By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trumpcare will replace Obamacare/ACA

Lafiel on 10 March 2017
VGPolyglot said:
So, I don't really understand what the point of replacing Obamacare with this was if they're so similar to each other? Unless it's just to get people distracted by this so they're not focusing on other problems within the regime. However, I can't say that I'm too surprised that they are not so different from each other, because Obamacare was just private insurance companies handling it, instead of single payer like he said he would when they got the White House, House of Representatives and the Senate (spoilers, they ended up having all three from 2009-2011, and they didn't do it). However, as stated in the website, this is still subject to change.

there were 2 good reasons:

1. the corporatists in the democratic party wouldn't have voted for it and it would have died 2. by making it a lot closer to what the Republicans wanted he figured it wouldn't be touched even if Republicans got the WH/Senate back



Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 10 March 2017
Locknuts said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, there's a reason that rich people are rich: in other words, they take the surplus of labour from the workers while giving as little back to them as they have to.

No, workers and employers enter into voluntary agreements with one another. The rich usually aren't stealing to get where they are in developed nations.

 

Quite often, health insurance is part of an employment package in the US. So the rich pay anyway. Why should they be punished?

Voluntary in the sense that they agree to it in a contract, involuntary in the sense that if they don't submit to the rich people who control the economy they will be forced into poverty and starvation. It's also funny how apparently the wealthy are getting "punished" for having higher taxes. Those poor souls who make 3 million a year instead of 4 million a year!



VGPolyglot on 10 March 2017
Lafiel said:
VGPolyglot said:
So, I don't really understand what the point of replacing Obamacare with this was if they're so similar to each other? Unless it's just to get people distracted by this so they're not focusing on other problems within the regime. However, I can't say that I'm too surprised that they are not so different from each other, because Obamacare was just private insurance companies handling it, instead of single payer like he said he would when they got the White House, House of Representatives and the Senate (spoilers, they ended up having all three from 2009-2011, and they didn't do it). However, as stated in the website, this is still subject to change.

there were 2 good reasons:

1. the corporatists in the democrats wouldn't have voted for it and it would have died 2. by making it a lot closer to that the Republicans wanted he figured it wouldn't be touched even if Republicans got the WH/Senate back

And that's why people shouldn't look to the Democrats for a solution. They are Republicans with different rhetoric.



VitaminZ on 10 March 2017

I doubt Trumpcare passes through the Senate. No democrat is going to vote for it, so that leaves them at 52 votes. And several GOP senators are already against it, bringing them below 50. I think its dead on arrival.



Lafiel on 10 March 2017
VitaminZ said:
I doubt Trumpcare passes through the Senate. No democrat is going to vote for it, so that leaves them at 52 votes. And several GOP senators are already against it, bringing them below 50. I think its dead on arrival.

I'm pretty sure it will pass the Senate (~70%) - Republicans like to talk big, but when it comes to voting they usually fall in line



Around the Network
LadyJasmine on 10 March 2017

It will likely pass the senate with changes...

GOP know they have 2 years to do anything



TheWPCTraveler on 10 March 2017

"Non-official website"
The Rs can't really repeal Obamacare without getting rid of the 3/5ths rule to end debate in the Senate. So they either have to wait until 2018 or get rid of the rule.

I'm also thinking Trump will just dump all the baggage on Ryan and just go straight to the public with a new healthcare plan- with a bunch of carrots on sticks to hole the Dems into going through with it. Two birds with one stone: the Blue Wall in the senate, and that RINO Ryan.



 
I WON A BET AGAINST AZUREN! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

:3

Aura7541 on 10 March 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Locknuts said:
Good to see they're trying to keep most of the good stuff while not punishing the rich just for being rich.

Republicans hate public healthcare though. I daresay it will be watered down from this.

Well, there's a reason that rich people are rich: in other words, they take the surplus of labour from the workers while giving as little back to them as they have to.

There is more than one way to get rich. Some are ethical while others are not. So you should really be focusing on the rich people who got their wealth through unethical means.

OT: I feel that it's just going to be the same healthcare policy, but under a different name. Maybe there will be changes, but they won't be enough to consitute an actual reform.



VGPolyglot on 10 March 2017
Aura7541 said:
VGPolyglot said:

Well, there's a reason that rich people are rich: in other words, they take the surplus of labour from the workers while giving as little back to them as they have to.

There is more than one way to get rich. Some are ethical while others are not. So you should really be focusing on the rich people who got their wealth through unethical means.

OT: I feel that it's just going to be the same healthcare policy, but under a different name. Maybe there will be changes, but they won't be enough to consitute an actual reform.

Who got rich through ethical means? I guess winning the lottery isn't doesn't require doing anything unethical, but almost nobody gets rich from that.



Aura7541 on 10 March 2017
VGPolyglot said:
Aura7541 said:

There is more than one way to get rich. Some are ethical while others are not. So you should really be focusing on the rich people who got their wealth through unethical means.

OT: I feel that it's just going to be the same healthcare policy, but under a different name. Maybe there will be changes, but they won't be enough to consitute an actual reform.

Who got rich through ethical means? I guess winning the lottery isn't doesn't require doing anything unethical, but almost nobody gets rich from that.

Er... okay? This doesn't refute my argument that there are ethical and unethical ways to gain wealth. This feels less of a counterargument and more of a random rambling that just popped in your mind.