Obamafarce

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

...sometimes know as the unAffordableCA.

Senate: move to the left on Medicaid cuts and taxes, i.e., pass
something, Dumbos (the GoP elephant).

Smelling a liberal fart is better than shovelling liberal shit. A fart
doesn't last long - liberal shit is eternal.

Then by Executive Order or any legal means, whether ethical or not,
undo the move to the left. IOW bypass the left leaning GoPers.

Tell me why it wouldn't work - I don't give the north end of a south
bound rat whether you like it.

Hugh

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[wolfie]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote

> Senate: move to the left on Medicaid cuts and taxes, i.e., pass
> something, Dumbos (the GoP elephant).

> Then by Executive Order or any legal means, whether ethical or not,
> undo the move to the left. IOW bypass the left leaning GoPers.

> Tell me why it wouldn't work

Because the ONLY legal means to undo it would be to pass
another law. If the only way the moderates will support the
initial bill is by changing something for them it's stupid to
expect them to vote to remove it later.

[xyzzy]

Well, both parties have been justifying their pet spending or tax cuts by cutting medicare reimbursements a couple of years down the line, then when the time comes they always pass a bill delaying the cuts.

This does seem to be McConnell's strategy this time... reassure each side that the parts of the latest bill that they don't like will be repealed or delayed in the future.

[wolfie]

"xyzzy" wrote

> This does seem to be McConnell's strategy this
> time... reassure each side that the parts of the
> latest bill that they don't like will be repealed or
> delayed in the future.

And the moderates are (rightly) refusing to believe
him.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

No such expectation...

I suspect voiding the requirement to have insurance would not require
a vote. SCOTUS could declare the requirement unconstitutional. Or an
Exec Order might excuse not enforcing the requirement law. There may
be a way to underfund the subsidy. In any event I suspect a savvy
politician could determine how to proceed even if a court reversed -
and that might not occur before the damage was done.

As a last resort anti-Trump people have made usurping the rights of
others, rioting and violence acceptable.

Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little. It's called
whatever it takes.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:40:17 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

>whatever it takes.
>
>Hugh

Thinking g more about ways to abort Obamacare...

The threat of repealing has caused rates to rise more than they would
have. I suggest threatening to eliminate the requirement to have
insurance AND suggest payers to be very slow paying the subsidies.
Threats appear to work better than actually doing something.

Given some time I might be able to think of more threats that would
make the rates rise beyond the ability of almost everyone to pay.

Repeal and replace ain't gonna work - never thought it would. But
threats apparently work very well.

[wolfie]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote

> The threat of repealing has caused rates to rise more than they would
> have.

> I suggest threatening to eliminate the requirement to have
> insurance

Already done. And rates are going up because of it.

> AND suggest payers to be very slow paying the subsidies.

Since they've already threatened to not pay them at all, having
them paid slower doesn't seem to be much of a threat.

> Given some time I might be able to think of more threats that would
> make the rates rise beyond the ability of almost everyone to pay.

Subsidies are based on the cost of insurance in the market. So,
if you raise prices, you just raise the subsidies to match.

The only people you really piss off are people in the individual
market because they're self-employed or working for a company
which doesn't provide health insurance and making enough not
to get a subsidy. There's another term for them: voters.

But, yeah, good plan: get the GOP to purposely piss off voters.

[tim.vanwa...@gmail.com]

And hasten single payer.

The best thing we can do to stave that off is stabilizing the insurance markets, not destabilizing them.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

The majority of them voted for Hillary last time and you lost. You
stupids need a better plan.

Worthless socialists like you will ultimately win because of numbers.
Speaking of numbers, what's the one for the Cayman Islands?

I'm just looking for ways to make the UnACA implode faster.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 20:02:45 -0700 (PDT), tim.vanwa...@gmail.com
wrote:

>And hasten single payer.
>
>The best thing we can do to stave that off is stabilizing the insurance markets, not destabilizing them.

Making people earn what they get was stable until liberals became
stable - you know, full of horse shit.

It's about time for a GoP darkstar to emerge.