# House passes "repeal and replace" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2017, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871 "2017-05-04T20:53:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/701 "2017-05-09T15:36:49Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Taxation is not theft. Taxation is taxation. If you don’t like it, Somalian real estate is pretty cheap last I heard, or you can probably find some unclaimed pacific island and have at it. > > Indeed, instead of a mandatory system we all pay into that helps ensure our protection, we should all rely instead on the charity fairy. And if that fails for some reason (, well, tough titties Bobby, guess you just get to die of that easily treatable heart condition. Better luck next life. > > Charity is a clunky, poorly-scaling solution that often crassly mismatches need with means, which tends to _lose_ funding when its resources are most needed. The whole reason for government programs is because charity _doesn’t_ solve these problems. Just ask yourself, how many GoFundMe projects exist along the lines of “pay for my medical bills”? What percentage of those get funded? Taxation is not theft. When we pay taxes for legitimate governmental functions, we all benefit. We all get the same police protection, drive on the same roads, drink the same treated water, etc. What you are talking about is a bald transfer of money from Person A to Person B. Person B cannot afford something like health care. Person A has enough extra money (maybe). So we will forcibly take money from Person A and give it to Person B. If it wasn’t for healthcare, but for something like a in ground pool at Person B’s home, we would all agree that it is outright theft. But because it is something that Person B really, really needs, like healthcare, we don’t view it as theft. It goes even further than that. We already have Medicaid to provide health care for the indigent. The ACA provides handouts to the middle class to pay for health care. We aren’t even in the realm of charity and helping out the less fortunate. We are talking about a permanent transfer of wealth between people who are not in need of charity in order to support the current system of insurance. There is simply a better way to do these things that does not require such a massive government intervention. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/702 "2017-05-09T15:38:52Z")
> [@CatandMouse](#): > > Jealous? No. The reaction just seemed extreme, if it described a real plan to print and frame the post, but I was hesitant to say, “No, you won’t,” for fear that would be interpreted as an accusation of lying. So I asked if you were serious, or if you were not actually going to print, frame, and hang an SDMB post. Are you? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/703 "2017-05-09T15:49:20Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Taxation is not theft. When we pay taxes for legitimate governmental functions, we all benefit. We all get the same police protection, drive on the same roads, drink the same treated water, etc. What you are talking about is a bald transfer of money from Person A to Person B. Person B cannot afford something like health care. Person A has enough extra money (maybe). So we will forcibly take money from Person A and give it to Person B. Um… No. Person A pays taxes, and we allocate a certain percentage of those taxes towards programs to promote a bare minimum standard of living for those less fortunate, such as person B. > [@](#): > > There is simply a better way to do these things that does not require such a massive government intervention. Are you arguing for UHC, or for a magical system that has never existed anywhere in the world? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/704 "2017-05-09T15:49:47Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Hey, if Bricker gets to characterize this small potatoes bullshit as some death by a thousand cuts, I get to at least _dream_, don’t I? Dream the impossible dream? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/705 "2017-05-09T15:51:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Taxation is not theft. When we pay taxes for legitimate governmental functions, we all benefit. We all get the same police protection, drive on the same roads, drink the same treated water, etc. What you are talking about is a bald transfer of money from Person A to Person B. Person B cannot afford something like health care. Person A has enough extra money (maybe). So we will forcibly take money from Person A and give it to Person B. > > If it wasn’t for healthcare, but for something like a in ground pool at Person B’s home, we would all agree that it is outright theft. But because it is something that Person B really, really needs, like healthcare, we don’t view it as theft. > > It goes even further than that. We already have Medicaid to provide health care for the indigent. The ACA provides handouts to the middle class to pay for health care. We aren’t even in the realm of charity and helping out the less fortunate. We are talking about a permanent transfer of wealth between people who are not in need of charity in order to support the current system of insurance. > > There is simply a better way to do these things that does not require such a massive government intervention. Every other western country has come to the conclusion that healthcare is more akin to police and roads than swimming pools. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/706 "2017-05-09T15:53:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I honestly don’t know. I’m just trying to understand this whole idea that people will be dying\* if the ACA is repealed. I’m not sure folks in other countries understand that no insurance isn’t the same as no healthcare, and that if we repeal the ACA, people will be literally dying in the streets. > > \*We all die at some point, of course, but dying “prematurely”, as it were. People die if they don’t receive healthcare for all kinds of conditions, ranging from a knife in the chest to Hep C. Only some of those conditions are treated/treatable for Americans who lack health insurance or personal wealth. To give an obvious example, if you have a kind of cancer that is typically only treatable if discovered early, you will die as the result of not getting the kind of non-emergency screening that you won’t get without health insurance. There are also conditions with expensive treatments, like Hep C, that you just won’t get unless a drug company is nice to you. They will stabilize you in the ER, but at some point they won’t be able to because to because you aren’t getting other care. More [here](http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/dying-from-lack-of-insurance/). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/707 "2017-05-09T16:08:53Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > .“A lot of us got healthcare for the first time. We stopped dying so fast from such incredibly stupid shit.” What’s the evidence in support of this claim? Have the United States’ “health outcomes” changed significantly in the years Obamacare has been the law of the land? Has the trajectory of our life expectancy been significantly altered by Obamacare? Are fewer people dying of cancer and heart disease? Has the suicide rate changed? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/708 "2017-05-09T16:17:19Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Every other western country has come to the conclusion that healthcare is more akin to police and roads than swimming pools. And every other country is not the U.S. So why precisely should I care? If I disagree with every other country, does the weight of their consensus obligate me somehow? Or are we skipping the destruction of states and going right to the imposition of a world government? I’m sure that’s not what you want. Is it? ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/709 "2017-05-09T16:27:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And every other country is not the U.S. > > So why precisely should I care? If I disagree with every other country, does the weight of their consensus obligate me somehow? > > Or are we skipping the destruction of states and going right to the imposition of a world government? I’m sure that’s not what you want. > > Is it? If you’re sure that’s not what I want, and it certainly is a non sequitur, was that an attempt at humour? Why should you care? I don’t know. If all your peers have made a certain choice, it warrants a good look. A good look would show they have better healthcare for cheaper. Can’t make you care about that, though. While you could use the old “if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?” but maybe they noticed the train barreling down the bridge. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/710 "2017-05-09T16:29:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Or are we skipping the destruction of states and going right to the imposition of a world government? I’m sure that’s not what you want. And _I’m_ sure all those other countries that have UHC haven’t joined together to propose any sort of “world government”, so where the hell did you pull _that_ statement from? > [@](#): > > Is it? My ghod, you can almost envision one eyebrow arching as you type that absurd accusatory question. Yes, **Bricks** -this is all part of a ruse in support of a One World Government. None of us are actually worried about our health or the heath of others. Congrats on uncovering this horrible ruse. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![CatandMouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c89c15/32.png) [@CatandMouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CatandMouse)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/711 "2017-05-09T16:45:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The reaction just seemed extreme, if it described a real plan to print and frame the post, but I was hesitant to say, “No, you won’t,” for fear that would be interpreted as an accusation of lying. So I asked if you were serious, or if you were not actually going to print, frame, and hang an SDMB post. > > Are you? What’s it to you? I certainly think it’s print/frame worthy. I even bookmarked the page. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/712 "2017-05-09T16:54:18Z")
Well I’m in favour of UHC and I found Banquet Bear’s posts kind of gag worthy. A tad over the top. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/713 "2017-05-09T16:57:44Z")
I did not read the entire thread so maybe Bricker has addressed this, but I gather from his stance that he would also be happy with ending the Medicare and Medicaid programs? Let the old and poor fend for themselves? I always get the feeling when Bricker posts that he isn’t quite able to appreciate the difference between what is right and what is lawful. It’s like laws define morality for him. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/714 "2017-05-09T17:06:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I read it, those are considered part of the 24 million, but not the majority part. > > True. But it does not seem to be true that 24 million people can be described as “losing,” even including that case. > > Do you agree? Or am I reading it wrong? > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but of that number, how many are people who voluntarily relinquish due to the absence of a mandate? The repeal of the mandate is more than just giving them a choice to decline insurance. They already had a choice to decline insurance, it just costs about a thousand bucks if you did. So, by repealing the mandate, you are increasing the effective opportunity cost of carrying insurance by a thousand dollars, and this is before any cost increases on the premiums themselves. So, i would not say that all of those who drop it are just dropping because of no longer having a mandate, it is not due to preference but to actual cost. This is why there are 14 or so million dropped off the rolls in the first year. As far as the rest of the 24 million over the next 10 years, you seem inclined to think that you cannot lose what you never had, right, and the rest of those never had insurance to begin with? The problem with that assumption, is that most of these people would have had insurance. They were employees who either lost their job, or their employer stopped covering insurance, or they are children, going off of their parent’s insurance or other childhood health assistance program. Point is, that they did have coverage, and now they do not, that is a loss, that is having it taken away from them. I think the 24 million over 10 years is actually pretty optimistic, given how many companies were dropping or reducing their health coverage pre-ACA, and how difficult and expensive it was to get insurance as a private individual pre-ACA. > [@Bricker](#): > > No. That’s indeed an effect, but the primary goal is to correctly apply that lesson in civics to our government. The lesson aspect only arises because so many of our citizens have never learned the federalism concept. > > The United States was created when sovereign states agreed to cede part of their sovereign power to a central government. The United States is the world powerhouse that it is because of adherence to that bargain. Breaching it has led to undesirable results. In my opinion. That’s a matter for better public schools, then. In high school, we only had to do one semester in US govt. I would think that if it were important we’d fund public education better, rather than cutting health benefits, because I do not thing that a measurable percentage of the population will get out of this healthcare debacle a better education in proper govt civics. The states ceded their power to the federal govt, and in my opinion, the more power they ceded, the better they were. Prior to the article of confederation, we just had a bunch of states that we declaring independance, but had no way of working together. The articles were cool, but they still did not create a strong enough central govt to actually run a nation. We came along with the constitution, which was a drastic improvement, but given some unpleasantness about a minor states rights issue in the 1860’s, the federal govt took on a much stronger role. Banking regulations and income taxes added another layer of stability, and then came along entitlements like SS and eventually medicare and medicaid. > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m beginning to notice that you’re rephrasing what I say in ways I didn’t say. And that almost without exception, your rephrasing has two characteristics: it is inaccurate, and it’s inaccurate in ways that make my position sound weak. > > Why is that happening, do you think? Rephrasing in your own words is a good way to determine if you are on the same page. I do not think that his rephrasings are dishonest, but that they are actually his best attempt to really understand what it is that you are trying to get at here. And it really does seem as though you are holding philosophy as greater than the reality of people needlessly suffering and dying. I think I see what you are getting at, that the weakening of the framework could spell further erosions of that framework, ultimately resulting in collapse. The problem is, is that if we cannot achieve our desired outcomes within the framework, then we either need to cram them through in an “unwise”, but constitutional fashion as was the ACA, or we need to change the framework. Either way, if it is the framework itself that is preventing desired progress, then praising the framework is not going to win over many hearts and minds. > [@](#): > > To answer this attempt at a rephrase: no. The purpose of legislation is to create policy. This is not teaching a lesson to government; it’s implementing a wiser government policy than the one in place antecedent to the legislation. In this, I disagree. There is no less govt intrusion into the health marketplace. The only real difference between this bill and the ACA, as far as govt intrusion is the mandate, so if that is what you are happy is gone, then say that. The rest of the bill does not in anyway reduce the involvement of the federal govt in healthcare, just changes it in a way that far fewer people are covered. So, getting rid of the mandate could be (but is not IMHO) a wise move, but the rest of the bill would need some serious explaining as to what particulars that you feel are actually wise. > [@](#): > > If someone were doing this to you, how many iterations would you accept before you concluded that for whatever reason, you were unable to reach your interlocutor with the correct vision your words were explaining? Not directed at me, I know, but I don’t know that you can put a number on a judgement like that. But, at the same time, if I find myself having dificulty in cummunicating, I do not automatically assume that all, or even most, of the fault lays on the other party. > [@](#): > > I argue that “repeal and replace” is a wise step. I argue it’s wise because the current ACA vitiates the distinctions that should exist between state and federal government, so that the ACA represents an unwise role for the federal government to play. > > That is clearly an argument in favor of repeal and replace. You may not find it compelling for any number of reasons; you cannot credibly claim it does not exist. I assume that you feel that the mandate being repealed is a good thing. Are there any other parts of the ACHA that you feel is a wise step? > [@](#): > > …it’s not possible to point to a single moment in which federal power crossed the line, because each step has only been a slight extension of previous steps. > > There have been some moments, though, which stand out. The decision to fine Roscoe Filburn $117.11 was one such. But that’s hardly relevant to the current thread, is it? Fairly similar to blackburn. Congress passes a law, people who are against the law think it is unconstitutional, and put it up against the supreme court, who decides that it is in fact constitutional. I take it that you think of wick v fil to be a unwise decision by SCOTUS, or that the entire federal crop support program was unwise, if not unconstitutional. > [@Bricker](#): > > As a reminder, I was not commenting on whether their opinions matter in any but the narrow sense of “People had learned how to live without healthcare. But for them to finally get healthcare after a lifetime of hardship, then have it taken away? You guys have no idea the monster you are about to unleash.” > > As an analogy, consider the following hypothetical exchange: > > BILL: I heard Liechtenstein is demanding that North Korea disarm and stop all their missile tests. > > TED: Ha! As if! Liechtenstein is, like, the sixth smallest country in the world. They’ve got like no military forces and less than 40,000 people. I’m sure Kim Jong-Un is totally quaking in his stylish yet affordable boots! > > RAVENMAN: Right! When will we learn that people’s opinions only matter if they are in a country with a large military? > > TED: Are you being sarcastic? It’s hard to tell. > > Ted’s comment was not a general refutation of the value of opinions from the fine people of Liechtenstein. It was an observation that North Korea’s leadership would be unlikely to be swayed. > > With that lesson firmly in hand, we may return to our actual conversation. > > **Banquet Bear** prophesied, “People had learned how to live without healthcare. But for them to finally get healthcare after a lifetime of hardship, then have it taken away? You guys have no idea the monster you are about to unleash.” > > I pointed out that the 11 million people who currently have the coverage in question are not likely to be a major GOP voting bloc, and thus his prediction of an unleashed monster was not likely to come to pass. My comment, like our fictional Ted’s above, was not a general refutation of the value of opinions from the fine people under ACA coverage. It was an observation that the GOP leadership would be unlikely to be swayed. > > You’re thinking that they’re more reliably not voters at all, and if this stirs them out of their electoral apathy, it could spell trouble for the GOP? > > I regard that danger as slight. In your analogy, you are saying that people in lichenstein have no effect on NK, and this is true, but you are trying to say that a politician’s constituents have no influence on the politician, if they didn’t vote for them. The policy of only representing your base, or the people that voted for you, rather than representing the people of your district is a bit of a new one, I don’t know who started it, but it is most certainly on the first page of the republican playbook these days. But, you are trying to only count the 11 million who will lose their insurance due to being taken off the exchanges. You are not counting their friends of family, who have to watch them suffer and die needlessly. You are not counting the millions of people who will see their premiums go up, and their coverage go down, even if they are not actually loosing insurance. I couldn’t give you an estimate, but it’s gonna be much more than 11 million, and a very significant number, quite likely the majority, of those are going to be people that voted for republicans in 2016. You do need to keep in mind that many people voted for trump based on his promise of improving healthcare, just as people voted for Obama in 2008 on the same promise. Democrats lost quite a bit of political power due to the ACA being not as good as promised, do you really think that the republicans won’t lose some political power due to the ACHA being essentially a big “FU” to the people who voted for them? > [@Bricker](#): > > Is there something about Town Hall meetings that limits their attendance to GOP voters? No, but is there something about the ACHA that limits its negative effects to non-GOP voters? > [@](#): > > Yes, yes, they are flawed. But I don’t have any problem resolving the flaws heaped on the scale for each side in favor of the GOP. Is that ideological, or is that actually a measure that you take on a regular basis? What do you think it would take to change that weighing? Do you think it is at all possible that your ideology puts a thumb on the scale? > [@Bricker](#): > > Do you recall how many similarly confident predictions you have made over the years? Kerry was going to beat Bush, according to you. The Democrats were going to control the House and the Senate; Clinton was going to top 300 electoral votes, all delivered in the same confident manner. > > I bet that after the 2018 midterms, Republicans still control the House, the Senate, and the White House. And by “bet,” I mean I am willing to incur a real-world loss if I am wrong against a equal real-world gain if I am right. Your confident prediction isn’t that confident, by chance, is it? There are millions of people taking you up on that bet right now. They will incur real world losses if the ACHA goes through, and the house doesn’t turn in 2018, the only difference is, is that you get no payout for their suffering. I would take that bet, but not yet. The senate may turn the ACHA into a wonderful healthcare bill that provides health and ponies for everyone, in which case, not only will the gop win 2018, they will have proved that they deserved to win through a demonstration of competent governance. So, my bet is predicated on the nature of the final bill. No bill goes through, I predict a minor democratic pick up in the house and senate, but not an overturn. This bill goes through, I predict a massive backlash against the GOP, throwing them out of the house, and making inroads into the senate, maybe even picking up a majority in 2018, but that’s a pretty tall order, but by 2020, definitely. The GOP passes an awesome bill that provides healthcare for anyone who needs it at an affordable cost to both the consumer and the taxpayer, and the GOP could win the next generation, you could even push through quite a bit of conservative social agenda, if people are happy with their healthcare bill. So, my best bet, if I feel ideologically tied to the left, is to hope that the GOP keeps doing what it is doing, and craps out a healthcare bill that causes a great deal of suffering and death. As I am less concerned about politically philosophy, and more about actual people, then I would be happy to see the GOP win, if that meant that people are not suffering and dying needlessly, even if I disagree with some of the GOP’s social policies. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/715 "2017-05-09T17:18:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And every other country is not the U.S. > > So why precisely should I care? If I disagree with every other country, does the weight of their consensus obligate me somehow? > > Or are we skipping the destruction of states and going right to the imposition of a world government? I’m sure that’s not what you want. > > Is it? I would say that thinking our system is superior is akin to flat-Eartherism at this point. Other countries have shown us that UHC is superior. Our system is particularly inept and hurtful and causes needless suffering for more money. Cleaving to it is self-destructive and only serves to soothe an ideological need in GOP voters. Don’t you think that satisfying that need is less useful to society as a whole, than helping sick people for less money? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/716 "2017-05-09T17:26:41Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > So, my best bet, if I feel ideologically tied to the left, is to hope that the GOP keeps doing what it is doing, and craps out a healthcare bill that causes a great deal of suffering and death. As I am less concerned about politically philosophy, and more about actual people, then I would be happy to see the GOP win, if that meant that people are not suffering and dying needlessly, even if I disagree with some of the GOP’s social policies. So your only principle when it comes to how our country is governed is whether or not more or less people are suffering and dying needlessly? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/717 "2017-05-09T17:34:32Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > So your only principle when it comes to how our country is governed is whether or not more or less people are suffering and dying needlessly? Quote where I said that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/718 "2017-05-09T17:35:32Z")
> [@CatandMouse](#): > > What’s it to you? I certainly think it’s print/frame worthy. I even bookmarked the page. Yes, because bookmarking the page costs you little in real world expense. Printing, framing – are you going to cut beveled matting for it? will there be graphics? – and hanging are more significant expenses, and so your claim sounded like it was hyperbole. Was it? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/719 "2017-05-09T17:39:32Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Quote where I said that. I’m asking you. If you answered already, I wouldn’t need to ask. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2017, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871/720 "2017-05-09T17:42:54Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m asking you. If you answered already, I wouldn’t need to ask. Then the answer to your question is no. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-repeal-and-replace/785871.md?page=37)