That’s simply not true.
My three “things” (Hi Opal!) are
1.It’s the dishonesty that angers me. Ryan and the other hard core financial conservatives are philosophically against ANY taxpayer funded program that gives direct financial benefits to individuals. They see that as income redistribution and they don’t believe the government has any business doing that.
It a point of view I strongly disagree with and that the entire world is moving away from, but I’ll acknowledge its validity. But they should be saddled with the burden of trying to sell the American public on that viewpoint, instead of outright lying.
-
I wish someone would do an analysis on how this bill would affect JOBS in the healthcare industry … which tend to be better jobs than coal-mining. I know there are probably thousands of clinical psychologists and social workers whose practices are based on insured patients- how many jobs will be lost if essential benefits are not required. And more insured people means more nurses, more therapists, more med techs, more unskilled guys pushing gurneys and heavy equipment. Healthcare is 1/6th of the economy. This could have a huge impact on employment.
-
I wish some Republicans would pony up the guts to object to the bill on the grounds that it doesn’t meet the directives of the President. While Trump’s messaging is inconsistent at best I think the takeaway is that he wants TrumpCare to cost less out of pocket and cover more than ObamaCare ( which he just hates because Obama, I doubt that he is aware of the nuances ) and that he knows that isn’t the party line. Like it or not, Pubs, he’s your President and you should stop ignoring what he wants and stop trying to trick him.
I will concede that “is directly and explicitly responsible for causing people to die” is not the same as “killing people” if you do all three of the following:
- You agree that the former is exactly as bad as the other and any act that causes an increase in deaths is exactly as immoral and villianous as one that kills that number of people in the same way as they died under the act.
and
- You agree that it’s literally impossible for any human to kill any other human, because it’s not the wound, and it’s not the bleeding out, and it’s not the stopping of the heart, but it’s instead the decay of cells due to lack of access to oxygenated blood that killed them, which is totally different.
and also
- You change the many, many dictionaries that have “cause the death of” as the primary definition for the word “kill”.
I wish the Democrats hadn’t sold Obamacare to the American people with the “if you like your plan, you can keep it” lie too. We don’t always get what we want. 
Republicans have quit holding town halls, because they’re tired of listening to people worried that they’re going to lose their health care.
Seriously?
You thought Obamacare was going to implement an insurance freeze, and that insurance companies were going to be required to offer you the exact same policy for the exact same price for the rest of your life?
You didn’t think that, did you?
Or is it more reasonable that it meant “We’re not abolishing private insurance and making everyone get government insurance”?
No, I thought Obamacare was going to wreck my old insurance plan. It did. I wish Obama and company hadn’t lied about that fact though. It’s the dishonesty that angers me.
Again, aside from the frankly stupid matter of whether a word choice is the most accurate, I find it crazy to think that the government cannot be assigned the responsibility for the outcomes of policy changes it makes.
If the government seized all legally owned firearms tomorrow, and the bad guys went on a killing spree that was attributed by nonpartisan policy experts as being the result of the change in gun policy, I would have to agree that the government has a responsibility for the resulting deaths, no matter how pure the intentions were nor how much I may sympathize with an attempt to end gun violence.
Or maybe they’re worried some crazy leftist might try to shoot them?
Supposing that’s true. That would mean that they recognize that they’re doing things that will drive crazy leftists to want to murder them. Unless you’re concluding that back when they did hold town halls they were just suicidal?
It was probably always a small risk that they’ve been … made more acutely aware of recently.
Or maybe they’re worried that some entirely sane and rational person whose life will be devastated by their proposed legislation is going to shoot them. After all, that’s what the second amendment is for, right?
As a general rule, I don’t think people that try to murder others are “entirely sane and rational”.
Murdering people over policy differences? No. That’s not what it’s for.
There is zero chance any of this fools shows up at any townhall.
Totalitarianism is the king of “policy issues,” and it is at least arguable that the Second Amendment was intended to make that fatal for the totalitarian.
Taking away health coverage from millions of people is not totalitarian…but it ends up having a similar effect: the spread of fear, helplessness, and death.
Actually, I thought that was what it was explicitly for - to go to war against the government if the government was threatening the security of the free state. Conspiring to kill off the poor residents of the state could be interpreted as an attack against it (by somebody sufficiently ‘crazy’), and if you’re going to go to war against somebody, taking out their leaders early just makes good sense.
Awful lot of talk about “Second Amendment solutions” from the Republican side these past eight or nine years.
If one side is going to try to kill the other when they lose an election, we’re going to end up without the peaceful transitions of power that have historically been of great benefit to the country. If a [DEL]few % less in Medicaid spending[/DEL] lower growth rate in Medicaid spending is not a “light and transient cause”, I am at a loss for what would qualify. If you feel differently, then I begin to doubt whether I’m talking to “entirely sane and rational” people or not.
And when you heard that talk did you think “Gee, sounds like a swell idea! I can’t wait 'til it’s our turn!” or “What a fucking horrifying thought!”?
Hey, I’m not saying it’s a good idea to blow away politicians that have every intention of taking away your ability to live. I’m just saying that that’s the explicit reason the founding fathers wanted folks to be packing. If you want to agree with me that it was a misguided (and in the age of a tank/jet/drone-packing military, pointless) idea, then I will happily stand beside you as we amend it out.