Donald Trump

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by zico20

Why not. Obama guaranteed it. Now we get a president who knows what he is doing and things can improve dramatically with the right people working on it.

Some things are going to get drastically better and some things are not. The number getting health care from work is around 170 million, that has to grow to over 200 million fast. Before the ACA self employed people could buy insurance, after the ACA they still will. Young people will have a much better time with employment that have health care benefits. There are so many here on Pace Advantage that want comparable to Canada, it is never going to happen. When the economy builds up and more people are working the ACA will not be remembered in a good light, and sure there will be people cursing Trump but not the folks going to work.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by zico20

I am well aware of that. What you are basically saying is that Obama went on national tv and lied to the American public about Obamacare. Liberals don't seem to have a problem with his shameful rhetoric to deceive the entire country.

I don't think anyone had a real clue about exactly how it would all come out. Remember that a lot of the "analysis" came from the Congressional Budget Office. Hindsight is 20-20.

But you simply have to get off what Obama said and what his motivation was. Two weeks and Trump know has the responsibility for the program. As Dick Nixon said, you won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more. Although Bush was good to blame everything on for a few years after Obama was elected.

What would you call what Trump was doing when he promised lower premiums, lower deductibles, and better coverage? Ironic that you think liberals don't have a problem with Obama's rhetoric, because it appears that the exact same rhetoric from Trump's lips is viewed differently by, I guess, the conservatives. Now in your mind if he said he could do something - even if he sincerely believed it at the time - and it was obvious he couldn't do it - like lower premiums and deductibles while increasing coverage - he was lying.

The comical thing is that other than Clocker - who believes both sides are corrupt and co-opted - both sides believe that whatever comes out of their guy's mouth is the word of God but the other guy is a lying scumbag. You're as naive as a child if you think those "liberals" are going to remember Obama as the devil any more than they should think your side is going to come to its senses and see Trump as the clown who would be president.

Focus. I've made the important points about the ACA, and Trump can send out a tweet a minute and it won't lead to repeal without a really smart replacement. It's not going to get cheaper - not if you have low deductibles and good coverage. And if you take away all the stuff people got used to over six years, you might not be smart expecting them to just throw up their arms and agree they should have lost those benefits.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

And the parents whose children were covered to age 26, not to mention the children themselves. And the people who liked that routine care was included in the premium. Naturally the few people who had catastrophic illness (like a heart transplant) and no longer had to worry about hitting lifetime maximums might think the ACA was a good deal. Oh, and the people who got subsidies to pay their premiums. Don't forget the half of the population - many refer to them as women - who no longer had to pay a higher premium based on sex. And you don't want to leave out the people who all of a sudden became eligible for Medicaid. So the only people were actually quite a few people.

You cannot (in this reality) lower premiums AND reduce deductibles AND increase coverage. Reality is very simple. Not even if you try to make Mexico or Canada pay for it. You can't provide relief to those who have had to pay the price for universal coverage - the young, the healthy and the wealthy - without a roughly equal and offsetting toll on the old, the sick and the poor, all of whom were the disproportionate beneficiaries of the ACA.

80% of the people in a Kaiser Health Poll said the ACA should not be repealed before the Republicans have a replacement plan. People aren't stupid. Before they give up anything that was handed to them in the ACA, they want to know what the new deal will be. Good luck with that.

And who paid for all this?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The comical thing is that other than Clocker - who believes both sides are corrupt and co-opted - both sides believe that whatever comes out of their guy's mouth is the word of God but the other guy is a lying scumbag.

Thanks for putting your words into my virtual mouth yet again. I am not even going to try to sort it out for you.

P.S. The second part of that sentence describes a lot, but not all, of the posters here. There are still some independent thinkers floating around the backstretch.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I don't think anyone had a real clue about exactly how it would all come out. Remember that a lot of the "analysis" came from the Congressional Budget Office. Hindsight is 20-20.

Not so. The stuff about saving an average family $2500 a year came from an independent study not related to the ACA, and based on assumptions that were never considered for the ACA. Obama thought it sounded good and stuck it in a speech.

The part about keeping your doctor came from Obama's medical advisor, Zeke "Dr. Death" Emanuel, Rahm's brother. He "recalibrated" that much later in an interview. He admitted that the full and true statement was that under the ACA if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor, if you could afford your doctor. He added, on air, that the part about affording your doctor was the small print, and cynically stated that you don't put the small print in a political stump speech.

And the snake-oil salesman that masterminded the whole con game of selling it to the public was an MIT economist and consultant, Jonathan Gruber, who was caught on tape a number of times boasting that the ACA was purposely made a lot more complicated than needed in order to keep the "stupid" American public from figuring out was the bill really did.

In yet another, from a speech at the University of Pennsylvania in 2013, he explains that the very function of the law -- doing what it was designed to do -- was totally unpalatable to voters (that is, if only we'd turned away from our Cheetos bags and NASCAR races long enough to catch it).

"If you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in -- if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed."

To hammer the point home, he admits that the sales pitch was one big cover-up operation: "Lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass."

And in still another video he's caught telling Washington University at St. Louis in 2013 that one important provision of the bill passed "because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/opinio...are/index.html

[Tom]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

And who paid for all this?

The Russians?

[FantasticDan]

[woodtoo]

The final 12 days of confirmation.

[Tom]

Point of order here, please.
Which is worse, a loser or a deplorable????


OMG!
WTF"
BOL - bunch of losers
or
BOD - basket of deplorables.
LOL!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

And who paid for all this?

The same people who paid before the ACA. Those with insurance. Was that supposed to be some sort of trick question?

But that was not where I was going. I was responding to the post that said the only people really defending ACA are people who hit their maxes or were uninsurable due to preexisting conditions and pointing out there were a whole lot more winners in the ACA than just the pre-existing condition crowd. The point - and this is not inconsequential - is that the number of people who sampled the ACA is a bigger number than you might think, and wiping out all those benefits just might create a backlash the Repubs didn't want or need.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Thanks for putting your words into my virtual mouth yet again. I am not even going to try to sort it out for you.

P.S. The second part of that sentence describes a lot, but not all, of the posters here. There are still some independent thinkers floating around the backstretch.

I thought with your sense of humor you'd have found that sentence a real gut buster.

Of course the problem with the independent thinkers is that they still get stained with partisanship anyway. The rule I've seen is, if you don't agree with me you're a stinking liberal/conservative.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Not so. The stuff about saving an average family $2500 a year came from an independent study not related to the ACA, and based on assumptions that were never considered for the ACA. Obama thought it sounded good and stuck it in a speech.

The part about keeping your doctor came from Obama's medical advisor, Zeke "Dr. Death" Emanuel, Rahm's brother. He "recalibrated" that much later in an interview. He admitted that the full and true statement was that under the ACA if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor, if you could afford your doctor. He added, on air, that the part about affording your doctor was the small print, and cynically stated that you don't put the small print in a political stump speech.

I've said on a number of occasions that the ACA needed serious amendment. The problem, of course, was that politics was always going to prevent the two sides from having an effective debate. The Republicans were never going to allow Obama to have a negotiated bill that was effective - he was always going to get the credit for a good bill as much as the blame for a bad one. And Obama employed a horrible strategy in getting the bill passed by pretending the Republicans didn't exist. In reality, they both get to claim "credit" for what got passed, one in the active tense, one in the passive.

The question that prompted the post was not necessarily where Obama drew his facts from, but whether what he said qualified for a lie at the time. To be a lie he had to know it was wrong and say it anyway for expedient political reasons. And even so, if that was the standard, you'd hardly have an elected official that wouldn't get convicted. Still, the CBO said that the ACA would lower healthcare costs and reduce the debt. If Obama quotes the CBO, or any other legitimate study, that supports his position, is that ever more than political expediency?

A lot of people said a lot of things, and to a great degree they were simply being partisans. But I'll stick to what I said. Nobody really knew how it would all shake out, but now that we know, time to fix it.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I thought with your sense of humor you'd have found that sentence a real gut buster.

Of course the problem with the independent thinkers is that they still get stained with partisanship anyway. The rule I've seen is, if you don't agree with me you're a stinking liberal/conservative.

Humor generally is based on the exaggeration of truth. The last element was absent.

The second observation was never so true as in this election. The least little criticism of Trump meant that you were a foaming at the mouth Kool Aid drinker who wanted to eliminate borders and pack SCOTUS with judges far left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The slightest hint that Hillary was not infallible and pure as the driven snow meant that you were an in-bred retarded redneck racist at the bottom of a basket of deplorables.

[Tom]

Pretty much the way it was.
Trump was not the best choice, he was the only one.

[woodtoo]

Fiat/Chrysler to invest $1 billion in Michigan and Ohio w/2,000 jobs.
"and we will win, and you will win, and we will keep on winning...."