Forum Thread

When polar opposites fight to defeat a common cause

Reply to Thread Displaying 14 Posts
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Following the news on healthcare, its interesting that Democrats and far right republicans are both working to defeat the current healthcare bill, and their combined efforts might succeed.

    - Democrats want to improve the current system, so they are fighting all efforts to replace it.
    - Far Right Republicans don't like the current bill because it makes too many compromises and will not settle for anything other that total repeal of the ACA.

    If there is a stalemate, the danger is that the current healthcare bill will be striped down to simply repealing the ACA by the end of 2019. This gives them two years to replace it. However, the risk with that approach would be that democrats gain enough control and are able to replace it with ACA 2.0.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The answer to all these problems is to quit attacking Trump. Once again I explained Trump, charisma and how to defeat him almost 18 months ago when I joined this sight. I did that all through the campaign even writing on Oct 28 the final scenario in spite of losing in the polls of Trump winning. You defeat a charismatic person by improving on the charismatic persons ideas. State that their idea is good, helps define then problem and is enlightening to the point of our own idea that goes even further. 18 months of attacking Trump made him president. Keep up the attacks and he will be leader of the world. He doesn't care what he does because he gets charismatic approval. The fact that he hasn't met, said or done anything for the Vets after saying how much he loves, appreciates and will do for them proves he has no conscience.
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hmm, not sure I understand. The idea I was trying to communicate is how two opposing political sides unintentionally work together to achieve the same objective despite that their political goals are polar opposite.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote: Hmm, not sure I understand. The idea I was trying to communicate is how two opposing political sides unintentionally work together to achieve the same objective despite that their political goals are polar opposite.

    Yes I know what you mean; however right now it has nothing to do with "healthcare", it has become an "personal" battle. Everyone sees somehow that their own positions may become endangered because of the "chaos". It is Bannon's objective to create "chaos" because then you can "rebuilt" the system to your liking as an "White Superior Christian" run country.

    Why did Bannon release an "bad" statement of Ryan? Just to create "chaos!!!!!!

    Sorry to say the Dem's have no idea on how they can fight all of this. Neither do they understand all these "tactics" nor the "diversion tactics" used on an daily basis. The "unintentionally" part is because they are "dragged " into the "chaos" and are too stupid to realize they are being "used" and if the GOP succeeds, they certainly will never receive any credit for their help. Thus Dem's don't help them; otherwise your party will be doomed only more.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Trump will "give in" to the far right because he has no reservations about dumping on the citizenry.
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Trump will "give in" to the far right because he has no reservations about dumping on the citizenry.

    I agree in the sense that he wants bragging rights to having killed "Obamacare" and will sign any healthcare bill put in front of him.

    We all seem to agree Trump feels the need to erase everything related to Obama presidency regardless to the impact. Hell, it easy to imagine this hypothetical tweet: "Obama didn't kill Binlanden, his death was faked. Trust me, I know everything Obama lied about, and he lied A LOT to the America people about everything"

    Can't wait for Trump's nick name for Obama.

  • Democrat
    Julian, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    20% of the Affordable Care Act goes to HMO'S, their CEO'S and administration.

    A single payer plan would only cost 2 or 3 % for administration and would eliminate 500 billion to the HMO'S and eliminate 20 billion a year in drug costs and these savings would be able to cover all Americans.

    The HMO'S and Drug Corporations have spent billions to buy the votes of the Republicans in the U.S. Congress to prevent a single payer plan which means the U.S. Government is a corrupt Oligarchy on steroids.

  • Democrat
    Julian, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    20% of the Affordable Care Act goes to HMO'S, their CEO'S and administration.

    A single payer plan would only cost 2 or 3 % for administration and would eliminate 500 billion to the HMO'S and eliminate 20 billion a year in drug costs and these savings would be able to cover all Americans.

    The HMO'S and Drug Corporations have spent billions to buy the votes of the Republicans in the U.S. Congress to prevent a single payer plan which means the U.S. Government is a corrupt Oligarchy on steroids.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    progressiveconnie, Excellent post and point. The reaction from the right is the same as the reaction from the NRA on gun legislation. The right 100% opposes everything that is not for profit. That is the litmus test to talk or write or be conservative.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    progressiveconnie Wrote: 20% of the Affordable Care Act goes to HMO'S, their CEO'S and administration.

    That's simply not true.

    progressiveconnie Wrote: A single payer plan would only cost 2 or 3 % for administration and would eliminate 500 billion to the HMO'S and eliminate 20 billion a year in drug costs and these savings would be able to cover all Americans.

    I am 100% for single payer, but where in the world are you getting these numbers? Just randomly throwing out numbers as if they are fact only muddies the discussion.

    Single payer will dramatically increase the tax liability of many Americans while dramatically lowering the tax liability of many others. I, as someone who has the financial means to spend more on healthcare, have no problem spending more. What we have to do is convince other people that it's in our nations best interest to pass single payer.

    Throwing out random numbers and ranting about HMO's only makes people who might otherwise be sympathetic to your case to walk away.

    progressiveconnie Wrote: The HMO'S and Drug Corporations have spent billions to buy the votes of the Republicans in the U.S. Congress to prevent a single payer plan which means the U.S. Government is a corrupt Oligarchy on steroids.

    They've spent billions buying the votes of many Democrats too.

    President Obama stated more than once that he would have loved to have Medicare for all but that he knew it was a non-starter in Congress. A Congress that had a massive Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. So blaming Republicans for everything is a logical fallacy.

    Again - I want Medicare for all, but we will only win that argument if we are able to convince enough Americans that it's in their best interest to have it. Fake "facts" and innuendo only make things harder.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I am 100% for single payer, but where in the world are you getting these numbers? Just randomly throwing out numbers as if they are fact only muddies the discussion.

    My guess is to post something clearly fictional to get someone to respond with accurate information. A bit like how appellate judges sometimes make statements (or questions) and then ask the lawyers if the statement\question is legally valid or not. :)

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Love or hate Obamacare, it has forced healthcare to move forward. If he had failed, we'd have nothing, and 7 years later congress would be debating the issue "if" we should have national healthcare, not debating "repeal and replace" with something better.
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I think what progressiveconnie is referring to is the Medical Loss Ratio:

    Kaiser Family Foundation: Explaining Health Care Reform: Medical Loss Ratio (MLR)

    What this part of the Affordable Care Act says is that 80 percent of the premiums charged policy holders (individuals and small businesses) for coverage must go to pay health care and quality improvement leaving the remaining 20% for administration, marketing, and profit. The MLR threshold is higher for large employer based group plans, which must spend at least 85 percent of premium dollars on health care and quality improvement.

    The 2-3 percent number comes from the apparent cost of administering Medicare, but that number is buried within the Social Security Administration's overhead. It is an apples and oranges comparison, but progressiveconnnie makes a good point that if you take out the "middleman", the insurance companies, cost per policy should go down.

    See Forbes article: The Myth of Medicare's Low Administration Costs

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Pensacola, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote: Love or hate Obamacare, it has forced healthcare to move forward. If he had failed, we'd have nothing, and 7 years later congress would be debating the issue "if" we should have national healthcare, not debating "repeal and replace" with something better.
    If not Obama Care Trump's Troopers would be privatizing medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration.