Home / General / Everybody Hates TrumpCare

Everybody Hates TrumpCare

Comments
/
/
/
223 Views

I observed in my Gillibrand town hall dispatch that it was…unlikely that Republican legislators are getting the same conquering-hero welcome. I ask, Weigel answers:

But at town-hall meetings since the start of the recess, tax reform has hardly come up; health care has dominated. At a Monday town hall in Flat Rock, N.C., Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) pitched a plan to devolve ACA programs to the states, then found himself fending off constituents who backed universal Medicare.

“You can take the top one percent and tax them fully, and it still won’t pay for Medicare,” said Meadows.

At a town hall in Chico, Calif., in the most Democratic portion of a deep red district, Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) found himself fending off furious complaints about the repeal vote, with constituents accusing him of acting to bring about their death.

“I hope you suffer the same painful fate as those millions that you have voted to remove health care from,” one constituent told LaMalfa. “May you die in pain.”

Carter’s town halls did not reach that boiling point, but they revealed what the tone of congressional listening sessions has become — angry, wistful and loaded with progressive activists.

The 1st congressional District, stretching from Savannah to the Florida border, has been held by his party since 1993. In 2016, the Trump-Pence ticket carried the district by 15.5 points, while Democrats could not find a candidate to run against Carter.

It’s strange. You promise to repeal Obamacare with a magic replacement that will give everybody access to cheap health insurance, and then offer to repeal the ACA by taking away insurance from 23 million people and make the insurance of the people who retain it much worse in order to pay for a massive upper-class tax cut, and people don’t like it. You were just trying to fulfill a campaign promise!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Murc

    “You can take the top one percent and tax them fully, and it still won’t pay for Medicare,” said Meadows.

    My response to this is “yeah, and? This is why we tax everyone to pay for Medicare. For many people, the taxes that pay for it and for social security are the only federal taxes they pay every year. It’s why so many people are confused about those programs and think they’re some sort of savings account where you get the money you ‘earned’ back when you retire.”

    I mean, I know what this douchebag was really saying; “If you want socialism, you goddamn parasites, you gotta be taxed for it, and when taxes involve the not-rich you lot are suddenly are a lot less enthusiastic, which is part of why we’ve been able to con you for so many years.” He just didn’t have the balls to let that hang out there fully.

    • alexceres

      The con is most of these people don’t understand the difference between insurance and savings and think their taxes go to their SS and Medicare benefits. So when Those People get benefits too, well, clearly something is wrong

      They just want to do to health care what they’ve done with pensions. “You morons think this is savings? Great, we’ll give you a real savings plan / 401k and pocket the difference for ourselves”

      • efgoldman

        The con is most of these people don’t understand the difference between insurance and savings

        The real con is that all the RWNJ TeaHadis have been 100% outright lying – not “shading the truth”, not “exaggerating”, not “stating an opinion”, but telling provable lies – to their constituents who’s devotion to Faux has detached them from reality.

    • Eric K

      He of course also ignores that employers are paying a hefty amount for their employees health care now, sure they would love to pocket that rather than use it to pay for Medicare, but you don’t let them, and a lot of them would probably be happy to not have the work of managing it anymore

      • Mart

        Also too, workmen’s comp is a huge PITA for companies. Sat in on a work/comp meeting for a company that re-habbed offices. They were scared to hire anyone over a certain age as they often worked for a month pr two and then filed a rotator cuff or similar claim.

        • Eric K

          Decoupling a lot of stuff from employers and just funding it all through taxes would be a huge boon for small buisnesses especially, which is of course a major reason big business usually opposes it

          • N__B

            Disqus will not allow me to upvote this the hundreds of times it needs to be upvoted.

        • rudolf schnaubelt

          Yeah, it’s a bitch when a company has to bear some of the social costs that lead to their private profits.

          • Caepan

            Yup. After all, the Walton kids aren’t filthy rich just because they inherited daddy’s money. They expect the gummint to pay for Wal-Mart employees’ health benefits while whining about how unfair taxes are to them!

        • Origami Isopod

          Awww, the poor companies. ;__;

        • M Lister

          I’m not entirely sure how you see workman’s comp fitting in here. The idea of that is as an alternative to having to be sued for injuries on the job. It’s a no-fault insurance program that is almost certainly cheaper for everyone than it would be to try to have to sue and prove fault when one is hurt at work (and to defend such claims.) One country has tried to do something like this with the tort system in general – New Zealand had for some time a sort of generalized no-fault insurance program and made tort suits difficult to impossible to bring, but even this has been scaled back. It’s not clear it would work on a general scale. But, even in countries with universal health care, there is generally something like workman’s comp to compensate people hurt at work, as an alternative to a tort suit. Medicare for all won’t change or eliminate that, I think. It shouldn’t, as the two perform different roles. And, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect employers (and employees) to pay into the plan, as they do now.

          • BigHank53

            The more workman’s compensation claims that are filed by your employees, the more your company’s premiums go up. Wal-Mart doesn’t care, because they can threaten to self-insure and keep their premiums down. Apu’s Quickie-Mart can see their entire year’s profit eaten by a few lower-back injuries.

            • M Lister

              Sure – but the alternative is normal tort suits, which have more uncertainty and more potential payout. Employers don’t like paying their share to cover workplace injuries. That’s not a surprise. But, other options are not really plausible. (The employer wet dream, of course, is to keep the limits on normal tort suits and not pay workman’s comp either, but I don’t see why that is an option anyone should support.)

      • SatanicPanic

        I think Scott’s made this point before, but the decision makers at any company often would prefer a tax cut on their personal income rather than saving their company some money. They also probably don’t have much to do with healthcare administration beyond maybe approving which insurance company they go with.

    • sibusisodan

      “Do you mean the 1% aren’t being properly taxed at the moment, Congressman?”

      There’s a sense in which it’s useful to remember that ‘soak the rich’ is not an end in itself. It’s not about morals of wealth alone. It’s just a necessary step to an economy which does what is needed.

      A decent social safety net is only afforded by taxing the middle class*. Which requires, in turn, that the middle class is prosperous enough to bear that tax. Which means that the share of the economy going to the top 1% must fall.

      *I’ve got a handwavy definition of the British middle class in mind here, but I think it holds for the broader US definition too.

      • King Goat

        The broader a tax falls the more it’s going to be resisted. Maybe soaking the rich often won’t work, but let’s always try it first.

        • sibusisodan

          No, this is a purely mathematical thing. The rich, even with the new gilded age, don’t have sufficient income on their own to sustain the welfare state.

          Creating and sustaining the middle class is necessary. Taxing the richest tranche provides the seed money to do this.

          At least, that’s the short version.

          • ap77

            “The rich, even with the new gilded age, don’t have sufficient income on their own to sustain the welfare state.”

            Hmm. I am not sure how true that remains given the extreme wealth concentration we’re seeing now. The rich basically have ALL the money.

            • DAS

              All the gold
              In California
              Is sitting in a bank
              In Beverly Hills
              In somebody else’s name.

              • diogenes

                You get triple word score for the Gatling Brothers reference!

                • diogenes

                  Um, Gatlin. I did chuckle at what auto spell defaulted to…

      • DAS

        It might not be about the morals of wealth alone, nor about the ill effects of wealthy people being able to drive up prices and crowd out others from certain markets (e.g. in gentrified urban cores), but there are very good arguments to be made that taxing the wealthy up the wazoo is both morally and economically beneficial. For instance, if you want to encourage that middle class morality certain people are always going on about wanting to encourage, you need to make as many people solidly and securely middle class as possible. And making more people middle class doesn’t just include a safety-net to ensure the security of those already in the middle class and using social welfare programs to raise living standards for the proles but it also means bringing the de facto aristocracy down a couple of notches.

        Unfortunately, the moral and economic arguments for taxing the rich are politically toxic because most of our self-proclaimed guardians of morality would immediately dismiss taxing the rich as immoral and most of our self-proclaimed (because they have degrees from a B-school and/or read the Wall Street Journal) experts on economics would label wealth redistribution as “economically disastrous”. And all too many people would believe these so-called experts over the actual experts.

        • Phil Perspective

          Unfortunately, the moral and economic arguments for taxing the rich are
          politically toxic because most of our self-proclaimed guardians of
          morality would immediately dismiss taxing the rich as immoral and most
          of our self-proclaimed (because they have degrees from a B-school and/or
          read the Wall Street Journal) experts on economics would label wealth
          redistribution as “economically disastrous”.

          You know why it’s politically toxic, if at all? Because plenty of the media, including famously last year Charles Blow, hate paying taxes. See:

        • Mona Williams

          Beardsley Ruml’s “Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete” was published in 1946, after the United Staes dazzled the world with our rapid and thorough mobilization for WWII. He gave four social and economic purposes for taxation, among which taxation for revenue did not appear, but this did: “3. To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups.” Penalizing antisocial activity is not immoral. I have known some self-proclaimed guardians of morality, and I wouldn’t lend them an umbrella.

    • JustRuss

      That’s actually not even close to true. The top one percent make about $1.7 trillion (http://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/), so if we taxed them fully they’d easily cover the $700 million Medicare spends, with plenty left over to expand it.

    • CP

      “You can take the top one percent and tax them fully, and it still won’t pay for Medicare,” said Meadows.

      Is this even true?

      Don’t get me wrong, I realize that isn’t how Medicare or just about any safety net works, and I’m not even arguing that they should. I’m just saying: income distribution has gotten so ludicrously lopsided in the last few decades that I’d like some independent confirmation before I accept that statement at face value.

    • mattius3939

      This is a really good point. Stuff costs money. Everyone knows this (I mean, how do they think people are currently getting health insurance?), yet republicans process this fact to mean “stuff that costs money is impossible” and are caught off-guard when people don’t find their logic obvious. As Atrios is fond of saying: “Conservatives are weird.”

  • Denverite

    Not to be all “blog monkey blog,” but I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Elliot suspension.

    • efgoldman

      I’d love to hear your thoughts on the Elliot suspension.

      Incredibly surprising that The Shield would do that to one of Jerry Jones’ stars.

      • Denverite

        I think they really learned their lesson from the Ray Rice deal that you can’t mess around with domestic violence allegations these days. You have to throw the book at them on that.

        • King Goat

          At allegations? Jesus, I hope not. I think false allegations are uncommon and all, but I hope there’s solid evidence to back up this action and not just the NFL using this as an opportunity to cover the wrong decisions they’ve made about this in the past.

        • efgoldman

          I think they really learned their lesson from the Ray Rice deal that you can’t mess around with domestic violence allegations

          But… listening to further reports, there will be a hearing in NYC next week. I’d bet on a reduction to three or four games.

    • Not Lemieux’s thoughts, but here is VSB’s take – http://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/fortunately-ezekiel-elliot-just-allegedly-beat-his-e-1797757396

      TL,DR: “Fortunately, Ezekiel Elliott Just (Allegedly) Beat His Ex-Girlfriend but Didn’t Sit During the Anthem, so He’ll Be Back Soon!”

  • aab84

    See also: what happens to Trump’s approval ratings every time health care comes back in the news. Seems fairly clear the ideal for Dems’ chances in the midterms is for Republicans to spend the next year reviving Trumpcare over and over again without ever passing anything.

    • efgoldman

      the ideal for Dems’ chances in the midterms is for Republicans to spend the next year reviving Trumpcare

      It seems that none of the RWNJ politicians can do politics.

  • humanoidpanda

    But I was told that the republican messaging machine is an all powerful steamroller destined to crush us to thin dust!

    • efgoldman

      I was told that the republican messaging machine is an all powerful steamroller

      Except when they overreach and go totally ’round the bend.

      Until today, that is, when NRA spokesman and NRA-TV host openly called for North Korea to strike California with missiles instead of the island of Guam – presumably because California is a heavily Democratic state

      http://washingtonjournal.com/2017/08/11/nra-spokesman-just-called-north-korea-attack-major-liberal-american-city/

      • NicknotNick

        Don’t look too closely! Just a bit of normal in-group affinity-signalling!

      • N__B

        Can’t you feel the patriotism oozing off the screen?

        • efgoldman

          “Oozing” is right!

      • NeonTrotsky

        Jesus, the NRA has really doubled down on the craziness.

        • BigHank53

          Trump’s raised the bar!

      • Archibald Mirenopteryx

        These are the people that would deny any disaster aid to California if The Big One were to hit – and that isn’t cutting off your nose to spite your face, that’s cutting off both legs.

        I just hope we never get to find out if these folks would actually commit mass murder by pulling a stunt like that.

  • howard

    i continue to say that trump would have been best off had he listened to chris ruddy – of all people – and supported medicaid for all, and while i don’t want to get too deeply into the weeds where i’m o expert, i’m not sure that isn’t a more viable pathway….

    • aab84

      He’d be even better off if he’d started with a giant infrastructure package and just ignored health care entirely. Infrastructure is probably going to be the great “what if” of his presidency.

      • Bizarro Mike

        He isn’t capable of drafting, shaping, or even championing legislation. He has no idea how the system works, and no ability to learn. Add in his daily does of Fox News, and the best he can do is chase the outrage of the day ginned up to sell gold coins and survival rations.

        • witlesschum

          Which would maybe even still be okay if he had the ability to hire and empower competent evildoers to do his evil for him.

          • Bizarro Mike

            Right, but he can’t tell competent people from incompetent. And he has no idea how to manage a large organization. He was never going to be capable of more than following someone else’s lead. Seeing the shit go down, it now looks like he can’t even do that.

            • NicknotNick

              Have you ever seen Little Big Man? Custer is played pretty over-the top, but he has some distinct similarities to Trump.

              • Hob

                That’s a performance for the ages, right up there with Vizzini as a portrait of a narcissist outsmarting himself. “You want me to think that you don’t want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really don’t want me to go down there!”… as sometimes happens with with Trump, there’s actually the germ of a logical thought buried in there, but ruined by the inability to imagine or give a shit that someone might know more than he does.

            • Captain_Subtext

              Truly President Dunning-Kruger. He’s too incompetent to recognize his own incompetence and any sort of competence in others. Sadly, I have seen this many times in corporate management.

    • NicknotNick

      Trump couldn’t do this because he can only react to the nearest, most immediate form of adulation available. Liberals weren’t going to stroke his turgid fee-fees until he actually DID something that they liked; but the alt-right was there from Nov. 10th with the sweet, sweet narcissistic supply. So, we get alt-right Trump.

    • CP

      Yeah. I think, if Trump had actually *been* the economic populist that a lot of people said he was, he could’ve done a real number on the Republican Party. All of his Republican opponents and half the right-wing punditariat spent the entire primary season warning that he was a dangerous economic populist just like Obama and all the other socialists in the Democratic Party, and a stupendous number of their voters simply did not give a shit. Partly (hell, mostly) that’s because they don’t care about too much other than race, and Trump was the loudest and proudest racist in the batch. But a side effect of that is that they don’t give a flying fuck for Reaganomics and all that shit, and in an era of recession, well… suddenly economic populism starts to resonate more. Trump could have brought back the whole Teddy Roosevelt “racist, nationalist, all-around asshole, but also kind of likes sticking it to the rich” brand of Republicanism and kept most of his base, if he’d actually been the guy Republicans feared he was. Of course, he was never that guy.

  • Gone2Ground

    From the article: Mary Nelson, 73, used her question time at Carter’s Darien town hall to insist that Republicans were all wrong about single-payer health care. She walked through an experience that her Australian relatives had gone through, and described a cheap system “with no hoops to jump through” that could be copied in America.

    “They are taxed out the wazoo in Australia,” interjected Adrienne Stidhams, 48, a Trump supporter.

    “How much do we pay for premiums?” Nelson asked rhetorically.
    That’s the kind of thing that must send shivers down the spines of the GOP: an informed electorate.

    • NicknotNick

      I think this is a good development — for too long the debate in the United States has been dominated by bad-faith micro-analysis of minor flaws in the Canadian health care system. By introducing OTHER health care systems, with OTHER flaws, it should be possible to expose the great stupidity of these criticisms.

      “CANADIAN HEALTH CARE HAS LONG WAIT TIMES!”

      “Australia doesn’t.”

      “AUSTRALIAN HEALTH CARE IS TOO EXPENSIVE!”

      “French health care isn’t. It has shorter wait times than Canada and it’s cheaper than Australia.”

      “FRENCH HEALTH CARE FEATURES PERINEAL MASSAGE FOR POST-PARTUM WOMEN!”

      “Uh, OK, we’ll take French health care and put the perineal massage on a voluntary plan. Shake!”

      • DAS

        But what if perineal massage is the secret to keeping health care costs low?

        • Eric K

          I was hoping for Red Wine, good cheese, food with rich sauces and movies with hot sex, I’ll even pretend to find Jerry Lewis funny if that is what it takes to get the rest of it.

          • DAS

            I prefer Puglian reds to French reds, my sex in person to sex in movies and I’m allergic to cheese.

            • Eric K

              In person and in movies aren’t mutually exclusive

            • M Lister

              You’ll never find happiness that way, even with a perineal massage.

          • Umm, that last one’s gonna be tough…

        • Mark Jamison

          The long wait times red herring always sets my teeth on edge.

          I’m trying to find a new rheumatologist, my current one is retiring and her practice has been bought by an outfit I don’t like or trust. The earliest appointment I can get to interview new practices is March – seven months. Granted, I live in a rural area but two flaws in the thinking of the idiotic “the free market will provide wonderful healthcare crowd”.
          1) It really isn’t all that easy to shop around. Prices aren’t transparent and providers really don’t want to speak to patients on a symmetrical level.
          2) Wait times are already a problem for many non-emergent actions. We already have several ways of rationing care.

          What it comes down to is that the graphic that accompanies many of Scott’s ACA posts pretty much says it all. Republicans want a system generally and certainly specifically with respect to medical care that directs as much money as possible into the hands of the rentier class. So “Fuck You: More Money For us” is really the only salient calculation they make.

          • Gwai Lo, MD

            I don’t know if this makes you feel better, but I and every doctor I know –with our “professional courtesy” shortcuts — have ridiculous wait times. About the only extra option we have is having that friend of a friend in X department that we can hijack to ask “do I REALLY need to even bother with this?”

            So the shortages in the US system are real, even in non-rural areas.

        • NicknotNick

          Yeah, everyone is OK with it until it’s their wife getting her perineum massaged by a Frenchman at taxpayer expense

          • M Lister

            People say the oppose it, but I hear that these days there are hundreds of tumblr sites dedicated to it. At least, that’s what I hear…

      • Origami Isopod

        “…Shake!”

        Hopefully not during the perineal massage.

    • Lost Left Coaster

      Yeah, that’s one reason McConnell tried to do this quickly and quietly.

    • MikeG

      “They are taxed out the wazoo in Australia,” interjected Adrienne Stidhams, 48, a Trump supporter.

      Support for Republicans thrives on parochial ignorance, deliberate lies and authoritarian-follower pants-pissing fear.

  • sanjait

    Tee-hee.

    My favorite part of this is how remarkably informed people are getting about healthcare policy and economics. It is a very difficult topic and there is still much confusion, but the learning that is taking place is substantial. People are activated to wonkery.

    The conservative opposition to ACA was manufactured not on learning but on bullshit, with all their memes having nothing to do with reality. But the current progressive opposition to the GOP’s efforts is built on a foundation of citizens becoming aware and understanding how shitty is the proposed policy and how the best thing is the opposite of what the GOP has proposed (And also some leftist wingnut bullshit, but in proportion far smaller).

    • Eric K

      It’s almost like Nancy Pelosi might be really smart about this stuff and knew what she was talking about with her derided and deliberately misunderstood quote about passing the bill

    • Gone2Ground

      Not only that, but let’s face it, GOP efforts (with lots of Dem assistance) to reform HC in the past (such as the idea of HMOs, allowing the drug companies to advertise all their wares on the tube, etc.) are things people interact with all the time. And find terribly wanting, on balance.

      Not to mention an ageing population that feels these things much more acutely.

  • AMK

    “at town-hall meetings since the start of the recess, tax reform has hardly come up…”

    Seems like one of the most significant aspects of the GOP’s Obamacare crusade was that the investment tax repeal in the original House/Senate bills might have been the most universally unpopular thing about them—to the point that even senators in deep red states were forced to fake objections and McConnell made a big show of restoring those taxes in his next version of Trumpcare, even while keeping all the other terrible shit.

    If people keep paying attention and the media accurately reports on what GOP “tax reform” really means, they could have a hard time with that as well.

    • Hypersphrericalcow

      I think that was the reason they tackled healthcare before tax “reform” – for whatever arcane accounting reasons, getting rid of the spending from the ACA would allow them to make the upper-class tax cuts even larger.

    • DAS

      I think the GOP drank their own kool-aid about the unpopularity of Obamacare and also expected very different media coverage than they got.

      We could say the GOP should have led with infrastructure (and when the Democrats opposed an obviously bad bill, they would have been tarred and feathered for “supporting all sorts of irresponsible spending on ‘those people’ while opposing infrastructure spending that benefits everyone”) but for all we know the media would have gone with “even spending happy Democrats think the GOP infrastructure bill is a bridge too far”.

      So much depends on the spin of the ostensibly “objective” media.

    • malraux

      Anecdotally, it seems as if a major element in this is that enough democratic legislators are policy wonks enough to understand how the math will work roughly, while on the republican side, no one is. Remember that Paul Ryan was considered their super smart policy guy, and the plan was to trust whatever he came up with. So every time that legislation went to be scored, it was somewhat surprising to the republicans that it got such bad numbers.

    • Paul Thomas

      Is there even a tax reform bill to report on? I feel like this is going to be another jam-it-through-in-dead-of-night-and-hope-nobody-notices affair.

  • Mart

    Anecdotal but… fellow I work with on and off for the past 25 years, who sent me birther emails that I rebutted with Hawaii newspaper microfiche; that he responded with kernels or something before I said leave me alone. He now thinks all ‘muricans should have access to health care. Quite a change over time. His almost dying might have changed his tune, but I think the past nine years had an effect.

    • He now thinks all ‘muricans should have access to health care.

      Even the Kenyan ones?

    • AlexSaltzberg

      So here’s what happened–

      The Republican party has spent the last 6+ years saying that, of course they want people to have health insurance. It’s just that Obamacare did it the wrong way. It’s what caused your premiums to go up. If we’re in charge, we’ll replace it with an awesome plan that reduces your premiums and costs. Even now, Republicans are saying that Obamacare is a failure because states have refused to expand Medicaid there are still people without health insurance. That was their message that they spread on conservative media and in campaigns. And because those were their chosen venues, they never had to explain what step two was, just step one was repealing Obamcare and step three was everything would be perfect for everyone.

      Because of this, a large number of Republican voters are now convinced that everyone should have health care (that’s what Republicans were saying) but it should also be cheaper and better (since that’s also what Republicans were saying).

      • Ash

        Classic case of playing themselves! Seems like the Republicans never expected to get an unified government again – it’s a lot easier to be the party of no.

      • NicknotNick

        Being a GOP voter must be like voluntarily choosing dementia

        Every day, surrounded by swirling thoughts that can’t fit together . . . Is it health insurance or socialism or some guy with black skin . . . don’t look to closely, just jump around from one to another . . .

        • Uncle_Ebeneezer

          It’s like the movie Memento, but instead of “Remember Sammy Jankis” their reset tattoo is a racist epithet.

      • Eric K

        I’ll repeat what I’ve said many times, Reps have spent 40 years telling people that 2+2=5, now they have a plurality of the voters that believes it and expects them to make it happen.

        Promising impossible nonesense is great for winning elections, but once you actually have power math takes over.

        • ColBatGuano

          The same will be true with their tax “reform”. Even if they get it passed, in about a year folks are going to notice that their tax bill hasn’t really gone down.

          • Eric K

            Yep, Kevin Drum noted the other day that someone with Median income pays ~$28 a week in federal income tax. If the reps say they are cutting everyone’s taxes by 10% Fox and so on will go on and on about how huge that is, then eventually some people will figure out it is actually less than $15 a month in their pockets.

            Of course a big chunk of them will blame Democrats for it…

        • DAS

          Except at some level GOP voters are in on the kayfabe. At the very least, people who vote for the GOP don’t expect government to do anything constructive or for politicians to keep their promises. If they expected government to work or politicians to be even somewhat honest, they’d vote for Democrats.

          • Eric K

            Yeah, my other favorite comment to make is Rep voters are in 3 main buckets:

            Crazy, stupid and evil.

            Best we can hope for is peeling off a couple percent of the stupid, the crazy and evil are beyond hope.

      • CP

        The Republican party has spent the last 6+ years saying that, of course

        they want people to have health insurance. It’s just that Obamacare did
        it the wrong way.

        Let me warn you and let me warn the Nation against the smooth evasion which says, “Of course we believe all these things; we believe in social security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them- we will do more of them we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.”

        Franklin Delano Fucking Roosevelt, who knew exactly what the fuck these people were about.

      • MikeG

        Shorter Republicans:
        Whining about the government is easier than actually running it — who knew?

  • bexley

    Everybody Hates TrumpCare

    Worst. Sitcom. Ever.

    • MikeG

      A goldmine of hypocrisy right here —

      https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

      @realdonaldtrump
      “The global warming we should be worried about is the global warming caused by NUCLEAR WEAPONS in the hands of crazy or incompetent leaders!” -8:53 PM – 7 May 2014

      “Be prepared, there is a small chance that our horrendous leadership could unknowingly lead us into World War III” (2:46 AM – 31 Aug 2013)

  • Red_cted

    A trillion dollars to “modernize” US nuclear weapons systems is money well spent though, right? Priorities people!

    • rea

      We’re going to need to replace the nukes spent liberating North Korea, and Venezuela,

  • Origami Isopod

    “I hope you suffer the same painful fate as those millions that you have voted to remove health care from,” one constituent told LaMalfa. “May you die in pain.”

    Why are liberals so mean and intolerant??

  • mattius3939

    I’ve long wondered about this:

    Carter’s town halls did not reach that boiling point, but they revealed what the tone of congressional listening sessions has become — angry, wistful and loaded with progressive activists.

    Are these Town Hall meetings really loaded with progressives? Does the backlash come exclusively from progressives? If so, why would republicans feel any pressure whatsoever from progressives regarding healthcare policy?

    • MD Rackham

      They were objecting to Carter, so they must be–by definition–“progressive activists.”

      Unless each attendee is questioned under oath at the door, I wouldn’t put very much stock in the author’s characterization of their political views.

It is main inner container footer text