What this campaign season has taught me ...

[FireChan]

I'm going to point-by point your post. It to be condescending but to ensure that I'm addressing your points in total.

 

1. Yes the repubs have the larger reputation for "racism." But that's not without reason - at least not historically. When civil rights era was firmly afoot and Johnson made that a signature issue in his presidency, many southerners left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party who - especially then with the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - were against the civil rights act and the idea of social egalitarianism as a federal mandate.

 

There have been small nuanced political issues over time that minorities still associate with a racist, biased, or just generally unwelcoming political party. And some of the calls from republican figures haven't done much to heal those wounds - from Nixon to Pat Buchanan in 1992 to Donald Trump. The gop as also historically been loathe to repudiate the comments.

 

I'm not on either side of whether it's right or wrong. But the reason for the belief about republican racism isn't without some justification. It has existed with certain mainstream gop personalities and then attributed to the party by association.

 

But be sure that the Dems have their fair share of racists. It's just less attention is paid to it because when it's against the majority, it's swept under the rug or seen as inconsequential.

 

2. The aca was such a brilliant idea in principle and poorly structured and executed. To be sure it's helped tons of people. But it's put as many or more in financial or healthcare predicaments far worse than what they were in pre-aca. It presumes hat the only folks who need the help and healthcare are the underprivileged. And in fact that's not true. It forces a subsidy requirement on everyone - and in some cases a middle class working family who can't shoulder the burden of that subsidy - however it's presented to them (e.g., increased premium, penalty, etc.).

 

But I agree with the principle underlying the legislation that people going to the er as their primary care physician was an unsustainable situation. Not only because that's a reactionary personal healthcare management plan but also because that individual invariably absconds on their responsibility to pay - because they didn't supply id, or gave a fake name, or just ignored the bill, that cost was spread to everyone in their premiums anyway.

 

So something had to give. And I still commend the administration for having the balls to do something. Because doing nothing wasn't working either. And yes, I'd rather try something and fail and then go back to the drawing board than just act like the problem doesn't exist.

 

3. Both the repubs and the administration have refused to compromise and it's getting old. Your analogy presumes that one was right and one was wrong in their position. The sky, in the aggregate and in total, can't be both "red" and "blue" at the same time. Analogizing that back to the political circumstance, there is no "right" or "wrong," there is just opinion and action for he good of the country. In that context there needs to be compromise from the executive and the legislature to facilitate some action and effectively govern. Based on the results, we can known retrospectively if there was a "right" or a "wrong." The repubs wanted what they wanted and didn't want the admin to get a win. The admin wanted what they wanted and didn't want to necessarily work with congress to hear different avenues towards accomplishing the objective. When the Dems had a majority, the repubs filibustered the **** out of them. That was obstructionist and procedurally frustrating to the process of governance. That set the tone. They were in the minority and they should have shut the !@#$ up until they had their turn again at the table. The Dems did it with bush's lower court appointees in the early 2000s. They stalled and filibustered and procedurally frustrated the process. It's old and stupid and silly and underhanded - whoever is doing it.

 

They all do it. But you can't feign repub conciliation and partnership. Because it never really happened.

 

4. If you look at the 'trump is on top thread' I wrote a long support post about trump. In June, 2015 here, a year ago mind you, I said that trump represented my view of foreign policy the best. In March I made a post saying that I was going to a rally here locally and if anyone wanted to meet up and talk politics and have a beer on me, I was game.

 

I was strongly considering my vote going to trump. I went to his rally and I overheard conversations and saw t-shirts and signs that were beyond what could be considered robust political dialog. I'll leave it at that. And I'm beginning to see trump as a schtik and just overall questioning the principle behind him and what he has to say. I did a lot of looking into what happened with him in Atlantic City. And I decided that I would place my vote elsewhere.

 

To be fair, I also had some great conversations with some thoughtful and insightful trump supporters at the rally.

I agree 100%. Bush was saddled with the same personal hatred and unfairness. People were disgusting and petty towards him - unfairly. He was a good man who did his best for the country during a difficult time. I feel the same way about Obama too. He is a good man who is doing his best for the country. The personalized attacks are silly and beneath people in a civilized nation - especially those who have the ability to principally and intelligently disagree without demonizing someone in the process.

1. Yes the repubs have the larger reputation for "racism." But that's not without reason - at least not historically. When civil rights era was firmly afoot and Johnson made that a signature issue in his presidency, many southerners left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party who - especially then with the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - were against the civil rights act and the idea of social egalitarianism as a federal mandate.

 

There have been small nuanced political issues over time that minorities still associate with a racist, biased, or just generally unwelcoming political party. And some of the calls from republican figures haven't done much to heal those wounds - from Nixon to Pat Buchanan in 1992 to Donald Trump. The gop as also historically been loathe to repudiate the comments.

 

I'm not on either side of whether it's right or wrong. But the reason for the belief about republican racism isn't without some justification. It has existed with certain mainstream gop personalities and then attributed to the party by association.

 

But be sure that the Dems have their fair share of racists. It's just less attention is paid to it because when it's against the majority, it's swept under the rug or seen as inconsequential.

 

Sins of the father. 30-40 year old Republicans need to still be associated with Goldwater?

 

2. The aca was such a brilliant idea in principle and poorly structured and executed. To be sure it's helped tons of people. But it's put as many or more in financial or healthcare predicaments far worse than what they were in pre-aca. It presumes hat the only folks who need the help and healthcare are the underprivileged. And in fact that's not true. It forces a subsidy requirement on everyone - and in some cases a middle class working family who can't shoulder the burden of that subsidy - however it's presented to them (e.g., increased premium, penalty, etc.).

 

But I agree with the principle underlying the legislation that people going to the er as their primary care physician was an unsustainable situation. Not only because that's a reactionary personal healthcare management plan but also because that individual invariably absconds on their responsibility to pay - because they didn't supply id, or gave a fake name, or just ignored the bill, that cost was spread to everyone in their premiums anyway.

 

So something had to give. And I still commend the administration for having the balls to do something. Because doing nothing wasn't working either. And yes, I'd rather try something and fail and then go back to the drawing board than just act like the problem doesn't exist.

 

A brilliant idea that can't be executed is a ****ty idea. It was all rainbows and unicorns to anyone paying attention.

 

I'd rather try something that has a chance of working rather than force an easily predictable abortion through Congress. You're giving credit for intentions again.

 

3. Both the repubs and the administration have refused to compromise and it's getting old. Your analogy presumes that one was right and one was wrong in their position. The sky, in the aggregate and in total, can't be both "red" and "blue" at the same time. Analogizing that back to the political circumstance, there is no "right" or "wrong," there is just opinion and action for he good of the country. In that context there needs to be compromise from the executive and the legislature to facilitate some action and effectively govern. Based on the results, we can known retrospectively if there was a "right" or a "wrong." The repubs wanted what they wanted and didn't want the admin to get a win. The admin wanted what they wanted and didn't want to necessarily work with congress to hear different avenues towards accomplishing the objective. When the Dems had a majority, the repubs filibustered the **** out of them. That was obstructionist and procedurally frustrating to the process of governance. That set the tone. They were in the minority and they should have shut the !@#$ up until they had their turn again at the table. The Dems did it with bush's lower court appointees in the early 2000s. They stalled and filibustered and procedurally frustrated the process. It's old and stupid and silly and underhanded - whoever is doing it.

 

They all do it. But you can't feign repub conciliation and partnership. Because it never really happened.

 

The Bush administration was much more compromising than Obama's. Let me ask what changed? There's been divisive rhetoric spewed from the WH since that man has been in office. More than any Presidency I can remember.

 

When you say there's no right or wrong answer, I say you're wrong. Passing the ACA was not the right answer. Obama gets credit for trying to good and having the "balls" (sidenote, hilarious that the arguably second most feeble President of all time is praised for balls). Should the Repubs have gotten on board with that, if they thought it would suck and make things worse? Where's the credit for their intentions?

 

I don't disagree that obstructionism for obstructing's sake is dumb. But the executive is the one who is supposed to facilitate reaching across the aisle, and Obama has burned too many bridges, spouted too much nonsense, and gone past the point of no return. Congress made the decision to make him a lame duck not without reason.

 

4. If you look at the 'trump is on top thread' I wrote a long support post about trump. In June, 2015 here, a year ago mind you, I said that trump represented my view of foreign policy the best. In March I made a post saying that I was going to a rally here locally and if anyone wanted to meet up and talk politics and have a beer on me, I was game.

 

I was strongly considering my vote going to trump. I went to his rally and I overheard conversations and saw t-shirts and signs that were beyond what could be considered robust political dialog. I'll leave it at that. And I'm beginning to see trump as a schtik and just overall questioning the principle behind him and what he has to say. I did a lot of looking into what happened with him in Atlantic City. And I decided that I would place my vote elsewhere.

 

Ah, that makes much more sense. I thought you decided to place your vote elsewhere because some supporters were racist or something. I don't get that logic personally.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Don't you understand - on this board if you criticize the right you are by default a liberal...

 

This is simply a ridiculous comment. Plenty of people here criticize the right...including people from the right...and they're never called a liberal. In fact, I've been particularly harsh on Trumpster Divers, and I have mostly gotten the obligatory response like "I have always enjoyed your posts, but you're completely unhinged with your anti-Trump stuff."

 

You, on the other hand, attempted to ride the whole "I used to be a Republican, but the party left me" storyline, and then proceeded to spit out every far left nutbag talking point like you were a Debbie Wasserman Schultz apprentice.

 

So don't try to paint this board as anything other than it is: a place where pretty much no one fell for your schtick and sees you for the far left nutbag that you are.

[DC Tom]

 

This is simply a ridiculous comment. Plenty of people here criticize the right...including people from the right...and they're never called a liberal. In fact, I've been particularly harsh on Trumpster Divers, and I have mostly gotten the obligatory response like "I have always enjoyed your posts, but you're completely unhinged with your anti-Trump stuff."

 

You, on the other hand, attempted to ride the whole "I used to be a Republican, but the party left me" storyline, and then proceeded to spit out every far left nutbag talking point like you were a Debbie Wasserman Schultz apprentice.

 

So don't try to paint this board as anything other than it is: a place where pretty much no one fell for your schtick and sees you for the far left nutbag that you are.

 

I've criticized the right...and been called a liberal by a great many people.

 

Actually, I've been called just about everything under the sun. Probably because I criticize everything.

[/dev/null]

 

Actually, I've been called just about everything under the sun. Probably because I criticize everything.

Under the sun, and where the sun don't shine

[Juror#8]

What this campaign has taught me is that there are plenty of libs that have a schtick that starts out with "I'm not a liberal but....".

 

That's fine, but you guys should know it is very see through. The part that makes it so easy is that your criticisms of the Republicans, although often valid, are al you offer wrt their positions. Criticisms are often offered on very specific points and are sometimes right on the money. Other times they expose a deep philosophical disagreement. These folks seem reticent to offer opinions on the more general of topics which differentiate D/R.

 

When, less frequently, a criticism of the Democrats is offered, it is almost always under the guise of....it was a great idea but implemented poorly. This is what really exposes the mindset. The ACA is not a great idea because it cuts against the grain of everything that has ever worked in economic history. It is a move toward communizing health care and ignores the fact that people act in their own self interest and that a thing such as supply and demand exists.

 

In this thread my favorite theme is that Obama is just looking out for America in his own way, even though one of his most famous quotes is that he wants to fundamentally transform America. Those two things are diametrically opposed.

 

I mostly agree with the OP of this thread when it comes to Trump but find it hilarious that he spent a full page explaining why he is so open minded without even mentioning Hillary except to say that she will win. This campaign has taught me that even the most egregious, disgusting, stupid and criminal activities can be ignored and swept under the rug. The fact that even one person could vote for Hillary Clinton is a sad fact but doesn't even get a mention in the OP. It does far more to demonstrate the danger our country is in than any ridiculous thing Trump ever said or will say will ever do.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm supposed talk about what you want to talk about so that I can demonstrate my ideological bona fides. Umm, that's ok. I don't give a **** what you think I am.

 

What I do feel confidently about is that the idea behind the aca, effectively everyone having healthcare in the most wealthy, and powerful, and advanced country in the universe is, conceptually, a very good idea. To say otherwise seems both callous and inhumane. It also was good that someone recognized that the extant situation, people using the emergency room as their primary care physician, was both irresponsible and likely unsustainable for a variety of socio-demographic reasons. One can say "oh well we should have done this or tried that instead," but in 45 years of talking about reformation of the healthcare system, nothing was ever done.

 

Where the aca failed was in its execution. And in some cases the deleterious [read: punitive] impact on the middle-class is where it seems to be continuing to fall flat on its face.

This was a very long-winded way of saying you were wrong about Trump a few months ago. Are you laughing about Ponzi schemes now?

In the post that follows (#742), and the subsequent conversation that we had, I was wrong and I believe that you were right:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/179671-gop-debates/page-38?hl=trump&do=findComment&comment=3860672

[FireChan]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm supposed talk about what you want to talk about so that I can demonstrate my ideological bona fides. Umm, that's ok. I don't give a **** what you think I am.

 

What I do feel confidently about is that the idea behind the aca, effectively everyone having healthcare in the most wealthy, and powerful, and advanced country in the universe is, conceptually, a very good idea. To say otherwise seems both callous and inhumane. It also was good that someone recognized that the extant situation, people using the emergency room as their primary care physician, was both irresponsible and likely unsustainable for a variety of socio-demographic reasons. One can say "oh well we should have done this or tried that instead," but in 45 years of talking about reformation of the healthcare system, nothing was ever done.

 

Where the aca failed was in its execution. And in some cases the deleterious [read: punitive] impact on the middle-class is where it seems to be continuing to fall flat on its face.

 

In the post that follows (#742), and the subsequent conversation that we had, I was wrong and I believe that you were right:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/179671-gop-debates/page-38?hl=trump&do=findComment&comment=3860672

By painting with this broad of a stroke, everything is a good idea.

[Juror#8]

Juror,

Really glad to see you back here. Enjoy your posts though I tend to disagree quite often. (Agree w/ a fair amount too.) Unfortunately, don't have the energy to respond now & will then be too busy the next couple of weeks.

Hope you stick around.

What's up bro. I hope that you're well. I understand about being busy. I hope that you get an opportunity to drop some knowledge here when you have an opportunity. I always enjoy reading your posts - even where/when I don't agree.

By painting with this broad of a stroke, everything is a good idea.

Like eugenics?

Don't you understand - on this board if you criticize the right you are by default a liberal...

 

 

Or - the 40 percent of the US who could not get over having a black president divided it.....

It does, at least, appear that if you discuss race in a way that's critical, you're labeled a "liberal."

[FireChan]

What's up bro. I hope that you're well. I understand about being busy. I hope that you get an opportunity to drop some knowledge here when you have an opportunity. I always enjoy reading your posts - even where/when I don't agree.

 

Like eugenics?

 

It does, at least, appear that if you discuss race in a way that's critical, you're labeled a "liberal."

For the record, I never labeled you anything.

 

And yes. "They are just trying to make us better, smarter, faster and stronger in one of the best countries in the world." It's the same weak-ass justification, no offense.

[GG]

 

In the post that follows (#742), and the subsequent conversation that we had, I was wrong and I believe that you were right:

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/179671-gop-debates/page-38?hl=trump&do=findComment&comment=3860672

 

No worries. Living in NYC area for 30 years, we know Trump's true colors. It's not a coincidence that he lost Manhattan primary. He's a fraud & a charlatan.

[Juror#8]

1. Yes the repubs have the larger reputation for "racism." But that's not without reason - at least not historically. When civil rights era was firmly afoot and Johnson made that a signature issue in his presidency, many southerners left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party who - especially then with the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - were against the civil rights act and the idea of social egalitarianism as a federal mandate.

There have been small nuanced political issues over time that minorities still associate with a racist, biased, or just generally unwelcoming political party. And some of the calls from republican figures haven't done much to heal those wounds - from Nixon to Pat Buchanan in 1992 to Donald Trump. The gop as also historically been loathe to repudiate the comments.

I'm not on either side of whether it's right or wrong. But the reason for the belief about republican racism isn't without some justification. It has existed with certain mainstream gop personalities and then attributed to the party by association.

But be sure that the Dems have their fair share of racists. It's just less attention is paid to it because when it's against the majority, it's swept under the rug or seen as inconsequential.

 

Sins of the father. 30-40 year old Republicans need to still be associated with Goldwater?

 

2. The aca was such a brilliant idea in principle and poorly structured and executed. To be sure it's helped tons of people. But it's put as many or more in financial or healthcare predicaments far worse than what they were in pre-aca. It presumes hat the only folks who need the help and healthcare are the underprivileged. And in fact that's not true. It forces a subsidy requirement on everyone - and in some cases a middle class working family who can't shoulder the burden of that subsidy - however it's presented to them (e.g., increased premium, penalty, etc.).

But I agree with the principle underlying the legislation that people going to the er as their primary care physician was an unsustainable situation. Not only because that's a reactionary personal healthcare management plan but also because that individual invariably absconds on their responsibility to pay - because they didn't supply id, or gave a fake name, or just ignored the bill, that cost was spread to everyone in their premiums anyway.

So something had to give. And I still commend the administration for having the balls to do something. Because doing nothing wasn't working either. And yes, I'd rather try something and fail and then go back to the drawing board than just act like the problem doesn't exist.

 

A brilliant idea that can't be executed is a ****ty idea. It was all rainbows and unicorns to anyone paying attention.

 

I'd rather try something that has a chance of working rather than force an easily predictable abortion through Congress. You're giving credit for intentions again.

 

3. Both the repubs and the administration have refused to compromise and it's getting old. Your analogy presumes that one was right and one was wrong in their position. The sky, in the aggregate and in total, can't be both "red" and "blue" at the same time. Analogizing that back to the political circumstance, there is no "right" or "wrong," there is just opinion and action for he good of the country. In that context there needs to be compromise from the executive and the legislature to facilitate some action and effectively govern. Based on the results, we can known retrospectively if there was a "right" or a "wrong." The repubs wanted what they wanted and didn't want the admin to get a win. The admin wanted what they wanted and didn't want to necessarily work with congress to hear different avenues towards accomplishing the objective. When the Dems had a majority, the repubs filibustered the **** out of them. That was obstructionist and procedurally frustrating to the process of governance. That set the tone. They were in the minority and they should have shut the !@#$ up until they had their turn again at the table. The Dems did it with bush's lower court appointees in the early 2000s. They stalled and filibustered and procedurally frustrated the process. It's old and stupid and silly and underhanded - whoever is doing it.

They all do it. But you can't feign repub conciliation and partnership. Because it never really happened.

 

The Bush administration was much more compromising than Obama's. Let me ask what changed? There's been divisive rhetoric spewed from the WH since that man has been in office. More than any Presidency I can remember.

 

When you say there's no right or wrong answer, I say you're wrong. Passing the ACA was not the right answer. Obama gets credit for trying to good and having the "balls" (sidenote, hilarious that the arguably second most feeble President of all time is praised for balls). Should the Repubs have gotten on board with that, if they thought it would suck and make things worse? Where's the credit for their intentions?

 

I don't disagree that obstructionism for obstructing's sake is dumb. But the executive is the one who is supposed to facilitate reaching across the aisle, and Obama has burned too many bridges, spouted too much nonsense, and gone past the point of no return. Congress made the decision to make him a lame duck not without reason.

 

4. If you look at the 'trump is on top thread' I wrote a long support post about trump. In June, 2015 here, a year ago mind you, I said that trump represented my view of foreign policy the best. In March I made a post saying that I was going to a rally here locally and if anyone wanted to meet up and talk politics and have a beer on me, I was game.

I was strongly considering my vote going to trump. I went to his rally and I overheard conversations and saw t-shirts and signs that were beyond what could be considered robust political dialog. I'll leave it at that. And I'm beginning to see trump as a schtik and just overall questioning the principle behind him and what he has to say. I did a lot of looking into what happened with him in Atlantic City. And I decided that I would place my vote elsewhere.

 

Ah, that makes much more sense. I thought you decided to place your vote elsewhere because some supporters were racist or something. I don't get that logic personally.

1. You missed much of my point in the point about race. For one, I said that there have been periodic racial insensitivity by national republican figures that, rightly or wrongly, have been made attributable to the party at large by association.

 

Also, I mentioned that I wasn't saying that the attribution was fair or right. But considering that I've typically voted "republican," you can see how much I concern myself with those sensitivity issues.

 

2. We are arguing over opinion as if it's provable fact. You don't think the aca was a good idea, and I think that it was. You hate the post-aca universe, and some feel that it's the best thing since sliced bread. The last approval rating that I saw it at was ~43% ... incidentally 30% higher than than the gop Gongress' approval rating.

 

Does that make either a bad/good idea or institution?

 

And to close this section, just because it's your opinion (or mine) doesn't make it dispositive.

 

3. I've done a lot of reading about Trump. His time in Atlantic City was enlightening from the standpoint of a political spectator. Stories around him and his relationship with his mentor, Roy cohn, is similarly enlightening.

 

For the record, I never labeled you anything.

 

And yes. "They are just trying to make us better, smarter, faster and stronger in one of the best countries in the world." It's the same weak-ass justification, no offense.

I'm not saying that you did. You may have referred to me as a "lefty" or lumped me into that category. But I may be wrong. Some dolt indirectly called me a liberal. That couldn't be further from the truth. To be fair, there are things that I'm left-of-center on (healthcare reform, public welfare programs, environment), but I'm more conservative more often than not (2nd amendment, foreign policy, immigration, traditional social mores, etc.).

 

I'm going to point-by point your post. It to be condescending but to ensure that I'm addressing your points in total.

1. Yes the repubs have the larger reputation for "racism." But that's not without reason - at least not historically. When civil rights era was firmly afoot and Johnson made that a signature issue in his presidency, many southerners left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party who - especially then with the rhetoric of Barry Goldwater - were against the civil rights act and the idea of social egalitarianism as a federal mandate.

There have been small nuanced political issues over time that minorities still associate with a racist, biased, or just generally unwelcoming political party. And some of the calls from republican figures haven't done much to heal those wounds - from Nixon to Pat Buchanan in 1992 to Donald Trump. The gop as also historically been loathe to repudiate the comments.

I'm not on either side of whether it's right or wrong. But the reason for the belief about republican racism isn't without some justification. It has existed with certain mainstream gop personalities and then attributed to the party by association.

But be sure that the Dems have their fair share of racists. It's just less attention is paid to it because when it's against the majority, it's swept under the rug or seen as inconsequential.

 

They (Conservative talk radio hucksters) don't repudiate it because a portion of the base harbors some variation of those sentiments. It's a problem on two fronts, A) Because it's ignorant and wrong and B) The shifting demographics increasingly means that the GOP will be a long-term minority party. For a party that usually is on the right side of economic logic the base completely ignores the inevitable outcome that could easily be deduced by applying simple math.

 

It's not racist or bigoted to want welfare reform or to want to control the inflow of illegal immigration but the way these things are communicated by the talk radio hucksters and a portion of the base certainly drives home that perception. I see it all the time and it's a problem. But rather than address it head on, they'd rather go back to their comfort zones and continue preaching what they preach to their own choirs.

 

2. The aca was such a brilliant idea in principle and poorly structured and executed. To be sure it's helped tons of people. But it's put as many or more in financial or healthcare predicaments far worse than what they were in pre-aca. It presumes hat the only folks who need the help and healthcare are the underprivileged. And in fact that's not true. It forces a subsidy requirement on everyone - and in some cases a middle class working family who can't shoulder the burden of that subsidy - however it's presented to them (e.g., increased premium, penalty, etc.).

But I agree with the principle underlying the legislation that people going to the er as their primary care physician was an unsustainable situation. Not only because that's a reactionary personal healthcare management plan but also because that individual invariably absconds on their responsibility to pay - because they didn't supply id, or gave a fake name, or just ignored the bill, that cost was spread to everyone in their premiums anyway.

So something had to give. And I still commend the administration for having the balls to do something. Because doing nothing wasn't working either. And yes, I'd rather try something and fail and then go back to the drawing board than just act like the problem doesn't exist.

 

Something did give and that was the middle class getting a raw deal. Yes, I agree with the concept of people getting assistance to have healthcare and I also agree with the concept of no one being denied coverage. However, it was painfully clear that from the very beginning the way they were going to achieve this was going to come at the expense of many hard-working people. Whether it was throwing everyone (very sick people) into small pools of insured individuals to the additional taxes imposed on ACA policies to the insanity of the minimum essential coverage, it was inevitable that you were going to see rates sky rocket the way they have.

 

Yes, the law is helping many lower-income people out but it is wholly unfair to the middle class who are seeing their rates nearly doubling. This has got to be addressed.

 

The goals of the law were well-intentioned, but the design and execution were atrocious.

 

And I disagree with the idea that "something" had to be done so let's just pass anything and take it from there. Ok, something should have been done years ago but to essentially fundamentally change the way healthcare is distributed is a big !@#$ing deal. To be honest with you, without uprooting the entire system there could have been some changes around the margins that would have had a much better outcome.

 

What they should have done is create a big subsidized risk pool that put the majority of the previously uninsurable individuals together. That way you get the majority of the higher costing people out of the private risk pools which would have dramatically lowered rates for everyone else. Also, the idea that everyone has to have maternity, substance abuse coverage and etc etc is undoubtedly going to increase the cost of coverage for everyone.

 

They had a golden opportunity to improve things but rather than do that they went into their bag of liberal political orgasmic wants and pulled out a bunch of paternalistic douchebaggery.

 

3. Both the repubs and the administration have refused to compromise and it's getting old. Your analogy presumes that one was right and one was wrong in their position. The sky, in the aggregate and in total, can't be both "red" and "blue" at the same time. Analogizing that back to the political circumstance, there is no "right" or "wrong," there is just opinion and action for he good of the country. In that context there needs to be compromise from the executive and the legislature to facilitate some action and effectively govern. Based on the results, we can known retrospectively if there was a "right" or a "wrong." The repubs wanted what they wanted and didn't want the admin to get a win. The admin wanted what they wanted and didn't want to necessarily work with congress to hear different avenues towards accomplishing the objective. When the Dems had a majority, the repubs filibustered the **** out of them. That was obstructionist and procedurally frustrating to the process of governance. That set the tone. They were in the minority and they should have shut the !@#$ up until they had their turn again at the table. The Dems did it with bush's lower court appointees in the early 2000s. They stalled and filibustered and procedurally frustrated the process. It's old and stupid and silly and underhanded - whoever is doing it.

They all do it. But you can't feign repub conciliation and partnership. Because it never really happened.

 

You are right, the idea that the country is a monolithic group of people who share the same ideology is insane, yet base voters from both parties are so entrenched in their views they believe the country should only be governed with how they see things. The idea of "compromise" with the opposing party is seen as politically toxic so toxic that the deeply flawed primary system we have punishes politicians who even entertain the thought. The majority of voters like the idea of compromise (even though that number is shrinking) but the majority of primary voters, specially in off presidential year elections do not. Ideological purity trumps all. "So sad"

4. If you look at the 'trump is on top thread' I wrote a long support post about trump. In June, 2015 here, a year ago mind you, I said that trump represented my view of foreign policy the best. In March I made a post saying that I was going to a rally here locally and if anyone wanted to meet up and talk politics and have a beer on me, I was game.

I was strongly considering my vote going to trump. I went to his rally and I overheard conversations and saw t-shirts and signs that were beyond what could be considered robust political dialog. I'll leave it at that. And I'm beginning to see trump as a schtik and just overall questioning the principle behind him and what he has to say. I did a lot of looking into what happened with him in Atlantic City. And I decided that I would place my vote elsewhere.

To be fair, I also had some great conversations with some thoughtful and insightful trump supporters at the rally.

I agree 100%. Bush was saddled with the same personal hatred and unfairness. People were disgusting and petty towards him - unfairly. He was a good man who did his best for the country during a difficult time. I feel the same way about Obama too. He is a good man who is doing his best for the country. The personalized attacks are silly and beneath people in a civilized nation - especially those who have the ability to principally and intelligently disagree without demonizing someone in the process.

 

I don't often do this but there literally is nothing that you said that I can disagree with or even have said better.

 

Well, hold on, I think that we may have a peppercorn of disagreement around the timing of healthcare reform. I feel that at needed to be done now and the lip service around it for the better part of the last five decades was both dry and disingenuous.

 

There are a lot of smart people on this planet who, at any point during the last five decades, could have envisaged, and later implemented, a functional healthcare management system that didn't pass the cost of non-payment along to others. But it hasn't happened. So I was ok with a start - as unsophisticated, and even draconian, as the start was.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Juror#8

[4merper4mer]

What I do feel confidently about is that the idea behind the aca, effectively everyone having healthcare in the most wealthy, and powerful, and advanced country in the universe is, conceptually, a very good idea. To say otherwise seems both callous and inhumane.

Dude, seriously? You know what else sounds like a good idea? From each according to ability.....to each according to need. It may sound callous and in humane to point out it will never work, but it still won't work. There are many reasons but a primary one is that some outside force has to define both an individual's ability and their needs. No thanks.