Trumpcare Megathread: It's dead (for now)

[Dr. Arch]

lol, so many people are going to get screwed, my parents, my handicapped friend, my partner's parents, etc. etc.

[The Other Castro]

They're always "close to a deal". Getting past close and reaching a deal is the problem, which they're not going to solve in this situation. This isn't passing.

[Yank2133]

They're always "close to a deal". Getting past close and reaching a deal is the problem, which they're not going to solve in this situation. This isn't passing.

Yeah, I like Topher, but he has been saying close to deal for a month now.

[Santander]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

And watch 23 million people die on the street.

[Dr. Arch]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

And watch 23 million people die on the street.

The Republican way

[Santander]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

And watch 23 million people die on the street.

Those people did not die on the street before Obamacare.

Freedom isn't free.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

And watch 23 million people die on the street.

Those people did not die on the street before Obamacare.

Freedom isn't free.

They certainly did, remember even McCain had a decent health care reform plan - no one truly wanted to remain on the current system. ObamaCare prevented numerous deaths, but if repeal only occurs, those deaths will no longer be prevented.

[7,052,770]

Repeal and replace with nothing.

And watch 23 million people die on the street.

Those people did not die on the street before Obamacare.

Freedom isn't free.

I mean, the cancer patients who can't afford their insurance anymore under Trumpcare won't literally die on the street -- they'll wait until they're hours from death and be allowed a hospital bed to die on (at a cost, of course).

You should focus on the "die" part, not the "street" part.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Establishment Democrat position: 28 million uninsured is fine, but 50 million is unacceptable.

[Yank2133]

Establishment Democrat position: 28 million uninsured is fine, but 50 million is unacceptable.

What is it with you and the straw man arguments?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Establishment Democrat position: 28 million uninsured is fine, but 50 million is unacceptable.

What is it with you and the straw man arguments?

The establishment Democrats have no solution for the 28 million uninsured.

[Yank2133]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

So where's the plan?

[Yank2133]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

So where's the plan?

Dems have wanted to restore the risk corridors that Rubio sabotage, add a public option, and increase the subsides. Just doing those three things could improve the ACA dramatically.

Seriously, they have been talking about this for the last couple of years now.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

So where's the plan?

Dems have wanted to restore the risk corridors that Rubio sabotage, add a public option, and increase the subsides. Just doing those three things could improve the ACA dramatically.

Seriously, they have been talking about this for the last couple of years now.

Why didn't they add a public option or even better single payer in the first place? Even single payer might not be far enough. The UK has a national health system, and spends less than half as much per capita as the US. They really should have done healthcare right in the first place, rather than copying some Republican idea. Democrats have had 7 years to come up with a better system, and I don't hear much about it from them, except for the few who are progressive enough to support single payer, which Hillary said would never happen.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

So where's the plan?

Dems have wanted to restore the risk corridors that Rubio sabotage, add a public option, and increase the subsides. Just doing those three things could improve the ACA dramatically.

Seriously, they have been talking about this for the last couple of years now.

Why didn't they add a public option or even better single payer in the first place? Even single payer might not be far enough. The UK has a national health system, and spends less than half as much per capita as the US. They really should have done healthcare right in the first place, rather than copying some Republican idea. Democrats have had 7 years to come up with a better system, and I don't hear much about it from them, except for the few who are progressive enough to support single payer, which Hillary said would never happen.

Single Payer is Socialist, unamerican, and unaffordable

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

So where's the plan?

Dems have wanted to restore the risk corridors that Rubio sabotage, add a public option, and increase the subsides. Just doing those three things could improve the ACA dramatically.

Seriously, they have been talking about this for the last couple of years now.

Why didn't they add a public option or even better single payer in the first place? Even single payer might not be far enough. The UK has a national health system, and spends less than half as much per capita as the US. They really should have done healthcare right in the first place, rather than copying some Republican idea. Democrats have had 7 years to come up with a better system, and I don't hear much about it from them, except for the few who are progressive enough to support single payer, which Hillary said would never happen.

Single Payer is Socialist, unamerican, and unaffordable

Roads and schools are socialist, and the UK spends only 43% as much as the US on healthcare.

[Yank2133]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

So where's the plan?

Dems have wanted to restore the risk corridors that Rubio sabotage, add a public option, and increase the subsides. Just doing those three things could improve the ACA dramatically.

Seriously, they have been talking about this for the last couple of years now.

Why didn't they add a public option or even better single payer in the first place? Even single payer might not be far enough. The UK has a national health system, and spends less than half as much per capita as the US. They really should have done healthcare right in the first place, rather than copying some Republican idea. Democrats have had 7 years to come up with a better system, and I don't hear much about it from them, except for the few who are progressive enough to support single payer, which Hillary said would never happen.

Lieberman killed the public option in the senate bill in 2009. Obama let it go because he didn't have enough votes to spare. As for single-payer, they didn't go that route because they aren't stupid. Over 60% of Americans get their health insurance through their employers and most are content with their coverage. Single-payer would have upended that, just look how much grief Obama took when one million of Americans lost their plans after the ACA passage (and the majority of those plans were junk plans!), now imagine the backlash the Democrats would face for kicking people off of their plans, which they like, and slapping on a tax-hike to pay for it? On top of that, there is the whole issue of the impact a single-payer system would have on the health industry in terms of jobs.

The Democrats mistake (besides the lack of a public option) was the subsides were too low in the ACA. It is a pity, they really should have passed the house bill, which was far stronger then the senate bill.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

So where's the plan?

Dems have wanted to restore the risk corridors that Rubio sabotage, add a public option, and increase the subsides. Just doing those three things could improve the ACA dramatically.

Seriously, they have been talking about this for the last couple of years now.

Why didn't they add a public option or even better single payer in the first place? Even single payer might not be far enough. The UK has a national health system, and spends less than half as much per capita as the US. They really should have done healthcare right in the first place, rather than copying some Republican idea. Democrats have had 7 years to come up with a better system, and I don't hear much about it from them, except for the few who are progressive enough to support single payer, which Hillary said would never happen.

Single Payer is Socialist, unamerican, and unaffordable

Roads and schools are socialist, and the UK spends only 43% as much as the US on healthcare.

Roads are built by private companies and thus are not socialism. Even public schools are largely under local/state control - without complete control by the federal government, it is not socialism. Single payer health care is solely controlled by the federal government and destroys an industry by banning private insurance, which is what makes it socialist. Single Payer health care is also likely increase the deficit, and inevitably results in long, unconsciable waits for surgeries and other time sensitive procedures.

In fact, you can see how terrible single payer is without going overseas. It's called the Veterans Hospitals. Tons of ethics scandals, no accountability, huge backlogs and wait periods, people literally dying due to lack of care. And now I'm supposed to believe that single payer is good for the whole country?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

So where's the plan?

Dems have wanted to restore the risk corridors that Rubio sabotage, add a public option, and increase the subsides. Just doing those three things could improve the ACA dramatically.

Seriously, they have been talking about this for the last couple of years now.

Why didn't they add a public option or even better single payer in the first place? Even single payer might not be far enough. The UK has a national health system, and spends less than half as much per capita as the US. They really should have done healthcare right in the first place, rather than copying some Republican idea. Democrats have had 7 years to come up with a better system, and I don't hear much about it from them, except for the few who are progressive enough to support single payer, which Hillary said would never happen.

Lieberman killed the public option in the senate bill in 2009. Obama let it go because he didn't have enough votes to spare. As for single-payer, they didn't go that route because they aren't stupid. Over 60% of Americans get their health insurance through their employers and most are content with their coverage. Single-payer would have upended that, just look how much grief Obama took when one million of Americans lost their plans after the ACA passage (and the majority of those plans were junk plans!), now imagine the backlash the Democrats would face for kicking people of their plans, which they like, and slapping on a tax-hike to pay for it? On top of that, there is the whole issue of the impact a single-payer system would have on the health industry in terms of jobs.

The Democrats mistake (besides the lack of a public option) was the subsides were too low in the ACA. It is a pity, they really should have passed the house bill, which was far stronger then the senate bill.

The reconciliation bill only needed 50 votes, and so really didn't need Lieberman's vote. They should have gotten 50 senators to support a stronger bill. This bill was passed after Scott Brown took office, so there's no way they were getting 60 votes, anyways.

Roads are built by private companies and thus are not socialism. Even public schools are largely under local/state control - without complete control by the federal government, it is not socialism. Single payer health care is solely controlled by the federal government and destroys an industry by banning private insurance, which is what makes it socialist. Single Payer health care is also likely increase the deficit, and inevitably results in long, unconsciable waits for surgeries and other time sensitive procedures.

In fact, you can see how terrible single payer is without going overseas. It's called the Veterans Hospitals. Tons of ethics scandals, no accountability, huge backlogs and wait periods, people literally dying due to lack of care. And now I'm supposed to believe that single payer is good for the whole country?

Roads can be built by the state. Why does it matter who builds them? And the state and local governments are still governments. The idea that they can't be socialist is ridiculous. In California, most of the school funding comes from the state, which would be one of the largest economies in the world if it was its own country. Gosh, there's some poorly run program, that proves that nothing can be run correctly.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nice straw man argument, jfern.

So where's the plan?

Dems have wanted to restore the risk corridors that Rubio sabotage, add a public option, and increase the subsides. Just doing those three things could improve the ACA dramatically.

Seriously, they have been talking about this for the last couple of years now.

Why didn't they add a public option or even better single payer in the first place? Even single payer might not be far enough. The UK has a national health system, and spends less than half as much per capita as the US. They really should have done healthcare right in the first place, rather than copying some Republican idea. Democrats have had 7 years to come up with a better system, and I don't hear much about it from them, except for the few who are progressive enough to support single payer, which Hillary said would never happen.

Lieberman killed the public option in the senate bill in 2009. Obama let it go because he didn't have enough votes to spare. As for single-payer, they didn't go that route because they aren't stupid. Over 60% of Americans get their health insurance through their employers and most are content with their coverage. Single-payer would have upended that, just look how much grief Obama took when one million of Americans lost their plans after the ACA passage (and the majority of those plans were junk plans!), now imagine the backlash the Democrats would face for kicking people of their plans, which they like, and slapping on a tax-hike to pay for it? On top of that, there is the whole issue of the impact a single-payer system would have on the health industry in terms of jobs.

The Democrats mistake (besides the lack of a public option) was the subsides were too low in the ACA. It is a pity, they really should have passed the house bill, which was far stronger then the senate bill.

The reconciliation bill only needed 50 votes, and so really didn't need Lieberman's vote. They should have gotten 50 senators to support a stronger bill. This bill was passed after Scott Brown took office, so there's no way they were getting 60 votes, anyways.

Roads are built by private companies and thus are not socialism. Even public schools are largely under local/state control - without complete control by the federal government, it is not socialism. Single payer health care is solely controlled by the federal government and destroys an industry by banning private insurance, which is what makes it socialist. Single Payer health care is also likely increase the deficit, and inevitably results in long, unconsciable waits for surgeries and other time sensitive procedures.

In fact, you can see how terrible single payer is without going overseas. It's called the Veterans Hospitals. Tons of ethics scandals, no accountability, huge backlogs and wait periods, people literally dying due to lack of care. And now I'm supposed to believe that single payer is good for the whole country?

Roads can be built by the state. Why does it matter who builds them? And the state and local governments are still governments. The idea that they can't be socialist is ridiculous. In California, most of the school funding comes from the state, which would be one of the largest economies in the world if it was its own country. Gosh, there's some poorly run program, that proves that nothing can be run correctly.

The bulk of ObamaCare was passed under normal legislative rules in December 2009, before Brown was elected, on a party line 60 to 39 vote. The reconciliation bill was composed of fairly minor amendments and passed by a narrower margin (several conservadems voted against it).

Okay, believe that single payer wouldn't be like the veterans hospitals, or that its wait times wouldn't mirror the unconsciable wait times that exist in the UK. Just don't come crying to me when you realize your beliefs are incorrect.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The bulk of ObamaCare was passed under normal legislative rules in December 2009, before Brown was elected, on a party line 60 to 39 vote. The reconciliation bill was composed of fairly minor amendments and passed by a narrower margin (several conservadems voted against it).

Okay, believe that single payer wouldn't be like the veterans hospitals, or that its wait times wouldn't mirror the unconsciable wait times that exist in the UK. Just don't come crying to me when you realize your beliefs are incorrect.

The reconciliation bill could have been much more major. And LOL at the idea that no one ever waits for healthcare in the US.

[The Self]

It's only socialism if the workers own and operate it, dumbsh**ts.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The bulk of ObamaCare was passed under normal legislative rules in December 2009, before Brown was elected, on a party line 60 to 39 vote. The reconciliation bill was composed of fairly minor amendments and passed by a narrower margin (several conservadems voted against it).

Okay, believe that single payer wouldn't be like the veterans hospitals, or that its wait times wouldn't mirror the unconsciable wait times that exist in the UK. Just don't come crying to me when you realize your beliefs are incorrect.

The reconciliation bill could have been much more major. And LOL at the idea that no one ever waits for healthcare in the US.

They wait far less than they would under single payer