You seem to be shooting from the hip just to make argument.
“Having no mandate ensures that Obamacare will collapse much sooner.” Really? Why? Because some people will get stuck even worse so they will complain? Sounds like you are advocating the same thing you accuse me of, “I don’t feel fully free, so you must be an even bigger slave” — that is already the law, now you argue to flip it and enslave someone else instead of fixing the problem and repealing ObamaCare. Dick Morris is arguing nothing needs done. I oppose his silly argument.
I think you would rather have the problem fixed, but you are just arguing about little rhetorical issues in trying to negate the damage done by people like Dick Morris here.
It is two sides of a stool, pull any leg and it falls. One leg is already pulled! Why pass a law to pull the other side when it will still be a broken chair?
It is a no win situation unless we actually repeal and go free market, because the status quo sucks, and RinoCare would suck just as badly.
Why not WAIT a month or two or however long for a REAL REPEAL instead of confusing most of America by passing junk only to have us hate it and try to repeal that also in a month or a year or two?
I attacked Ryan’s tiny pittance of a repeal via eliminating the mandate, as an example of a problem, because it was practically their biggest BAIT for a selling point, and a lot of people bit. It’s bait and switch. No one should bite that junk. Dick Morris wants us to bite, though, ObamaCare is repealed because some people will not have to buy insurance! Wrong, the list of other injustices in OCare goes on and on. Give us back a free market.
I attacked it because Dick Morris is making it out to be the main thing that represents the repeal of ObamaCare, and it is not, and I do not want people complacently thinking that, because I want a better bill, way better.
Do you realize that you come off as defending RinoCare (?), a sick rehash of ObamaCare because you favor a pittance in principal which even if it had passed would be, as you now recognize, temporary, because we are not going to be satisfied with RinoCare; and you appear to defend RinoCare despite it being a grossly unconstitutional bill otherwise, way way worse in principal than any little advantage in principal maybe gained from revoking the mandate and sticking us with the rest of the garbage.
You seem to advocate that no one may NOT pass RinoCare because its dropping of the insurance mandate trumps all the badness — even conservatives MUST to vote for poison because of your pet wish, or else we are bad.
I do not believe that — I think that you just want to argue today for no good reason when we are on the same side. I hope I am right about that, because if not, then you actually LIKE RinoCare, an intrusive Fed scheme that is essentially ObamaCare, and you would not even be recognizing that! I cannot imagine you think that way.
No one is doing or advocating or choosing ANYTHING (though you are trying to paint me with it) by NOT passing what you seem to be arguing for as a pet project, RINOCARE. We are just NOT picking a POISON version of ObamaCare that might temporarily please a few people. We do not like either “plan.”
Are you hoping RinoCare passed, knowing that entire industries could start to gear up for it only to have us re-repeal it and pass a better bill next month? No!
I would not believe that about you, unless you actually LIKE RinoCare, and I am not going to paint you with that either.
We are on the same side and you are not picking the right battles. I think you should fight a better fight.
Repeal ObamaCare soon, don’t patch it a little to placate just enough people that we end up limping into full nationalized health care.
Good Bye.
If we’re really talking about a deal on repealing Obamacare being reached in a month or two, then this whole conversation is moot. The vast majority of people who personally buy their own insurance had their enrollment windows close in Jan. or Feb. They couldn’t decide to opt in or out of anything now. What I’m worried about is that the Republicans still won’t be able to get their acts together and come up with a compromise bill that can actually pass both houses, and what Trump talked about waiting until Obamacare dies to do anything will come to pass instead. He talked about how the Dems will see the necessity of making a deal within a year (!) *after* Obamacare collapses.
Even the Democrats insisted that the mandate is fundamental to the survival of Obamacare. Without it, it is guaranteed to die. Right now the Dems are celebrating how they “saved Obamacare” from the evil rightwingers who wanted to toss 24 million Americans off of their health insurance. As long as the structure of Obamacare is in place, the Dems (and maybe even some moderate Republicans) will fight to keep it. If Trump cripples it and they know for a fact that it is already gone, then they will have to accept the idea of a replacement. That will make Obamacare collapse more rapidly, because much fewer numbers of people will opt in when that was already causing dire, potentially fatal problems for the exchanges. Obamacare can’t survive without participants. That’s just common sense.
So, sure if we’re talking about a deal being made within months, then Congress dealing with everything is better than just getting partial executive action, although even there with taxes coming due very soon, it would be nice to know if the executive branch will enforce the unconstitutional penalty or not. But if what Trump was talking about comes to pass and we are talking about next year or even after the mid-terms (imaging what a new Dem Congress would do about this!), then I enthusiastically applaud anything that Trump can do to dismantle Obamacare before then. Getting rid of the mandate and showing Congress that Obamacare is crippled beyond saving and must without question be replaced is the best inducement to forcing the do-nothing Congress to actually get something done on this front I can think of.
And by the way, I am not guilty of the same thing I pointed out that you were advocating. I was saying that millions should be let free of their chains, which wouldn’t change the status of everyone else who decide to keep their insurance at all in regard to government control over their lives, although one could say it would enslave them to the capitalistic laws of supply and demand. Less demand, i.e. fewer people choosing to buy insurance, in this case would cause overall prices to rise, but this would still be the case under any law of the land. If you repeal Obamacare whole cloth, allowing people free choice will still cause premiums to be higher than they otherwise would be.
The only solution to what you see as such a big problem would be to permanently keep the “socialist” mandate, which you say you do not want to do for the long run. You could say I want people enslaved to capitalism, but that’s still better than your attack on Trump’s actions (Trump, not Ryan as you now claim) cutting back on socialist-type control over people, as well as your insistence that no one should be let free from big government unless everyone can be at the exact same time (sure, that is more “fair” but it also is the more all-in-it-together, collectivist stance). I see no real benefit to keeping Obamacare intact and more secure for any amount of time. The longer it stays in place only makes it more likely that we get to keep it or a close variation of it permanently.
Cheers.