What is the future of the Republican Party?

Archy1221 said:
They passed Legislation in the House on this 
Click to expand...


And what an utter, utter disaster that was. Paul Ryan called it a "conservative wish list." Only problem - it was nothing like what Americans wanted. Hugely unpopular, completely out of touch with the needs of regular Americans, and directly attributable to more than 30 lost seats in the 2018 midterms. 

It was a fantastic example of why republicans are so bad at governing. 

 
knapplc said:
And what an utter, utter disaster that was. Paul Ryan called it a "conservative wish list." Only problem - it was nothing like what Americans wanted. Hugely unpopular, completely out of touch with the needs of regular Americans, and directly attributable to more than 30 lost seats in the 2018 midterms.
Click to expand...
Knapp speaks for the entirety of America.  Haha too funny.  Anyways, Dem’s lied and did a good job scaring people into thinking it would eliminate the pre-existing coverage extensions.  Which it didn’t.  
That falls on the R’s for having bad outreach to voters about what was in the bill.  Hopefully they learned but doubtful. 

 
Archy1221 said:
Knapp speaks for the entirety of America.  Haha too funny.  Anyways, Dem’s lied and did a good job scaring people into thinking it would eliminate the pre-existing coverage extensions.  Which it didn’t.  
That falls on the R’s for having bad outreach to voters about what was in the bill.  Hopefully they learned but doubtful. 
Click to expand...


I agree with the majority of Americans who told pollsters that they hated the legislation. And those same Americans told Republicans that, directly, when they voted them out of office in 2018. 

Every analysis of that garbage heap of a "conservative wish list" (thanks for that awesome quote, Paul Ryan!) said it would be an utter disaster. 

The repubulicans' problem wasn't "bad outreach," it was bad legislation. 

It showed how out of touch the elitist republican lawmakers are from the very people they claim to represent. 

 
knapplc said:
I agree with the majority of Americans who told pollsters that they hated the legislation. And those same Americans told Republicans that, directly, when they voted them out of office in 2018. 

Every analysis of that garbage heap of a "conservative wish list" (thanks for that awesome quote, Paul Ryan!) said it would be an utter disaster. 

The repubulicans' problem wasn't "bad outreach," it was bad legislation. 

It showed how out of touch the elitist republican lawmakers are from the very people they claim to represent. 
Click to expand...
What specifically do you think was bad about it? 

 
Archy1221 said:
Knapp speaks for the entirety of America.  Haha too funny.  Anyways, Dem’s lied and did a good job scaring people into thinking it would eliminate the pre-existing coverage extensions.  Which it didn’t.  
That falls on the R’s for having bad outreach to voters about what was in the bill.  Hopefully they learned but doubtful. 
Click to expand...
:laughpound Wrong

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526887531/heres-whats-in-the-house-approved-health-care-bill

The bill would no longer require people to buy insurance through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, if they want to use federal tax credits to buy coverage. It also would eliminate the tax penalty for failing to have health insurance coverage, effectively doing away with that requirement altogether.

In place of that mandate, the bill encourages people to maintain coverage by prohibiting insurance companies from cutting them off or charging more for pre-existing conditions as long as their insurance doesn't lapse. If coverage is interrupted for more than 63 days, however, insurers can charge people a 30 percent penalty over their premium for one year.
Click to expand...
It did, but it didn't.

Pre-existing conditions

The AHCA maintains protections for people with pre-existing conditions, with some important exceptions (see waivers, below). That means that someone with high medical expenses pays the same premium for the same policy as anyone else his age in his area.

State waivers

This section of the bill essentially amounts to an optional, state-level full repeal of Obamacare. It would give states the ability to apply for a waiver that lets them opt out of most of the regulations and consumer protections that were included in the Affordable Care Act.

States could apply for waivers that would allow insurance companies in their states to do three things: 1. Charge older people more than five times what they charge young people for the same policy; 2. Eliminate required coverage, called essential health benefits, including maternity care, mental health and prescription drugs, that were required under the Affordable Care Act; and 3. Charge more for or deny coverage to people who have pre-existing health conditions, such as cancer, diabetes or arthritis.

The waivers could also impact people with employer-based insurance, because insurers could offer policies that have annual and lifetime benefit limits, which are banned under the Affordable Care Act, and some companies may choose those policies for their workers to lower premiums.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
Blog posts and tweets with embedded links to mainstream articles 
Click to expand...
No, that's not what I referring to, and that's not the same thing as what I said.

Is The NYT and WAPO infallible? 
Click to expand...
This, also, is not what I said. That's a straw man and I'm not going to debate it. I'm growing rather weary of these twisted interpretations of things being said. It's like putting a filet through a meat grinder and trying to still call the finished product a filet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
This, also, is not what I said. That's a straw man and I'm not going to debate it. I'm growing rather weary of these twisted interpretations of things being said. It's like putting a filet through a meat grinder and trying to still call the finished product a filet.
Click to expand...
Wait till he goes 5 years back, finds a post of yours and misrepresents what it says to fit his agenda.

 
BigRedBuster said:
:laughpound Wrong

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/04/526887531/heres-whats-in-the-house-approved-health-care-bill

It did, but it didn't.
Click to expand...
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/876276
 

https://totalbenefits.net/examining-the-house-republican-aca-repeal-and-replace-legislation/

More specifically, the legislation does not repeal the ACA’s insurance reforms, such as the ACA’s requirements that health plans

  • cover preexisting conditions;
  • guarantee availability and renewability of coverage;
  • cover adult children up to age 26; and
  • cap out-of-pocket expenditures,


 
Enhance said:
No, that's not what I referring to, and that's not the same thing as what I said.

This, also, is not what I said. That's a straw man and I'm not going to debate it. I'm growing rather weary of these twisted interpretations of things being said. It's like putting a filet through a meat grinder and trying to still call the finished product a filet.
Click to expand...
The issue with your post as seen below is that you are insinuating those blog post shares or twitter threads by someone with 1,500 followers are less worthy of a NYT or WAPO article.  1) Many times those tweets and blog post link to large paper articles when making their point. 2) Many times these small blogs uncover  and report on wrongdoings well before the major papers pick it up.  Since your post was painted with a broad brush, someone who posts tweets with embedded articles or blogs with embedded links would think you are referring to them. 
 

As an example, this is exactly how the Russia hoax got debunked and the Cuomo allegations surfaced last summer.   Major papers are just now catching up. 

So in my view, it’s definitely not a strawman to point those papers of record make massive mistakes at times with their reporting and it’s worth calling out.  

looking back, can you understand my point here and why there shouldn’t be a reason for getting upset

We have people on this board who effectively share blog posts to back up their claims, or Twitter threads by someone with 1,500 followers, while simultaneously dunking on places like the New York Times or WaPo

 
Back
Top