Obamacare: Trump asks Supreme Court to invalidate Affordable Care Act

Me saying it is a **** program means I think nothing is better?

 

You seem to support the approach of removing it without any replacement.

 

The very best way is what my wife did--teach people how to prepare healthy meals for not too much money and not a lot of effort.

 

You seem to put words in people's mouths.

 

Teaching kids to deal with their ADHD is important, too.

There is way too much drugging of kids who often don't even have ADHD. At my last school, we carefully reviewed every kid who came to us taking drugs and got more than half of them off the stuff.

All that said, there is a relatively small number of kids who really benefit from drugs.

 

I have no desire to control what people consume. All I ask is that tax payers are not forced to pay to make and keep people sick.

The terms "healthcare" and "Single Payer" are extremely misleading. Health care is 100% free. Health insurance takes care of unexpected health issues. Single Payer, when translated into English, actually means increasing the burden on many payers while allowing the underlying problem to get worse.

Yes, food and drug lobby are not only powerful, they almost have their own branch of government. If you look at who is in charge of the FDA, its no wonder we are heading down this path.

I realize your heart is in the right place and that your single payer position is with good intentions, but the results show us what to expect. You and I both want the same thing.

 

Not at all. Your very first post on this thread was to say "Good. It's a **** program."
I assumed you were saying "good" in response to the thread title - "Obamacare: Trump asks Supreme Court to invalidate Affordable Care Act"

Since there is no replacement ready - or even proposed - I said it seems like you would prefer to have nothing in place rather than Obamacare. If not, why do you think it is good to invalidate Obamacare without something else ready to replace it?

 

Silly. As long as people are not kicked off their Obamacare plans if the SCOTUS did this. People could still get health care and coverage without Obamacare. We survived before it and we will survive after it.

 

But if Obamacare is completely invalidated - which is what trump wants - maybe those plans will disappear.

 

Maybe. That doesn't mean those people couldn't get other plans. Trump wanting Obamacare gone does not mean he wants people to suffer.

 

I don’t think he wants them to suffer. But it’s pretty clear he doesn’t care if they suffer.
And no, they might not be able to get other plans - for example if they have pre-existing conditions.

All he wants to do is dismantle Obamacare. Not because of the content, but because it’s associated with Obama. And trump just doesn’t care about the consequences.

 

It's uncanny how all democrats are mind readers.

 

Yeah you get a government handout because you're 65. You don't have to pay the real price.

it's funny how you accuse other people of not knowing nothing when it's you that knows nothing.

 

Just out of curiosity, do you know why Obamacare has subsidies and a risk corridor?

 

I’m not a Dem. Nor a mind reader. But it is easy to infer someone’s intentions from their actions. It happens in criminal courts across the country every day.

Trump’s actions indicate that he has no post Obamacare plan. That indicates he doesn’t care.

 

If only there was some collective body that wrote laws that could actually solve the problem. BTW Trump has spoken many times about pre existing conditions.

 

Trump has no plan. And he didn’t use his majority in Congress in his first two years to get anything done.

Even if you don’t like Obamacare, you must think it’s the height of irresponsibility to remove it without replacing it.

 

The president does not write laws. Congress does and they did nothing. The republicans are useless and the democrats threw a four year tantrum and tried to impeach him

Nope. Our healthcare system would survive without Obamacare and Obamacare itself is the height of irresponsibility because it did nothing to address the problems that exist in our system.

 

Presidents drive legislation and set frameworks all the time. They can bring their plan to the table as a starting point. Trump’s done nothing.

You took issue with me saying that it seems like you think nothing would be better than Obamacare - went so far as to say I was putting words in your mouth - and now that’s exactly what you’re saying! Make up your mind!

 

Trump has repeatedly said what he wants.The congress has failed to act. Obamacare failed to solve any problems. Trump cannot be blamed any more than anyone else. Just deal with reality. It'll do your soul a world of good.

 

The president normally has an agenda, with the help of his vice president, policy advisers, can write up drafts to present to congress to develop his or her agenda into law.
They don't have to but if the congress's majority is the same as the president, this is much more true. If it is not, then they can find common ground. For example, there is common ground on infrastructure.

You did not know this?

If there were a president worthy of being impeached, it is this president, so your last statement has a partisan lens.

Kill the ACA and 23,000,000 will lose their health care, it would be the height of irresponsibility to remove it.

Your premise is without merit.

 

This is a mixed economy, it has been since FDR, deal with it.

 

LOL

Trumpcare

 

Yeah nobody knows anything but you. Imagine that a member of America's most self-centered generation is incredibly self-centered.

Feel good mooching off of everyone else? Oh wait you're entitled to that aren't you.

 

In other words, deny affordable access to health care. People get sick, they must be cared for, that's life.

Single payer would result in a savings to society, by redirecting dollars that are already being spent into a more cost efficient system whereby the cost of insurance, a factor of the overall cost, is removed. There are some 50 western developed nations with some variant of UHC and their per capita costs are roughly half of what it is here.

Now, I understand that Europe is stingier with their health care dollars, but, given their example, there is no evidence to demonstrate it would cost more, as 50% gives us a lot of headroom, and even it the cost is the same, if everyone is covered, that's a morally better proposition.

See red highlighted above, for a rebuttal to that.

We are agree about the drug lobby, what we need are leadership that has the courage to stand up to them.