President Donald Trump: The Thread

[bigruss]

It's hard to respond because there's not much specificity here but to be fair to greg, it's not atypical for people to follow politics around the election and then stop caring after. I am so sick of the whole golfing though. Throughout GWB's presidency he was the vacationing and golfing president ridiculed by the left. Then Obama golfs ten times as much as GWB and the left would go to war defending him. Trump's golfing just like the past two Presidents have. I care less about the golfing that every president does and I am far more concerned about the ridiculous amounts of travel expenses Trump has racked up with all the security and everything that goes into it the giant production that is moving the president around.

 

Well sure, but it's an easy thing to ride on and point out the hypocrisy of Trump. Are there worse things he's done? Sure, but this one is just low hanging fruit with a lot of soundbites to go with it.

 

As far as your general comments about Trump's presidency, I don't know if you can generalize that much. Maybe it's not in line with what you want, but he hasn't done anything earth shattering in anyway. He's just pushing some republican policy, some democratic policy, and lying and fumbling through the execution of it all. I am not sure which rich people have benefitted from Trump to this point. He hasn't touched taxes yet, and god do I hope he does, and his healthcare proposal was more in line with a democratic proposal than a republican proposal. What has helped the rich people that has actually been done?

 

How was his HC proposal in line with democrats? I think I missed that part.

If Trump is serious about taking down the government spending it's going to be a long four years with the left freaking out every time he cuts/decreases spending in a program. Sure, you can character cast him pretty effectively when he does that, but the government was never meant to be everyone's daddy. The country is in overwhelming debt. Everyone gets that but doesn't seem to get that social programs will have to be cut to decrease the debt. Even that will cause a minimal effect if anything. You may not like it and think it doesn't help poor people but there's a need to reign in the government.

You can cut expenditures and not impact only social programs. Not only is he cutting social programs, but he's increasing military funding and building a stupid f***ing wall. Yea, I'm pretty outraged at that, and if your concern is illegal immigration than so should you, because that s*** will get exploited so easily.

 

For example, there's people who have no idea what the EPA does and assume when Trump cuts spending he's trying to murder endangered animals and pollute the air. It's just easy for the uninformed to be so virtuous and jump on the altruistic boat. Do you care about the environment? Then you must support the EPA or you hate animals and the earth. There's global interdependence there. The USA shouldn't have such stringent standards when China can ruin the world by itself when considering some of the science theory put forward in the mainstream. A country with a crippling debt shouldn't be pouring money into an agency that's productivity is unclear.

So you just defund it? If change is needed, fine, change it. Don't just give up.

The vast majority of the country has had no personal effect of Trump being elected. Other than getting freaked out of course.

I'm tired of this, just because I personally wasn't affected doesn't mean I can't be upset with his policies. Maybe I actually care about people other than myself.

[greg775]

This has been explained before, but I'll try one more time:

 

A lot of us believe that if Trump is successful in implementing his agenda, a whole lot of people will suffer unnecessarily and progressive in many areas in our country will be set back years if not decades or even irreparably in the case of global warming.

 

I'm hopeful that Trump fails miserably and quickly so that the USA may succeed instead. I think Trump's agenda is directly at odds with a "successful" US, even if he and his supporters don't.

Interesting post. But barring impeachment he's in for four years. In my world I don't want four more years down the tubes economy wise. Strange, I don't think you have to worry about him being re-elected. I'd be shocked if he runs again. So him "failing miserably and quickly" helps nobody. Now if you want impeachment and mean impeachment, OK, say that and I would agree. Impeach him if he deserves that. Otherwise ... make America great NOW!

 

Health care companies getting richer is proof that Obama care "ruined healthcare". Smaller companies that couldn't keep up with all of the ridiculous regulations had to shut down, limiting competition for the larger companies. Now the larger companies can do what they want and limit offerings as they so please. They only offer in the locations where they most profit. If you aren't part of a large group they like, then they limit your access to the majority of their doctors and hospitals, since you have no other companies to choose from. If you are not part of a large corporate group, you are at the mercy of the big health insurance companies, if they wish to help you. But at least they are profiting. I wonder where the majority of their political donations went.

Nice post IMO.

 

He did.

Link

 

The problem is that people like you keep giving him a pass like it's ok.

OK, then he deserves the criticism over golf.

 

Greg always has an excuse for not being too hard on Trump and giving him the benefit of the doubt, even though Trump has literally done nothing positive or beneficial for the majority of Americans. In fact, most experts agree that this has been one of the most inept White Houses in history so far.

Contrast that to his attitude towards Clinton during the campaign, where he would lambast her for not smiling enough or whatever his pet peeve of the day was.

I do despise Hillary obviously. I never commented on her looks, Sqwert, that's unfair. I never blasted her for smiling, etc. I don't know why I can't get my point across better on why I am not that hard on Trump. I thought I examined both sides of this. Nutshell: If impeachable offense, impeach him. If not ... hope he does well; God Bless the USA, etc."

 

What do you guys need to hear from greg? You all disagree with him and always have. What's there to iron out? He's not going to start embracing the groupthink around here. Has Trump had a strong presidency so far? No. Has greg made a cogent article in defending Trump? No. Does that really call for all of you gangbanging him? You all know he's not going to change his opinion just like you aren't. Respect the fact that people have different opinions.

 

It's amazing, the same people who militantly opposed Trump because he was a bully are now doing the bullying anyone who tries to support him.

Thank you rabbit.

 

My problem is he excuses Trump for virtually everything he ridiculed and railed against Hillary for, then comes into the thread, tells everyone he barely pays attention and yet still can tell us that Trump makes him laugh and Golfing is fine because why not.

Virtually all of it is to financially benefit Trump and the rich people he associates with, and that usually ends up with people like me, and like Greg, holding the bag at the end

I don't see where I'm excusing Trump much. We're 100 days in. I'm not a blind Trump supporter. Why can't anybody summize my positions in an accurate manner? Do you all truly think I'm a 100 percent Trump guy?? Now obviously I despise Hillary. But as a Republican I liked Obama. Are all of you as open minded as me?? Thanx again Rabbit. It grows old being despised.

[southsider2k5]

There was no fluff. You ignored basic economics to act as if an economic trend serves as a point of success for the ACA. Insurance companies have always had a great control of the premiums and government gave them the even greater control of the premiums with the ACA by making an individual mandate. They skewed the supply and demand. I never said the ACA is failing nor that it is killing the HC industry. I bordered on the contrary with the latter. I said everyone knew the ACA would help the insurance companies. I had plenty of people in industry and people in my personal life who told me it would be wise to invest in Aetna after the ACA was put in place. They were right. Healthcare was a bullish market at the time. That's not a coincidence.

 

Your logic is interesting though. The HC and insurance industries are booming because of the ACA but the ACA has to be changed because the insurance companies are crooked. You probably wish they weren't given so much power then, huh? And you were just singing the praises of the ACA for enriching the insurance companies and causing so much growth.

 

Not to mention the focus on premiums is too narrow, and purposefully so. It ignores how many peoples plans were destroyed as so called "Cadillac plans", and had to opt for more expensive insurance, or insurance that covers way less, forcing more out of pocket expenses. It also ignores that deductibles have exploded in recent years as well. People with high deductible plans have doubled in the last 10 years, with that curve accelerating. Costs of all medical services have also kept exploding. Drug costs have exploded as well. Taxes have been added all over the place to pay for this. Instead of costs being up front as they used to be, now they are coming from all angles, while claiming success because one of those pieces has seen its increases decrease in size.

 

Not to mention the mandate is the single biggest loss for individual rights for the general public in a long time, but no one seems to care about that because apparently moving towards a socialistic system where the government decides for you is more important than actual freedoms when it comes to health care.

 

The sad part is that the GOP had a change to seize on all of this and do something that would have actually helped the American public, but just like the Democrats did, they pissed away their chance to do some real good instead of exacerbating things.

[caulfield12]

Basically, Joe Lieberman and lobbyists for Big Insurance/Big Pharma killed the single payer public option

 

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option...p;jumival=18759

 

WENDELL POTTER: Well, they couldn't pass a public option because the insurance industry is so powerful that it just simply said, that's not going to happen. And all it takes, even with the Democrats with big majorities in both the House (in 2009/10), and the Senate, they couldn't get it through, because the insurance industry knew that they had at least one or two Democrats on their side, and Joe Lieberman was their go-to guy.

 

He was from Connecticut; a lot of insurance companies are based there. They were good to Lieberman over the years, and so he was the guy who really put the knife in the public option. It actually had passed over on the House side, but they couldn't get the votes on the Senate side.

 

That was job Number 1 for the insurance industry. They knew that that was very threatening. They knew –- although they wouldn't admit this -– that they would have a hard time really competing against a government-run healthcare plan that people could enroll in.

 

AARON MATÉ: And you've been among many people to point out that the public option itself was a pretty minimal proposal. It would not have covered everybody, and the coverage it would've offered certainly would've been pretty bare bones.

 

WENDELL POTTER: By the time, yes. By the time it reached the point in the Senate that it might, or might not have been the bill, it had been watered down quite a bit. You're exactly right. There were so many restrictions. It still would've been maybe a start. It would've been the beginning of a government-created, government-run healthcare plan. But the insurance industry just, as I guess you would say, to make sure that whatever passed, if it did pass, it would be as weak as possible. That was what they did.

 

And it's a problem that we need to take stock of, as we consider what happened back then, and going forward. The insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry are incredibly powerful, and they have friends on both sides of the political aisle.

 

AARON MATÉ: As somebody who was formerly on the inside, how does that influence work? Can you take us through the mechanics of how the insurance industry communicates to Congress, "No, a public option to us is not even acceptable, so you have to kill it."

 

WENDELL POTTER: Right. Well, people like me, in my former job, we used to create talking points that we would give to our lobbyist, and every insurance company has a lobbyist on staff. And they contract with lobbying firms in Washington -– and the state capitals, for that matter –- and they... it's something that happens all the time. It's continual. The lobbyists build relationships with staffers, with members of Congress. Insurance companies hire members of Congress, and former staffers.

 

So, you've got these built-in relationships. And keep this in mind, too: because of those... that they're there year in and year out, day in and day out. They are really the source of information that most members of Congress have about how the healthcare system really operates. So, the odds are really stacked against consumers. There is just no equivalent for consumers to counter that kind of influence.

 

The way it works in practicality, is a lobbyist will go into a congressional office, and spend some time schmoosing with the staffer, sometimes with a member, and saying, you know, "Here is what we think you ought to be thinking about," presenting the worldview from the insurance industry's perspective.

 

.....

 

WENDELL POTTER: They were working behind the scenes very closely, without a doubt, with Republicans on the House side, including with some of the Freedom Caucus members. They thought that there might be a chance that they could get out of this legislation what they couldn't get out of Obamacare, or at least try to get some of the regulations, some of the new consumer protections on them eliminated.

 

So, you can rest assured that they wrote big chunks of that legislation because it would have been a windfall for them. They wanted to be able to charge older people five times as much as younger people, for the exact same policy. They wanted to have the ability to underwrite in ways that would enable them to avoid as much risk as possible, to cull from the pool of potential customers, those who need insurance the most.

 

That's what they did before Obamacare, and they were making more money, obviously before Obamacare in that market, because they were really in charge, and there were really no consumer protections. Because Obamacare, it was perfectly legal for insurance companies to declare people uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition. They can't do that anymore. So, they were looking to try to get rid of some of those consumer protections.

[caulfield12]

I didn't do that.

 

 

1.) I am not really sure what you're speaking to there.

 

2.) No true conservative would include an individual mandate in their insurance proposal. Before anyone starts attacking me over Ryan because I am considered conservative around here - I don't like Paul Ryan. That was not a conservative proposal. That's why the republicans, who have the majority in the House and Senate, wouldn't vote it in. Yes, a lot of them voted for it, but that's partisan bulls***. Despite many engaging in the partisan bulls*** that makes our government inept, plenty have a backbone and were above that and shot it down early and often.

 

3.) I disagree with increasing military spending. I am on record plenty of times complaining about it. I always have. That's just par for the course though. Trump ran on being an isolationist type CiC. While I won't say he has kept all of his campaign promises like some, he's undeniably kept a lot more than others. Military spending is an area he took a 180 on. I think that's pretty scary. Maybe the military industrial complex gave him the JFK video like the Bill Hicks bit.

 

I don't see the wall being financially viable. It's unlikely the budget gets through if that's budgeted for billions of dollars. I won't speak to a non-existent wall's ability to keep people from crossing the border because it's well, non-existent.

 

4.) They should level all sorts of government agencies. Trump's budget doesn't defund the EPA so I am not sure what you're getting at there. He just shrunk their budget. All government agencies should have their budgets decrease.

 

5.) You're welcome to feel that way but I didn't bring up his politics affecting people, I responded to someone else's post speaking to it. They said his politics makes everybody's life worse and I questioned that ideal. I also didn't make it about it myself. I said, "the vast majority of people." I guess I am included in that too but I wasn't intending to talk about myself and I didn't say I or me. So your inclusion of the bolded is...ugh, I don't know. Not relevant for one and a cheap rhetorical device for another. If we're giving our own personal opinions about whether about whether we care for others I can say with complete certainty that I care about others.

 

 

2) Ryan did create another individual mandate...except the money wouldn't go back into the system to be redistributed by the government. The AHCA was going to create a 30% first year insurance hike for going without coverage and then jumping back on when ill. The difference is all the profits in that case would go directly into the pockets of the insurance industry, not Washington. But that isn't what killed it with the House Freedom Caucus at all.

 

4) Read Mitch McConnell on this. There's not a single Republican...well, MAYBE Rand Paul, who believes cuts to the State Department should be so draconian. It's one thing to cut bureaucracy and waste and the supposed Deep State. Of course, it's ironic that Jared Kushner was just named to head yet another government program (ironically) in cutting government that will enrich the Trump Family over time. That's not to mention Bannon's setting up a similar shadow program with essentially the same intent. Brilliant. Creating a way to enrich yourself eliminating the jobs of everyone in Washington.

Edited March 29, 2017 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

The first daughter/wife will be a government employee after all. Can they get Barron a gig, maybe he would move to Washington. It would more than pay for itself.

 

 

I actually don't have a problem with Ivanka, and her position is unpaid.I think she has a bit more sense than her father.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

The first daughter/wife will be a government employee after all. Can they get Barron a gig, maybe he would move to Washington. It would more than pay for itself.

 

 

I actually don't have a problem with Ivanka, and her position is unpaid.I think she has a bit more sense than her father.

 

If Ivanka instead looked like Amy/Billy Carter, Chelsea Clinton or Michelle Obama...the tolerance level would be about zero.

 

Still waiting on the kick off for Melanie's anti-bullying campaign.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/melania-trum...WQDBHNlYwNzcg--

Melanie needs some PR help

 

 

[Dick Allen]

If Ivanka instead looked like Amy/Billy Carter, Chelsea Clinton or Michelle Obama...the tolerance level would be about zero.

 

Still waiting on the kick off for Melanie's anti-bullying campaign.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/melania-trum...WQDBHNlYwNzcg--

Melanie needs some PR help

It's not about looks for me. I find her attractive but annoying. When they interviewed the entire family she was doing that whisper speaking I cannot stand. I really think she is the best chance of keeping Trump from reacting to something really poorly.

[Quin]

Guys, the golfing is only a thing because that's what Trump railed against Obama for years about.

 

And also because these trips are costing a whole lot.

[caulfield12]

A spokesperson could also help her figure out how to effectively harness the powerful platform she commands. Brower says every first lady since Lady Bird Johnson has used her position to promote social causes. “Lady Bird Johnson said that, as first lady, you can pick up the phone and change someone’s life,” she said.

 

Americans are unlikely to love a first lady who seems indifferent to the tremendous opportunity she has to do good. Melania Trump, who hasn’t moved to the White House yet because her son is finishing school in New York, has been largely invisible since her husband took office. She did, however, read to kids in a hospital and host a White House lunch about women’s empowerment in honor of International Women’s Day this month.

 

A good press secretary would help Trump research and think through the issues she chooses to champion -- and be sure she follows through. In particular, it’s important to consider how promoting particular causes could invite negative attention. For example, in early November, Trump promised that if her husband were elected, she would use her platform as first lady to combat cyber-bulling. Any good communication professional would have advised her against this.

 

 

She actually has a 15 percent approval advantage over her husband at the moment. Why not use it to take advantage of the opportunity to temper some of the vitriol towards her husband, unless the rumors are true and she wants to have absolutely nothing at all to do with Trump unless it's absolutely necessary and her absence would create more stories (than those ones already out there).

 

Let's not forget this is the FIRST time in Washington history the First Lady didn't stay with her husband in DC. The second point is that eventually even Ivanka will grow tired of being in the cross hairs (thinking more about her post-Trump presidency plans and brand/s) and she'd take fewer hits in the media if Melania played a more active role.

 

 

[Steve9347]

This is flawed in a few different ways.

 

Unless you're saying these all time highs are inflation adjusted highs it's just not as cut and dried as you make it seem. Healthcare has been performing so well because it's an inelastic industry in a post recession inflationary period. The slow recovery period and the Fed's Bernanke era policy devaluing money were going to make HC look great compared to other industries regardless of whether ACA was signed into law.

 

Insurance companies were obviously the direct beneficiaries of the ACA given the individual mandate. Americans are literally taxed if they do not have health insurance. Insurance companies got a great deal with ACA. Everyone knew it then, everyone knows it now. That's not a supporting argument for the ACA. I invested in Aetna after ACA was put in place and saw the results. If you are proponent of the ACA it should be because you think it would help people not because it helped insurance companies in a torqued economy.

 

Forcing Americans to buy insurance and raising healthcare premiums annually and in turn, enriching the insurance companies, is not a positive for Americans. As the Kaiser study showed, premiums went up significantly annually and 2017 is set to be the highest hike of them all by a big margin. I mean 25% increases year-over-year from 2016-2017? And that's a conservative estimate. Arizona premiums increasing over 100%? That's good for Americans? Not to mention Pres. Obama said that the ACA would bring "greater savings in their monthly premiums" when he signed it into law. Whoops. The government answer to healthcare was not the best answer and luckily for Obama, he gets to leave office right before we see the worst of it. If people think the young folks are going to get insurance at Obamacare price they're crazy. They'll just take the tax penalty.

 

The handling of this is a lot like student loans. I really think a lot of the virtue signalers who say "everyone should have the right go to college" and "everyone should have healthcare" should take a basic economics course before making blanket statements like that. I wish everyone could have healthcare and education too but is it economically feasible? When you make guaranteed students loans available the Universities can charge whatever they want. When you force people to get insurance and increase premiums far past the wage growth every year they can keep raising premiums and keep rising profits even when people start to reject ACA. It's just weird seeing regular people support policies that enrich drug and insurance companies and put the burden on small companies and taxpayers.

A huge reason healthcare is thriving is because more patients than ever are able to leverage it and are doing so the proper way.

 

No longer are people going to the ER for stomach bugs as a last ditch effort for medical care only to wind up saddled with bills they won't pay.

[Steve9347]

I'm tired of this, just because I personally wasn't affected doesn't mean I can't be upset with his policies. Maybe I actually care about people other than myself.

Republicans simply cannot grasp this concept.

[caulfield12]

States' rights!!!

 

Except when it's about marijuana, sexual orientation and women's reproductive health/access to Planned Parenthood. And I thought the root of conservative was "conserve"...something the current brand of GOP is not exactly doing with the environment.

 

Also amusing that Ms. DeVos compared school choice/vouchers argument to the competition from Uber and Lyft. Not sure you want to be hitching your wagon to Travis Kalanick right now.

[RockRaines]

So Pence totally drunkenly cheated on his wife at some point right?

[RockRaines]

Not to mention the focus on premiums is too narrow, and purposefully so. It ignores how many peoples plans were destroyed as so called "Cadillac plans", and had to opt for more expensive insurance, or insurance that covers way less, forcing more out of pocket expenses. It also ignores that deductibles have exploded in recent years as well. People with high deductible plans have doubled in the last 10 years, with that curve accelerating. Costs of all medical services have also kept exploding. Drug costs have exploded as well. Taxes have been added all over the place to pay for this. Instead of costs being up front as they used to be, now they are coming from all angles, while claiming success because one of those pieces has seen its increases decrease in size.

 

Not to mention the mandate is the single biggest loss for individual rights for the general public in a long time, but no one seems to care about that because apparently moving towards a socialistic system where the government decides for you is more important than actual freedoms when it comes to health care.

 

The sad part is that the GOP had a change to seize on all of this and do something that would have actually helped the American public, but just like the Democrats did, they pissed away their chance to do some real good instead of exacerbating things.

And in your opinion the ACA is responsible for all of the bolded? I disagree that its entirely responsible. Companies are looking to save money and moving the cost onto their employees while making it appear that you are somehow saving money is increasing the popularity of these across the board. My company for the first time only offered the High Deductible with an HCA as the option. Avoiding the cadillac tax is certainly a piece of the puzzle, but these types of plans were part of several offered in the past and nobody was taking them.

 

There is also no proof that "freedom of healthcare" is good for anyone but the wealthy. If thats all you care about, then yes, a government mandated system is not ideal.

 

And if the GOP wasnt so hell bent on blocking everything proposed because it was from the "left" then ACA may have been an even better option the first time around. Now we are stuck with politics as usual on both sides doing little to nothing for the actual people. HC and Pharma companies are going to continue to help drive policy and the politicians are going to do whats best for them and their reelection chances.

[StrangeSox]

Charlie Savage ✔ @charlie_savage

Exclusive: Trump declares Somalia a war zone, lifts Obama's civilian protection rules for airstrikes, commando raids

 

Trump Said to Ease Combat Rules in Somalia Intended to Protect Civilians

 

President Donald "Kill Their Families" "War Crimes Are Good" Trump

[StrangeSox]

I wonder what indiscriminately killing civilians will do for ISIS/Al-Qaeda/Al-Shabaab recruitment?

 

U.S. airstrikes have killed more and more civilians in Iraq and Syria since Trump took office

According to Airwars, a British monitoring group, alleged civilian casualties linked to U.S. strikes in Syria and Iraq have soared to 1,472 so far this month. In March of last year, 196 civilians were reported killed. The previous all-time high was 613 in January.

......

The civilian death toll under Trump has been in the spotlight since the botched Jan. 29 raid in Yemen that resulted in the deaths of a Navy SEAL and at least 23 civilians. Since then, the U.S. military has been blamed for a string of high-profile attacks resulting in civilian casualties in Syria and Iraq as it pursues its war on ISIS.

 

These include reported attacks on a school and a mosque in Syria, and, most recently, a building in west Mosul where scores of civilians are reported to have died. The U.S. military is investigating these incidents.

 

Edited March 30, 2017 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

A precinct-by-precinct breakdown of the 2016 election.

 

https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/creat...l-precinct-map/

 

This map tells many particularly interesting stories on which I’ll elaborate in future posts, but suffice to say that most of the precinct swing can be explained by one variable: education level, perhaps augmented somewhat by race and ethnicity. While we can’t conclusively say anything about the nature of underlying voter preference changes due to the ecological fallacy, the data is certainly suggestive of broader themes

Edited March 30, 2017 by StrangeSox

[RockRaines]

States' rights!!!

 

Except when it's about marijuana, sexual orientation and women's reproductive health/access to Planned Parenthood. And I thought the root of conservative was "conserve"...something the current brand of GOP is not exactly doing with the environment.

 

Also amusing that Ms. DeVos compared school choice/vouchers argument to the competition from Uber and Lyft. Not sure you want to be hitching your wagon to Travis Kalanick right now.

Well what we have in power is a bulls*** mixture of different priorities which is why the message is so convoluted. If the GOP was truly in power with an actual leader in the WH, they could go full GOP. Start stripping away Federal power and funding and move more to the traditional "freedoms" and states rights. Instead we have a family business with some white supremacist puppet masters lording over a pretty inept cabinet which are continually fighting with traditional members of "their party."

 

It would actually be better if there was a clearer direction and a conventional conservative in the WH.

 

 

[illinilaw08]

Not to mention the mandate is the single biggest loss for individual rights for the general public in a long time, but no one seems to care about that because apparently moving towards a socialistic system where the government decides for you is more important than actual freedoms when it comes to health care.

 

The sad part is that the GOP had a change to seize on all of this and do something that would have actually helped the American public, but just like the Democrats did, they pissed away their chance to do some real good instead of exacerbating things.

 

SSK - on point 1, I think it's important to note that "freedom when it comes to healthcare" is a luxury. The working poor who are not provided health benefits through work were effectively priced out of the market previously.

 

On point 2, what should the GOP have done policy wise to help the American public on health care? You say they had a chance to do something that would have actually helped the American public, but I'm in the dark on what you mean.

[southsider2k5]

And in your opinion the ACA is responsible for all of the bolded? I disagree that its entirely responsible. Companies are looking to save money and moving the cost onto their employees while making it appear that you are somehow saving money is increasing the popularity of these across the board. My company for the first time only offered the High Deductible with an HCA as the option. Avoiding the cadillac tax is certainly a piece of the puzzle, but these types of plans were part of several offered in the past and nobody was taking them.

 

There is also no proof that "freedom of healthcare" is good for anyone but the wealthy. If thats all you care about, then yes, a government mandated system is not ideal.

 

And if the GOP wasnt so hell bent on blocking everything proposed because it was from the "left" then ACA may have been an even better option the first time around. Now we are stuck with politics as usual on both sides doing little to nothing for the actual people. HC and Pharma companies are going to continue to help drive policy and the politicians are going to do whats best for them and their reelection chances.

 

Seeing as the ACA put taxes on these plans? Absolutely. What else could you blame?

[southsider2k5]

SSK - on point 1, I think it's important to note that "freedom when it comes to healthcare" is a luxury. The working poor who are not provided health benefits through work were effectively priced out of the market previously.

 

On point 2, what should the GOP have done policy wise to help the American public on health care? You say they had a chance to do something that would have actually helped the American public, but I'm in the dark on what you mean.

 

It is a loss of freedom. Period. It is just as easy for the government to socialize pretty much anything because "it is for the public good". It is an absolutely terrible reason for anything when it comes to the power of the federal government.

[StrangeSox]

It is a loss of freedom. Period. It is just as easy for the government to socialize pretty much anything because "it is for the public good". It is an absolutely terrible reason for anything when it comes to the power of the federal government.

 

The government already socialized healthcare for the old (Medicare) and some of the poor (Medicaid). Socialized health care, whether it's the more market-oriented model that Germany has or the single-payer system that Canada has or even the fully nationalized healthcare system that Britain has, simply functions better and at lower costs than our abomination of a system. Losing the "freedom" to die from lack of healthcare access but gaining the freedom to not die from not being able to afford health care is a fair trade off in many peoples' eyes.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Trump once again floating the idea of changing libel laws because the press is mean to him:

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/...455180912181249

 

The failing @nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?

[RockRaines]

Seeing as the ACA put taxes on these plans? Absolutely. What else could you blame?

Rising cost of healthcare not meeting the increase of compensation? Increasing desire for companies to save money while providing other benefits to workers and offloading those costs onto them? There are plenty of reasons and those happened before ACA was put into effect. Its definitely a contributing factor, but its not the sole reason.