It's hard to debate cognitive dissonance. I find it excruciating. To be called a racist and a race-baiter when you simply call out racism is very frustrating. Especially from those who never even experienced racism or have it affect them adversely. I honestly can get by without hearing MarAzul's commentary. These are the same MFs that voted for an absolute racist... The irony....
I love that line, "Me waiting for the first Trump voter to lose their health insurance". That happened to millions when the Obama Care act became effective. Did you mis the opportunity to gloat?
The G.O.P.’s Health Care Death Spiral Last week, President-elect Donald J. Trump called Obamacare “a complete and total disaster,” and pushed for a swift repeal of the Affordable Care Act and a replacement within weeks. But at the moment, there is no workable replacement. So what happens to the individual insurance market — whose problems did not start with the Affordable Care Act and will not be easily solved — when it is destabilized so dramatically? From my point of view as a former health insurance company chief executive, “total disaster” would also describe any Republican repeal-and-delay plan. Although my former colleagues in the insurance industry are too cowed by the president-elect to say so, Republican insistence on repeal without having a meaningful replacement at the same time will drive most insurers out of the individual market and leave the 10 percent of Americans now covered by some aspect of the A.C.A. without coverage — especially if Medicaid expansion is rolled back as well. The proportion of uninsured Americans, which has dropped to less than 9 percent, the lowest on record, will at least double. By April, when filings from insurance company plans and premiums for 2018 are due, there will be a sizable exit — of insurers running away from the greatly increased and unpredictable risk and of individuals not able to afford insurance without the subsidies.
As much as it pains me to go to CNN. Here, so you believe it. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/politics/rand-paul-obamacare-replacement/ "it's in the works"
I guess you missed the point. Democrats are screaming there is no plan, and people are going to die and people are going to be left with nothing and people will turn to booze and people will need to gamble their life savings to get healthcare and scientology will come kill them, bla bla bla... The point is, they are working on a replacement plan. And Trump has stated it will be repealed and replaced in the same few days or weeks.
No, you missed the point. Rand Paul having a plan is the same thing as me having a plan. Utterly meaningless, because no one is going to pay attention to it. barfo
Oh my. Fear over a bill that was vetoed and not overridden. In February of 2016. We have nothing to offer but fear itself!
Yes, thankfully I am not. But if you think that a senator having a proposal solves the problem, or that the other senators are going to sign onto Rand Paul's proposal, you are mistaken. barfo
But another reason that Trump’s statements about repeal and replace have not shaken up the strategy is that Trump’s team has, at least since the new year, mostly been cooperating with House and Senate leaders in advancing the dual-reconciliation approach and looking for ways to improve it. On health care, Trump’s policy team (which includes some conservative health-care experts, lawyers, and former officials) has cut a very different figure than Trump himself. They have been careful, steeped in the details, and engaged with key players both in Congress and in the health sector. That engagement so far seems largely to have focused on developing a set of executive and regulatory actions that could help stabilize the individual-insurance market during any transition period. Conservative health experts did an enormous amount of detailed work on this front well before Trump was elected (or even nominated), with an eye to a possible Republican president, and Trump’s team has built on that work. With regard to legislative strategy, meanwhile, they have not resisted the dual-reconciliation approach but have encouraged congressional Republicans to include some elements of a replacement in an early reconciliation bill along with a partial repeal, rather than leaving it all for later.
