Obamacare ready to collapse?

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by me again, Mar 13, 2017.

Loading...
  1. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

  2. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member


    Boy, many of the low income voters that voted for trump are going to be screwed. I thought I read somewhere that by 2018 20 million people will end up without coverage (I am going by memory, too lazy to look it up). This is weird because Trump said that everybody was going to get health care. Not. In the end, Trump will "own" the new bill and it will be named Trump care, even though he says he doesn't want it called that. Too bad.
     
  3. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Yep, it's tough being poor, but the poor will always be with us. At least the rest of us cannot be legally penalized by the IRS for refusing to participate in Obamacrapcare.
     
  4. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    And what do you have against the IRS? I'm asking as someone in similar line of work. Also, I'm so glad other people will die from preventable deceases so you can be free to purchase an overpriced HMO.

    (ironically, you still can be penalized for not participating in Trumpdoesntcare - you just pay to the insurer not the IRS. It totes worth taking coverage away from 24 million people, isn't it, buddy? )
     
  5. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    By all means, let Obamacare collapse this year, on Republicans' watch. This way, voters would feel the effects in time for the midterms.
    I also would not mind if they'll manage to ram through Ryancare. It will be an extremely unpopular bill - again, in time for the midterms.

    Then, the Democratic congress can repeal the repeal and get started on the articles of impeachment.
     
  6. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    For the first 150 years of the birth of the United States, the federal government spent about 3% of the GDP. However, in the 20th Century, federal expenditures began exceeding that, far beyond reasonable and sustainable levels.

    Stanislav, as a foreigner from a former Russian satellite nation, what do you like about the American IRS?
     
  7. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    As an employee of an equivalent agency, I have a lot of respect for IRS's professionalism. They do a great job in very challenging environment; IRS is among the most cost-effective government offices. As for these expenditures? They were authorised by politicians through democratic process that has nothing to do with IRS public servants. For example, President Trump wants military and DHS budgets greatly increased - do you think it'll be free?
     
  8. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    It will be less expensive than Canadianism, socialism or communism. However, the U.S. Constitution makes (1) border security (2) and the military (3) as primary responsibilities of the federal government (and not the States). As a fortuitous caveat, President Trump is deflating the rest of the federal government because the States can handle the rest, to include taxation, welfare, healthcare, drivers licensing, voting stations, et al.
     
  9. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

  10. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    The Constitution doesn't refer to border security. Congress has the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations" and to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", that's it. In fact, the Constitution prohibits appropriations longer than two years for standing armies, and specifically reserves to the states the appointment of officers and direction of training for the militia, which was their idea of how national defense should be handled in a free country.

    In other words, a federally garrisoned border and the world's largest military conducting decades long wars around the globe is not only unconstitutional, but the men who wrote and signed it would have been appalled.

    I'm all for responsible decentralization to the lowest possible layer -- the individual whenever possible. If that's what Trump intends, a wholesale shift of things that need not be federal (education, healthcare, pensions, etc.) to the states, then that's something that he should actually probably say. It's not like he's some sort of principled free market intellectual, so I seriously doubt he's really thought things through that far. But it is what it is.
     
  11. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    That logic seems reasonable...

    ...and those are excellent points.
     

Share This Page