ThelmaLou, here is a A Handy Guide regarding the repeal bill. On the bright side, the GOP promises Americans will be able to keep their current medical conditions.
Do you really care about this stuff, enough to do some actual thinking about it yourself rather than just posting every outraged or outrageous headline that you find? Why don’t you read some analysis, and make your own evaluation of the issue?
If you look at the quote that i provided, and at the linked story, you’ll see that neither refer to “domestic abuse.” They talk about “sexual assault and/or domestic violence,” and about “domestic violence and sexual abuse.”
Emphasis mine. That is, two separate things.
Your politics and mine seem to be very similar. But those on our side of the political fence need to be willing to be smarter and more rigorous than those on the other side. We should be prepared not to go off half-cocked at every wild claim, and we should be willing to do some digging of our own to arrive at reasonable conclusions.
That’s not to say we’ll always get things right, or that there are always definitive answers. As the Washington Post’s analysis of the claim about the possibility of being denied insurance as the result of rape demonstrates, even a rigorous examination of the law doesn’t always give a clear and unambiguous roadmap of how these things are going to turn out. It could be that, if the AHCA passes the Senate and is signed into law, there will be some women who end up losing coverage or being charged higher premiums as a result of prior sexual assault. But it’s simply wrong to assert that this is an inevitable direct result of the law as currently written.
I’ve just spent about 15 minutes correcting my father in law over some things he posted on Facebook. Your posting style and his seem quite similar: two smart and well-meaning people who are so consumed with finding outrage in every bad thing the right does that they rarely pause for long enough to check the facts and dig more deeply into the nuances. He spends half his life on Facebook linking to stupid clickbait stories from AddictingInfo and OccupyDemocrats, and that’s sometimes what your posts remind me of.
Our side should do better than that.
That LA Times piece is quite a nice summary of many of the key issues.
I’m not arguing here that everyone needs to take the time to read the AHCA bill itself. In fact, these bills are so laden with legal and policy-wonk language that it’s often actually better to have a clear and smart analytical summary.
That is also, by the way, why i’ve been less than impressed with the people on the left who have been criticizing Republican politicians for not personally reading the bill before voting for it. I’ve seen people ridicule Republican politicians who defended themselves by saying that their staff read the bill. But that is how politics works, and that is precisely what legislative staff are paid to do.
What percentage of Democratic Representatives and Senators who voted for Obamacare actually read all 906 pages of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? If anyone thinks it was more than about two percent, there’s some swampland in Florida they might also be interested in.
Feel better, mhendo?
I could ask you exactly the same question.
Does your half-assed content-free posting serve as some sort of catharsis for you in these troubled times? If so, then carry on. I can’t stop you.
I was hoping my link, “On the bright side, the GOP promises Americans will be able to keep their current medical conditions” would have lightened things up. 
I did laugh, so i hope you don’t feel like the effort was wasted. 
Cool mhendo. Thanks!
There’s a difference. It’s true that politicians don’t often personally read the bills they vote on. But this bill was passed in a very unusual way, without the normal checks that ensure that people know what they are voting on: public debate, hearings, CBO score, etc. The ways this bill will interact with existing law are simply not fully understood. Things like discovering at the last minute that Congress was exempt, for example, or discovering that AHCA impacts lifetime limits for people with employer insurance.
They are taking a very complex subject and a very complex law, slapping together a change to it, amending it up to the last minute, then voting on it. They are absolutely due to be challenged on whether they know what they are voting for.
ETA: I do agree with your larger point, however. This bill is bad enough. We don’t need to claim false or misleading things about it. For example, continuing to harp on how it exempts Congress is dishonest, given the unanimous passage of the McSally bill.
U.S. life expectancy varies by more than 20 years from county to county in the US of A. This article includes an interactive map of death rates, county by county. Fun for the whole family.
Post #697 - for historical reference -
(post shortened, underline added)
Post 698 - for historical reference -
(post shortened, underline added)
Post #701
(post shortened)
Lighten Up, Francis, you’re going to have a stroke. Or maybe you already have? If that’s the case then get well soon. If not, post #697 seems to ignore the fact that the Democrats created, passed, and signed into law what is commonly called ACA/Obamacare. Post #697 choses to blame the Republicans for what the Democrats had accomplished.
No, 697 is saying that if the GOP fails to repeal and replace, then it’s because they couldn’t come up with something that they like better than the ACA.
The GOP claims all sorts of disastrous consequences if the ACA is not repealed and replaced. If they fail at that, then they get to share the blame.
You certainly have a thinking process that calls to mind severe brain damage.
I believe this to be so because no one would willingly pretend to be that stupid.
, derp
No women on working group in Republican-led Senate that will craft a plan to pass legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare.
Surprised?
Anything the women would go for would likely be anathema to the Freedom Caucus clowns in the House.
I have some updated timing info on the Senate part. I’m actually typing this hopefully remind myself to post more later!
Rep. Raul “Potato Head” Labrador, R-Idaho, walks back remark that ‘nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care’, saying his remark was an attempt “to explain that all hospitals are required by law to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay and that the Republican plan does not change that.”
And then the uninsured gets the bill…
Prick.
And then he files papers for governor run, plans announcement in ‘coming weeks’. :eek:
:smack::smack::smack:
What a Dolt.
(post shortened)
Are you saying that the Democrat’s signed, sealed, and delivered ACA/Obamacare is still the law of the land? And that the Democrats should not be held responsible for the bill they created, and passed, into law? Even though it’s still the law of the land?
Yes, it’s still the law of the land. Are you really too stupid to know that?
I’m saying the GOP gets to share if they fail to replace the ACA.
You really fail at comprehension. Or you deliberately distort what everyone says and thinks no one notices.
(post shortened)
Why would the elected Democrats want to share the credit/failure of the Democrat’s ACA/Obamacare? Are they being magnanimous, offering an olive branch to the other political party, or are they afraid there may be more election fallout if the plan continues as it was created, and passed?