GOP's AHCA aka Trump-RyanCare

[bobabode]

CNN = Fake News, squawk - Whelly wanna cracker?

[sheltiedave]

22 million people losing their insurance = freedom for Republicans.

[Chicks]

"Eight years ago this week, then-President Barack Obama hosted a 90-minute public forum exclusively on health care policy, fielding questions from doctors, reporters, and the public at large. Can anyone imagine Donald J. Trump doing something similar? Does anyone seriously believe he’d want to try?"

No, Trump clearly doesn't possess the mental capacity of even Obama's small left toe.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...l-consequences

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

So much for 'winning'.

The Party of 'No' is proving up to be a venal party of laughingstocks led down the primrose path by an orange haired shitgibbon for all to see.

At least the Democrats and Pres. Obama spent their political capital back in '09 trying to improve the lot of regular citizenry with the ACA.

All the Repukes can do is try to screw Joe Taxpayer into the ground while giving a huge tax break to the 1% who hardly need it.

This is actually funny. What's a shitgibbon?

What's really happening is that the shoe is on the other foot, and the Dems are now the "Party of No" / resistance / obstruction / pick your favorite term for political obstinance. And of course, there you go again with the "tax break to the 1% meme."

Also, the Dems and Obama spent much more than political capital to hammer the ACA through. You might recall, for example, the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase". That said, McConnell has some funny money in the Senate bill to play with as well, so we might see some Republican political horsetrading before this is over.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

This is actually funny. What's a shitgibbon?

What's really happening is that the shoe is on the other foot, and the Dems are now the "Party of No" / resistance / obstruction / pick your favorite term for political obstinance. And of course, there you go again with the "tax break to the 1% meme."

Also, the Dems and Obama spent much more than political capital to hammer the ACA through. You might recall, for example, the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase". That said, McConnell has some funny money in the Senate bill to play with as well, so we might see some Republican political horsetrading before this is over.

So, you're OK with Republicans employing the very same tactics that they vehemently criticized when Dems did it, as long as it deprives 22 million of health care while guaranteeing a tax break for the wealthy? Brilliant (but hypocritical).

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

CNN = Fake News, squawk - Whelly wanna cracker?

Hey, if the shoe fits....

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...administration

As senior news executives reviewed the story's evolution, they found red flags that appeared to have been ignored, according to a person with direct knowledge of the events at CNN. Officials within CNN's standards and practices unit had raised concerns about several elements of the story, including the reliance on a single source, and others at the network were surprised to see it had been posted anyway. The network did not conclude the report was conclusively wrong, according to the person with knowledge of the incident, but said executives believed it was not solid enough for publication.

...and...

Earlier this month, CNN had to correct another story in which Lichtblau was involved; it claimed that former FBI Director James Comey's congressional testimony would contradict Trump's claims that Comey told him several times that he was not under federal investigation. CNN's Gloria Borger went on the air and said Comey would testify that it would not have been proper to do so.

Neither contention proved to be true. Comey testified instead that he had given Trump assurances that he was not personally under FBI investigation.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

So, you're OK with Republicans employing the very same tactics that they vehemently criticized when Dems did it, as long as it deprives 22 million of health care while guaranteeing a tax break for the wealthy? Brilliant (but hypocritical).

Did I say that? No. Are you using your time honored and asinine tactic of putting words in other people's mouths? Yes.

Also, your stat of "deprives 22 million of health care" that is bandied about by you and others is BULL SHIT.

First, that number stretches all the way out to 2026, yet compares the effects to "current law". It doesn't deal with the fact that Obamacare enrollments consistently fell short of forecasts, nor the fact that the availability of insurance carriers under currently law would continue to decline.

Other items that call your characterization of the CBO numbers into question:

- you say that 22 MM would be "deprived of coverage". However "The CBO estimates that 7 million fewer people would enroll in individual coverage in 2018, 9 million fewer in 2020, and 7 million fewer in 2026. The decline would be attributable to the end of the individual mandate and to the substantial decrease in the average subsidy for lower-income enrollees, as well as to the fact that some people would lose subsidy assistance altogether." So, yeah, some folks might choose not to buy coverage that they don't want, because there's no longer the threat of a tax penalty. Does this fit your definition of "deprived".

- "The CBO estimates that enrollment in Medicaid would decrease by 15 million in 2026, about 4 million of whom would be new enrollees who would have been enrolled by states that would have expanded Medicaid had the current law remained in effect. The CBO believes that the repeal of the individual mandate would reduce Medicaid enrollment because people would be less likely to seek out coverage or recertify eligibility (not because they would drop coverage)." Translated, if folks aren't threatened with a tax penalty, they might not enroll or re-enroll in coverage, even if its free. But I guess their lack of motivation and initiative to enroll in Medicaid would "deprive" these folks of coverage.

But if you find it more enjoyable to use partially true information to feed your angst - which I guess makes you the ideal WaPo reader - then you go right ahead.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

...your time honored and asinine tactic of putting words in other people's mouths?

That "your" wins you the 'blatant projection of the month award.' If Finn owned such tactic, you would owe him at least $1,000,000 in use royalties.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

That "your" wins you the 'blatant projection of the month award.' If Finn owned such tactic, you would owe him at least $1,000,000 in use royalties.

....yawn!!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Did I say that?

I asked you a question. The question remains - Are you OK with McConnell's tactics and the resulting plan?