Obamacare repeal and Trump LIES

Yeah, surprise, surprise, but I'm trying to echo the anti- Hillary outrage of the right and some of the left. . .

Between Obama's address and Trump's press conference January 12, 2017, THIS happened.

While You Were Sleeping Senate Republicans Passed a Resolution to Let Them Pull the Plug on Obamacare

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/while_you_were_sleeping_senate_republicans_passed_a_resolution_to_let_them_pull_the_plug_on_obamacare


My feed was relpete with cries of Hillary being a liar not too long ago. All her good points were met with LIAR and LOCK HER UP as though these were actual arguments of substance.

Can we now dismiss everything Repubicans and Mr. Cheeto say and do ? He lied. He liked some of Obamacare and was going to keep it. He's a LIAR, folks (and by folks I mean Republicans who seemed to distinguish his lying from lying Hillary)! Also he's a fraud, racist and slime ball and raped women- that was plenty for me, but hey, what do I know, I'm just a lady and when blood comes out of your wherever, how can you trust that?


You got rid of Hillary, good you! And installed a steaming pile of refuse who also LIES.

But you know what would be hilarious? If he took Obamacare, however long that bill was, copied it word for word and made "TRUMPMAKESAMERICAGREATCARE". Hehehe. Cause he wanted his name on it, even though the Obamacare moniker was given by Republicans and supposed to be disparaging, he didn't put his name on it.

(And we won't even talk about how Republicans rejected universal healthcare and forced an imperfect compromise that ended up being like the original Republican idea. . .)

Just kidding, yes we will!


25 Republicans Who Supported Obamacare Before Obama
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/08/republicans-supported-obamacare-gingrich-dole-individual-mandate
The irony of Republican disapproval of Obamacare
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2013/1028/The-irony-of-Republican-disapproval-of-Obamacare

Obamacare (cue the Halloween/scary music)

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the Affordable Health Care Act, or Obamacare as Republicans call it.

They oppose the individual mandate by calling it socialism. The funny thing is that it was their idea in the '90s and it was all good- a way to protect small businesses--- then. What was that other thing they call socialist? Oh. Taxes. I'm sure there are more.

Making everyone opt in is not a new concept. Car insurance is the same. You are required to have this if you have a car. I realize this is regulated by the states and not federal, so this may make all the difference to a Republican, but it is the same concept to me. Everyone pays who may have to use it at some point to cover the costs of those that do. If you choose to go without and then have an accident, no one is required to cover your cost, unlike in a medical situation where doctors are required to treat you, so the need for the individual mandate seems to be greatest in this case. Why so little complaint about car insurance and so much about everyone being required to have health insurance, something that you'll probably use more than car insurance and for something you're guaranteed service for?

Republicans are against welfare and other social programs because it is a free ride. They have no problem with people who don't get insurance while they're healthy or apparently healthy, then go when the problems can't be ignored and have ballooned into something uncontrollable at everyone else's expense because- hey- I didn't see this coming- I'm healthy- I can't afford this- I need help. Is that not the point of insurance, to pay into it before you need it? Take for example life insurance or car insurance. (Yes, I realize life insurance is totally optional and car insurance is regulated by the state, but I'm talking about the allegedly strange new socialist concept of pooling resources.) I would think Republicans would be for something that prevents people from gaming the system and getting services they never intended to pay for (either because they couldn't or because they thought they didn't need it just yet).

Or maybe I have it wrong and Republicans would like to do away with the concept of doctors helping those who can't pay. I admit I don't know their position on that. I'd be curious to find that out.

Or I wonder if the individual mandate gets struck down if people who opt out could carry a card that says- I waive my right/wish to be treated- so the cost wouldn't be incurred. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't affect the doctors' responsibility to treat people, though. Besides it makes me feel kind of horrible just writing that. I definitely believe those who can't afford it should be subsidized and treated, but those who opt out because they're feeling fine now or oppose it ideologically or opt out for another reason than financial need...maybe I don't feel that bad writing it.