mess where something much smaller might have been useful. This is a perfect example of the consequences of good intentions. Compassion can be dangerous.
In the last 14 years, polls show about 40% of people dissatisfied with healthcare costs and upper 50's percentage satisfied. This has stayed pretty steady over the 15 years. A poll from 8 months ago shows 58% favor a single payer system. (Our country is more Bernie than trump).
Ok. You go ahead and push for single payer to be on the democratic platform. That shit couldn't even fly in Bernie's home state of Vermont...where they now have a republican governor.
Sanders would've won if he was the nominee, and he would've had a greater chance to be the nominee if he didn't get jobbed by the dnc. We'll eventually have a single payer system, and if voter turnout was high, it would already be in place, but it's doesn't fly now because of low turn out, not because people don't want it.
I'm not convinced he would have won. Americans of both red and blue are terrified of the word socialist. It makes them think of Nikolai Volkoff.
Of course he wouldn't have won. He hit his ceiling in the primaries. It is alternate universe thinking.
Not alternate universe thinking. Sanders was up 10 to 12 points in head to head polls with trump. Combine that with no emails and no Benghazi.
Almost all polls universally gave trump a 5% chance of winning. So that means nothing.
I think it's a stretch to think Sanders would have won. I think he'd played better in the upper midwest, but I think the attacks on him being a socialist would have given Trump some states that Hillary won. The candidate who I believe would have won is Vice President Biden. Granted, the campaign against him would be the time for a totally new administration, but Joe's as blue collar as they get and he wouldn't have run such an arrogant campaign.
Comments
And neocons and altrighters? All the same to me, no compassion.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/01/trump-cements-job-creator-status-booking-three-doors/
https://indivisibleguide.com/the-guide/
I found this just an hour after attending a local Democratic precinct meeting, organizing with people in my neighborhood to bring in more concerned citizens around the issues we care about. Feeling energized and empowered to DO SOMETHING today!!!
You left out the part that it was one of thirteen ideas to President Trumps transition team in November. The man did not get the job.
http://pagesix.com/2017/01/13/drug-testing-floated-for-white-house-press-corps/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=P6Twitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow
Does anyone care about the boycotts? I don't but they are free to boycott if they choose. I like reading the reasons why.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/314269-whip-list-democrats-boycotting-trumps-inauguration
I couldn't care less about the boycotts. No matter what President Trump will be official.
Do democrats use race and gender like a political weapon against their opposition?
Would anyone agree that the faction of democrats that supported Bernie, held the democrats and DNC that clearly favored Hilliary, to account?
Assuming Berners stayed home or went so far as to vote trump in spite.
At least the health insurance companies are suffering too as they predicted leading up to ACA. That's one consolation.
Very trendy...pay more get less
"Don't let the government get between you and your doctor"....better to have the insurance companies get in the way.
"Death panels" now are the insurance companies executive boards that price the middle class out of health insurance.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
In six days all that shit doesn't matter.
Numbers and polls
President Trump won w/ low polls
www.headstonesband.com
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm