For Trump and GOP, 'Obamacare' repeal is complex and risky

[ClutchClark]

2 hours ago, Grubster said:

Ok if you are against Obama care then you are against everybody being forced to be covered by insurance. That is what Obama care is in a nut shell. You [ if indeed you were insured] and I have paid the bills for millions of middle class non union workers who did not have insurance but had many medical bills that were written off by the hospitals at your expense. Now that you are on medicare the same people who never paid want your benefits to be cut.

 Obama care is a bandaid on a severed head, going backwards from here would be a big mistake, but I don't see how we can get the Bar association and the insurance lobby out of US health care now. We had our chance but blew it.

 

OK, now I think I follow what you were getting at.

 

Yes we working people were always paying for the deadbeats either in our pre-ACA insurance premiums or through our taxes.

 

There have always been deadbeats. There are also some legitimate mentally ill and physically handicapped that just got dealt a rotten deal in life and I am glad to help them but even that has gotten exploited. I don't think alcoholics should get SS and Medicaid. I don't think the chronically unemployed should receive medicaid (or at a minimum they should have some high co-pays to make them think twice about ER visits for runny noses).

 

But the fact is ACA just added alot more people to Medicaid...millions more.

 

It also has created a marketplace (Exchange) that was so cost-prohibitive to people not on subsidies that they could not afford insurance any longer. These people were forced into an obviously undesirable position of giving up their healthcare in order to meet living expenses like food and housing. These are working people earning just above the threshold for subsidy (around $40K) and they no longer have coverage while some BLM or anti-trump protester gets a free ride healthcare policy. Something is wrong with that system.

 

We will always be stuck paying for the deadbeats. There is atleast one opinion on this forum that people who dropped their obama policy due to its cost are irresponsible at the very same time he has discussed returning to the US to receive heavily subsidized healthcare. He has spent years in Thailand never contributing a thing. But the system is rigged in his favor.

I know people who have $1 million dollar homes but don't work and they get maximum subsidy from obama. They are a couple and one is a painter and the other an author. Obviously not very good but their large assets don't prevent them from ACA subsidy...only their income is the determining factor. The Front Range of CO is full of trustfunders who are in the same position...many of whom are now out joining the resistance...Lol.

 

I don't think Americans should be required by Law to participate in a  for-profit insurance corporation.  That goes against American concept of freedom. If we got rid of the 3rd party insurance jndustry and their bloated overhead and profit motive and moved to a gov't run expansion of medicare for all then I would say its fair for all Americans to pay.  It would basically be a tax at that point. But I also think deadbeats should be pressured into paying their fair share. Sitting on their heinies and living off outside income while getting a free govt policy should not be allowed. 

 

I also think medicare should be able to negotiate pharmaceutical prices. 

 

Thats just a bit of where I stand.

 

now if you want to call me every name jn the book its alright. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by ClutchClark

[hawker9000]

Risky to repeal it?  Nonsense.   Newflash:  failure to repeal Obamacare, or at least the individual mandate, would far MORE risky for Trump.   (And without the individual mandate, Obamacare is as lame as Obama himself right now.)

 

 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

Risky to repeal it?  Nonsense.   Newflash:  failure to repeal Obamacare, or at least the individual mandate, would far MORE risky for Trump.   (And without the individual mandate, Obamacare is as lame as Obama himself right now.)

 

 

Yes, it's easy enough to kill it. I think we all agree. trump can do that now.

HOWEVER, he has promised to keep the preexisting condition feature of Obamacare and also of course to kill the mandates. Presumably also the subsidies. Can YOU explain how that is even remotely financially possible to kill the unpopular parts and keep the popular parts because the unpopular parts PAY for the popular parts. I'm sure you can't but if you can, please contact your president. Because he certainly doesn't know. 

 

To add, I never loved Obamacare but I did think and continue to think it was an IMPROVEMENT from the status quo before Obamacare. The obvious real answer is nationalized health care. Not going to happen for 50 or 100 years now so forget about it.  Clinton wisely wanted to start patching Obamacare and move it forward. trump's plan is an absurd RESET back to the worse status quo plus promises that any sober analyst will tell you are impossible. It's going to be interesting to watch now that trump and the R party own this. 

Edited November 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[ClutchClark]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

health care. Not going to happen for 50 or 100 years now so forget about it.  Clinton wisely wanted to start patching Obamacare and move it forward. trump's plan is an absurd RESET back to the worse status quo plus promises that any sober analyst will tell you are impossible. It's going to be interesting to watch now that trump and the R party own this. 

 

Hillary wanted to start patching the ACA? When did she make that known? Patching suggests it just had a leak or two rather than acknowledging the entire roof was missing.

 

And if the R's own it now its just because they got stuck with it. It came with the house. They sure didn't want it. 

 

But once again I will say you have a very thorough knowledge of the ACA. If you ever move stateside you could hire out as a specialist that helps people navigate this frankenstein of a law.

[Jingthing]

A view from MASSACHUSETTS, a state with a unique perspective on Obamacare and the upcoming trumpist UPHEAVAL of it because they had their own STATE program predating Obamacare.

 

Note the history ... the structure for Obamacare was actually originally REPUBLICAN. From Nixon to ROMNEY. Massachusett's plan that was used as a national model for Obamacare was effected by ROMNEY. 

 

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/11/09/massachusetts-seen-insulated-from-trump-repeal-obamacare/bFC9mivzgtlC3c7ElXTUyI/story.html

 

Quote

 

“If they’re serious about this ‘repeal and replace,’ there is still going to be a lot of chaos when it comes to health policy [nationally]” said Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans.

Stephen Rosenfeld, interim director of the advocacy group Health Care For All, said repealing the national health care law would be disastrous for the country and could result in cutbacks to health coverage in Massachusetts. But, he said, “We were there first... We have in place a state law that can’t be repealed by the Trump administration.”

...

 

 

 

 

[hawker9000]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, it's easy enough to kill it. I think we all agree. trump can do that now.

HOWEVER, he has promised to keep the preexisting condition feature of Obamacare and also of course to kill the mandates. Presumably also the subsidies. Can YOU explain how that is even remotely financially possible to kill the unpopular parts and keep the popular parts because the unpopular parts PAY for the popular parts. I'm sure you can't but if you can, please contact your president. Because he certainly doesn't know. 

 

To add, I never loved Obamacare but I did think and continue to think it was an IMPROVEMENT from the status quo before Obamacare. The obvious real answer is nationalized health care. Not going to happen for 50 or 100 years now so forget about it.  Clinton wisely wanted to start patching Obamacare and move it forward. trump's plan is an absurd RESET back to the worse status quo plus promises that any sober analyst will tell you are impossible. It's going to be interesting to watch now that trump and the R party own this. 

"Can YOU explain how that is even remotely financially possible to kill the unpopular parts and keep the popular parts because the unpopular parts PAY for the popular parts. "

 

'Guess you're one of the slow learners.   No, I can't explain because I don't think it's possible either, and would never have suggested it was.  That was my whole point.  If he's not going to kill the individual mandate, most will consider him to have reneged on his campaign promise.  Those that elected him expect him to kill the UCA.  And if he fails to keep that promise - among others - he can kiss the HOR goodbye in 2 years and his own lease in 4. 

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

 

 

It also has created a marketplace (Exchange) that was so cost-prohibitive to people not on subsidies that they could not afford insurance any longer. These people were forced into an obviously undesirable position of giving up their healthcare in order to meet living expenses like food and housing. These are working people earning just above the threshold for subsidy (around $40K) and they no longer have coverage while some BLM or anti-trump protester gets a free ride healthcare policy. Something is wrong with that system.

 

. 

And the errors keep on coming.

In all states, the upper limit for subsidy eligibility is 400 percent of the poverty level. For plans purchased during the 2017 open enrollment period (November 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017), that upper subsidy threshold is $97,200/year for a family of four; subsidy availability extends well into the middle class. (Some people with incomes under 400 percent of the poverty level don’t receive subsidies simply because the unsubsidized cost of coverage in their area is under the threshold established by the ACA).

https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/will-you-receive-an-obamacare-premium-subsidy/

[Grubster]

6 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

OK, now I think I follow what you were getting at.

 

Yes we working people were always paying for the deadbeats either in our pre-ACA insurance premiums or through our taxes.

 

There have always been deadbeats. There are also some legitimate mentally ill and physically handicapped that just got dealt a rotten deal in life and I am glad to help them but even that has gotten exploited. I don't think alcoholics should get SS and Medicaid. I don't think the chronically unemployed should receive medicaid (or at a minimum they should have some high co-pays to make them think twice about ER visits for runny noses).

 

But the fact is ACA just added alot more people to Medicaid...millions more.

 

It also has created a marketplace (Exchange) that was so cost-prohibitive to people not on subsidies that they could not afford insurance any longer. These people were forced into an obviously undesirable position of giving up their healthcare in order to meet living expenses like food and housing. These are working people earning just above the threshold for subsidy (around $40K) and they no longer have coverage while some BLM or anti-trump protester gets a free ride healthcare policy. Something is wrong with that system.

 

We will always be stuck paying for the deadbeats. There is atleast one opinion on this forum that people who dropped their obama policy due to its cost are irresponsible at the very same time he has discussed returning to the US to receive heavily subsidized healthcare. He has spent years in Thailand never contributing a thing. But the system is rigged in his favor.

I know people who have $1 million dollar homes but don't work and they get maximum subsidy from obama. They are a couple and one is a painter and the other an author. Obviously not very good but their large assets don't prevent them from ACA subsidy...only their income is the determining factor. The Front Range of CO is full of trustfunders who are in the same position...many of whom are now out joining the resistance...Lol.

 

I don't think Americans should be required by Law to participate in a  for-profit insurance corporation.  That goes against American concept of freedom. If we got rid of the 3rd party insurance jndustry and their bloated overhead and profit motive and moved to a gov't run expansion of medicare for all then I would say its fair for all Americans to pay.  It would basically be a tax at that point. But I also think deadbeats should be pressured into paying their fair share. Sitting on their heinies and living off outside income while getting a free govt policy should not be allowed. 

 

I also think medicare should be able to negotiate pharmaceutical prices. 

 

Thats just a bit of where I stand.

 

now if you want to call me every name jn the book its alright. 

I understand and respect the things you say, I must add some to the deadbeat list though.  I knew many workers who made real good money and had no insurance, they would just go to the emergency room, run up a bill and not pay it. 

         We had our chance for a single payer system in the 60s and 70s but couldn't get it done,  I'm sure you remember what an evil thing that was made out to be. Then the three strongest unions joined hands, the AMA, Bar assn., and the insurance lobby.   Yeah its all private and its too late to stop that monster now.  Hey its still a good deal for the rich and thats really all that matters it seems.

[Thaidream]

First of all- access to healthcare is a right and should be continually embellished just as we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, healthcare in America has become a money maker for insurance companies; Big Pharma; and Hospitals. It's treated the same way as any other industry in America and that is what's wrong. People are dying from lack of it and there is no reason for it.

If President Trump really wanted to get rid of Obamacare he can repeal it and replace it with a plan already on the books. He can extend Medicare coverage to everyone. It could be paid by a percentage taken from one's salary each pay period. Of course, the amount would be higher than what is normally taken out now. Those who are not working would get free coverage as well as those over the age of 65. Insurance Companies would go away; Big Pharma prices would be controlled and the Government would pay a set amount to doctors and hospitals and they would have to accept it. This is definitely socialistic but this is how the other major industrialized countries do it. It is also fair- everyone gets the same coverage no matter the ailment.

I would also add into the law that the treatment could be carried out anywhere in the World and be reimbursed by the Medicare system. This would be truly universal coverage for Americans.

 

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

First of all- access to healthcare is a right and should be continually embellished just as we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, healthcare in America has become a money maker for insurance companies; Big Pharma; and Hospitals. It's treated the same way as any other industry in America and that is what's wrong. People are dying from lack of it and there is no reason for it.

If President Trump really wanted to get rid of Obamacare he can repeal it and replace it with a plan already on the books. He can extend Medicare coverage to everyone. It could be paid by a percentage taken from one's salary each pay period. Of course, the amount would be higher than what is normally taken out now. Those who are not working would get free coverage as well as those over the age of 65. Insurance Companies would go away; Big Pharma prices would be controlled and the Government would pay a set amount to doctors and hospitals and they would have to accept it. This is definitely socialistic but this is how the other major industrialized countries do it. It is also fair- everyone gets the same coverage no matter the ailment.

I would also add into the law that the treatment could be carried out anywhere in the World and be reimbursed by the Medicare system. This would be truly universal coverage for Americans.

 

Actually, if it was done outside of the USA it would most likely save Medicare a lot of money.

[Jingthing]

Speaking of the key element of SUBSIDES for Obamacare, I haven't heard word one from the trump about that issue. So I assume that means the subsidies will be killed. So if the subsidies are killed that's really the core of Obamacare and that does really mean a kill. I think the preexisting conditions promise is just a PR game and they intend to send that problem to the states with block grants as if that's a solution.  Really at this point, there is no clear picture of where we're going from here. Not a good start. 

[Jingthing]

 

22 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

First of all- access to healthcare is a right and should be continually embellished just as we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, healthcare in America has become a money maker for insurance companies; Big Pharma; and Hospitals. It's treated the same way as any other industry in America and that is what's wrong. People are dying from lack of it and there is no reason for it.

If President Trump really wanted to get rid of Obamacare he can repeal it and replace it with a plan already on the books. He can extend Medicare coverage to everyone. It could be paid by a percentage taken from one's salary each pay period. Of course, the amount would be higher than what is normally taken out now. Those who are not working would get free coverage as well as those over the age of 65. Insurance Companies would go away; Big Pharma prices would be controlled and the Government would pay a set amount to doctors and hospitals and they would have to accept it. This is definitely socialistic but this is how the other major industrialized countries do it. It is also fair- everyone gets the same coverage no matter the ailment.

I would also add into the law that the treatment could be carried out anywhere in the World and be reimbursed by the Medicare system. This would be truly universal coverage for Americans.

 

Let's get to the safe space of REALNESS.

Hillary Clinton wasn't going to expand Medicare coverage to expats.

trump isn't going to do that ... on steroids. 

He's CUTTING stuff. Not expanding. Don't even bother hoping. 

Also from a trumpian right wing POV, expats are rather suspect. The love it or leave it crowd got him in. Those are his people. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Jingthing

[GinBoy2]

To be honest playmates who knows what Trump is going to do....

 

One days it's repeal Obamacare,

 

Next day, he really like's 'not denying per-existing conditions, and letting kids stay on Mom & Dad's policy until 26'

 

Part of the grand bargain that Obama made with the insurance companies was that they include those two key provisions, 'if' everyone would have to be insured, with some penalty if they didn't.

 

How Trump squares that circle with his two statements, 'repeal, but keep the bits I like'...we wait with bated breath.

 

Insurance only works if everyone is included, high risk, low risk, no risk. Currently our 'socialized' insurance, Medicare simply covers those at highest risk....ask a car insurance company if they are prepared to write polices ONLY for 18-25 year old males

 

In point of fact I wait with bated breath to see how quite a lot of the next 4 years pan out, reality versus rhetoric

 

 

[ClutchClark]

13 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And the errors keep on coming.

In all states, the upper limit for subsidy eligibility is 400 percent of the poverty level. For plans purchased during the 2017 open enrollment period (November 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017), that upper subsidy threshold is $97,200/year for a family of four; subsidy availability extends well into the middle class. (Some people with incomes under 400 percent of the poverty level don’t receive subsidies simply because the unsubsidized cost of coverage in their area is under the threshold established by the ACA).

 

https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/will-you-receive-an-obamacare-premium-subsidy/

 

Why do you always look for argument?

 

You provide information on a family of four.

 

Apparently you are not sharp enough to consider I was talking about the limits for an unmarried individual, for example, the large number of young Americans who dropped from the ACA due to its prohibitive costs, i.e. often childless and single.

[ClutchClark]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

 

Let's get to the safe space of REALNESS.

Hillary Clinton wasn't going to expand Medicare coverage to expats.

trump isn't going to do that ... on steroids. 

He's CUTTING stuff. Not expanding. Don't even bother hoping. 

Also from a trumpian right wing POV, expats are rather suspect. The love it or leave it crowd got him in. Those are his people. 

 

They are not against ex-pats.

They are against people who don't pay for things that they want to benefit from.

 

If you are an ex-pat who pays US payroll and income taxes while in an ex-pat status then you have every right to benefits.

On the other hand, if you are an ex-pat who contributes nothing to the US and wants to claim benefits then you are going to be quite unpopular for what I would think are obvious reasons.

 

Oh...I guess I am still on ignore. What an amazing concept. Take potshots at people and lack the ability to handle a response.

Edited November 23, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

3 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

ask a car insurance company if they are prepared to write polices ONLY for 18-25 year old males

 

If Uncle Sam is offering large subsidies to those 18-25 year olds that covers the high costs of the premiums and deductibles necessary to cover the higher insurance payouts then I bet there are no shortage of car insurance companies hoping to participate.

 

 

[Jingthing]

Since they won't do the only decent thing and go full Canuck the best case scenario is they keep it all, rebrand as Romney trump care and add the reforms Hillary had proposed. Still pretty crappy but little doubt that would be better than the "terrific" disruptive mess that 's obviously gonna happen.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Why do you always look for argument?

 

You provide information on a family of four.

 

Apparently you are not sharp enough to consider I was talking about the limits for an unmarried individual, for example, the large number of young Americans who dropped from the ACA due to its prohibitive costs, i.e. often childless and single.

But you didn't specify that. You made a blanket statement. And that statement is untrue.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

They are not against ex-pats.

They are against people who don't pay for things that they want to benefit from.

 

If you are an ex-pat who pays US payroll and income taxes while in an ex-pat status then you have every right to benefits.

On the other hand, if you are an ex-pat who contributes nothing to the US and wants to claim benefits then you are going to be quite unpopular for what I would think are obvious reasons.

If expats keeps current on their Medicare payments, then they are entitled to treatment. But they have to get it in the USA.  

[Jingthing]

Sharing an ON TOPIC article that very much reflects the headline here:

 

Trump spurs fears, hopes among Americans insured by the Affordable Care Act

Quote

 

Such clashing perspectives offer a ground-level view of the two Americas exposed by a singularly polarizing presidential campaign — a campaign driven by profound disagreements over basic values, including the role of government.

On few matters is the political divide as pure as it is on health care. Early this fall, nearly 9 in 10 Democrats said in a survey for Harvard University and Politico that they thought the government has a major role in improving the health system, and 80 percent said the ACA is working well. Among Republicans, only about a quarter said the government has a major role, while an equal share said the government has none. Nearly 90 percent said the ACA is working poorly.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-spurs-fears-hopes-among-americans-insured-by-the-affordable-care-act/2016/11/23/ab0b1eae-ace7-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html

[amykat]

Here is a comment from that article above:

 

Let's get rid of one red herring - that interstate purchases of health insurance will increase competition and reduce premiums. This is total BS because any health insurer, in state or out of state, is going to base its premiums on the medical expenses incurred in the geographic area of the insured, not the insurance company's location. Doctors charge more in Beverly Hills then they do in Fargo and all insurance company rates will reflect that difference. Any insurance company not smart enough to figure that out will be quickly broke. IMO, anyone who believes that this interstate competition will significantly lower premiums simply does not understand the health insurance business. Trump has consistently shown a lack of understanding of how health insurance works in the real world.

 

And another one:

 

Concur. Interstate competition in health insurance is nonsense.  
 
The race to the bottom will be very real: soon the three remaining health insurance companies (after the good-for-Wall Street mergers) will have their policies written in whatever state allows the worst and thereby cheapest coverage. There is a reason that banks are "headquartered" in South Dakota, which has little in the way of usury laws. State that allow bad coverage will attract the insurers. They will write policies that cover nothing, when you get sick. Mr. Galloni will not be going three miles to Virginia for his policy; he'll be going to Alabama, or Mississippi.  
 
And, as Larry points out, health care costs are local. No physician or hospital will be in-network for these out of state policies. The patients will pay the difference, if they can persuade the doctors to see them with these policies at all.

 

 

[Jingthing]

Totally agree. The across state lines obsession with right wingers is total B.S.

Let's face the harsh reality. Right wingers are perfectly fine with poor sick people not getting decent or any health care. That's the core of this struggle boiled down.

[sirineou]

It will not be repealed and it will not be replaced for one simple reason there is no other viable option to replace it with.

Medicare for every one is an option, but what do you do with the existing health insurance industry, all the people that work there , and all the investors that have invested in it?

So they will make some peripheral changes and call it Trump care.

 

[lannarebirth]

58 minutes ago, sirineou said:

It will not be repealed and it will not be replaced for one simple reason there is no other viable option to replace it with.

Medicare for every one is an option, but what do you do with the existing health insurance industry, all the people that work there , and all the investors that have invested in it?

So they will make some peripheral changes and call it Trump care.

 

 

You put them out of business and good riddance.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You put them out of business and good riddance.

I agree, but it's a trillion size industry, how do you scrap it without the corresponding disruption to the already fragile economy. 

[lannarebirth]

29 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I agree, but it's a trillion size industry, how do you scrap it without the corresponding disruption to the already fragile economy. 

 

The entire industry represents about 2 weeks of newly unemployed numbers, which are about 250k/wk. Give them a 12 month transition package or re-education tax credit. I think a lot of them will be employable in other fields.  An actuary is still an actuary whether he works for a health insurer or an auto insurer. Secretarial skills are ubiquitous.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/194229/number-of-health-insurance-employees-in-the-us-since-1960/

 

Presumably, many, even most of these people could find work in whatever government organization acts as the replacement for the for profit insurers.

Edited November 27, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Jingthing]

Troubling news for those (unrealistically) hoping for only some minor changes in Obamacare instead of a TOTAL GUTTING. It's now looking like TOTAL GUTTING. trump picks anti-Obamacare extremist, Tom Price of Georgia to lead Health and Human Services. Clearly his point man for trashing Obamacare. 

 

Also of note ... especially to the segment of trumpist right wing elders on Medicare who don't care about the millions of Americans that are going to be hurt by trashing Obamacare because they smugly think "THEY GOT THEIRS ALREADY" -- well, think again. You may have been BAIT AND SWITCHED by the con man president elect. Medicare could the trashed as well.

 

Quote

 

In choosing Price to fill a key Cabinet position, Trump will add to his team a staunchly conservative lawmaker close to the House speaker. Price already is familiar with the budgetary process, the federal bureaucracy and the costs and mechanics both of changing the Affordable Care Act as well as revamping the Medicare entitlement program

 

.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/28/trump-to-name-rep-tom-price-as-next-hhs-secretary/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_price-0955pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Explaining how the TRASHING of Obamacare by trumpists in coalition with traditional republicans will HURT the very demographic that most helped get trump elected. Poor whites. Did they not realize what they were voting for?

 

As trump himself would say in one of this infamous tweets: SAD!

 

Yes, many people will die from this. Elections have consequences. My tweet would be: SICK!

Quote

 

Obamacare is probably toast. And a lot of poor, white Trump voters will get hurt by it.

And so, the likely end result (again, at best) is that a lot of the 20 million people who would lose coverage due to repeal will remain without coverage, and protections for those with bad medical conditions will be eroded.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/29/obamacare-is-probably-toast-and-a-lot-of-poor-white-trump-voters-will-get-hurt/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.87afaaeca9ee

[lannarebirth]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Explaining how the TRASHING of Obamacare by trumpists in coalition with traditional republicans will HURT the very demographic that most helped get trump elected. Poor whites. Did they not realize what they were voting for?

 

As trump himself would say in one of this infamous tweets: SAD!

 

Yes, many people will die from this. Elections have consequences. My tweet would be: SICK!

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/29/obamacare-is-probably-toast-and-a-lot-of-poor-white-trump-voters-will-get-hurt/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.87afaaeca9ee

 

Not only will may people die if Ryan/Price 's healthcare vision becomes law; I expect many will die by their own hand.

 

A nation has to set its  priorities. If you want freedom of speech, that has to include the speech of those you vehemently disagree with. If you want healthcare for the poor or seniors, you have to include the rest of the people, especially since they are the ones paying for the healthcare of the poor and the elderly. That's how you unify a nation. You put everyone in the same boat. Healthcare for all or healthcare for none.

 

I don't think Dems or Reps do anymore than provide lip service to the idea of Unity. Both parties think they can serve their donors best by creating disunity.

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.