Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, March 18, 2019

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

It’s true. The Affordable Care Act was passed without a single Republican vote. Republicans repeatedly cite this fact as Obamacare’s original sin, a fatal flaw that justifies their efforts to dismantle the ACA.

But let’s set that record straight. Obamacare was a bipartisan plan. It just didn’t get a bipartisan vote.

Despite rumors to the contrary, the reforms weren’t some radical idea imported from outer space. They were modeled on a conservative blueprint for universal health coverage.

Obamacare had to die for a simple partisan reason: Barack Obama proposed it.

Recall the right-wing hysteria over “death panels” in the summer of idiocy, 2009. The charges centered on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The board’s task was far more pedestrian — proposing ways to keep the growth of Medicare spending within target levels.

But even normally sober political voices came unhinged. “We should not have a government program that determines you’re going to pull the plug on Grandma,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told a town hall meeting.

PolitiFact named “death panels” the “Lie of the Year.”

In 2015, the Republican House voted to repeal the board. Rep. Paul Ryan accused the board of giving members the power to “ration care for our seniors.” Obama stopped the nonsense with a veto.

Ryan is now House speaker, and his bill to rip up Obamacare would leave guess-what in place. The Independent Payment Advisory Board.

A little Obamacare history. Obama said his inspiration for the ACA was the Massachusetts health plan promoted by Republican Mitt Romney as governor. Romney said he was inspired by the reforms mapped out by the conservative Heritage Foundation. The conservative think tank returned the compliment.

During the Romneycare signing ceremony at Boston’s Faneuil Hall in 2006, Heritage’s health care expert proclaimed, “The applause that you’ve given to your public officials here today is going to echo far beyond the hallowed halls of this historic place.”

And Obamacare? Heritage’s current president, former Sen. Jim DeMint, recently called it a “cancer” on our health care system.

What was conservative about Obamacare? It left the job of covering people in the federal and state exchanges to private insurers. Democrats even gave up on the idea of the “public option,” a government-run health plan to compete for customers.

A truly left-wing Obamacare might have gone the single-payer route, whereby the government picks up all medical bills. Less radically, Obamacare could have simply expanded Medicare to cover all Americans.

Either solution probably would have saved taxpayers money, provided the same quality of medical coverage and been far easier to understand than today’s Obamacare. But Obama and other Democrats erred in thinking the debate was about policies rather than raw politics and so offered compromise after compromise.

Obama wasted precious weeks courting a single Republican senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine. Whether she was stringing him along or didn’t have the guts to disobey party orders remains unclear.

But it was Snowe who publicly fretted about government-controlled health care while simultaneously proposing that Americans be allowed to buy cheaper drugs in Canada. (It was apparently fine for a government to negotiate drug prices for Americans as long as it wasn’t their own.) This was not a happy time for Republican pragmatists.

The question today is whether Democrats should work with Republicans on these issues or copy their opposition to all that the other party proposes. If Republicans choose to fix the problems in Obamacare without destroying it, the answer should be yes. Otherwise, Democrats should stand back and let Republicans sink in their own mess.

It’s OK to say “no.” Just let the reason be policy, not party. The public’s sanity depends on it.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 306

147 responses to “Dump The Myth That Obamacare Froze Out Republicans”

  1. ray says:

    I don’t think the repugs will work with the Dems. So let them sink.

    • Virginiarhansen says:

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj552d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj552d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash552ShopMarketingGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj552d:….,…..

  2. Independent1 says:

    That Republicans were ‘froze out of Obamacare’ is more than a myth, it’s just one more right-wing lie. The Obamacare version that was enacted in 2010 was put together over 3 months time in 31 meetings by a bipartisan committee of 3 GOP senators (Enzi, Grassley and Snowe) and 3 Democrat senators (Baucus, Bingaman and Conrad). And the contribution by the GOP senators was augmented by over 200 amendments from the GOP during the initial voting in December of 2009 – it was the feverish amendments being submitted by the GOP that resulted in Pelosi saying she wouldn’t be sure what the bill contained until she read it – because it was virtually impossible to keep track of which GOP amendments had been approved and which had been voted down.

    And the reason that no Republicans ended up voting Yay on the bill, is because Mitch McConnell had decided that Obamacare may end up to be a good piece of legislation in the minds of American voters and since the GOP had vowed to fight against anything Obama recommended that might end up looking good to voters; McConnell and Boehner policed the voting to make sure no Republicans would vote Yay.

    And had the Democrats decided to simply go with a public option or even extending Medicare to all Americans – a great deal of the great things that Obamacare has brought to America’s health care delivery systems would never have occurred; so it’s quite possible that thousands of American’s who are alive today because many of the improvements that ACA has brought our healthcare system which is the only reason their alive today may not have been included in a single-payer or Medicare extension option. There are well over 100,000 Americans breathing air today who are very thankful that ACA was developed and implemented the way that it was.

    See this for a good background on how ACA was developed and how it was passed:

    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

    • dtgraham says:

      “And had the Democrats decided to simply go with a public option or even extending Medicare to all Americans – a great deal of the great things that Obamacare has brought to America’s health care delivery systems may never have occurred.”

      You are so full of great sh!t, that your favourite colour must be brown. That great deal of the great things that never occurred must be surprising news to American seniors, who love their great Medicare.

      Obama pressed congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction
      plan that forced Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for new but minimal tax revenue. As part of his pitch, Obama proposed significant reductions in Medicare spending, and for the first time offered to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties who had knowledge of the proposal. That move marked a major shift for the White House and presented a direct challenge to Democrats who had vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from reductions in government spending.

      Obama was the one who demanded an even larger deficit reduction package than had previously been discussed. Articles that dealt with Obama’s push for wider deals with the G.O.P. on deficit cuts reported at that time that Obama had raised his sights and wanted to strike a far-reaching agreement on cutting the federal deficit, and that he wanted to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade.

      That was all in pursuit of an agreement that made substantial spending cuts, including social programs like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security — programs that had been off the table previously. Obama, as part of the package, sought elimination of modest tax loopholes that benefited wealthy Americans only to later claim, absurdly, that there was balanced sacrifice because of that. That was Obama’s tiny reversal of the Bush tax cuts.

      How many people who voted for Obama in 2008 would have expected that a short two-and-a-half years later? Probably many more than should have. As Matt Taibbi explained in trumpeting Frank Rich’s New York article detailing Obama’s
      subservience to Wall Street:

      “Throughout 2008, it was hard to
      shake the feeling that this was a politician whose legacy could still go either way. There were an awful lot of troubling signs on the horizon in Obama’s campaign, not the least of which being the enthusiastic
      support he was receiving from Wall Street.”

      “Obama in part ran a very slightly economically populist campaign, but the tens of millions pouring into his campaign coffers from the very rich (and specifically from hedge funds) told all of us that we probably shouldn’t expect those promises to come off. For a piece I wrote that summer, I asked people in Washington why Wall Street would be throwing money at a guy who was out there on the stump pledging to reach into their pockets:”

      “Sadly, the answer to that question increasingly appears to be that Obama is, well, full of sh!t. . . . Those populist
      pledges sounded good, but many business moguls appear to be betting that the tax policies, like Obama himself, are only that: something that sounds good. ‘I think we don’t want to make too much of his promises on taxes,’ says Robert Pollin, professor of economics at the University of
      Massachusetts. ‘Not all of these things will happen.’ Noting the overwhelming amount of Wall Street money pouring into Obama’s campaign, even elitist conservative fu*kwad David Brooks was moved to write, “Once the Republicans are vanquished, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for that capital-gains tax hike.”

      “Disgustingly, Brooks turned out to be right, and the narrative of the Obama presidency did end up turning sour, on that front anyway.”

      Obama never intended to disappoint his private health insurance company backers who threw millions into his campaign. If he would have, then he never would
      have immediately given up on the idea of the public option; a government-run healthcare plan to compete for customers. [in the words of article writer Froma Harrop below]

      “What was conservative about Obamacare? It left the job of covering people in the federal and state exchanges to private insurers. Democrats even gave up on the idea of the “public option,” a government-run health plan to compete for customers.”

      • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

        ^ this guy is a conspiracy theorist and fake liberal.

        • dtgraham says:

          Hint: when you’d like to see more than just the status quo from the Democratic establishment, that makes you more of a liberal…not less.

          Go back to sleep Tomato Brain.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            Yes, I get that you think you can threaten everyone into compliance. It’s why I said you were a fake liberal, fake liberal.

          • dtgraham says:

            Another two sentence meaningless blather of a reply that makes no sense, from ‘I Am Tomato Brain.’

            I’m shocked I tell you. Shocked.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            OK bigot. Get better soon!

          • dtgraham says:

            My, my. Two replies to the same post. I must have gotten to you.

            In your case, about 10-15 replies would be necessary to make up the average reply to anybody’s post.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            OK fake liberal.

          • dtgraham says:

            You, more than a year ago — “I couldn’t care less whether Hillary is progressive or not.”

            Me, more than a year ago — “shouldn’t you be arguing that Hillary is as progressive as anybody else?”

            You, more than a year ago — “I don’t see why?”

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            Yes, I get that you nurse endless grudges over imaginary slights and thoughtcrimes. I already SAID you were a fake liberal, weren’t you paying attention?

          • dtgraham says:

            Another two sentence nonsense reply that doesn’t address the issue brought up at all, and makes no sense.

            Rock on Tomato Brain.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            See previous post.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            Before you start yelling at a javascript like the ignorant self-righteous tool you are, I just want to point out that nobody has to jump through the loops you invent. You’d know that if you were a liberal, fake liberal.

          • dtgraham says:

            You haven’t noticed that I never respond to your child-like, “see previous post” comments?

            Who in the hell sets their pc to reel off a long series of posts that consist entirely of “see previous post”, and then pat themselves on the back, thinking that they’re the c*ck-of-the-walk who really put one over on people and did a “gotcha” on them?

            You’re either somebody’s kid or you’re really a piece of fu*king work.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            See previous post.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            PS: sorry you had to resort to abuse – who would have expected a fake liberal who is really an authoritarian conspiracy theorist (the kind of guy who would smear a charity) would do that.

      • idamag says:

        You can go to hell for lying. I watched every hearing on the bill and read the bill. The money that came from Medicare for expanded Medicaid came from eliminating redundancy.

        • dtgraham says:

          I never said that it actually happened, but Obama pushed for it. There were think tanks and pundits on all sides of the spectrum at the time who were warning of the dire consequences of avoiding an “adult” conversation about the so-called unsustainable costs of Social Security and Medicare.

          And the Obama administration — rather than fight that narrative — chose to accommodate it.

          Just a year into Obama’s presidency, the White House began to pivot away from fiscal stimulus and toward austerity if you recall. Obama convened a bipartisan debt reduction commission in February 2010, called the Bowles-Simpson commission, and charged it with forging a fiscal “grand bargain.” That became the catchphrase of choice on the Bowles-Simpson commission — and in budget talks in subsequent years — for a compromise agreement to reduce the long-term debt, through a combination of Social Security and Medicare cuts, and revenue increases and defense cuts.

          It eventually went nowhere, but it became the blueprint of subsequent plans to cut Social Security after Republicans took control of the Congress in 2011. Obama kept dangling chained cpi in front of them to get concessions until Harry Reid finally shut him down.

          Groups on the progressive end of the Democratic party are sometimes credited for killing the cuts, but ironically it was hard line anti-taxer Republicans who were probably more responsible although that wasn’t their intent. Just like the far right may save the ACA tomorrow for at least a little while longer.

          • Independent1 says:

            And with respect to blaming Obama for not implementing tax policies that he may have campaigned on, only goes to show how tunnelvision and blind eyed many supposed pundits or experts really are.

            A group that monitored Obama’s campaigning starting back in 2006 built a list of about 500 promises that Obama had made during campaigning; in 2013 those analysts looked back at just how many of those promises Obama had kept – they came up with about 250 that he had fully kept, and another 125 that were partially fulfilled and another 125 that he wasn’t able to follow through on at all. And what they found was, that Obama didn’t follow through on many of his promises, not because he didn’t try, but because the GOP’s fully public intentions of not approving (outright blocking) virtually any really significant legislation – prevented Obama from following through on tax policy changes and others like jobs proposals.

            For crying out loud, starting in 2011, the GOP pirated the budgetary processes and outright refused to even consider any of Obama’s budgets, jobs creation proposals and calls for tax reform. It’s only mentally incompetent people like those who wrote the articles you posted who could have their heads up their rearends so far that they would put the onus on Obama for not having followed through on tax reform campaign promises.

            What kind of idiots are these people?? And what planet were they living on for the past 8 plus years??

          • dtgraham says:

            They were talking about his first two years. If they had turned out differently, and Obama could have made that happen, then the electoral events of November 2010 wouldn’t have occurred.

            His Democratic wave voters from 2006 and 2008 just got disgusted with him and stayed home. It sure as hell wasn’t because he was too progressive or too populist.

          • Independent1 says:

            It’s one thing for the gullible, uniformed American voters to not see reality, but it’s totally something else, and just plain unwarranted, when people who should know better, like those who wrote those articles you posted, do not see what was really happening because of the GOP’s party-wide agenda of trying to make Obama a one-term president. .

            Fact is that since Obama had just spent billions on the auto and financial industry bailouts and close to a trillion on a stimulus, he kept his 10/09 to 09/10 budget pretty much flat for 2010. There was a drop in 2010 from 2009 because the Stimulus had run out; but then Obama actually increased spending in his 10/10 to 09/11 budget Obama which points out a lie in your post that he didn’t increase spending in his 1st two years (remember – the budget for the 1st 9 months was set by Bush, so Obama’s 1st budget was flat but the second went up); and after that budget, it’s been the GOP that has been controlling spending since they took over the House in 2011.

            Given the GOP’s deliberate vow to resist everything Obama wanted, it’s moronic for anyone to be assessing what Obama would have or could have done given the GOP’s deliberate 24/7 obstructionism. It would have mattered not what Obama did, the GOP was going to push for the reverse.

            The Dems had lost control Congress at the end of 09, because Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy – so Obama knew his options were limited.

            See this graph from the CBO which blows a total hole in your fabricate post about Obama pushing for austerity – what a ridiculous notion!!!!!!! The austerity was forced by the GOP!!!

            Obama implemented the Bowles-Simpson commission to try and ferret out just where in government spending savings could be realized – it had nothing to do with trying to find ways to cut real spending when Obama knew that in recession you have to provide some kind of stimulus to get the economy really moving. What kind of morons are these people???
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/71f6a6d4bf578afef6a801ae9bf086c1f27c6cf0d267c7603360148d4093a34c.png

          • Independent1 says:

            Where were those supposed experts that want to be critical of Obama for no tax policy changes when an article like the one below appeared?? Were they living in never, never land? Some other planet?? Did they think the GOP was kidding about doing everything they could to subvert Obama’s economic agenda to make him a one-term president??

            Eric Cantor & GOP Leaders Plot to Sabotage US Economy in Secret Meeting (On Obama’s inauguration day)

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/25/1258263/-Eric-Cantor-GOP-Leaders-Plot-to-Sabotage-US-Economy-in-Secret-Meeting

            No president, and I’ll say it again, No president since FDR has gotten so much done that’s been beneficial to the majority of Americans as Barack Obama!! NO ONE!!!!!

          • dtgraham says:

            I know they sabotaged him. I know that. They took their treasonous vow in January of 2009. Obama had basically two years to do everything, but he could have done much more on at least the healthcare file anyway if he had half the legislative skills of a Lyndon Johnson and a different mindset. You have to want to do it.

            He had an impossible situation with Boehner in the budget fiscal cliff face-off of late 2012. With the election behind them, Obama had just weeks until the Bush tax cuts expired and automatic spending cuts — the sequester — kicked in. By then, gerrymandered Tea Party districts made negotiations hopeless, but reversing the Bush cuts is another thing that he should have thought of before taking Boehner’s word on taxes after the 2010 midterms and before the transition.

          • Independent1 says:

            The Dems didn’t have the votes and McConnell was already using the fake filibuster to kill anything the GOP didn’t want – including tax law changes.

            The Dems only had a super majority for about a month in the middle of 2009 to get anything passed the GOP didn’t want done, between when Al Franken’s election getting approved after July 4th (I don’t remember the exact date) and when Ted Kennedy died on August 15th. And after Ted’s death it took a while for Duval Patrick to pick a replacement and everything was kind of up in the air with Ted’s death.

            So in the past 20 plus years, the GOP has had enough control of Congress, given it’s propensity to use the fake filibuster more than 425 times to prevent the Dems from virtually doing anything like tax reform or virtually any tax changes other than when their arm was twisted and they agreed to rescind the Bush tax cut for people making over $400,000.

          • dtgraham says:

            I actually liked Barack Obama very much and I agreed with much of what he believed in. The thing is Independent, it was as though he should have been the leader of some other country.

            He could have easily kept an already progressive political atmosphere going just fine. I just think that the United States needed a lot more than what he was prepared to deliver in January of 2009.

      • Independent1 says:

        You are so full of hogwash it’s astounding. I’m not even going to respond to your idiotic rant!! And just for your information, ACA has reduced Medicare expenses over the years by well over 500 Billion. And it’s reduced the CBO’s projections for overall spending on healthcare in America from 2014 through 2019 by almost 700 billion.

        And had legislators simply gone off and worked to extend Medicare to all or implement a public option, they may not have taken the time to include in the new legislation provisions that have resulted in ACA forcing hospitals to reduce their readmissions rates by a provision that allows Medicare to refuse to cover the expenses hospitals incur if a patient is readmitted within 30 or 60 days. ACA has succeeded in reducing readmissions from about 19% to under 15% and there are 100,000 plus Americans alive today who quite likely would have died from an illness they picked up while in the hospital.

        On top of that there are provisions in ACA that have greatly improved the workings of America’s healthcare because ACA provides funding for doctor groups that get together and build practices that provide coordinated healthcare. In addition, ACA including funding for providers to upgrade and move their practices from pushing paper to computerizing their offices.

        The rural medical center we have here on our island now has instant communication with healthcare facilities throughout northern Maine – such that while I’m talking with my doctor, he’s able to instantly fax any prescriptions I need directly to my pharmacy from his laptop; he can also alert any provider he wants to refer me to that they need to contact me to about setting up an appointment; in addition if I get medical care in a facility even 50 miles off the island, he knows within minutes of my discharge, that I have been discharged and whether or not i should be contacting him about further treatment. All of this computer interaction was funded via ACA including the hundreds of overtime ours it took our medical center staff to input paper files and records into new computers that were also funded via ACA.

        In addition, ACA made numerous changes to standard insurance company practices like forbidding recision, forbidding the use of pre-existing conditions; forbidding annual and lifetime caps on coverage and on and on and on. And there’s no saying for sure, any of all these great things that ACA requires insurance companies to do today would have been included in some kind of public option or extension of Medicare benefits to all.

        • dtgraham says:

          “they may not have taken the time to include in the new legislation provisions that have resulted in ACA forcing hospitals to reduce their readmissions rates by a provision that allows Medicare to refuse to cover the expenses hospitals incur if a patient is readmitted within 30 or 60 days.”

          You’re bragging that Medicare won’t cover the expenses of a patient who just happened to be readmitted to hospital within 30 or 60 days? Really?

          “And there’s no saying for sure, any of all these great things that ACA requires insurance companies to do today would have been included in some kind of public option or extension of Medicare benefits to all.”

          Yeah actually there is saying for sure that rescission, pre-existing conditions and life time caps would definitely not be part of any universal health care system. Are those things part of U.S. Medicare today or any other country’s universal health care system? No they’re not.

          The United States still pays far more per capita than any other country for healthcare even with the ACA, and gets much worse results. So yes, a different system would have been appropriate and beneficial under any economic circumstances, and that should be obvious.

        • dtgraham says:

          I’m replying a second time because I feel it’s necessary. You originally said that if a true universal health care system of some kind would have been crafted in 2009-10, Americans wouldn’t have first gotten to experience the joy of a healthcare system that’s nowhere near that (ACA), with it’s often high premiums, high deductibles, high co-pays, and leaving too many uninsured altogether.

          Don’t you understand that voters have to buy into healthcare smallball, for decades possibly, in order to keep it going until it eventually morphs into something better in the distant future, in your establishment incremental fantasies?

          Across the western democracies, no conservative party has ever revoked true universal healthcare once it’s been established. They know that it would be suicidal for them to do so, and they even eventually buy into the concept as a party. However, repealing the ACA is not likely to be suicidal for the Republicans because people just didn’t care enough about it to keep it going electorally.

          Obama had a once in a generation opportunity to go for a home run on healthcare, but he chose to go for a single instead. As a result, both the Democratic party and it’s ACA healthcare initiative lay in smoking ruins today. The ACA will soon be gone, yet the Democratic establishment still feels that purposely starting small was the way to proceed 8 years ago. That is the height of political arrogance.

          It’s a good thing that Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt didn’t feel that way long ago.

          It’s attitudes like yours that are responsible for the terrible moribund place that the Democratic party finds itself in today both federally and state-wide, and you’re not even aware of it.

          When Trump is finally finished, Obama may as well not have ever been President. He’ll reverse everything. That doesn’t happen to successful Presidencies.

          • Independent1 says:

            I am not against a single-payer or public option or Medicare for all plan – I’m only saying that in the midst of an economic collapse like the Great Recession with millions out of jobs and the country already saddled with close to 1.5 trillion in deficit spending, that 2009/10 was not the time to saddle America with any of those plans.

            Are you even aware that America runs a 500 Billion deficit per year funding Medicare and that only covers about 20% of the population?

            And do you have any idea what implementing a plan that would have cut insurance companies out the healthcare business could have done to the American economy in 2010 when converting to say a single-payer would have dumped another 1 to 1.5 million more people out of work who work for health insurers or related companies?

            I’m not talking against any of the alternatives you’ve brought up – I’m only relating to the timing. And you’re grossly mischaracterizing ACA – it has not increase premiums and resulted in high deductible or high compays – those are gross fabrications of reality.

            I have a daughter and son-in-law who were struggling with medical care because neither of them makes big money while both have preexisting medical conditions which meant they were sometimes going months without being able to see a doctor of enormous copays and restrictions in their health insurance that was costing them close to $1,000/month. When the ACA exchanges opened up they found an insurance plan with copays that were a fraction of what they had been and their premium dropped from close to $1,000/mo to less than $100/mo.

            Since it’s inception, ACA has kept premium increases below 3 -5%/year when they had been running 9-15%/yr before ACA. Even in some states where the premiums this year will jump by say 20%, people’s resulting premiums will still be 20=30% less than they would have been just by the normal annual increases, had ACA not been enacted.

            So stop misrepresenting what ACA has done. It’s without question the best piece of legislation that Congress has enacted since mid 1960s when LBJ got Medicare enacted.

          • dtgraham says:

            You’re subconsciously using Republican scare tactics on healthcare. I’m aware of long term unfunded Medicare liabilities but remember that Medicare is projected to grow modestly as a share of the federal budget and the nation’s economy in the coming decade.

            Medicare’s share of the federal budget is projected to increase from 14.3% in 2015 to 15.2% in 2024, while Medicare spending as a share of GDP is projected to increase from 3.0% in 2015 to 3.3% in 2024. This is a crisis?

            There are two things to keep in mind here. One being that the British brought their cherished National Health Service into being right after WWII when they owed a lot of war money to the U.S., and they were also trying to rebuild bombed out cities. The other being that all but one of the G7 nations have a lower debt to GDP ratio than the U.S., and yet provide healthcare to all of their citizens in a way that doesn’t burden them financially. America’s neighbour to the north, for example, ran 10 consecutive surplus budgets from the mid 90’s to the mid 2000’s, and a couple during the ill-fated Conservative years, despite providing full healthcare to everyone on a premium free, deductible free, and co-pay free basis.

            Even if your economic argument held water, what prevented Obama from starting healthcare reform in 2010 instead, when the U.S. was technically out of recession, in the way that economists measure these things? The Republicans just presented a full healthcare plan and are voting on it within 64 days. Do you think those private health insurance company employees wouldn’t have picked up administrative work in a different venue if health insurance were provided in a different way? Many of them would have.

            I know that some have benefited enormously from the ACA, but too many haven’t. To say that ACA premiums will jump by 20% but that’s still less than what they would have jumped by without the ACA, is cold comfort.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            I know all you bros are uniform – you might as well come out of a mold – but you’re such a perfect illustration of “perfect is the enemy of good”.

          • dtgraham says:

            Naah, I just think that ‘I Am Tomato Brain’ is the enemy of the good.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            Yes I understand – you have nothing but self-righteous abuse.

          • dtgraham says:

            Well, it’s better than self-abuse. Isn’t that right Tomato Brain? You’d know all about that.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            another gold star for me!

          • dtgraham says:

            You’re that good at it?

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            yes yes you live in trembling fear of actual liberals, you short-legged joyless fascist

          • dtgraham says:

            I am not short-legged. Well, what I mean is………

          • ⭐️117 Lines Of Code, Dummy⭐️ says:

            another gold star for me!

      • Independent1 says:

        Here’s on graph of how the CBO has reduced it’s original projections of what ACA would cost because ACA had worked to reduce the projected costs of healthcare itself – would just extending Medicare to all have necessarily done that??

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04e64bdcd9f2abcd15efa2c84cde99de3814c307f250cacda70c695c3fc8a489.png

        • dtgraham says:

          Extending Medicare to all would have reduced costs even more.

          • Independent1 says:

            Really?? How is that possible given Medicare is running a 500+B in the hole each year insuring only about 20% of the population???

            And how happy do you think millions of younger Americans who were struggling through a Great Recession were going to feel when they’re paychecks started getting hit for $75+/mo to start paying for health insurance that millions of them didn’t feel they needed??

          • dtgraham says:

            I think you’re confusing the old Republican oft-repeated claim that the ACA took 500 B out of Medicare.

            The United States federal budget can like a funhouse mirror, so it can look completely different depending on where you stand.

            The ACA tried to identify ways to save money, and so the $500 billion figure came from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare baseline spending and the changes the law made to reduce spending.

            The ACA also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $113 billion over 10 years, which also strengthened the program’s financial condition, according to the CBO. Since about half of the $500 billion stems from reduced outlays for Medicare hospitalization expenses, the payroll taxes and those reductions added about $358 billion to Medicare trust fund balances.

            So you’re accepting the Republican narrative that millions just don’t feel that they need health insurance and therefore shouldn’t have to pay for it. Switch parties my friend.

            The United States pays the highest costs for healthcare for it’s citizens than any of the other advanced democracies, and that’s a fact. That’s why Medicare-for-all would have reduced costs even more. Plus it would have covered everyone, for the first time ever.

          • Independent1 says:

            No, I’m not confusing anything. The CBO projects that the costs for Medicare over and above what our premiums cover is over 3% of GDP. Given that GDP is 18Trillion, that makes Medicare’s annual costs over 500 billion/year. And the CBO is projecting that by 2038, Medicare as it’s currently defined will be costing around 4.9% of GDP.

            See this chart from the CBO of its projections. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/19a70d5cab92187ca41496953e56e957617a2f91d5fe8e342d1bc2e45fa773c3.png

          • dtgraham says:

            Then why do most wealthy single payer countries have an overall lower debt to GDP ratio than the United States?

            You’re completely bamboozled by the Republicans, and you’re way off.

            The 2016 report of Medicare’s trustees found that Medicare will remain solvent — that is, able to pay 100 percent of the costs of the hospital insurance coverage that Medicare provides — through 2028. Even in 2028, when the Hospital Insurance trust fund is projected for exhaustion, incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will still be sufficient to pay 87 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs. The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 79 percent in 2040 and then rise gradually to 86 percent in 2090. This shortfall will need to be closed through raising revenues, slowing the growth in costs, or most likely both. However, the Medicare hospital insurance program will not run out of all financial resources and cease to operate after 2028, as the “bankruptcy” term that you’ve bought into suggests.

            Those are right wing scare tactics and you know better than that, Independent. I know you do.

          • Independent1 says:

            Sorry, you’re very delusional. Simply having the government cover all the costs would not have reduced costs until many of the inefficiencies in our healthcare system are wrung out. Which is a lot of what ACA has been accomplishing but still more is needed. You’re doing very overly simplistic thinking.

          • dtgraham says:

            Then why did having the government cover all of the costs, reduce costs per capita in other countries? After all, they all once had inefficient private healthcare systems too.

          • Independent1 says:

            Because those other countries did not have the open health care system America developed which brought about a chaotic kind of system where doctors were doing their own thing, labs were doing their own thing, hospitals were doing their own thing, insurance companies were doing their own thing because of politicians (especially Republicans) desires for a privatizing everythnig for decades.

            You can’t go from an open/chaotic kind of private healthcare delivery systems that had no coordination like was developed in America, into a more coordinated system like most foreign countries have developed overnight and without taking time to work out all the cost overrun factors. And Reagan’s edict that hospitals had to provide free healthcare to people without insurance in a system where having insurance was generally a requirement really added to the overpricing because everyone associated with healthcare delivery had to triple and quadruple price to cover for those who were not going to pay.

          • dtgraham says:

            Open health care system? Everybody once had an open health care system.

          • Independent1 says:

            Not to the ingrained extent that we have today. Other countries moved to government run healthcare long before it got to where we are and the other countries did not have a law which said that within a free market system, healthcare providers were required to provide as much healthcare as someone needed free of charge in an emergency situation. And where ’emergency’ was not defined so at times 20% of their population was taking advantage of free care for in many cases was routine health issues to the extent where healthcare providers had to set prices that many times were double and triple and more what their actual costs were in order to cover at least the major part of their loses in giving billions of dollars in free healthcare away.

            What country have ever read about where hospitals were going broke simply because states refused to provide healthcare to so many people that hospitals and healthcare providers couldn’t stay in business because of all their healthcare related losses???

            Let me give you an example, some years back one of my grandchildren got a leg injury requiring stitches in his leg. It cost $1,500 at the hospital to put those stitches in. When it came time to remove them, my daughter called the hospital about what the cost would be to remove them – she was given a price of $800. Needless to say she took a small pair of scissors and removed them herself.

            That’s just one example of how hospitals had jacked up prices for what it thought was needed to cover itself for all the free care it was forced to give away. What other countries ever were in that situation?

          • Independent1 says:

            I don’t think you understand how that Medicare trust fund operates.

            It’s just like Social Security. When Medicare was adopted, a trust fund was set up so that the Medicare premiums being collected as part of the payroll taxes Americans pay each payday started going into the trust fund. Since early on, there were many more people paying into Medicare than drawing out health-related benefits, the Medicare trust fund accumulated a balance.

            However, unlike Social Security, the about 550 billion/yr in Medicare payouts (which are a line item in America’s budget) are exceeding the premiums that are being paid in plus the interest on the fund so the Medicare fund is already shrinking (that’s not true for SS as the SS taxes being collected plus interest on the fund still exceeds the payouts so the SS Trust fund has grown to 2.8 trillion – up about 1/2 a trillion since Obama took office).

            So the Medicare trust fund is not like a pot of gold that are magically paying Medicare expenses – its a dwindling bucket of cash that’s declining rapidly especially when Republicans choose to misdirect its funds. And right now, according to the CBO for 2016, Medicare drew 549 Billion dollars out of the fund – billions more than American workers paid in in the way of premiums. And according to the CBO it’s only about 49 million Americans that are now getting Medicare benefits.

            So if a Medicare for all plan is developed and Medicare suddenly covers 315 million people, I’ll let you try to visualize what would happen to that Medicare trust fund – it probably would be wiped out before a year was over and Americans – millions not now paying anything for healthcare would -suddenly be hit with a premium (actually a tax) for probably way more than many of those millions can afford to suddenly start getting taken out of their weekly pay.

          • dtgraham says:

            Of course I understand that. What you don’t understand is that single payer health care for all doesn’t have to be wedded to payroll taxes only for it’s existence, and furthermore shouldn’t be. U.S. Medicare for seniors only is already experiencing long tern liability issues.

            Payroll taxes could be a part of it. So could a modest monthly health care premium that almost everyone could afford. For those who can’t, exemptions or subsidies would suffice. Better yet, just finance the thing through general revenues on a progressive basis like Britain and Canada do, without premiums of any kind.

            https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/files/kf/media/web-1_v2.jpg

          • Independent1 says:

            You just don’t get it. You just don’t understand the difference about the massive difference in the healthcare delivery system in America and in other countries – and the mindset of America taxpayers that they are not willing to take on the added tax burden that single-payer would demand for the benefit of the masses.

            You seem to have this notion that just because you cut the insurance companies out of handling the payments that somehow that’s going to make the costs built into our system to suddenly vanish. What planet are you living on anyway?? Planet delusional???

            Insurance companies are already negotiating enormous cost reductions that are still keeping Medicare premiums over $100/month each for us retired folks and even with those premiums Medicare expenses, which aren’t going to go away under a single-premium plan are far short of being enough.

            Just as an example of how insurance is negotiating premiums down already, my wife recently had a double surgery that ended up costing $41,000 in hospital expenses, our insurance ended up negotiating that down to $7,500 and we paid $50. Where are you getting the mindless notion that just because the government is handling the payments that somehow things are going to be much cheaper.

            I’m not certain about other countries, my hunch is that hospitals and labs and such may be government run – but they’re virtually all privately owned here and people running them are mostly all trying to make a profit. implementing single-payer isn’t going to change that, and our government is not going to take over running all the hospitals and labs.

            And I mean come on, we can’t even get Republicans to buy a budget that adequately funds our road system and provides for maintenance that has put many of our highways into very dangerous situations, and you expect these tax averse nitwits to buy into single-payer???

          • Independent1 says:

            And i do understand single-payer, Medicare is essentially single-payer for 49 million Americans and even with a tax already of over $100/month it’s running in the red – so just guess where it would be if it were extended to 315 million people and had to start paying for the enormous costs related to the majority of auto accident victims who often require hundreds of thousands of dollars in restorative surgery and generally occur in people under 65, and heart attack people who are generally younger than 65 when they survive an attack and can run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in heart surgery, and the 200,000 or so of accidental gun shot people, many who are children and younger than on Medicare, and all the births in America which generally run $15-20,000 or more if there aren’t complications, and all those with birth defects and on and on and on.

            Handle single-payer with a modest tax increase and via the general fund???? Really???

          • Independent1 says:

            And I forgot to point out when mentioning that my wife and I pay over $100/month now for a single-payer plan called Medicare that the only reason we’re only paying $100/month is because 150 million working people across America are simultaneously being charged a premium for Medicare every single payday even though they don’t qualify for it – and it still runs in the red with close to 200 million Americans paying into it – those working and those not working and getting benefits.

            So exactly how would extending Medicare to all (or creating a unique single-payer for all) not require a sizeable tax increase above what’s being charged today, given America’s current healthcare delivery system??

          • dtgraham says:

            It would require a tax increase. No question about that. Two things to remember though. One, is that the tax increase would be done a progressive basis. Those with more would pay more through the tax system. So, your scenario of lower income people being hit with huge tax increases wouldn’t be true.

            At the risk of sounding boastful, I probably pay more through the tax system than the average Canadian for our healthcare system, but I have no problem doing that. I think that’s a good thing.

            Two, being that private insurance company monthly premiums would be completely eliminated for everyone. They can reach into the hundreds or thousands per month, combined with significant deductibles and co-pays, even for those making a modest income. Why is that okay but taxes aren’t?

            The employee share of premiums in employer sponsored plans, or the straight 100% contribution into ACA plans when no employer sponsored plan is available, would be gone. Employers’ share of employee health care coverage would also no longer exist, except for relatively minor things if the employer chooses. Every conceivable thing is not usually covered in national health plans.

            When you drive the profit driven middleman (insurance companies) out of the picture, big savings can be realized. So, the taxes don’t go up quite as much as you’re imagining.

      • Independent1 says:

        Here are graphs showing how ACA has reduced readmissions – saving tens of thousands of lives a year and a graph showing how ACA has reduced overall healthcare projected spending 2014 through 2019. And through 2016 the readmissions rate is now close to 15%.

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6bbc9a5d99860176f1df3837dfde91ca8a8509cd48baae7c56f0c8a0c109df59.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3667849a2a631180031874715769aff64288ba9929ba312186c3e21cf8345fb3.jpg

        • dtgraham says:

          You’re preaching to the choir as to the benefits of the ACA over what was before.

          • Independent1 says:

            Posted those comments to the wrong response.

          • dtgraham says:

            No I didn’t. The only thing that I should have added is that the bar was pretty low.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            Bernie-or-Buster who’s still claiming that the Clinton Foundation did (something something). He’s not worth responding to.

          • dtgraham says:

            Change your posting name to George Costanza. Your whole life is a lie. How many times did I have to say last year that I wasn’t a Bernie-or-Buster and that I thought Hillary had to win this thing?

            You know all that.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            OK crazy bigot. Sorry you think that helping Nazis is somehow progressive; it isn’t.

          • dtgraham says:

            Oh what a comeback! The creativeness, the ingenuity, the cleverness! ‘I Am Tomato Brain’ hits it out of the park again. Only “see previous post” would be better.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            OK crazy bigot, sorry you’re so progressive you can’t do anything but help neo-Nazis.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            I mean, I respond to him, but only because I’m getting so hilariously under his thin, thin skin. Don’t be like me.

          • dtgraham says:

            If it wasn’t for me insulting you, NOBODY would reply to you. Be grateful.

            People respond to Independent because they have respect for him, whether they agree or disagree with him. Nobody responds to you except me, when I’m either insulting you or having a little fun.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            OK weird how you keep pushing a purity line that somehow by coincidence always ends up acting in accord with neo-Nazis

          • dtgraham says:

            Now tell everyone about your pathological hatred of Bernie Sanders and how you feel that the Democratic progressive/left are all “fruitcakes”, in your own words. Remember that, Mr. Purity?

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            Yes yes you just came here to whitesplain how the ACA was really a bad thing and it’s good the GOP is destroying it by coincidence, although it’s what you always do.

          • dtgraham says:

            “Whitesplain” huh. I just finished saying that the ACA was a good thing, except that the bar on good thing was pretty low in this case.

            Speaking of “whitesplain”, Bernie Sanders was one of the precious few whites who crossed racial lines to strongly endorse Jessie Jackson in 1988. Where was your Hillary at the time? Where was Bill? He was Governor of Arkansas and she was first lady. Where were they?

            For the record, I don’t hold that against them on racial grounds. Not on racial grounds. The reason is because I’m not screwed up like you.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            OK crazy bigot. I dunno how many times I’ve told you I don’t bother to read more than the first few words of your dumb posts, if even that, but it is ENDLESSLY hilarious how you are convinced that if you are just. a. little. more. sanctimonious. it will somehow make up for your odious ableism, your tacit support of Nazis, or any of the other sophomoric stupidity that oozes from your every crazy bigot post.

          • dtgraham says:

            I’ve always thought it amazing that you somehow know every thing that I posted, even though you supposedly never read more than the first few words.

            If you’re selling tickets to your David Blaine or Chris Angel knock-off show, let me know. Change your posting name to Tomato-Houdini the magnificent.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            yes yes you loathe and fear women and minorities, you trembling worm.

          • dtgraham says:

            How did you extrapolate that from the post that you were responding to, if you don’t mind me asking?

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            sorry to hear about how the lesser people refuse to bow to your demands, don’t they understand that you’re a condescending white guy who knows best

          • dtgraham says:

            Alright, I may be condescending, but I’m not white. I’m actually green and from Mars. It’s just something that I don’t talk about much. I suppose you hate us don’t you?

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            yes yes you loathe and fear women and minorities, you segmented worm.

          • dtgraham says:

            Anti-Martian bigot. No, I don’t have progressive beliefs but no atmosphere. No, I don’t put my coffee cup on my flying saucer. Stop with the intergalactic speciest comments.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            ok you short-legged hipster weeny.

          • Independent1 says:

            The bar on a good thing is pretty low??

            Wow! You have gotten brainwashed by Bernie haven’t you?

            ACA has done an enormous amount of good, from creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, to saving hospitals and taxpayers billions of dollars by reducing readmissions rates and the uninsured rate, by adding billions of dollars to the economy, actually driving the economy early on in 2014, and by saving thousands of Americans insurance dollars and even their lives (well over 100,000 Americans are alive today because of ACA).

            You need to stop such trivial thinking!!!

            (By the way, Medicare for all would have killed at least a million jobs!!!!!!!)

          • dtgraham says:

            Do you think that improvements on American healthcare before the ACA wouldn’t have been a pretty low bar insofar as success? It wouldn’t have taken much to be better. That was my point. $1000.00 dollar per month premiums, or $6000.00 dollar deductibles based on a $22,000.00 dollar yearly annual income. What is that? That’s WITH the ACA. Per that Boston Globe article.

            I’m not going to argue with what the ACA has done in a positive way. I’m just saying that a country as rich as the United States could have done so much more. Very much more.

          • Independent1 says:

            You seem to have the misguided notion that just by implementing Medicare for all that that would have by itself saved tons of money which is pure nonsense. Just because the government was consolidating the billing, wasn’t going to necessarily result in any savings.

            Let me give you a couple examples on actual healthcare costs recently.

            My wife had an operation where the hospital bill was almost $41,000; our insurer had negotiated rates to where they paid the hospital $7,500 to cover those $40,000 and our copay was $50.

            One of the doctor bills was almost $3,500 and our insurer paid $750 to cover that and our co-pay was under $200.

            Do you seriously believe that even the government under Medicare was going to negotiate better payoffs than those??

          • dtgraham says:

            That is wonderful news. I’m very glad to hear that, Independent. I’ve heard that the ACA has done marvelous things for some people. However, that is a long, long way from the norm. Read this article from the Boston Globe:

            https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/11/16/high-deductible-health-plans-make-affordable-care-act-unaffordable-critics-say/eaWZZJNrFhm6vVPDBcdZ0I/story.html

            You’re talking to the wrong person. My wife was considered officially disabled by the Canadian government in 2009 and is entitled to the disability tax credit (transferred to me) and Canadian public pension disability payments, although she is not a senior citizen. She had to unexpectedly go into hospital in 2013 after a nasty fall. She was there for 8 months receiving delicate spinal surgery, an artificial knee transplant, and several months of extensive physiotherapy, learning how to walk again. This cost us nothing. Nothing. Not a cent. I have no monthly health care premiums and there were no co-pays and no deductibles. When I picked her up to take her home, the hospital staff gathered around to see us off as fellow Canadians and friends that they had come to know. No one ever asked us for money of any kind. That’s not allowed by the Canada Health Act.

            The ACA has done wonderful things for some people, but beat that.

            The per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on healthcare in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Total_health_expenditure_per_capita%2C_US_Dollars_PPP.png

      • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

        Hmmm yes if only the Democrats had DONE WHAT YOU TOLD THEM then you wouldn’t have been forced to help Nazis seize power.

  3. mazie.sanchez says:

    I was paid 104000 bucks past year by doing a web based work and consequently I was able to do it by w­orking in my own time f­o­r quite a few hours regularly. I tried job opportunity I found on-line and therefore I am excited that I was manage to make such decent cash. It’s actually newbie-friendly and I am so delighted that I discovered out regarding it. Look out for what I do… http://www.cat.org.uk/snip/93439

  4. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    I live in NJ. Governor Fat Mouth refused to set up a state ACA agency. New York’s Governor didn’t and as a result New Yorkers now pay 11% less for their healthcare than people in NJ.

    The proof of the deliberate attempt by Sabotaging Republicans to take down President Obama now becomes ever more suspicious since we have proof of Russian intervention into elections on a state and local level as far back as 2012.

    In states were the ACA agencies were established, not only did those agencies offer affordable healthcare but they also created tens of thousands of jobs.

    Look at the Republican BS for what it is. If these morons in the Corn Pone and Mutton Chops states couldn’t afford the ACA healthcare insurance, how in the hell are they going to afford Trumpcare?

    The reality is that GOP politicians never intended for their uninsured to actually pay for ANY Healthcare. They know if their state uninsured need healthcare and run to the ER, the rest of us pay for that. So, Republican states get FREE healthcare WE all pay for. That’s how they want it to stay.

    • dpaano says:

      Talk about “death panels,” this new healthcare plan that has been proposed is the epitome of a death panel for many! I have hopes that many of the more moderate Republicans will realize that they work for the good of their constituents and NOT for the good of the president!

      • Eleanore Whitaker says:

        If this is part and parcel of the YOLO generation of Twerps, they plan to live while they look the other way at those they cause to die or live in misery.

        Karma is odd. They may kill off what they consider “dead wood.” But, by the time their YOLO regime is done, they will be dead wood.

        • idamag says:

          Hitler had a term for people who were not working for any reason: “useless mouths.” That meant developmentally disabled, mentally ill, physically handicapped and elderly.

    • idamag says:

      Idaho’s “Let them eat cake” governor refused expanded medicaid.

  5. Eleanore Whitaker says:

    To prove how dumbass the Republican Politicians are and Ratbag Ryan is, they are now saying they want the states to cover Medicaid. My state always has for decades. Guess which states NEVER have and will have to now? Republican states who bitch constantly they are economically under water.

    No sweat off our Dem noses if they have to start paying state Medicaid. Most Dems states have had state paid Medicaid for decades. Go to it morons!

  6. idamag says:

    I thought Olympia Snow voted for the ACA. The t-party filled Congress with dembasses.

  7. secondclassguy says:

    The ACA was from a draft of the same plan as the heritage foundation and modeled after what Mitt Romney used for his state, how could it be anywhere near a freeze out. The bill was put together with both parties in a partisan way, then voted on with not one republican vote. After that the lies started how this was rammed down their throats, and more lies added on for 8 years

    • mike says:

      Wrong again! Go read the Heritage overall proposal! Quit regurgitating false talking points of the left.

      • secondclassguy says:

        It contains a mandate with subsidies, what else is there to know

        • mike says:

          Are you really as uniformed as you sound? As I said before quit regurgitation false information.
          The ‘mandates’ laid out by the Heritage Foundation were of an entirely different nature.
          1) Employer Mandate, requiring all large companies to provide healthcare coverage.
          2) A Catastrophic Insurance Mandate, intended to protect the public from absorbing the costs for uncovered emergency care.
          As to Romney. He vetoed the legislation from a super majority of liberal Democratic legislators 8 times but “they” finally passed it.
          Get your facts right before trying to look intelligent.

          • secondclassguy says:

            what makes you think these mandates aren’t mandates? or the subsidies are there. It does not justify the 100% partisan vote

          • mike says:

            What makes you think Obamacare is anything like the Heritage Plan? Did you even compare to see just how much bull sh** you keep regurgitating?

          • 788eddie says:

            Sorry, Mike; you’re the one who doesn’t sound very informed.

            secondclassguy is correct; ObamaCare was based upon RomneyCarein Mass., which was based upon the original Heritage Foundation proposal.

          • mike says:

            Sorry about your head being in a place the sun doesn’t shine. If you had an ounce of gray matter you would know from the mandate down there is no similarity. Heritage plan had minimal catastrophic coverage after high expenses. Obamacare had actual coverage of routine medical care. Heritage, minimal regulation of insurers. Obamacare strict, federally enforcement consumer rights. Heritage, gutting Medicaid. Obamacare, historically expansion of Medicaid. Heritage, Medicare vouchers. Obamacare keeps Medicare. You ignore the Tort Reform in the Heritage plan but is not in Obamacare.
            BTW, shortly Obamacare, a failing program, will be no longer. Like much of the Obama legacy.
            Keep that head buried, it suits you.

          • 788eddie says:

            Look, mike, I’d like to have a battle of wits with you, but I see you’re only half prepared.

            I don’t know where you’re getting your “alternative facts”, but like most Repuglicans these days, you certainly are creative.

            BTW, how’s that Trump thing workin’ out for you?

          • mike says:

            The only witless one is you. Other than the word “mandate”, there is no similarity between ACA and Heritage plans which I stated in earlier post. “Alternative facts” how funny! No, I gave you the facts no matter how inconvenient they are for you. Your problem is you can refute them so you try and reflect. So typical of your side. Those possessing alternative facts is the left. Keep that head where the sun doesn’t shine.
            You should be asking Obama how Trump is workin out for him.
            His failed signature program is in a death spiral and will shortly be gone. Obama’s rules and regulations are being dismantled each day. Pretty soon the Obama legacy will be a shadow of itself.

          • 788eddie says:

            I’m sure that the millions who are losing their newly gained healthcare will remember that at the polls. Conservatives are being unmasked for what they really are; uncaring, un-Christian, greedy, and anti-women misfits.

          • mike says:

            More of your drivel I see.

          • 788eddie says:

            So, I repeat: How’s that Trump Thing workin’ out fer ya?

            Trump is now a president without a party in a country that has only two parties.

          • mike says:

            Your drivel continues.
            The Democratic Party has no electable leader, has no identity, has no power, took a devastating defeat in November.
            Trump will be president for the next 1395 days so get use to it and no matter what you perceive to be Trumps problems they pale in comparison to the collapse of the Democratic Party. Each day we see the Obama legacy going away.
            So save me your stupid comments.
            Go back under your rock and continue to be part of a failed party.

          • 788eddie says:

            Wow, mike, you sound just like a Russian-connected troll we’ve been reading on this site. No substance, just a lot of flack. Could you be him, with just another name? Not surprising, since you still can’t hide the lack of intelligence.

          • mike says:

            Not drivel! No democratic electable leader. No Russian connection. Trump will president for the next 1394 days. So talk about all the democratic power and setting the agenda in government like in the WH, House, Senate or at the state level. Oh, I forgot you have none. ????Under Obama the left got its clock cleaned(lost) at every level of government and the leadership ignored their losses over 6 years like the brain dead people you are.
            The lack of intelligence is all yours.

          • 788eddie says:

            You’re beginning to sound desperate, mike.

            So sad. So truly sad.

            Like your leader, “Vlad the Impostor.”

          • mike says:

            How funny coming from you. “Desperate” not at all. My post hit you between the eyes with the truth and all you had was a lame comeback. How typical and funny.
            Keep them coming I love to laugh and especially at you.

          • 788eddie says:

            Hahahahahaha. mike, you’re a FAWOMFt, and you don’t even know it’

            Good bye.

          • mike says:

            Can’t refute the facts! So you put your tail between your legs, much like your head up your a$$, and run away.
            How typical of the weak of mind.
            Enjoying the mental midget you continue to be.

          • secondclassguy says:

            The ACA was build on the same principles and was even closer to what top republicans were proposing as an answer to hillarycare, and almost exactly what romney did in Massachusetts. It all led to a more liberal version with Obama, and was worked out in committees by BOTH parties. I never said the ACA was like the beginning plan from heritage, because it was only a beginning draft which led to the ACA. The fact ALL republicans voted against those principals after having help designed the ACA shows what hypocrites they are

          • mike says:

            What a silly answer on your part. What principles? Name them.
            As to Republican plans which one? Chaffee’s? There were several in house and senate that were floating out there but never brought up for vote or had a consensus among republicans.
            Republicans helped design Obamacare. Really? To try and argue the heritage plan is anything like Obamacare us wrong and pernicious.
            No, Obamacare was done by democrats which is why it is in a death spiral.
            This thread about ACA is a moot point because it will shortly be repealed. Obama’s signature program will disappear.
            Good riddance much like him.

          • secondclassguy says:

            The heritage plan relied on mandates and penalties, principles based on self responsibility. The reason it never came to a vote is because hillarycare never went anywhere, and republicans were able to go back to not caring about this issue at all. Having said that i will waste no more time with you because you’re an ignorant republican hack who hates your fellow citizens

          • mike says:

            Name the penalties! Name the same principles you claim are there! Name the other mandates! Come on genius.
            The plans are radically dissimilar to say otherwise is absurd.
            As to the rest of your post. Thanks for a good laugh.
            Don’t forget that Obamacare is a failure and will soon disappear much like Obama’s legacy.

          • mike says:

            Really! What a silly and stupid reply. Here’s what you posted earlier. “The heritage plan relied on mandates and penalties, principles based on self responsibility”
            So name the rest of the “mandates.” How many Mandates?Name the penalties! How many Penalties? Come on genius. Where’s the beef.
            PS,obamacare is a failure and was not based on the Heritage plan.

          • secondclassguy says:

            If you won’t accept original text i should have stopped bothering to waste my time. Compared to you anyone is a genius, a mandate is enforced with penalties

          • mike says:

            It has nothing to do with your interpretation of original document but has all to do with the difference between the “mandates” I gave you in an earlier post, obviously you can not refute so quit wasting my time.
            Your dishonesty is will documented by your inability to show the other “mandates and penalties” you claim are in the Heritage Plan. Oh well, just another inconvenient truth.
            PS, the dissimilarity between plans is huge, your inability to be intellectually honest is breathtaking.

          • secondclassguy says:

            “Your dishonesty is will documented”
            your stupidity is well documented

          • mike says:

            How funny and wrong you are again.
            Can’t refute the facts, can find the other mandates or penalties.
            So uninformed and dishonest.
            So pathetic.

          • secondclassguy says:

            give it up moron, anyone can search for themselves that the original draft included mandates and penalties

      • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

        Hmmmm yes I’m sure you imagine you are making some sort of point. You’re SUPER dumb, though, and really have no business having opinions on any topic.

        • dtgraham says:

          mike is not going to reply to an immature childish little idiot like you. None of the right wingers ever do anymore. He’d much prefer to debate an actual person in secondclassguy.

          I disagree with everything mike stands for politically, but even he knows what you are.

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            Weird how you keep showing up to defend nazis from liberals.

          • dtgraham says:

            Weird how somehow like you can even exist.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            Pretty sure I already knew you were impotent and humorless.

          • dtgraham says:

            I am not impotent anymore! I may have stupidly watched that Honey Boo-Boo — Mama June and Sugar Bear sex video again, but I’m recovered now. Wrecked me for a while though.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            ok thanks for sharing your stormfront lite opinion

          • dtgraham says:

            Okay that wasn’t bad. Stormfront-lite. I may use that.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            yes yes something something that dumb thing you said

          • dtgraham says:

            Just read it Tomato Brain. It really wasn’t, “something something”. Oh sorry, what am I saying? You…read?

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            ok thanks for sharing your white white white opinion

          • dtgraham says:

            That was a racist comment.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            I am shocked – shocked! – to hear about something something that thing you said

          • ⚡️ I Am Helpy ⚡️ says:

            Also I got to point out that you and mike spread exactly the same smears and conspiracy theories. That’s not “disagreeing with everything [he] stands for politically”, that’s being the useful idiot everyone keeps telling you you are.

          • dtgraham says:

            No, just you do Tomato Brain. You only.

            Unlike mike, I don’t believe that Hillary assassinated JFK.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            Oh ok as long as you don’t believe an obviously ludicrous conspiracy theory you just invented that totally excuses all the other ones you spread.

            Fake.

            Liberal.

          • dtgraham says:

            Just a little humour Tomato Brain. Something that you’d know nothing about.

            No point in changing your posting name now. You’ll always be a Tomato Brain.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            OK joyless conspiracy theorist bigot, it’s everyone ELSE that isn’t funny. That is definitely it.

          • dtgraham says:

            There are plenty of chuckles on this website. None that ever come from you though. “OK, sorry you’re a Nazi fascist, I hope that helps”, just doesn’t do it for me. I wouldn’t try stand-up.

          • ⭐️Just Better Than You ⭐️ says:

            ok you pasty white weeny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.