Trump calls for repealing Obamacare without replacing it

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Welfare is entitlement. Once people are on it, it's impossible to repeal it. That's why society is dumbing down with more and more people being put on welfare. 500 years from now.

Entitlement isn't good for anyone...

originally posted by: AkontaDarkpaw
Entitlement isn't good for anyone...

It's great for the politicians who get voters to whore themselves and their votes out on election day in exchange for giving someone else's money to said Kept Voter as an "entitlement."

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: AkontaDarkpaw
Entitlement isn't good for anyone...

It's great for the politicians who get voters to whore themselves and their votes out on election day in exchange for giving someone else's money to said Kept Voter as an "entitlement."

Maybe in the short term...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


You realize that would crash the health care industry which would domino effect crash the economy right? Do you guys even think about the consequences of your suggestions?

The choice was made when politicians from BOTH parties, Governors, States Attorney Generals all took lobby money from medical industry and refused to uphold anti-trust and consumer law roughly 30 years ago when impact would have been negligible to overall economy.

Sticking with vestiges of PPACA or passing new legislation without upholding anti-trust, consumer laws ensures a wide economic disaster in 4 - 6 years.

That crash could be so deep and dark I have my doubts the nation would come out of it intact.

Heathcare will be least of one's worries. Food and defending it comes to mind as priority.

Crashing healthcare now, right now, sooner the better by lawful, 2 SCOTUS case backed, application of anti-trust laws and state, federal consumer laws would indeed drop GDP by 10-15% however that deep drop would correct over a two year period as that 10 - 15% GDP redoployed to productive uses.

The physicians, nurses and trained specialists would still be here but would be able to restart facilities with 10 cents on the dollar.

What wouldn't be there are 9/1 ratio of non-care providing personell that we pay for now and approximately 80% of costs.su

Without going huge detail healthcare would truly be affordable.

Painful, without doubt.

Choice is take country down hard with feelgood intentions - so hard no services any kind may be available.

Or

Take down now in controlled fashion to ensure a better future.

I know which I'd do, pretty sure know which you'd do.

This problem has been allowed to fester 30 years to a point of crisis that transcends partisan concerns.

originally posted by: AkontaDarkpaw
Maybe in the short term...

It's good for them as long as the flow of other's earnings to their Kept Voters continues. It is when that flow of wealth is cut off that the former recipients realize they're little more than pawns in a game and, if they take the logical path and discover personal responsibility, they flee from those politicians and their policies like rats from a sinking ship.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: AkontaDarkpaw
Maybe in the short term...

It's good for them as long as the flow of other's earnings to their Kept Voters continues. It is when that flow of wealth is cut off that the former recipients realize they're little more than pawns in a game and, if they take the logical path and discover personal responsibility, they flee from those politicians and their policies like rats from a sinking ship.

Hmmm... in a situation like that i doubt i'd be rational. I probably would be more likely to go after what i had like a dog going after a bone.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am at the end and my husband has cancer and another disease after 40 years of pouring concrete. I know about life. And I want better for the future.

Taking away medical coverage to give to the rich is wrong is my point. They will be hated more than they are now. And its rich people deciding our future, Trump said he didn't trust poor people. Goes both ways.

originally posted by: AkontaDarkpaw
Hmmm... in a situation like that i doubt i'd be rational. I probably would be more likely to go after what i had like a dog going after a bone.

Possible as well. That said, I don't believe in paying people simply to get them to follow the laws of the land. So if elimination of welfare turns them into crazed dogs, we deal with them choosing to make that decision on a case by case basis.

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


You realize that would crash the health care industry which would domino effect crash the economy right? Do you guys even think about the consequences of your suggestions?

The choice was made when politicians from BOTH parties, Governors, States Attorney Generals all took lobby money from medical industry and refused to uphold anti-trust and consumer law roughly 30 years ago when impact would have been negligible to overall economy.

Sticking with vestiges of PPACA or passing new legislation without upholding anti-trust, consumer laws ensures a wide economic disaster in 4 - 6 years.

That crash could be so deep and dark I have my doubts the nation would come out of it intact.

Heathcare will be least of one's worries. Food and defending it comes to mind as priority.

Crashing healthcare now, right now, sooner the better by lawful, 2 SCOTUS case backed, application of anti-trust laws and state, federal consumer laws would indeed drop GDP by 10-15% however that deep drop would correct over a two year period as that 10 - 15% GDP redoployed to productive uses.

The physicians, nurses and trained specialists would still be here but would be able to restart facilities with 10 cents on the dollar.

What wouldn't be there are 9/1 ratio of non-care providing personell that we pay for now and approximately 80% of costs.su

Without going huge detail healthcare would truly be affordable.

Painful, without doubt.

Choice is take country down hard with feelgood intentions - so hard no services any kind may be available.

Or

Take down now in controlled fashion to ensure a better future.

I know which I'd do, pretty sure know which you'd do.

This problem has been allowed to fester 30 years to a point of crisis that transcends partisan concerns.

Remember those days well! The government actually stepped up and prevented BIG MONEY from dominating a certain type of industry! Too bad those who in this day and age who hate the 1% seem to be doing their bidding free of charge!

a reply to: allsee4eye

Never going to get health insurance cost down until we get healthcare cost down. It shouldn't cost $14,000dollars to have your knee fixed. It shouldn't cost $10,000 to have your nose fixed. One nights stay in a hospital shouldn't cost $3500 dollars. Its kind of funny how both parties are ignoring the real problem here. I wonder why? (sarc)

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: AkontaDarkpaw
Hmmm... in a situation like that i doubt i'd be rational. I probably would be more likely to go after what i had like a dog going after a bone.

Possible as well. That said, I don't believe in paying people simply to get them to follow the laws of the land. So if elimination of welfare turns them into crazed dogs, we deal with them choosing to make that decision on a case by case basis.

Agreed. That amounts to nothing more than bribery and i'm sure every parent has tried that at least once and many saw the error in that methodology quite quickly, i'm sure.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Taking away medical coverage to give to the rich is wrong is my point.

Let's explore this, please. How do you "give" something to someone who already had ownership of it? I ask this because we're not talking about increasing anyone's earnings in these conversations, we are talking purely about how much earnings should be taken from those who actually earned the money. Reducing the amount taken isn't "giving" anything to those it would have been taken from, it's simply taking less from them.

If you want to talk about "giving," then let's start the conversation around those on entitlements. Given other's earnings simply because "I exist" isn't a sustainable or fair system.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MOMof3
Taking away medical coverage to give to the rich is wrong is my point.

Let's explore this, please. How do you "give" something to someone who already had ownership of it? I ask this because we're not talking about increasing anyone's earnings in these conversations, we are talking purely about how much earnings should be taken from those who actually earned the money. Reducing the amount taken isn't "giving" anything to those it would have been taken from, it's simply taking less from them.

If you want to talk about "giving," then let's start the conversation around those on entitlements. Given other's earnings simply because "I exist" isn't a sustainable or fair system.

A fair question, but who does this "entitlement" apply to?

There are people, imo, who should rightfully receive government assistance.

Those injured and no longer capable of working or those unable to work due to health conditions or disability.

If you're suggesting entitlement as an issue for those who simply have their hand out and aren't working or aren't attempting to, then it's likely going to be a very different conversation from one lumping everyone that receives government assistance in the "entitlement" category.

Perhaps we should define where government aid (hand up) ends and entitlement (hand out) begins?

Hey this is Awesome! Lets go back to the way it was BEFORE Obama and Harry Reid put the shaft to all Americans! (except for the few who got free coverage at the expense of the American taxpayer! It was so bad they even figured they needed to use the IRS to force it on people. Typical Harry Reid / Obama moves.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Hey this is Awesome! Lets go back to the way it was BEFORE Obama and Harry Reid put the shaft to all Americans! (except for the few who got free coverage at the expense of the American taxpayer! It was so bad they even figured they needed to use the IRS to force it on people. Typical Harry Reid / Obama moves.

Lol! This is an angle i haven't seen. Good point.

originally posted by: AkontaDarkpaw

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Hey this is Awesome! Lets go back to the way it was BEFORE Obama and Harry Reid put the shaft to all Americans! (except for the few who got free coverage at the expense of the American taxpayer! It was so bad they even figured they needed to use the IRS to force it on people. Typical Harry Reid / Obama moves.

Lol! This is an angle i haven't seen. Good point.

Obama was always thinking about the votes. And when he started scheming for ways to get democrat voters, his key method has been to give away things, money and entitlements of all kinds. That is what Obamacare resembled 100 percent. Obamacare followed that pattern. This is why I say, flush the entire package of filth right down the old sewer drain back where it spawned from.

a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

Those who receive money from a system they actively paid into, such as Social Security and Medicare, aren't on "entitlements" in my opinion. They're harvesting the fruits of their labors.

The rest of it, no. That includes Medicaid, for what it's worth... I don't believe the government should be in the business of charity or hand ups or outs. Charity starts and stops with individuals. Far less corruption and far less opportunity for glad handing when it doesn't go through people who are dependent on votes to retain their positions.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

How is a FRUIT of LABOR when it's DEMANDED??

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: burdman30ott6

How is a FRUIT of LABOR when it's DEMANDED??

Because it was paid into under the promise that it would be there to draw from after retirement.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am at the end and my husband has cancer and another disease after 40 years of pouring concrete. I know about life. And I want better for the future.

Taking away medical coverage to give to the rich is wrong is my point. They will be hated more than they are now. And its rich people deciding our future, Trump said he didn't trust poor people. Goes both ways.

If your husband worked all his life paid taxes he deserves it. I have a problem with putting perfectly healthy leeches of society on Medicaid which should only be reserved for retirees. Ps Medicaid isn't funded by the rich but by everyone paying taxes.