We have no choice. If we do not keep it the yearly body count will be 9 times more than the body count on 9/11.
Maybe, just maybe...if the body count was only a mere 7 times more than 9/11 it would be do-able, but 9? No way Jose.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/sanders-compares-gop-health-care-plan-911/
Originally posted by Kurk
Some of the smartest people in my highschool class said that they didn't want to go into medicine if Obamacare wasn't repealed by the time they graduated.We're getting second rate idiots to go into medicine. I hope you're okay with a lower standard of care.
^ LoL. This guy with his doom-n-gloom antics
ps Republicans completely control the government right now. Obamacare is 100% in their hands now, it stays, it goes, it fails, it succeeds, they own it
Originally posted by Robtard
^ LoL. This guy with his doom-n-gloom anticsps Republicans completely control the government right now. Obamacare is 100% in their hands now, it stays, it goes, it fails, it succeeds, they own it
That is misleading, you know to get anything significant done, they need 60 votes, which they don't have. The Senate is the ultimate blockade and the only things Dems care about is punishing Russian and resisting Trump.
You know the senate has a 60 vote threshold on legislation. They cant repeal all of Obamacare without 60 votes, hence the skinny repeal.
Also McCain, Collins and Mclasky, are not really republicans. And in 2015, 48 Republican Senators Voted For A Clean Obamacare Repeal, still not enough.
This time only 49 voted for it.
Originally posted by Kurk
Some of the smartest people in my highschool class said that they didn't want to go into medicine if Obamacare wasn't repealed by the time they graduated.We're getting second rate idiots to go into medicine. I hope you're okay with a lower standard of care.
Da ****? Clearly they can’t be all that intelligent as Obamacare certainly helps the health industry by funneling more money towards it. There can be no question of that.
Originally posted by Sable
You know the senate has a 60 vote threshold on legislation. They cant repeal all of Obamacare without 60 votes, hence the skinny repeal.Also McCain, Collins and Mclasky, are not really republicans. And in 2015, 48 Republican Senators Voted For A Clean Obamacare Repeal, still not enough.
This time only 49 voted for it.
This is not really true.
Last week they voted for 3 major amendments for Obamacare, one of which was a "full" repeal which got something like 45 or 46 votes. This would not have needed 60 votes, only 50. It was the same bill they voted on in 2015 that got 50+ votes. Just about the only thing about the law that it wouldn't have repealed was the law that insurance companies provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
The skinny repeal was complete shit by any standard, even by Republican standards. They claim their problem with obamacare is that it has increased the cost of insurance too much, but the skinny repeal would have raised prices even more. It would have achieved nothing. McCain was right to vote against it, it was an indefensible bill in itself, and since they had no real guarantee that going to conference would lead to legislation that both houses could agree to, there was the real possibility that if that were to occur, the house could just bring up the Skinny repeal as a last resort, since the senate would have already passed it, vote for it, send it to Trump's desk, who would sign it into law.
Also the idea of Obamacare imploding is largely exaggerated. It obviously has problems, but the solution is to fix said problems, not upend the entire law and replace it with something objectively worse. The fact that the ACA works well in states that have most embraced it, such as California, is evidence of the fact that
the law can and does work well when people aren't working to try and sabotage it. If the law truly was as bad as many would have you believe, then it would be unworkable in all states, not just the ones that have resisted it the most. Even in states like Ohio who have had serious problems with coverage options for many counties, we see that such a problem can be fixed via state government, as their governor has been able to shore up at least one insurer to cover the counties that previously had none.
Your above point is pretty pointless, too. healthcare and health insurance are obviously very close. Health insurance allows people to utilize health care. Without health insurance all but the super rich would be unable to.
Originally posted by BackFire
This is not really true.Last week they voted for 3 major amendments for Obamacare, one of which was a "full" repeal which got something like 45 or 46 votes. This would not have needed 60 votes, only 50. It was the same bill they voted on in 2015 that got 50+ votes. Just about the only thing about the law that it wouldn't have repealed was the law that insurance companies provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
The skinny repeal was complete shit by any standard, even by Republican standards. They claim their problem with obamacare is that it has increased the cost of insurance too much, but the skinny repeal would have raised prices even more. It would have achieved nothing. McCain was right to vote against it, it was an indefensible bill in itself, and since they had no real guarantee that going to conference would lead to legislation that both houses could agree to, there was the real possibility that if that were to occur, the house could just bring up the Skinny repeal as a last resort, since the senate would have already passed it, vote for it, send it to Trump's desk, who would sign it into law.
Also the idea of Obamacare imploding is largely exaggerated. It obviously has problems, but the solution is to fix said problems, not upend the entire law and replace it with something objectively worse. The fact that the ACA works well in states that have most embraced it, such as California, is evidence of the fact that
the law can and does work well when people aren't working to try and sabotage it. If the law truly was as bad as many would have you believe, then it would be unworkable in all states, not just the ones that have resisted it the most. Even in states like Ohio who have had serious problems with coverage options for many counties, we see that such a problem can be fixed via state government, as their governor has been able to shore up at least one insurer to cover the counties that previously had none.Your above point is pretty pointless, too. healthcare and health insurance are obviously very close. Health insurance allows people to utilize health care. Without health insurance all but the super rich would be unable to.
I completely disagree, it was passed with 60 votes, so for a full repeal it needs 60 votes unless.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/73537-senate-passes-historic-healthcare-reform-bill-60-40
45 counties already have no insurer, prices are going up and democrats know its imploding thats why they are trying to form a committee to fix it.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/us/counties-with-one-or-no-obamacare-insurer.html
Their full repeal was not even a full repeal, and their skinny was even less. I stand by what I said, it was passed with 60 and needs 60 to repeal it.
Health care and health insurance are not even close. Health care is the quality of care and what we are able to have access to. Health insurance covers costs of bad health care. I disagree with you on all points, and was not wrong on any point.
To go on further
Health Care is not the same as Health Insurance and they are not closely related at all.
You can have bad health care, and have expensive health insurance, it is possible because we have it now.
We can't even cure cancer, much less anything else besides vaccines that stop a problem from happening. The health care in this country is borderline crap. We have millions of people a year dying from God knows what, and we can't do anything about it. Its bad health care.
Originally posted by Sable
I completely disagree, it was passed with 60 votes, so for a full repeal it needs 60 votes unless.http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/73537-senate-passes-historic-healthcare-reform-bill-60-40
Their full repeal was not even a full repeal, and their skinny was even less. I stand by what I said, it was passed with 60 and needs 60 to repeal it. No health care and health insurance are not even close. Health care is the quality of care and what we are able to have access to. Health insurance covers costs of bad health care. I disagree with you on all points.
There's nothing to disagree with, what I said is factual and provable, you are simply incorrect.
While Obamacare was passed with 60 votes, and needed 60 votes, the repeal efforts did not. Republicans were using a way around that called budget reconciliation, which allows them to pass a bill using only 50 votes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
The "full" repeal that was passed in 2015 and attempted again last week would have only needed 50 votes, with Pence being the tie breaker. As I said, it would have repealed everything but the law that forces insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions. So while total repeal of the law, including that one extremely popular aspect, would take 60 votes, all the bills voted on last week only needed 50.
Obviously health care and health insurance are close, they are intrinsically linked, one can't access health care without health insurance unless they are going to pay out of pocket, which increases the cost of care by significant amounts.
Obamacare imploding =/= Obamacare having problems. Imploding implies that the law is completely unworkable, the fact that it works in some states proves this incorrect. If Obamacare was imploding, it would be broken in all areas of the country. Fixing Obamacare wouldn't really be very difficult, the GOP have just been too stubborn to try and help fix it.