Wiskers Von Pussyboots
Senior Member
- Jan 27, 2017
- 669
- 115
That's all you got? You're usually long winded.Keep trying. LOL“We’d better be sure that we’re prepared to live with the market we’ve created [with repeal],” said Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.). “That’s going to be called Trumpcare. Republicans will own that lock, stock and barrel, and we’ll be judged in the election less than two years away.” […]
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) worried that one idea floated by Republicans—a refundable tax credit—won’t work for middle-class families that can’t afford to prepay their premiums and wait for a tax refund.
Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) talked about what's going to happen to the more than 20 million people who have coverage and might lose it. "We’re telling those people that we’re not going to pull the rug out from under them," he said, "and if we do this too fast, we are in fact going to pull the rug out from under them." The rest of the discussion is entirely about the political risks these Republicans face, not the tens of thousands of people who might die, every year, when their coverage is ripped away.
---------------------------
When have Republicans care about tens of thousands dying? Anyone? If they ain't rich, white and Republican, fuck 'em! Right?
Oh this is just too rich.
And Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. Cover everyone? Better? Cheaper?
And then Ryan an McConnell telling everyone how they are working together and how it's going along really well.
THEY JUST GOT CAUGHT LYING TO THE ENTIRE COUNTRY! AGAIN!
![]()
Lot of pent up rage there. Years of defending the indefensible Obamacare has driven this one insane.
Trust me, you could repeal Obamacare and replace it with nothing and it would still be better than Obamacare. Like all leftist policies/laws though, there are a number of little peaces of crack for the public pipe that people like but aren't economically viable. Now that the left gave the public a hit off the crack pipe Republicans don't want to pay the political penalty for making an economically viable plan that excludes the crack pipe.
Indeed I read his statement as assuming that my existence here is to provide him what he deems a suitable answer. It certainly wasn't a counter argument. Does he expect me to reply? What reason would anyone do such a thing? For those here to argue and learn, assuming that's why most of us are here, what good does it do to respond to those who don't engage in an argument? Hmmm, reminds me of my college days.