ACA: Repeal and Delay?

[dblack]

Private insurance doesn't require '100% participation'. Social insurance does. That's why we, usually, have government perform that function - because they already have the power to force participation in the form of taxes. The only way private companies can provide public insurance is if, as you've suggested, everyone is required to buy in.

ACA is delusional at its heart. People want socialized health care but they want to pretend its not socialism. That fantasy has us diving head first into a middle ground that is truly the worst of both worlds - forced public participation fueling and private profits.

Even if there were no 'Public Insurance' as you call it. Even if we returned to no, zero, government interference, or participation (however you choose to label it) Private insurance is in deep trouble.

Indeed. I've always seen ACA as, first and foremost, and insurance industry bailout. They've oversold a product that can't possibly do what they claimed.

Billy Bob and LaQuan don't want to, and WON'T buy Health Insurance unless they're FORCED to.

It's not just 'Billy Bob', it's anyone with a triple digit IQ. Insurance as a means of financing regular expenses makes no sense. Used in that way, it's just really expensive credit. Intelligent consumers have been coming to the realization that, when it comes to insurance, less is more. The more you can pay out of pocket, and the less you rely on insurance, the better off you'll be. Their efforts to 'divest' from the insurance con-game is exactly why the insurance industry 'conceded' to health care reform. It's easier to lobby government than to change a failing business model.

With that thinking, we are doomed to a Single Payer plan.

And (no insult intended) people like you are the reason why.

Single Payer will solve the Medicare Problem. It will solve the VA problem. It will solve the Cost-Shifting problem.

Problem is -- It SUCKS. Really bad. I mean..... Really bad.

Get used to it. You're gonna be forced into it unless you wake up.

And that is doubtful from what I can gather in your posting.

Again.... No insult intended. You're just not getting it. You seem to mean well but The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions.

Say hello to Single Payer. You're gonna love it

So, "You just don't get it!!" ... Really? I thought you might have more.

I get it fine, I'm just not accepting your core assumptions. First, you claim that: "For Insurance to work, we have to have mass, near 100% participation". That's simply not true. Second, I reject your implied assumption that, if it were true that insurance can't work without 100% participation, government should be tapped for the remedy.

If current health insurance plans aren't viable, we should stop buying them. If insurance companies can't come up with a product we do want to buy, they should go out of business. In the meantime, let's take 10% of the taxpayer money that Congress is trying to funnel to the insurance industry and actually buy health care for poor people. You can't go hog wild with it, or you risk some of the same problems that we're facing with too much insurance. But it would give a lot more relief to people who need it than corporatist shell games like ACA.

 

[Coyote]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Most of whom already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

 

[edward37]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Most of whom already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

THE PLAN



LikeShow more reactions
Comment

 

[Kosh]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Most of whom already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

More far left religious dogma!

It will be up to the states to do that, based on the plan..

But then again you far left drones would have to actually read it!

 

[Kosh]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Most of whom already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

THE PLAN



LikeShow more reactions
Comment

Yes we know far left religious dogma never matches reality!

So please post the portion of the bill that supports that?

Silly far left drones!

 

[toomuchtime_]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Most of whom already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

You need to read beyond the headlines because that's simply not true. There is only one troubling provision in the bill concerning Medicaid and that concerns only the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. It states that if some who gained Medicaid under the expansion has a lapse in coverage for over a month the state will not receive the 90% of his premium. It does not effect his eligibility but only the state's right to the federal portion of the cost. This provision is unlikely to make it through the legislative process because too many Republican governors will oppose it. Again, it does not disqualify anyone receiving Medicaid from continuing to receive, but it does disqualify the state from receiving the federal portion of the cost for that person if he has a lapse of coverage for over a month.

 

[Lewdog]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Most of whom already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

You need to read beyond the headlines because that's simply not true. There is only one troubling provision in the bill concerning Medicaid and that concerns only the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. It states that if some who gained Medicaid under the expansion has a lapse in coverage for over a month the state will not receive the 90% of his premium. It does not effect his eligibility but only the state's right to the federal portion of the cost. This provision is unlikely to make it through the legislative process because too many Republican governors will oppose it. Again, it does not disqualify anyone receiving Medicaid from continuing to receive, but it does disqualify the state from receiving the federal portion of the cost for that person if he has a lapse of coverage for over a month.

That's not true. It says by 2020 that states will be given a Medicaid pool of federal money with a cap on it, and then the state will have to make a decision on who to cover, instead of having it so that all the people that meet certain poverty guidelines now qualify.

 

[Claudette]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Most of whom already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

Good. Let people pay for their own health care. No way should the taxpayers be forced to pay for every swinging dick and vagina in America who can't pay for themselves.

Let em get out and get another job to pay for their own health care.

 

[dblack]

From the very beginning we've had two different, and largely contradictory goals for healthcare reform: a) doing something about inflated health care costs, and b) helping the poor to get the healthcare they need.

With ACA Congress chose a 'solution' that focuses solely on 'b'. But by ignoring 'a', they're simply ensuring more and more people will be too poor to afford healthcare.

 

[Kondor3]

From the very beginning we've had two different, and largely contradictory goals for healthcare reform: a) doing something about inflated health care costs, and b) helping the poor to get the healthcare they need.

With ACA Congress chose a 'solution' that focuses solely on 'b'. But by ignoring 'a', they're simply ensuring more and more people will be too poor to afford healthcare.

Are Republicans proposing Price Controls on the Medical Industry and its robber-baron Pharmaceutical Industry bed-partner?

-----------------

Those still backing this POS bill after the CBO report came our are full of shit clean up to their ears, in this context.

If the Pubs pass this POS, a Pub won't even be able to be elected dogcatcher in 2018 or 2020.

 

[Mac1958]

Listening to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt right now.

They're going over all the weaknesses of the plan and coming up with proposals to slap a band-aid on each of them to make them palatable.

This stupid fucking law wasn't complicated enough, now they want to add to that.

This is what happens when you tie your own hands with partisan ideology and then try to create something big.

What a mess.
.

 

[dblack]

From the very beginning we've had two different, and largely contradictory goals for healthcare reform: a) doing something about inflated health care costs, and b) helping the poor to get the healthcare they need.

With ACA Congress chose a 'solution' that focuses solely on 'b'. But by ignoring 'a', they're simply ensuring more and more people will be too poor to afford healthcare.

Are Republicans proposing Price Controls on the Medical Industry and its robber-baron Pharmaceutical Industry bed-partner?

-----------------

Those still backing this POS bill after the CBO report came our are full of shit clean up to their ears, in this context.

If the Pubs pass this POS, a Pub won't even be able to be elected dogcatcher in 2018 or 2020.

No. They're proposing essentially the same thing the Democrats did.

 

[dblack]

Listening to conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt right now.

They're going over all the weaknesses of the plan and coming up with proposals to slap a band-aid on each of them to make them palatable.

This stupid fucking law wasn't complicated enough, now they want to add to that.

This is what happens when you tie your own hands with partisan ideology and then try to create something big.

What a mess.
.

All the stupidity of ACA hinges on the requirement that insurance companies insure people who are already sick. Unless Republicans come to terms with the that, they're going to continue making a mess.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It's all for show . It'll be a fake "repeal" pending a new plan (that will never come).

The GOP could've floated a repeal at any time since they ran congress . But they didn't .

Liar. Your dear leader vetoed a repeal bill last year.

Where's that bill this year?

Keep in mind it's going to take time to fix 20+ years running of corruption and snowballing insurance premiums.

The government and insurance companies have been colluding to raise premiums every year for 20+ in a row.

That can't be fixed overnight.

One thing to do would be to make lobbying illegal and punishable by jail time.

The other thing would be to make taking bribes from lobbyists punishable by jail time and fines.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That would be political suicide since a lot of Americans would lose their insurance.

Most of whom already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

You need to read beyond the headlines because that's simply not true. There is only one troubling provision in the bill concerning Medicaid and that concerns only the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. It states that if some who gained Medicaid under the expansion has a lapse in coverage for over a month the state will not receive the 90% of his premium. It does not effect his eligibility but only the state's right to the federal portion of the cost. This provision is unlikely to make it through the legislative process because too many Republican governors will oppose it. Again, it does not disqualify anyone receiving Medicaid from continuing to receive, but it does disqualify the state from receiving the federal portion of the cost for that person if he has a lapse of coverage for over a month.

That's not true. It says by 2020 that states will be given a Medicaid pool of federal money with a cap on it, and then the state will have to make a decision on who to cover, instead of having it so that all the people that meet certain poverty guidelines now qualify.

You are confusing two separate items. There is no Medicaid pool; there is a high risk pool and a cap on the federal contribution to the cost of Medicaid for people included in the expansion.

"Under the Republican health care plan, no new enrollment can occur under this Medicaid expansion after Dec. 31, 2019. States that have yet to opt in to the expansion by that date also will not be able to do so afterward.

To be clear, the bill doesn’t eliminate the Medicaid expansion coverage for those who are enrolled prior to 2020. But if they have a break in coverage for more than one month after Dec. 31, 2019, they won’t be able to re-enroll (unless a state wanted to cover the cost itself).

The Republican plan includes another notable change to Medicaid. It would cap the amount of federal funding that states can receive per Medicaid enrollee, with varying amounts for each category of enrollee, such as children, and the blind and disabled. Currently, the federal government guarantees matching funds to states for qualifying Medicaid expenses, regardless of cost."

Q&A: The facts on the Republican health care bill

 

[Lewdog]

Most of whom already qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

You need to read beyond the headlines because that's simply not true. There is only one troubling provision in the bill concerning Medicaid and that concerns only the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. It states that if some who gained Medicaid under the expansion has a lapse in coverage for over a month the state will not receive the 90% of his premium. It does not effect his eligibility but only the state's right to the federal portion of the cost. This provision is unlikely to make it through the legislative process because too many Republican governors will oppose it. Again, it does not disqualify anyone receiving Medicaid from continuing to receive, but it does disqualify the state from receiving the federal portion of the cost for that person if he has a lapse of coverage for over a month.

That's not true. It says by 2020 that states will be given a Medicaid pool of federal money with a cap on it, and then the state will have to make a decision on who to cover, instead of having it so that all the people that meet certain poverty guidelines now qualify.

You are confusing two separate items. There is no Medicaid pool; there is a high risk pool and a cap on the federal contribution to the cost of Medicaid for people included in the expansion.

"Under the Republican health care plan, no new enrollment can occur under this Medicaid expansion after Dec. 31, 2019. States that have yet to opt in to the expansion by that date also will not be able to do so afterward.

To be clear, the bill doesn’t eliminate the Medicaid expansion coverage for those who are enrolled prior to 2020. But if they have a break in coverage for more than one month after Dec. 31, 2019, they won’t be able to re-enroll (unless a state wanted to cover the cost itself).

The Republican plan includes another notable change to Medicaid. It would cap the amount of federal funding that states can receive per Medicaid enrollee, with varying amounts for each category of enrollee, such as children, and the blind and disabled. Currently, the federal government guarantees matching funds to states for qualifying Medicaid expenses, regardless of cost."

Q&A: The facts on the Republican health care bill

No, there is going to be a pool of Medicaid money given to the states and the states will then have to choose who they allow to have Medicaid to fit within that budget.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's bullshit . There's a lot of working people out there that wouldn't qualify .

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

You need to read beyond the headlines because that's simply not true. There is only one troubling provision in the bill concerning Medicaid and that concerns only the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. It states that if some who gained Medicaid under the expansion has a lapse in coverage for over a month the state will not receive the 90% of his premium. It does not effect his eligibility but only the state's right to the federal portion of the cost. This provision is unlikely to make it through the legislative process because too many Republican governors will oppose it. Again, it does not disqualify anyone receiving Medicaid from continuing to receive, but it does disqualify the state from receiving the federal portion of the cost for that person if he has a lapse of coverage for over a month.

That's not true. It says by 2020 that states will be given a Medicaid pool of federal money with a cap on it, and then the state will have to make a decision on who to cover, instead of having it so that all the people that meet certain poverty guidelines now qualify.

You are confusing two separate items. There is no Medicaid pool; there is a high risk pool and a cap on the federal contribution to the cost of Medicaid for people included in the expansion.

"Under the Republican health care plan, no new enrollment can occur under this Medicaid expansion after Dec. 31, 2019. States that have yet to opt in to the expansion by that date also will not be able to do so afterward.

To be clear, the bill doesn’t eliminate the Medicaid expansion coverage for those who are enrolled prior to 2020. But if they have a break in coverage for more than one month after Dec. 31, 2019, they won’t be able to re-enroll (unless a state wanted to cover the cost itself).

The Republican plan includes another notable change to Medicaid. It would cap the amount of federal funding that states can receive per Medicaid enrollee, with varying amounts for each category of enrollee, such as children, and the blind and disabled. Currently, the federal government guarantees matching funds to states for qualifying Medicaid expenses, regardless of cost."

Q&A: The facts on the Republican health care bill

No, there is going to be a pool of Medicaid money given to the states and the states will then have to choose who they allow to have Medicaid to fit within that budget.

Again, you are confusing two items, the high risk pool and the cap on the federal contribution to each Medicaid recipient's cost. There is nothing about a Medicaid pool in the bill.

 

[Lewdog]

Exactly. And don't forget - they're plan involves REDUCING medicaid.

You need to read beyond the headlines because that's simply not true. There is only one troubling provision in the bill concerning Medicaid and that concerns only the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. It states that if some who gained Medicaid under the expansion has a lapse in coverage for over a month the state will not receive the 90% of his premium. It does not effect his eligibility but only the state's right to the federal portion of the cost. This provision is unlikely to make it through the legislative process because too many Republican governors will oppose it. Again, it does not disqualify anyone receiving Medicaid from continuing to receive, but it does disqualify the state from receiving the federal portion of the cost for that person if he has a lapse of coverage for over a month.

That's not true. It says by 2020 that states will be given a Medicaid pool of federal money with a cap on it, and then the state will have to make a decision on who to cover, instead of having it so that all the people that meet certain poverty guidelines now qualify.

You are confusing two separate items. There is no Medicaid pool; there is a high risk pool and a cap on the federal contribution to the cost of Medicaid for people included in the expansion.

"Under the Republican health care plan, no new enrollment can occur under this Medicaid expansion after Dec. 31, 2019. States that have yet to opt in to the expansion by that date also will not be able to do so afterward.

To be clear, the bill doesn’t eliminate the Medicaid expansion coverage for those who are enrolled prior to 2020. But if they have a break in coverage for more than one month after Dec. 31, 2019, they won’t be able to re-enroll (unless a state wanted to cover the cost itself).

The Republican plan includes another notable change to Medicaid. It would cap the amount of federal funding that states can receive per Medicaid enrollee, with varying amounts for each category of enrollee, such as children, and the blind and disabled. Currently, the federal government guarantees matching funds to states for qualifying Medicaid expenses, regardless of cost."

Q&A: The facts on the Republican health care bill

No, there is going to be a pool of Medicaid money given to the states and the states will then have to choose who they allow to have Medicaid to fit within that budget.

Again, you are confusing two items, the high risk pool and the cap on the federal contribution to each Medicaid recipient's cost. There is nothing about a Medicaid pool in the bill.

"The plan unveiled on Thursday by House Republican leaders would make huge changes in Medicaid. It would eventually undo the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid and give each state a fixed amount of money for each beneficiary. As an alternative, they said, a state could receive a lump sum of federal money for all of its Medicaid program, or a block grant.

In either case, the federal government would gradually reduce the extra payments it makes to states that have expanded Medicaid under the 2010 health care law. States could continue providing Medicaid to the newly eligible beneficiaries, but the federal share of the costs would decline to the regular federal share of Medicaid costs for other beneficiaries.

The federal government now pays more than 90 percent of the costs for newly eligible beneficiaries in states that expanded Medicaid. Under the House Republican plan, the federal share would decline to 50 percent in states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, resulting in a significant loss of federal revenue.

In a number of states that have expanded Medicaid, Republican governors and Republican members of Congress have made clear that they do not like the idea of a block grant or a per-beneficiary allotment.

The Congressional Budget Office says that 12 million people have insurance because they became eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, and it estimates that federal spending for this group will be $70 billion this year."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/affordable-care-act-congress.html?_r=0

And:


"The latest draft, dated Feb. 24, also still includes a plan to phase out Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Instead the program’s current open-ended federal entitlement would be replaced by capped payments to states based on the number of Medicaid enrollees."

New details in GOP Obamacare replacement leaked

 

[toomuchtime_]

You need to read beyond the headlines because that's simply not true. There is only one troubling provision in the bill concerning Medicaid and that concerns only the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. It states that if some who gained Medicaid under the expansion has a lapse in coverage for over a month the state will not receive the 90% of his premium. It does not effect his eligibility but only the state's right to the federal portion of the cost. This provision is unlikely to make it through the legislative process because too many Republican governors will oppose it. Again, it does not disqualify anyone receiving Medicaid from continuing to receive, but it does disqualify the state from receiving the federal portion of the cost for that person if he has a lapse of coverage for over a month.

That's not true. It says by 2020 that states will be given a Medicaid pool of federal money with a cap on it, and then the state will have to make a decision on who to cover, instead of having it so that all the people that meet certain poverty guidelines now qualify.

You are confusing two separate items. There is no Medicaid pool; there is a high risk pool and a cap on the federal contribution to the cost of Medicaid for people included in the expansion.

"Under the Republican health care plan, no new enrollment can occur under this Medicaid expansion after Dec. 31, 2019. States that have yet to opt in to the expansion by that date also will not be able to do so afterward.

To be clear, the bill doesn’t eliminate the Medicaid expansion coverage for those who are enrolled prior to 2020. But if they have a break in coverage for more than one month after Dec. 31, 2019, they won’t be able to re-enroll (unless a state wanted to cover the cost itself).

The Republican plan includes another notable change to Medicaid. It would cap the amount of federal funding that states can receive per Medicaid enrollee, with varying amounts for each category of enrollee, such as children, and the blind and disabled. Currently, the federal government guarantees matching funds to states for qualifying Medicaid expenses, regardless of cost."

Q&A: The facts on the Republican health care bill

No, there is going to be a pool of Medicaid money given to the states and the states will then have to choose who they allow to have Medicaid to fit within that budget.

Again, you are confusing two items, the high risk pool and the cap on the federal contribution to each Medicaid recipient's cost. There is nothing about a Medicaid pool in the bill.

"The plan unveiled on Thursday by House Republican leaders would make huge changes in Medicaid. It would eventually undo the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid and give each state a fixed amount of money for each beneficiary. As an alternative, they said, a state could receive a lump sum of federal money for all of its Medicaid program, or a block grant.

In either case, the federal government would gradually reduce the extra payments it makes to states that have expanded Medicaid under the 2010 health care law. States could continue providing Medicaid to the newly eligible beneficiaries, but the federal share of the costs would decline to the regular federal share of Medicaid costs for other beneficiaries.

The federal government now pays more than 90 percent of the costs for newly eligible beneficiaries in states that expanded Medicaid. Under the House Republican plan, the federal share would decline to 50 percent in states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, resulting in a significant loss of federal revenue.

In a number of states that have expanded Medicaid, Republican governors and Republican members of Congress have made clear that they do not like the idea of a block grant or a per-beneficiary allotment.

The Congressional Budget Office says that 12 million people have insurance because they became eligible for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, and it estimates that federal spending for this group will be $70 billion this year."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/affordable-care-act-congress.html?_r=0

And:


"The latest draft, dated Feb. 24, also still includes a plan to phase out Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. Instead the program’s current open-ended federal entitlement would be replaced by capped payments to states based on the number of Medicaid enrollees."

New details in GOP Obamacare replacement leaked

You are citing an article that was written before there was a bill. The bill that is being debated today contains nothing about a Medicaid pool. The bill now under consideration will cap the federal contribution for each enrollee but not for the state's entire Medicaid program, so that if the state's number of people enrolled in pre ACA Medicaid increases, the federal government's total contribution to the state's program will also increase. After December 31, 2019, the federal government will not contribute to the cost of any new enrollees into the ACA expansion, but it will continue to pay a part of the cost of new enrollees under the pre ACA Medicaid program.

The cap on the cost of each enrollee's could have the effect of shifting more of the cost to the states if it remains fixed, but since this will be hotly opposed by state governors it likely to be increased as actual costs increase.

 

[Kondor3]

Perhaps it's time to just cut through all the bullshit and institute Nationalized Healthcare for everybody?

Zero cost to the Citizen-Consumer, at point-of-service; 100% coverage; no deductibles, no co-pays.

Everybody goes into the same National Pool.

Citizens, military, government employees, elected officials, etc.

Everybody.

We can begin to pay for it by (metaphorically, financially) raping Corporatists, as a "Thank You" for the way they've been raping America for decades.

Increase-the-shit out of taxes on the rich, and on corporations - while making it so painful for them to leave the country, that they'd rather stay and pay the taxes.

Phukk 'em.

And, for those who say "The government should not be in the business of providing or regulating healthcare"... well... enjoy your last little 'hurrah' with 45...

Because, after he's gone, your day is done... quite probably, forevermore.

But, seriously...

We will not move on Nationalized Healthcare while the present Republican control over all three branches of government, remains in-place; however...

The next time a window of opportunity opens, it may be time to bite the bullet, push way-the-phukk beyond ObamaCare, take the best from several of the European healthcare systems, and roll our own better hybrid; putting several healthcare-centric insurance companies out of business along the way.

And, if we start running short of funds to pay for Nationalized Healthcare, we can trim some more fat from Congress and Corporations, to shore-up the scheme; over and above whatever we'd charge each Citizen (through taxes) for his/her/its Universal Coverage.

If the Pubs screw the pooch on this one... tweaking healthcare in 2017... and they will... the retards can't help themselves... they love shooting themselves in the foot...

The Next-Gen LibProg administration will roll out a national healthcare system that will make Conservatives wail and gnash their teeth and tear their hair-shirts and pour earth over their heads in mourning over an irreversible healthcare program - too popular and too deeply entrenched to ever un-do it; dug-in far deeper than ObamaCare ever was.

Next time, the LibProgs are going to cook-up something EuroCare-ish that the Pubs will never be able to un-do without fomenting insurrection.

In the words of that old cajun TV chef Justin Wilson... "I gare-ronnnnn-teeee"

It will take a few years before the (equally retarded) Dem-Lib-Progs regain substantive political power, but, when they do...

This will be one of their primary platform planks, and they'll not only get elected (in part) on that plank, but they'll go through with it, next time, and get away with it...

Given that they'll have Landslide -proportion backing in both chambers of Congress, as well as the White House... the inevitable aftermath of the nightmare that is Forty Five.

-------------------------

< puts away crystal ball and chuckles >