Jump to content

If GOP Repeals ACA With 51 Votes Dems Can Expand Medicare With 51


skews13
 Share

Recommended Posts

With the coming cruelty of the Republican Congress’ all but certain repeal of Obamacare and the denial of medical care to even their own family members, I have been despondent about the future. You see I have Crohn’s Disease, a severe and chronic illness, which insurers would not touch in the era before Obamacare.

In the era before Obamacare, it was hard to find a job because the medical debt that showed up on a credit check was an indication of an illness—an illness which would dramatically increase the amount an employer had to pay for health insurance. To me, a repeal of Obamacare is being relegated to the shadows once again by society. It will make my life very, very difficult.

I have been thinking about how we can restore Obamacare or pass something even better if the Republicans act out the cruel nihilism of Ayn Rand now that they have attained power.

I do not trust Chuck Schumer, who just two years ago called Obamacare an error, to do the right thing and bring the Affordable Care Act back if Republicans repeal it. Senator Schumer, being the politician who cares more about longevity than doing the right thing, won’t restore the Affordable Care Act because of what happened in the past.

This is despite the fact that a repeal of the Affordable Care Act is sure to cause mass layoffs in the health care sector and would likely prompt a recession.

We need to give Schumer’s opponents within the Democratic Caucus the power to pressure, and drag, him into doing the right thing for the 52 million Americans who are like me and won’t be able to get health insurance or a job because of their pre-existing condition after forthcoming repeal of Obamacare.

Republicans plan to repeal Obamacare with just 51 votes, despite the fact it took sixty votes to pass it, by using the parliamentary trick of budget reconciliation.

If Republicans set the precedent that it only takes 50 votes to change existing health care policy, Democrats should make it clear that the next time they have the majority they too will use budget reconciliation to make major changes to health care policy. However, instead of using that power to make people’s lives more difficult, Democratic Senators will use that power to make people’s lives easier.

Democratic Senators shoud sign a letter which says the following:

 

“if the Republicans use budget reconciliation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the precedent that it only takes 50 votes to make major changes to health care will have been set; the next time Democrats have the majority in the Senate, we will use the budget reconciliation process to lower the eligibility age for Medicare from sixty five years old to one day old. In short, if Republicans take the unprecedented step of repealing the Affordable Care Act with 51 votes, we firmly believe that a precedent that will allow us to pass Medicare for all with 51 votes will have been set. And because we believe that our constituents should not have to sleep on broken arms and go without the dignity of medical care for their ailments, we will pass Medicare for All with 51 votes the next time we are entrusted with a Majority in the Senate.”

Please contact your Senator and ask them to stand up to unprecedented Senate rule changes by the Republicans in their never ending effort to make the lives of their constituents more difficult.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/22/1613621/-If-Republicans-Repeal-Obamacare-With-51-Votes-Democrats-Can-Pass-Medicare-for-All-With-51-Votes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tons of republicans in this country that love their medicare and Social Security for one thing we paid for it and we pay every month a premium for medicare. There is nothing free about either one.

 

I have been a registered republican for years and there are plenty of republican friends and relatives that have a lot of respect for OUR medicare and Social Security. There are also varying levels of wealth within this core group and lots of college degrees. NONE OF US SUPPORT THE RADICAL RIGHT WING POLITICIANS fucking with OUR Social Security

and Medicare.

 

Please keep the above food for thought in mind. The point: There will some of the smarter GOP sticking with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tons of republicans in this country that love their medicare and Social Security for one thing we paid for it and we pay every month a premium for medicare. There is nothing free about either one.

 

I have been a registered republican for years and there are plenty of republican friends and relatives that have a lot of respect for OUR medicare and Social Security. There are also varying levels of wealth within this core group and lots of college degrees. NONE OF US SUPPORT THE RADICAL RIGHT WING POLITICIANS fucking with OUR Social Security

and Medicare.

 

Please keep the above food for thought in mind. The point: There will some of the smarter GOP sticking with us.

Medicare, Medicaid, Socialist Security and Obamcare burn up 70% of our budget.

How are you going to continue to pay for these programs, that are all going bankrupt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tons of republicans in this country that love their medicare and Social Security for one thing we paid for it and we pay every month a premium for medicare. There is nothing free about either one.

Who said it was going broke?
The opponents of Social Security will stop at nothing in their long crusade to destroy the most efficient retirement system in the world. Opponents have taken two tracks to attack Social Security. The first is to claim the system as it is will fail, and the second is to claim that privatization is a better way to provide for retirement security. The first claim was the favorite from 1935 to about 2001.Then the privatization claim became the vogue. Now the first is back on the table.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference.

The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

Making any cuts to Social Security now, either by raising the retirement age or cutting benefits, would have a huge impact on their remaining retirement income and are not necessary to “save the system.” In fact, to make the most of the modifications currently being proposed by Obama's commission would be the height of folly.

With all the fear-mongering falsehoods flying around, it can be difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Below, Doug Orr helps D&S readers do just this, with clear, and sometimes surprising, answers to many common Social Security-related questions.

—Eds.

 

 

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system. But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative. After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

In fact, under the former President Bush’s privatization proposal, a 20-year-old worker joining the labor force today would have seen her guaranteed Social Security benefits reduced by 46%. Bush’s own Social Security commission admitted that private accounts were unlikely to make up for this drop in guaranteed benefits. The brokerage firm Goldman Sachs estimated that even with private accounts, retirement income of younger workers would have been reduced by 42% compared to what they would have received if no changes were made to Social Security..

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt” in 2042. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.” Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels. According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments).

In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do. The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense.

On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are tons of republicans in this country that love their medicare and Social Security for one thing we paid for it and we pay every month a premium for medicare. There is nothing free about either one.

Who said it was going broke?
The opponents of Social Security will stop at nothing in their long crusade to destroy the most efficient retirement system in the world. Opponents have taken two tracks to attack Social Security. The first is to claim the system as it is will fail, and the second is to claim that privatization is a better way to provide for retirement security. The first claim was the favorite from 1935 to about 2001.Then the privatization claim became the vogue. Now the first is back on the table.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference.

The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

Making any cuts to Social Security now, either by raising the retirement age or cutting benefits, would have a huge impact on their remaining retirement income and are not necessary to “save the system.” In fact, to make the most of the modifications currently being proposed by Obama's commission would be the height of folly.

With all the fear-mongering falsehoods flying around, it can be difficult to separate fact from fiction.

Below, Doug Orr helps D&S readers do just this, with clear, and sometimes surprising, answers to many common Social Security-related questions.

—Eds.

 

 

Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system. But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative. After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

In fact, under the former President Bush’s privatization proposal, a 20-year-old worker joining the labor force today would have seen her guaranteed Social Security benefits reduced by 46%. Bush’s own Social Security commission admitted that private accounts were unlikely to make up for this drop in guaranteed benefits. The brokerage firm Goldman Sachs estimated that even with private accounts, retirement income of younger workers would have been reduced by 42% compared to what they would have received if no changes were made to Social Security..

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt” in 2042. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.” Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels. According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments).

In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do. The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense.

On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

It's pretty OBVIOUS that you have NO EDUCATION OR CLUE about how LONG TERM INVESTING works.

 

Every hear of "Dollar cost averaging"???

 

It's WHY so many people with 401K's that RETIRE do so with MORE MONEY than they get from Social Security. And yes, there ARE ups and downs in ANY investment portfolio. It's WHY DOLLAR COST AVERAGING WORKS.

 

AND it's the very reason that demorroids want to SEIZE THEM to pay for the DEBT that SS has NOW that is going to result in the REDUCTION of benefits OR a complete collapse of the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you say the people who run the programs are liars?

And you still haven't told us how you are going to control the costs of these 4 programs that eat 70% of our budget.

Why not?


It's pretty OBVIOUS that you have NO EDUCATION OR CLUE about how LONG TERM INVESTING works.

 

Every hear of "Dollar cost averaging"???

 

It's WHY so many people with 401K's that RETIRE do so with MORE MONEY than they get from Social Security. And yes, there ARE ups and downs in ANY investment portfolio. It's WHY DOLLAR COST AVERAGING WORKS.

 

AND it's the very reason that demorroids want to SEIZE THEM to pay for the DEBT that SS has NOW that is going to result in the REDUCTION of benefits OR a complete collapse of the system.

Exactly. And the sad part is that to have a 401k, you have to ALSO pay Social Security.

So after the government has taken 50% of the money you earn, then you get to try to save for your retirement.

 

The sad fact is that liberals want people to try to survive on Social Security, because that makes them government dependent.

An independent citizen won't vote Democrat. Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people who run the program. I've given you the links before to the annual reports that show when they run out of money.

You should read them for a change.

 

POINTS THAT PROFITEERING THINK TANKS, BIG BANK PROFITEERS, AND POLITICIANS FAIL TO MAKE:

 

--- What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts.

Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office. Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years. This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion. Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

--- How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor. While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension.

When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things. In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income.

If the move to private accounts reduces elders’ spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality—and increased inequality hinders economic growth.

For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced.

Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme. The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression.

And the rapid increase in inequality under the Reagan and two Bush administrations was one of the causes of the current “Great Recession.”

 

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you REALLY have to love about these liberrhoids is this "51 votes to change Medicare" idea is DOA before the ink dried.

What they REALLY should figure out is HOW the hell they can defend 25 Senate Seats in 2018 and RETAIN what they have NOW. Changes are, there is 8-10 that they WILL lose.

 

So what you MORONS should concentrate on the MOST is learning HOW you win a fucking election BEFORE you start trying to do ANY Legislation!!!

 

Sucks being irrelevant, huh, MORONS?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

POINTS THAT PROFITEERING THINK TANKS, BIG BANK PROFITEERS, AND POLITICIANS FAIL TO MAKE:

 

--- What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts.

Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office. Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years. This does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power. In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion. Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy. Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.

--- How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor. While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension.

When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things. In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income.

If the move to private accounts reduces elders’ spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality—and increased inequality hinders economic growth.

For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced.

Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme. The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression.

And the rapid increase in inequality under the Reagan and two Bush administrations was one of the causes of the current “Great Recession.”

 

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

 

Your programs are going broke. We're already $20 Trillion in debt because of stupid people like you.

Claiming we "can't afford" to end Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare is... just really, really stupid.

Former President Bush and Congress racked up an average $793 billion deficit each year Bush was in office.

That's simply not true. Why do liberals lie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the FACTS, merrill.....

 

President Bush

  • 2001 budget year (last 9 months) $129.6 (billion) surplus
  • 2002 budget year $157.8 (billion) deficit
  • 2003 budget year $377.6 (billion) deficit
  • 2004 budget year $413 (billion) deficit
  • 2005 budget year $318 (billion) deficit
  • 2006 budget year $248 (billion) deficit
  • 2007 budget year $161 (billion) deficit
  • 2008 budget year $459 (billion) deficit
  • 2009 budget year (first 3 months) $332.5 (billion) deficit
  • $2,337.3 (billion) deficit TOTAL

President Obama

  • 2009 budget year (last 9 months) $1080.5 (billion) deficit
  • 2010 budget year $1294 (billion) deficit
  • 2011 budget year $1299 (billion) deficit
  • 2012 budget year $1100 (billion) deficit
  • 2013 budget year $ 683 (billion) deficit
  • 2014 budget year $ 483 (billion) deficit
  • 2015 budget year (CBO estimate) $ 468 (billion) deficit
  • 2016 budget year (CBO estimate) $ 467 (billion) deficit
  • 2017 budget year (first 3 months, CBO) $ 163 (billion) deficit
  • $7,037.5 (billion) deficit TOTAL

 

BUSH average Deficits are $292.125 Billion over 8 years.

 

Obama deficits are $879.6875 over 8 years.

 

BOTH use the same identical metrics to "averages".

 

Damn, it sucks for you being so MORTALLY FUCKING STUPID!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medicare, Medicaid, Socialist Security and Obamcare burn up 70% of our budget.

How are you going to continue to pay for these programs, that are all going bankrupt?

Hmm, follow your Masters advice and drain the swamp.

 

Sounds like Capitalism is a fucking failure.

 

Cut out the middle men.

Reduce what can be charged (standardize) for medical care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the FACTS, merrill.....

 

President Bush

  • 2001 budget year (last 9 months) $129.6 (billion) surplus
  • 2002 budget year $157.8 (billion) deficit
  • 2003 budget year $377.6 (billion) deficit
  • 2004 budget year $413 (billion) deficit
  • 2005 budget year $318 (billion) deficit
  • 2006 budget year $248 (billion) deficit
  • 2007 budget year $161 (billion) deficit
  • 2008 budget year $459 (billion) deficit
  • 2009 budget year (first 3 months) $332.5 (billion) deficit
  • $2,337.3 (billion) deficit TOTAL

President Obama

  • 2009 budget year (last 9 months) $1080.5 (billion) deficit
  • 2010 budget year $1294 (billion) deficit
  • 2011 budget year $1299 (billion) deficit
  • 2012 budget year $1100 (billion) deficit
  • 2013 budget year $ 683 (billion) deficit
  • 2014 budget year $ 483 (billion) deficit
  • 2015 budget year (CBO estimate) $ 468 (billion) deficit
  • 2016 budget year (CBO estimate) $ 467 (billion) deficit
  • 2017 budget year (first 3 months, CBO) $ 163 (billion) deficit
  • $7,037.5 (billion) deficit TOTAL

 

BUSH average Deficits are $292.125 Billion over 8 years.

 

Obama deficits are $879.6875 over 8 years.

 

BOTH use the same identical metrics to "averages".

 

Damn, it sucks for you being so MORTALLY FUCKING STUPID!!!

The facts liar and know nothing.

 

That $129 billion surplus at the start of Bush administration. Inherited from Clinton.

 

That $1 trillion defict at start of Obama administration. Inherited from Bush.

 

Current deficit. $590 billion.

 

10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f2.jpg10-10-12bud_rev2-28-13-f1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the coming cruelty of the Republican Congress all but certain repeal of Obamacare and the denial of medical care to even their own family members, I have been despondent about the future. You see I have Crohns Disease, a severe and chronic illness, which insurers would not touch in the era before Obamacare.

In the era before Obamacare, it was hard to find a job because the medical debt that showed up on a credit check was an indication of an illnessan illness which would dramatically increase the amount an employer had to pay for health insurance. To me, a repeal of Obamacare is being relegated to the shadows once again by society. It will make my life very, very difficult.

I have been thinking about how we can restore Obamacare or pass something even better if the Republicans act out the cruel nihilism of Ayn Rand now that they have attained power.

I do not trust Chuck Schumer, who just two years ago called Obamacare an error, to do the right thing and bring the Affordable Care Act back if Republicans repeal it. Senator Schumer, being the politician who cares more about longevity than doing the right thing, wont restore the Affordable Care Act because of what happened in the past.

This is despite the fact that a repeal of the Affordable Care Act is sure to cause mass layoffs in the health care sector and would likely prompt a recession.

We need to give Schumers opponents within the Democratic Caucus the power to pressure, and drag, him into doing the right thing for the 52 million Americans who are like me and wont be able to get health insurance or a job because of their pre-existing condition after forthcoming repeal of Obamacare.

Republicans plan to repeal Obamacare with just 51 votes, despite the fact it took sixty votes to pass it, by using the parliamentary trick of budget reconciliation.

If Republicans set the precedent that it only takes 50 votes to change existing health care policy, Democrats should make it clear that the next time they have the majority they too will use budget reconciliation to make major changes to health care policy. However, instead of using that power to make peoples lives more difficult, Democratic Senators will use that power to make peoples lives easier.

Democratic Senators shoud sign a letter which says the following:

 

if the Republicans use budget reconciliation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the precedent that it only takes 50 votes to make major changes to health care will have been set; the next time Democrats have the majority in the Senate, we will use the budget reconciliation process to lower the eligibility age for Medicare from sixty five years old to one day old. In short, if Republicans take the unprecedented step of repealing the Affordable Care Act with 51 votes, we firmly believe that a precedent that will allow us to pass Medicare for all with 51 votes will have been set. And because we believe that our constituents should not have to sleep on broken arms and go without the dignity of medical care for their ailments, we will pass Medicare for All with 51 votes the next time we are entrusted with a Majority in the Senate.

Please contact your Senator and ask them to stand up to unprecedented Senate rule changes by the Republicans in their never ending effort to make the lives of their constituents more difficult.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/22/1613621/-If-Republicans-Repeal-Obamacare-With-51-Votes-Democrats-Can-Pass-Medicare-for-All-With-51-Votes

Passed with no republican votes and using shady tactics. They made their bed. Time to lie in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passed with no republican votes and using shady tactics. They made their bed. Time to lie in it.

6.4 million more people signed up this year. Now over 30 million people either have a plan on one of the exchanges, or are covered under Medicaid.

 

Take that healthcare away from those 30 million people, most of whom voted for Trump, and we'll see who is laying in what bed.

 

Let me go ahead and give you the bad news before the Republicans you voted for do.

 

Obamacare isn't going anywhere. They will make a lot of noise, then do nothing, then will take a few worthless votes on parts of the plan that will just be shuffled around that ends up being the samething anyway

 

Then repackage it, and call it Trump care, even more people will sign up for it next year, and you will be here telling us how much better the new Trump plan is.

 

And Obama will be sitting at home laughing his fucking ass off. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the FACTS, merrill.....

 

President Bush

  • 2001 budget year (last 9 months) $129.6 (billion) surplus
  • 2002 budget year $157.8 (billion) deficit
  • 2003 budget year $377.6 (billion) deficit
  • 2004 budget year $413 (billion) deficit
  • 2005 budget year $318 (billion) deficit
  • 2006 budget year $248 (billion) deficit
  • 2007 budget year $161 (billion) deficit
  • 2008 budget year $459 (billion) deficit
  • 2009 budget year (first 3 months) $332.5 (billion) deficit
  • $2,337.3 (billion) deficit TOTAL

President Obama

  • 2009 budget year (last 9 months) $1080.5 (billion) deficit
  • 2010 budget year $1294 (billion) deficit
  • 2011 budget year $1299 (billion) deficit
  • 2012 budget year $1100 (billion) deficit
  • 2013 budget year $ 683 (billion) deficit
  • 2014 budget year $ 483 (billion) deficit
  • 2015 budget year (CBO estimate) $ 468 (billion) deficit
  • 2016 budget year (CBO estimate) $ 467 (billion) deficit
  • 2017 budget year (first 3 months, CBO) $ 163 (billion) deficit
  • $7,037.5 (billion) deficit TOTAL

 

BUSH average Deficits are $292.125 Billion over 8 years.

 

Obama deficits are $879.6875 over 8 years.

 

BOTH use the same identical metrics to "averages".

 

Damn, it sucks for you being so MORTALLY FUCKING STUPID!!!

Bush's only surplus budget was the one Bill Clinton signed before Bush was even selected.

 

Obama's worst deficit was the one Bush should have signed before he left office, but as usual just left as a mess for Obama to deal with.

 

Try running your "averages" with those facts in mind.

 

Then graph the surplus/deficit by year, and see how it went up steadily under 43 and dropped steadily under 44.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OUR TAX DOLLARS SHOULD BE PAYING EVERYONE'S MEDICAL CARE INSTEAD OF ONLY GOVERNMENT APPROVED CITIZENS SUCH AS OFFICIALS AND SUCH.

LET'S DEMAND TAXPAYER FUNDED HEALTH CARE SO ALL US CAN BRING OUR TAX DOLLARS HOME TO OUR LOCAL ECONOMIES THUS CREATING JOBS FOR MORE PEOPLE.

NOW OUR TAX DOLLARS WILL BE INSTIGATING SELF SUSTAINABILITY AND LOCAL ECONOMIC GROWTH.

YES WHAT GREAT WORK OUR TAX DOLLARS COULD BE DOING.

THERE CAN BE ONE OPTION ONLY: THOSE WHO WANT TO PAY MORE THROUGH SO CALLED PRIVATE INDUSTRY INSURERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SO.

THANK YOU AND ON THAT NOTE ENJOY THE HOLIDAYS!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6.4 million more people signed up this year. Now over 30 million people either have a plan on one of the exchanges, or are covered under Medicaid.

 

Take that healthcare away from those 30 million people, most of whom voted for Trump, and we'll see who is laying in what bed.

 

Let me go ahead and give you the bad news before the Republicans you voted for do.

 

Obamacare isn't going anywhere. They will make a lot of noise, then do nothing, then will take a few worthless votes on parts of the plan that will just be shuffled around that ends up being the samething anyway

 

Then repackage it, and call it Trump care, even more people will sign up for it next year, and you will be here telling us how much better the new Trump plan is.

 

And Obama will be sitting at home laughing his fucking ass off. :o

Dude, it's shit plans with ridiculous out of pocket cost before you can even use it. Premiums are skyrocketing. Companies are backing out of it. It's a disaster by nearly every measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...