You always used "bothsidesism" Will. We'd never do it till Trump came along and showed us the way, made us fight. That's what galls ya. You had the whole playing field to yourselves.
No more of that happy horse . Uh, uh.
Um no. This is a generations-old issue. ACA has been a giant financial burden on too many families, IF this helps, great. But it really hasn't changed much aside from "millions more are covered" yet here we are a decade plus later arguing about who gets to be covered.
But yeah, instead of discussing an issue, your auto response was "bothsideism". I didn't say anything to prop up Conservative points other than the system is bull and the government is ridiculous for not regulating.
Those won't work nearly as well as Trump's plan to sell insurance across state lines would!
Just imagine how much costs would go down if Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia was directly competing with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Maryland!!!
Are our tax dollars best spent on medical care or getting people medical coverage? There's a giant difference and why we're still arguing for people with pre-existing conditions Administrations and decades later. I guess holding the entirety of our government *edit* accountable is "bothsideism".
Chooch:::the voice of reason & moderation in troubled times.
21:::a horse's patootie.
You're propping up conservatives by broadly saying "the government" is not regulating when it's actually Democrats who are trying to regulate things like drug prices while conservatives get in the way. It's an intentional obfuscation to avoid discussing what the actual obstacle to healthcare reform is.
Uh yeah actually, glibly blaming the politicians who want healthcare reform just as much as you blame the politicians who actively obstruct healthcare reform is by definition what bothsidesism is.
By your logic any time there's a car accident "the entirety of the drivers" should receive equal blame
See, just say that. But no, you try to frame everyone of differing opinion into one label because that's not what I meant.
And then made a whataboutism post. LOL
Look pal, you could argue easy ignorance, but don't be an assumptive hard to have a dialogue with.
So what did you mean exactly?
Been multiple administrations. The best solution we got was forced medical insurance programs that eliminated choice and coverages as premiums rose year over year and hurt as many as it helped. What good is being "Covered" if we're still arguing over if coverage takes care of everyone.
And LOL with a hard-sell comparison.
I mentioned no side. Me saying "the government" triggered you into a assumptions and saw you create a whataboutism to fit your view of me.
The ACA sucks. Everyone involved in making it a flawed system sucks. It can be fixed easily and on the cheap with regulation. A ticket to selected coverages sucks.
Just LOL.
I'm definitely not denying that the ACA was a trash healthcare plan that didn't address the actual problem of cost, but it seems like we disagree as to why it was such a trash bill.
So who's getting in the way of regulating? God knows there have been plenty of proposals and efforts to regulate healthcare costs as long as I've been alive, somehow none of them ever get enough votes in congress. Why is that?
It's insurance focused and does nothing to lower actual healthcare costs and/or improve the quality. I can't be convinced insurance that makes most of the patients and practices choices is a trash system.
As in your entire life or just recently?
Because recently, the Cult. Overall, during the modern times everyone has had a chance to regulate it.
As long as lobbying exists, our country will always be for sale. The reason I voted Trump in 16 was because I fell for draining the swamp and pretty much jumped off the wagon a few months into. So...yeah, that didn't work out...
Sorry I wasn't clear. We agree on why it's a trash bill, it seems like we disagree on how it became a trash bill.
My entire life. Heck, even before I was born, Ted Kennedy had a healthcare proposal that would have been infinitely better than what we have now.
And I guess it depends on what you mean by had a chance to regulate it. You need 60 votes in the senate to regulate anything, and even when Obama had 60 "Democrats" in the senate for a few months, 1 of them was Joe Lieberman, who's sole focus at that point was setting up a cushy insurance lobbyist job for himself once his term in the senate was over, which is how the healthcare bill that originally passed in the house in 2009 that actually had cost controls and a public option got chopped up and turned into an insurance industry blowjob.
The Democrats are far from perfect, but right now they're the party that relies exponentially less on lobbying money than the GOP does and seems at least partially beholden to the voters who put them in office.
government provided care would turn doctors/hospitals into government employees/enterprises. government provided coverage (like medicare) is still pretty popular among those who have that coverage.
government provided coverage would certainly be an upgrade to what we have now, imo. it seems to work abroad.
Funnily enough, the lack of standing is derived from the GOP gutting the penalty, which means there's no actionable damage to the States. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.
We were never going to turn that over once McCain lived long enough to thumb it down. Christ, he hung on and on and on. Just long enough.
And frankly that is what I thought Ginsburg was going to do, just to smite us. The kicker, El? They were stupid not to be put her on a ventilator.
I digress...once McCain the bed we had to be happy just to get the mandate/monetary damages wiped out. And we did. The former aim (to wipe it out) was beyond the pale. The mandate was the common sense bullseye and we nailed it, denying race hustler Hussein his onions, that disturbed .
McCain hung on, the stubborn old bas .
RBG's family had the decency not to be put her in state of suspended animation, or, whatever the the term is.
Their argument was that an bill originally passed in 2010 was made uncons utional by an amendment to said bill passed in 2017, thus the 2010 bill itself should be gutted rather than the actual amendment that made it uncons utional. It was a totally incoherent argument.
Bottom line, Will:::you got no mandate, no bar to monetarily punish people for skipping it. That was the linchpin, the mean spirit that ruled, well, rules race hustler extraordinaire Hussein. That's his thing. Like mother er Biden getting installed and immediately closing down the pipeline. BINGO. $1 a gallon price increase, like always when your side gets in there. Stick it to the American, first thing, every time.
The Trumpster had that all taken care of...that Yogi scribe got sliced to ribbons by SRB, , or, ACT, whatever that ragheads name is. Did Trump take a fit? No, because what does it mean when 1 media member is dismembered. It means it's a good start, Will, a good start. But I digress...President Trump jumped on it and the Bat Phone:::"Hey compadre'...I'll make sure you're untouchable, you keep oil at $__ a barrel. Si'?"
"A thank a you, a Mr. a Presi-a-dent. You a good a man. I a send you a dozen of a Jordan Almonds like at the picture a show. Say hi to a Mel. A Chow!"
"Gesundheit, mi' amigo. I have to hang up now, we're fixin' to eat. Some old coot from Arizona sent me a cornbread. Bye."
"Mel,,,lots of butter, so Dale says."
tee, hee.
I don't speak re ed boomer, if you want to have a conversation with me clean your brain up and start typing in plain English like a normal person.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)