I Am Interested In Politics

NW:
Now you sound like obama.....

"I told republicans that if they have a better idea we will listen".....NOT!

@lov2smile: The fact is, that the Republicans had more than 6 years to come up with something better. So far nothing.

To quote President Trump, on February 28, 2017:

[quote]Now, I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject. "Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.[/quote]

Actually, quite a few people knew, and here's what one of them said:

[quote]I told republicans that if they have a better idea we will listen[/quote]

@Northwest:

You're still reading only one side of the news. You should be more open minded. You need to read BOTH sides to find out what is really going on.

The republicans offered up ideas that obama [b]refused to even consider[/b].

To answer your next question: [i]What were those ideas?[/i]

[b]Placing limits on frivolous lawsuits[/b] (Doctors are forced to pay millions of dollars to cover the cost of ridiculous lawsuits and doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests for patients to protect themselves.

[b]Competition across state lines[/b]

[b]Tax free medical savings accounts[/b]

There are obviously more that the Trump administration will implement that reduce government intervention.

But you don't know any of that because you are so bias. You and the rest of the liberals wouldn't consider because you didn't think of it and it doesn't expand big government.

@lov2smile:

OK, let's go through your claims, one by one:

1. Medical malpractice tort form: this is not part of the ACA, and is not part of the AHCA (the Trump plan, announced this past week). Why? Because it's a legal issue, not a healthcare insurance issue. It's also an issue that crosses party lines, depending on what state politicians come from. Some Republicans are for tort reform, and some are not. Some Democrats are for tort reform, and some are not.

2. Competition across state lines. I am not really surprised you brought this up. It fits your profile as a Trump voter. Just like him, you complain about non-existent issues. Interstate insurance coverage IS allowed under the ACA. The only caveat, and it's a legal/constitutional issue first (State rights), in addition to a consumer protection one.

Under the ACA, a California insurance company, can sell coverage in Washington State, as long as both states insurance commissioners approve the 2-way transaction. This means that people from both states, have to scrutinize both states insurance regulations, to insure that the offering meets the particular states' insurances regulations.

Make that 50 and they each have to have a joint relationship with each other. There are also some additional complications, related to the specific regularity issues. If you guessed a MINIMUM of 2,500 different agreements that would need to be struck, that your guess would be right.

Does that sound like a simplification to you? How about less government interference? What's a simpler solution: a single payer system. Otherwise, interstate healthcare coverage is not practical, WHILE maintaining the protections offered by each state to its residents.

The states realize this, and this is why, to my knowledge, none have taken advantage of this clause in the ACA. There's a possible exception, where WA State is now offering DENTAL coverage, through a California carrier.

What's really surprising to me (but not really), is for you to claim that the ACA does not have a interstate clause. This shows, that despite your claims (to have studied the ACA over a period of 18 months), you have no clue what the ACA is.

Tax Free Medical Savings Account: you're aware that this is possible today, right? It did not need the ACA. It has been available, for a minimum of 15 years (and I believe more). You can set aside a portion of your earnings, into a tax-free medical savings account, and use that to pay for medical expenses.

This is also a good option if you're in a good tax bracket, and useless if you're not.

Try again. One of these, you may, get it right. Perhaps you can refresh your memory, based on that 18 months research period, you conducted into the ACA?

@Northwest:

I'm not going to waste my time responding to deceit and misinformation.

NW....In case you didn't realize it
You lost!!....I won.....Deal with it

@lov2smile: [quote]I'm not going to waste my time responding to deceit and misinformation.[/quote]

Translation: lov2smile, is caught again, with one of her fabrications. The list is long, and includes the heinous misrepresentation that our Ambassador to Lybia was raped and tortured for seven hours.

[quote]NW....In case you didn't realize it
You lost!!....I won.....Deal with it[/quote]

If by you, you mean you personally, you won nothing. You have yet to present a SINGLE defensible argument on SW.

If you mean you won, because Trump, has won, then you lost.

If by I lost, you mean me personally, then I stand here, with dignity fully intact, not having to say that I voted for someone with no respect for women, who fuels division, and lies for a living.

If this is about the American people, then yes, as a collective, we've lost. Mostly our dignity.

If you mean the popular vote, then you did not win, you lost.

I'm still waiting for proof of the 3M-5M illegal voters. I am still waiting for any proof that President Obama was monitoring Trump illegally. I am still waiting for proof that tens of thousands of American Muslims, celebrated 9/11. I am still waiting for proof that Trump won the electoral college vote, by the largest margin since President Reagan. I am still waiting for proof that God looked down upon the inauguration, and it did not rain. I will stop here, and I do have a life.

@Northwest:

You said: [i]"I do have a life."[/i]

Yes you do...as a keyboard warrior, still in your pajamas.

So full of misinformation, you should be ashamed, but no...typical liberal. Lie enough and you believe your own lies.

@lov2smile: [quote]Yes you do...as a keyboard warrior, still in your pajamas.[/quote]

On the Internet, this is what's known as the loser's argument. When you have nothing to say, attack the person pointing out your lies.

There's no misinformation from me. You said that interstate insurance, is a GOP idea, when in fact, it is PART of the ACA. This is a FACT.

@Northwest:

WHOA, All of a sudden "Attack the person" YIKES!
You are incredible. You actually have the gall to TRY to turn the message around to suit you.

It's the liberals, when they can't dispute the facts, [b]they attack the messenger.[/b]

@lov2smile: so what you're saying, is that YOU presented a valid argument, and instead of responding to I the argument, I responded with 'you're a keyboard warrior, still in your pyjamas'. Yes, it makes perfect sense to me now. Can you do me a favor and google this word: irony

NW,

For your information, it was the liberals that perfected the strategy of:
[i][b]"Attack the messenger" [/b][/i]

Whenever an argument is presented that a liberal cannot honestly respond to, then, call the messenger names and discredit him/her.

You have been notorious on attacking me. I say one little amusing thing and all hell breaks loose with you and a barrage of insults follow.

There are times you seem intelligent, yet misguided, and then there are times you act so childish. At your age you should know better.

@lov2smile: [quote]For your information, it was the liberals that perfected the strategy of:
"Attack the messenger" [/quote]

Thank you for enlightening SW with your fantasies.

[quote]Whenever an argument is presented that a liberal cannot honestly respond to, then, call the messenger names and discredit him/her.
[/quote]

Are you saying that you're a liberal? What other explanation would there be, when you say this and [quote]you're a keyboard warrior, still in your pyjamas[/quote]

[quote]You have been notorious on attacking me.[/quote]

In your own mind, perhaps, in reality, neither you, nor the person you recruited to go after me, can present any proof.

[quote]At your age you should know better.[/quote]

So, you're now going after my age? Well, just as long as you don't resort to attacks, when you have no valid argument to present.