• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump Ramps Up Obamacare Sabotage With Huge Cuts To Enrollment Programs


That is, of course, the normal false argument. First of all the choise of source is biased as is the vote much later in the process of negotiations than compromise would have been sensible. The vote actually shows how uncompromising Obama must have been. Otherwise he would have been expected to have collected at least a couple of votes American politics being, what they are.
 
The ACA itself is a compromise...

Even within a leftist party you need to compromise. In this case it was between Obama and the more level minded factiin of Democrats.
 
That is, of course, the normal false argument. First of all the choise of source is biased as is the vote much later in the process of negotiations than compromise would have been sensible. The vote actually shows how uncompromising Obama must have been. Otherwise he would have been expected to have collected at least a couple of votes American politics being, what they are.

I just have to point out that other than a baseless assertion, you've made no argument at all or otherwise offered any evidence for your position.

Those of us who followed the discussion remember very well that the analogy of Lucy with her football was common. Republican talks with Democrats, proposes an amendment, then promises that even if they get it, their vote will still be HELL NO! It was a running joke on the sites I visited with several examples. The point is unless GOPer is willing to trade "compromise" for a "YES" vote the democrats have no incentive to work and make the bill more amenable to conservatives, who will they promise still vote no. And time after time after time after time, Democrats negotiated with republicans and got HELL NO back in response where it mattered, on the vote.

And you have to give the GOP credit - the rode 100% opposition to Obamacare to devastating losses for Democrats across the country. That was planned from the beginning and it worked out wonderfully for the GOP. Give credit where it's due, and don't insult us with revisionist history.
 
That is, of course, the normal false argument. First of all the choise of source is biased as is the vote much later in the process of negotiations than compromise would have been sensible.

Your assertion that the source is biased is sour grapes. In reality, you possess no viable counter-argument supplemented with supplied facts
 
That is, of course, the normal false argument. First of all the choise of source is biased as is the vote much later in the process of negotiations than compromise would have been sensible. The vote actually shows how uncompromising Obama must have been. Otherwise he would have been expected to have collected at least a couple of votes American politics being, what they are.

That's utterly absurd.
 
Yes, sounds like you're a PR expert. :roll:

Nothing at all about $100 million being spent on advertising? Glad you're ok with your tax money being spent like that. I am most definitely not. Think how much food that would buy people, how many people that would house, etc. It's insane, but oh, because it promotes Obama care it's ok? BS. Our priorities are ****ed up.
 
There is a little bit of a difference. Everyone over 65 has Medicare, and virtually every senior who can afford it has a supplemental plan. So that advertising is targeted to consumers who WILL BUY and the question is whether they'll pick BCBS or AARP's plan or whoever. And Medicare isn't going anywhere.

The advertising for ACA targets the millions who probably never have had insurance and are being persuaded to buy it for the first time. Plus, no insurers in 2017 can be confident that customers they get this year won't be lost when as promised the GOP trashes the system and replaces it with something else unknown. So there is no long term payoff. That's of course another way they're purposely undermining ACA by introducing all the uncertainty they possibly can so that insurers have little incentive to invest for the long term. So Trump and the GOP are providing every possible disincentive they can both to consumers and insurers.

It's a deliberate attempt to burn the ACA down because they can't pass their own alternative on the merits. It's obvious - everyone knows what they're doing.

Again, if it's so great, why do people have to be "persuaded"? $100 million to "persuade" people. WASTEFUL SPENDING.
 
Nothing at all about $100 million being spent on advertising? Glad you're ok with your tax money being spent like that. I am most definitely not. Think how much food that would buy people, how many people that would house, etc. It's insane, but oh, because it promotes Obama care it's ok? BS. Our priorities are ****ed up.
Those tv adverts were primary driver for getting new people insured.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Trump promised to get rid of Obamacare. You libs are just delusional. You expect him to promote it. I want it gone, he better not be promoting it.

He promised to get rid of it and replace it with something better, and that he would take care of everyone.



Face it, Trump is a lying sack of garbage.
 
Again, if it's so great, why do people have to be "persuaded"? $100 million to "persuade" people. WASTEFUL SPENDING.

If being in the military is so great, why do people have to be persuaded? WASTEFUL SPENDING! Q.E.D.
 
Nothing at all about $100 million being spent on advertising? Glad you're ok with your tax money being spent like that. I am most definitely not. Think how much food that would buy people, how many people that would house, etc. It's insane, but oh, because it promotes Obama care it's ok? BS. Our priorities are ****ed up.

We could do that all day. Trump could fund the education efforts just by staying at the WH instead of going to a golf course every weekend. Just think how much healthcare we could provide by cutting defense by 10%? One fewer bomber is at least 5 years of education! etc........................

And what it does is get people insured, which helps them and it lowers premiums for those who are already insured. So it improves the healthcare system for everyone, republicans included! And if our priorities ever get so ****ed up that we think that is a bad thing to do, then we'll know we've truly gone over the edge, and it's time to burn it all down.
 
He promised to get rid of it and replace it with something better, and that he would take care of everyone.
Get rid of it, that is the priority. Then they can try to "replace" it. Something with minimal government involvement and free market capitalism.
 
Maggie.. there is no such insurance as "obamacare"..

Just because the Left wants to distance itself from the ACA doesn't mean they get to get rid of its nickname.
 
Well, actually, you can't buy insurance that is "Obamacare." You can buy a policy from BCBS or Cigna, or the dozens of other health insurers out there, ON and OFF the exchanges, with premiums and plan details set by those companies etc. but there is no policy anywhere called Obamacare, and there is no monopoly.



You know that the GOP took the House in 2010, and spent the next 6 years taking about 87 repeal votes, right?

And I don't really know what your point is here. What Trump is doing is deliberately harming those on the exchanges, trying to increase the premiums they pay, make their lives worse off. They did it first by shortening the sign up period by about half, then by almost eliminating advertising and cutting funds groups that help people get into a good plan. The only end point can be fewer people with insurance, and higher premiums for those who are insured. So because that's the inevitable result, we have to assume that is what Trump WANTS.

And the reason that's the strategy is the GOP and Trump can't say, "repeal the ACA because our plan is BETTER!" No one believes that. Their plan after 8 years of promises we all knew were BS was a plan that as I recall polled about 14% and was opposed by every major group with an interest in the legislation, including the healthcare industry, insurers, their own GOP governors, and conservative groups. So the only option now is to intentionally burn down the ACA, so we can replace it with "Who the hell knows what these lazy morons will come up with?"

If you want to defend that, be my guest. I think it's pathetic, and a perfect illustration of where the Republican party is in 2017. They can't sell their ideas, not even to their own governors, so they'll burn the system down and leave us with no choice.
My organization helps sign folks up. It doesn't really pay to do it, but we do it. Also try to save state government a ton of money by automatically linking prisoners to Medicaid Expansion, thereby reducing likelihood they get back in to institutional prison facilities and other institutional care facilities which cost exponentially more than ordinary community providers (both public and private).

Yesterday we had to make the decision to pull back our efforts, because we can't send folks out to do the work without compensation from the feds.

Oh well, I guess the state can expect the budget to take yet another hit by funneling millions of more dollars into prisons, because my state won't spend its resources to make sure to insulate its own budget and somehow totally likes what this President is doing.

Healthcare for mental health and substance abuse is going to get paid by the public one way or the other. We just tried to be the ones helping people get Expansion instead of paying a system to provide treatment to prisoners at many times the cost per person.

Welcome to GOP state government: shooting itself in the foot every chance they get.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
He promised to get rid of it and replace it with something better, and that he would take care of everyone.



Face it, Trump is a lying sack of garbage.

He wasn't lying so much as indifferent to truth, fiction, or otherwise.

All he wants is a signing ceremony and credit. The content of the bill matters not.

If Alexander's committee produces a bill with traction enough to be signed by the President, he may do it and faithfully execute it.

But that may only be if the media coverage claims he helped it along or that the bill is an improvement upon the ACA. Otherwise, he is just as liable to have another hissy fit and give the green light to Price and Verma to hose it and Medicaid.

He's operating the administration much like he did his business: he doesn't do anything except slap his name on it and takes credit.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Considering that the CBO now projects the cost of the ACA to eclipse $2 trillion, it's not a question of sabotage. We simply can't afford it.
 
Your assertion that the source is biased is sour grapes. In reality, you possess no viable counter-argument supplemented with supplied facts

If I post something written by Bill Maher or Michael Moore are you just gonna accept it at face value?
 
Considering that the CBO now projects the cost of the ACA to eclipse $2 trillion, it's not a question of sabotage. We simply can't afford it.

Source that for me
 
Congressional Budget Office.

Link the report you are citing. They have like eight reports on the ACA, and more on "replacement" bills. Show me the one you're citing.

(you can't because your actual source is some blog talking about the CBO report and you never checked to see if they accurately represented it)
 
I'm not sure who to be more disgusted with, our ignorant soulless president or the ignorant soulless, drooling followers that cheer him on as he sabotages our healthcare system costing Americans not only more for healthcare but countless lives.
Say what you will about Hillary but she would not screw millions of people out pure spite.

He promised to fix healthcare, he said it would be great and oh so easy. How is destroying g it giving "everyone" insurance?
 
Last edited:
Get rid of it, that is the priority. Then they can try to "replace" it. Something with minimal government involvement and free market capitalism.

Yah.because that "free market" worked so VERY well in the past...
 
It is a monopoly. Try to buy insurance that isn't Obamacare. No can do.

I'm sincerely curious. How many Democratic bills were put before Congress in Obama's last few years in office? These problems didn't just begin to occur seven months ago. Did the Dems do anything to fix this mess? And how did the Repubs sabotage the ACA during Obama's reign?

LOL How clueless can you be? Minority parties cannot get bills thru Congress with no majority support. Don't you think passing ACA repeal bill after repeal bill is sabotage?
 
LOL How clueless can you be? Minority parties cannot get bills thru Congress with no majority support. Don't you think passing ACA repeal bill after repeal bill is sabotage?

Oh, I can be pretty clueless, Iguanaman.
 
Link the report you are citing. They have like eight reports on the ACA, and more on "replacement" bills. Show me the one you're citing.

(you can't because your actual source is some blog talking about the CBO report and you never checked to see if they accurately represented it)

I can show you quite a bit, and they aren't blogs, and they do include all the tax hikes you folks and the CBO don't address.

CBO: Obamacare?s 10-Year Costs Will Now Eclipse $2 Trillion | The Weekly Standard

www.washingtonexaminer.com/cbo-obamacare-to-cost-2-trillion-over-the-next-decade/article/2559276

https://www.forbes.com/.../learning-from-cbos-history-of-incorrect- obamacare-projections/‎

www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-costs-double-CBO/2012/03/14/id/432506/

Furthermore, the CBO has been tracking the increases, even without considering the additional tax hikes to fund it, for quite some time now. You folks only talk about such things when you believe they favor your narrative.
 
Back
Top Bottom