Among other questions in a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll: 52% of Republicans polled want a complete repeal of Obamacare compared to 69% in October.
I doubt the election caused a bunch of people to actual research the topic more. Did the 60 Minutes interview influence that many people? I doubt it as well but I can't think of other reasons. Trump should be happy if it's the latter because it would show that he can change his mind with few implications.
available whether the UCA is repealed or just fixed. Reasonable access to coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and the coverage for offspring up to age 25 who are still students. If they are out working, they should get their own coverage.
One thing that would not be fair is for those who choose not to be covered for years, then wait until they are ill to buy in at the same price as those who paid in all along. They chose to save the premium payments for many years, it is fair for them to buy in at the same rate as those who have paid in all along.
(no message)
Rewriting that piece of trash would be a waste of time.
(no message)
(no message)
conditions and kids onto until 26 parts of the plan. In other words, the good stuff.
And now meebe it can be fixed. Funny how reality sets in when your boy needs to suddenly deliver. The Don was the guy that was going to repeal it day one. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
(no message)
How do you propose saving the good stuff and replacing the bad?
Believe me they are scratching their heads because it involves hard choices that Mr. combover may not like.
criticize DT without hearing his plan. You criticize my suggestion. What is your solution?
With Don Corleone, what I'm criticizing is his obvious and simplistic lie that he would repeal it day one and also his refusal to date to put forth a workable replacement plan that keeps the good stuff. Rubio called him on it in the debate. You can't have it both ways, preexisting condition coverage and no mandate of some type.
I actually like Price and am more than willing to listen to what he has in mind. But hard choices will have to be made on things like prexisting conditions coverage. You can't have your cake and eat it also like the Don wants.
(no message)
Link: Read again
The answer is it depends on what you want.
If you want coverage for most but not everyone and not every prexisting condition, then some variation of the GOP 2008 plan.
If you want the whole ball of wax, i.e. universal coverage, prexisting conditions, kids covered well into young adulthood, then you are likely looking at some form of Govt funded or single payer system.
There is no good easy answer and the ACA has made the landscape much worse.
they are ill should be able to get in, but not at the same rate as those who have paid in over the years. In other words a penalty similar to Medicare part B. If you opt out at first and want in later, you pay a penalty.
The other difference regarding the offspring stay covered until 25. I said only if they are still in school.
How is that dodging?
I do not recall the 2008 GOP plan, so I cannot comment on that, but coverage for offspring until 25 is not new. Ours were covered as long as they were students.
(no message)
(no message)
Some type of mandate and/or govt funding, single payer will be needed.
those that sat back for years until they were ill would have to pay a penalty or a higher premium than those who have had ongoing coverage. I also said that the youngsters be covered until 25 only if they are still in school.
(no message)
What if it was wrong in October and not now?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
He said he wants to repeal and replace Obamacare and he's appointed a person in Dr. Tom Price who is just the person to do it. He wants to keep the pre-existing conditions part and the children up to 26 part. Whether they're kept as an Obamacare holdover or part of the new legislation is just a symantic detail. How you get upset about this is beyond me. He's taken a reasonable position that most people support. Obamacare unfavorability is through the roof although people like certain parts of it. Sounds like his position. The whining has to stop already, he's not even in office.
(no message)
Gimme a break. The negativity has to stop. Tom Price, Seema Verma, Paul Ryan... they are going to put something on his desk that works a hell of a lot better than what we have now, and the American people know that THAT is all that matters.
Again, that's not inflammatory.
I'll give you the lemmings comment but, again, that was in the context of them just following what Trump says not anything specifically bad per se.
And you still haven't answered my question.
Here he is in a primary debate:
Q: Senator Rubio, you said that Mr. Trump thinks part of ObamaCare is pretty good. Which part?
RUBIO: The individual mandate. He said he likes the individual mandate portion of it; I don't believe that should remain there. We need to repeal ObamaCare completely and replace it with a system that puts Americans in charge of their health care money again.
TRUMP: I agree with that 100%, except pre-existing conditions, I would absolutely get rid of ObamaCare. I want to keep pre- existing conditions. It's a modern age, and I think we have to have it.
Q: The insurance companies say is that the only way that they can cover people with pre-existing conditions is to have a mandate requiring everybody purchase health insurance. Are they wrong?
TRUMP: I think they're wrong 100%. Look, the insurance companies take care of the politicians [and vice-versa]. The insurance companies are making an absolute fortune. Yes, they will keep preexisting conditions, and that would be a great thing.
You tell me. Where has he evolved?
You know, one that works and is fiscally sound.
(no message)
do you want to talk effective HC reform? Have at it with Frank. I'm going to wait for his plan first.
(no message)
(no message)
He's also pretty consistent which helps in the case of Trump.
This IS the problem, yeah there are plenty of workable plans that cover MOST people.
But see your own Gruber has promised to install one that provides universal coverage, with prexisting conditions, and without a mandate. I really would like to see a workable, financially sound proposal for that.
With these goals, single payor is the only way it works.
Primary reason that could be a disaster here despite varying degrees of success elsewhere is because bureaucracies tend to suck in the USA. This isn't as much a problem elsewhere in the world. Why?
Only answer I can come up with is lobbying. The politically protected classes will prevent meaningful change and would sabotage any attempt at real change. What say you?
The problem is that replacing this monstrosity with anything else could make it even worse.
Once this got put in, it essentially meant that it either worked or we would almost have to go single payer. And we may be at that point.
(no message)
They do have to put something on the table that's going to work. That isn't all that easy to do. We all know that Obamacare sucks and never should have been enacted. Not enough anymore though just to rail against it, and there are portions of it that are popular with the voters. It's put up or shut up time and Drumph et al are going to own it this time.
Remember when Trump said he could shoot someone in public and wouldn't lose any votes? He was mostly right.
Because I take your comment to be more meaningful to Trump changing his position (i.e., that he can change his position on a key campaign point and not lose support). That doesn't necessarily mean those people also change their positions.
Are they lemmings?
...consequence.
Get out of the way and let Trump "evolve"...like Jame Gumb in Silence Of The Lambs...
something awful.
(no message)
I think we'll look glorious in "The Coat of Many Plumpers"!
But this isn't about Trump or Obama, it's about the people polled. Trump changing his position doesn't surprise me at all. Such a dramatic change in a core Republican position in a month does.
in the abstract (it should).
But see now when the rubber hits the highway and all of a sudden the issues of prexisting conditions, kids on their parents HI, covering the working poor, how do you do this without a mandate are really on the table and the geniuses have to deal with them in a better way, well then views change a tad bit.
in line. Keep in mind that only about 23% of the country is Republican right now.
These are all just guesses, my main point is that I wouldn't try to rationalize it, cause it isn't going to make sense.
Also, I don't care where they are concentrated, more than two million more Americans voted for his opponent. He could get into trouble very quickly.
You can't take him literally when he's lying and such.
(no message)
(no message)
or promises?
Frank L takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.
And yes his supporters don't care if he lies and in fact think that it's a positive. Hence my post.
position based on public reaction. Sounds like a freaking waste of time to me.
that he was speaking figuratively not literally, and he doubled down every time.
Sure, you may not have taken him literally every single time he said it but the base did.
Build the damn wall!
(no message)
You're stuck with Lena Dunham and Justin Bieber. I win.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
his position is not absolute.
Build the damn wall!
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
he never intended to do.
You know like Gruber and Obama's lies on healthcare. I recall that I did point those out, how cynically they were made, and how stupid the electorate was for believing that BS. No different now.
I am just going to make a guess on how it breaks down:
25% - True Believers
65% - Never Hillary
10% - Change of power, unhappy with current situation and opportunities, this is the group that really elected him.
(no message)
(no message)