• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kochs to withhold millions for health care 'yes' votes

The system was not designed against them it was designed for them, especially in the age of kickstarter. Without PACs the Kochs still have enough money to run thier own ad campaigns if they want, so if you get rid of citizens united the only thing you are doing is hurting the average citizens power to band together to make a much larger impact than they could on thier own.

Not really. The Citizens United case:

its definition of corporations as people protected by the First Amendment created a loophole that campaigns and PACs are all too happy to use to their advantage.

As a result, a small group of wealthy donors has gained even more influence on elections, and are able to maintain that influence once candidates take office.

Of the $1 billion spent in federal elections by super PACs since 2010, nearly 60 percent of the money came from just 195 individuals and their spouses, according to the Brennan Center report. Thanks to Citizens United, supporters can make the maximum $5,200 donation directly to a candidate, then make unlimited contributions to single-candidate super PACs.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/5-years-later-citizens-united-has-remade-us-politics

So those few wealthy people, and even wealthier corporations and organizations, can make YUGE contributions, in the dark (not disclosed), to super PACs for a specific candidate. The Koch Bros would then tell the candidate in private about it, and would then own that candidate.

An ordinary citizen does not have the kind of money to contribute that a Koch or a corporation does. So that shifted dramatically the power from citizens to corporations and some wealthy citizens. We became more of an oligarchy, because of the Citizens United ruling.
 
Maybe you're able to dance to that tune, but in reality those with consistently the most spending power are, surprise surprise, not average citizens banding together.

Only because average citizens haven't really banded together yet, it's pretty sad because I see a lot of issues where people could make a difference
 
Not really. The Citizens United case:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/5-years-later-citizens-united-has-remade-us-politics

So those few wealthy people, and even wealthier corporations and organizations, can make YUGE contributions, in the dark (not disclosed), to super PACs for a specific candidate. The Koch Bros would then tell the candidate in private about it, and would then own that candidate.

An ordinary citizen does not have the kind of money to contribute that a Koch or a corporation does. So that shifted dramatically the power from citizens to corporations and some wealthy citizens. We became more of an oligarchy, because of the Citizens United ruling.

No we became a more free country where a group doesn't lose thier individual rights because they decided to be a group
 
Some sort of crazy 1st amendment

That is crazy. Previously, that was not allowed, under the First Amendment. There was a cap.

Because of the Citizens United case, corporations and a few wealthy people now own Washington lock, stock, and barrel. That's not a democracy. That's an oligarchy.
 
Only because average citizens haven't really banded together yet, it's pretty sad because I see a lot of issues where people could make a difference

You just made an argument for why Citizens United is bad for average Americans.
 
This is why Citizens United is horrible for the U.S.A. Politicians have to do the bidding of the Koch bros, or else! What happened to government getting its legitimacy from the people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In this instance, are you complaining about the results? :mrgreen:
 
In this instance, are you complaining about the results? :mrgreen:

haha, The Koch bros using their superpowers for... good?

It's my understanding that this plan isn't "conservative" enough for them.. meaning that they want more for the rich and less for the poor.
 
haha, The Koch bros using their superpowers for... good?

It's my understanding that this plan isn't "conservative" enough for them.. meaning that they want more for the rich and less for the poor.

Well, look at it this way. That either:

1) Kills this bill. Status-quo largely remains in tact.

2) Kills this bill, institutes far worse bill. Dooms GOP.
 
It's not difficult to see why the Kochs think this will be problematic down the line. Besides simply kicking 24 million people off insurance, the Freedom Caucus has been placated by having the ten essential health benefits removed.

  • Outpatient care without a hospital admission, known as ambulatory patient services
  • Emergency services
  • Hospitalization
  • Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care
  • Mental health and substance use disorder services, including counseling and psychotherapy
  • Prescription drugs
  • Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, which help people with injuries and disabilities to recover
  • Laboratory services
  • Preventive care, wellness services, and chronic disease management
  • Pediatric services, including oral and vision care for children

That leaves Viagra and what else?
 
Well, look at it this way. That either:

1) Kills this bill. Status-quo largely remains in tact.

2) Kills this bill, institutes far worse bill. Dooms GOP.

Trump told me Obamacare is going to implode at any minute anyway.

Even the passage of the AHCA will anger a lot of people in the middle that voted for Trump. Not necessarily the Trump base, they will trust Trump's divine instinct, to know the way when all other lights have gone out... But, reasonable people in the middle will be angered. Will they flip Democrat in '18? That depends on if the Democrats can muster any candidates worth voting for. Because the identity politics strategy is worn and tired.
 
Trump told me Obamacare is going to implode at any minute anyway.

Even the passage of the AHCA will anger a lot of people in the middle that voted for Trump. Not necessarily the Trump base, they will trust Trump's divine instinct, to know the way when all other lights have gone out... But, reasonable people in the middle will be angered. Will they flip Democrat in '18? That depends on if the Democrats can muster any candidates worth voting for. Because the identity politics strategy is worn and tired.

Well, the administration's suggestion they would let the ACA die also just means they get stuck with the consequences of very publicly saying that's what they'd do and just being the guy at the helm that had it fall apart.
 
Actually I get excited just squeezing into a tight parking space.

Then you've already figured out how to stop a massive arterial hemorrhage without relying on CommieCare.
 
Then you've already figured out how to stop a massive arterial hemorrhage without relying on CommieCare.

But what my once a quarter colonoscopy?
 
It's their money.

Not really. Taxes belong to the country.

We all earn our money by virtue of the services and environment that the country provides. The electric grid, the interstate system, dams for electricity, street lights, clean air and water, government agencies that handle car registrations and deeds and records, etc.

Every citizen contributes to the country proportionate to his or her income. We pool that money for us to use to support the continuance of our country and the government, keep the environment clean and protected for future generations and enable us to make a living and pursue a free, happy, healthy life.

True to the nature of human beings, some are selfish and don't want to acknowledge the community that contributed to their success or their duty to contribute to the community, like the rest of us. Ironically, it is often those with the most who resent paying their fair share.

Our country doesn't ask much of the wealthy. Most pay a lower percentage of their income to the country than the middle class. And some very wealthy people and corporations pay nothing at all, legally.

So, no...it's not "their" money in the sense that they are not entitled to dictate how the country sees fit to use it in the best interest of the country. I may disagree with the use of my taxes, such as for a war I don't support. But we don't get to dictate specifically how each dollar of our taxes can be used. Which makes sense.

All civilized societies provide a safety net for those at the bottom, for our most vulnerable. All civilized societies provide health care to all of its citizens. That's the least of which a country should do for its citizens. If someone disagrees, maybe they should move to another country and see if their success can continue over there. Of course, if they move to another country, they'll have to look for one that doesn't provide the basics to its citizens. There aren't many successful, civilized countries that don't do that. Except here in the U.S., where people die for lack of health care.
 
Last edited:
But what my once a quarter colonoscopy?

Oh, that's the "Get a bar friend drunk and make him regret that he promised to do anything for you" package.
 
Trump would first have to know what's in Trumpcare in order to have an opinion of its contents.

Right you are--trump has such a limited attention span.

Isn't it great to see the governing party have its civil war heat back up?

They deserve it after what they did to Obama the last 8 years and what they did to gain the triumvirate .
 
He's putting on a good act that he wants it to pass. He went to Congress today to tell them to pass it "or else there will be consequences."

It's probably just a "win" thing to Trump. He needs a success badly right now. Also, he needs to get this behind him so that he and Congress can get to the real piece de resistance of his reason for being in the White House: The Tax Bill.....the big giveaway to corporations of billions of dollars in taxes, partly funded by taking away meals on wheels from old people, free lunches to poor kids, health care for millions, cuts to Medicaid and Medicare.

So on everything else he does what he said he was going to do but here he supports a plan that does very little of what he said he wants, here he betrays us as well as himself?

Maybe, but I need to hear the fat lady sing before I say that's what happened.
 
So on everything else he does what he said he was going to do but here he supports a plan that does very little of what he said he wants, here he betrays us as well as himself?

Maybe, but I need to hear the fat lady sing before I say that's what happened.

Trump is getting rid of the ten essential health benefits. Pretty sure that applies to you.

And yeah, your premiums are going to make today's premiums look free by comparison.
 
Trump is getting rid of the ten essential health benefits. Pretty sure that applies to you.

And yeah, your premiums are going to make today's premiums look free by comparison.

I am on Tri-Care which is practically free and while there has been chatter over the years to change that I am not aware that RyanCare does.

This is not about me.
 
I am on Tri-Care which is practically free and while there has been chatter over the years to change that I am not aware that RyanCare does.

This is not about me.

Are you forgetting about Ryan trying to take away part of COLA in late 2013 from Veteran's pensions ?
 
Will House Republicans muster the votes to pass the American Health Care Act tomorrow? I don’t know. But if they don’t, a major reason will be that President Trump’s closing argument was weak.

As my colleague Andrew Prokop noted, Trump’s final pitch “doesn’t include anything even remotely resembling an affirmative case for the actual bill House Republicans have to vote on.” This may be because Trump doesn’t actually understand the bill they’re voting on. But lacking a persuasive case to make on the merits, Trump has defaulted to an unpersuasive case on the politics.
Trump?s weak closing argument on health care ? and why it matters - Vox

Maybe the weak close is because he does not want this bill, that he is playing politics, that it fails and he almost immediately says "I have a better idea!".
 
Back
Top Bottom