Maybe it’s “once upon a time we had a President who promised that the average family’s premiums would go down by $2500”.
And some people believe in fairy tales even after they’re grown up.
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not, given that you don’t bother to offer any facts. We already know the Party line, but keep typing if you need the exercise.
Was that before or after Democrats gave up on including a Public Option in the ACA?
3/4. Read the constitution.
Oh sorry about that typo, either way they’re pretty close.
Just don’t read the Constitution too closely though, or else you couldn’t be a liberal 
I know! It’s not like reasonable, knowledgeable, and thoughtful people can ever disagree on something. They must be either stupid or dishonest.
Fair enough, are we then saying that the current private health care insurance system is a failure because advances in technology have made the cost prohibitive to some but not all?
Thelma, is your thesis that Republicans will be unable to repeal it, or that they will repeal it and the results will be unsatisfying for you?
“Thesis” is too highfalutin a word for the mish-mash of thoughts I have on this. I guess they’ll have to go through some kind of tap-dance so it will look like they’re following through on the repeal. But any repeal will raise a cry of shocked betrayal from the Trumpsters who voted all those guys in. They’ve painted themselves into a corner.
Besides, repealing the ACA isn’t like taking down the single stop sign in the middle of a one-horse town. It’s big and unwieldy and complicated.
They do not have and will not be able to come up with anything at all to replace it, let alone anything satisfactory.
My late husband had many health problems and could not get insurance until his kidneys failed and he went on Medicare (which you can do before age 65 if your kidneys fail). He ultimately had a kidney transplant. The boyfriend I had after he died was laid off, then needed quad bypass surgery-- no insurance. I worked for a social service agency whose clients depended on Medicaid. I’ve seen this stuff up close.
I didn’t really answer your question…
Well, sorta you did.
I think it might be fair – not to put words in your mouth – that it’s a little from Column A and a little from Column B. That is, repeal is not as easy as the incoming administration pretends, and if by chance they succeed then both you, and perhaps also many people who voted for Trump, will be dismayed by the results.
It’s not going to be so much of a repeal as it is a “re-name”.
It’ll be more or less the same - some window dressing perhaps. But the name change to “Trumpcare” will make all the difference.
I’ve always enjoyed the one about the superior Republican plan. How about you?
The relevance is that the Republicans have promised you only that they’ll give you something better than the Democrats* already have* (as soon as they figure out what it is), but you’re mad only at the Democrats. The private insurance companies have never promised you they won’t raise rates or change coverage. Your employer has never promised you, at least absolutely certainly, that they’ll do anything either.
You’re irate at the only people who have ever actually done anything for you *but *make the vaguest possible promises.
Get it now?
I don’t find *your *opinion about what it should mean as important, no, not at all. You haven’t shown any understanding that would give your opinion credibility.
Agreed. But that isn’t going to happen in the near future, so you’re ready to let people suffer in the meanwhile. That’s a principle that matters to you, but again, see above.
But you want to get rid of it, knowing nothing is going to replace it, and let people suffer, all because of some idiosyncratic idea of what the Constitution should mean. No, it isn’t ACA that’s evil, is it?
Dear Og, you meant that seriously? OK, how about telling us who benefits from the increased participation in health care insurance we have now. If you try to tell me it’s Obama, I’m going to be even more disappointed in you. And then tell us how it’s different from being required to buy auto insurance.
Serious questions get serious answers. Try asking one.
The concept of single payer coverage was popular in Colorado, but the way it would be administered was problematic for some people and the fact that poor women would not have abortion coverage because the state constitution won’t allow the state to pay for it was an issue for others.
Amendment 69 (single payer coverage in Colorado) was defeated 80 percent to 20 percent. Popular is not the word I would use here.
This!
I bet they keep the bones of the program and fix a couple of things that could have been fixed 5 years ago if they were willing to actively govern under a Democrat president.
Unfortunately, that means we’ll still pay 150% of the per capita cost that other countries pay for similar care.
Well, (a) who said they’ve “done anything for” me? You maybe want to rephrase that, and say that I’m “irate” about someone who didn’t do jack for me with that lie, but maybe made some other people worse off and some other people better off?
And (b) I dunno about “vaguest possible” – but I’m guessing that, if I could point to a lie I’d been told by my insurance company or my employer, I’d probably be, uh, “irate” about it; but since I can’t point to a lie from them, I can’t work up the enthusiasm to get irate about them. If and when they assure me of something they can’t or won’t deliver, I’ll be right here in this thread, all “irate” and everything.
Cite for only 150% ? Wikipedia shows 236% of UK’s spending, 214% of France’s (PPP) and those countries have universal coverage. (Per capita figures are divided by all Americans, not just those with insurance.)
Bumping this because Id like to hear too.