Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» I don't know about Republicans but Conservatives can't vote for a bill whose cost/impact is unknown that they haven't read. Right or wrong?
I don't know about Republicans but Conservatives can't vote for a bill whose cost/impact is unknown that they haven't read. Right or wrong?
Many of them have been able to read the 3rd iteration. It's being pushed through just to get a "win". Now who will vote for such an unknown and how will he/she answer constituents when THEY ask why?
Yes, once again you are 100% right: EVERY single "Conservative" without exception will absolutely carry out the exact same action. Of course, we "all" know that also means that EVERY single non-Conservative without exception will absolutely carry out the exact opposing action. Flawed logic produces flawed results.
Well, I suppose if the Democrats could push through ACA without reading it first, the GOP could do the same thing.
This post was edited by SpunkySenior at May 4, 2017 10:03 PM MDT
But hadn't the CBO reviewed it and put a figure to it cost-wise Spunky? I honestly don't remember if the CBO got to review it before the vote. Dems are far more likely to do things despite the cost if they believe they are necessary/essential. Republicans want to know what it costs. They have no problem paying for programs of which they approve but social welfare/social service programs are always first to go. They don't value them at all. They value more building up for war and giving the obscenely wealthy more tax cuts. Someone has to do it I guess. They volunteered. Thank you for your reply.
To be honest, I don't know if the CBO approved the ACA. Our only hope at this point is that the bill doesn't pass in the Senate. According to the news tonight, there are a dozen Republicans who are not willing to pass it and they said it probably wouldn't come up for a vote before September. I guess it remains to be seen how it will all play out.
I don't know if you have seen the chart of what "having access to" coverage for pre-existing conditions would cost Spunky. Someone who has metastisized cancer will pay $172,000 plus PER YEAR more for it! Other pre-existing conditions will cost anywhere from $5500 a year (If you have an Autistic child I believe) up to that cancer high. Obviously only millionaires could afford that. ADDITIONALLY states can "opt out" of offering coverage for it entirely. They can sign a waiver. ADDITIONALLY (yes another additionally) if a state doesn't want to provide coverage for prescription drugs or emergency room visits or maternity care etcetera it can also "opt out" of that by signing a waiver. Which means that if pre-existing condition insurance coverage is available, the cost will be prohibitive and some things won't be covered at all. How that is reconciled with the Trump promise( that everyone will be covered and it will cost less and give you more.) I cannot fathom. Iteration #1 or #2 of the CBO analysis said 24 million people would lose coverage. We await the CBO scoring on this one to find out what it will cost and who gets dumped. The losers are old people and the poor and the very young. Why am I not surprised? State insurance companies have the right to charge old people (I'm 79) five times as much for coverage as they will charge younger folks. Woe is us. Thank you for your reply m'dear and Happy Friday! :)
I just responded to most of this on your other question. I agree with you that repealing and/or replacing the ACA as it is now written will be disastrous for most people. There is a difference between having "access" to health insurance and being able to "afford" health insurance are two different things - a nuance too many people fail to comprehend.
Randy, when we make decisions for ourselves or our families as far as paying for what we approve, we make them for a very limited number of people. It's our job to watch out for ourselves and our families. It is the government's job to watch out for ALL of its citizens, so there may be times when the government (in the form of our elected officials) has to pay for something of which they don't approve, but which will otherwise have a negative impact on too large a number of citizens.
This post was edited by SpunkySenior at May 5, 2017 11:05 AM MDT
I know, huh? In other words, people are for things of which they approve, and are against things of which they disapprove. They should be ashamed of themselves!
They should be ashamed of themselves if what they vote for denies others some right. For example, you may not agree with some issue, but if the majority of your constituents are in favor of it, then you are voting based on your personal opinion and not in furtherance of the constituents you represent.
I agree that elected officials should faithfully represent their constituents. Sad but true is that many times, that only happens during the courting phase (campaigning for votes) and into the honeymoon phase (just after being elected). Once firmly homesteaders in office, however, many politicians forget their fan base. As such, there have been many measures that politicians voted for or against when the vote did not reflect the people's will.
Isn't it theoretical that some people will be denied some things when certain measures, laws, statutes or regulations are voted for? There's no Utopian world wherein all rights for every imaginable thing are extended to every person in the population. One law that grants a right to a particular subset of society automatically restricts that right from those outside of that subset. For instance, citizens in Puerto Rico cannot vote in US presidential elections. Have they been denied a right? Yes. Is that denial part of written law? Yes. Is it wrong? You decide that answer for yourself. I would love to live in a $5,000,000 mansion. There are thousands of them, but I do not own any, nor has anyone allowed to live in theirs. Have I been denied a right? A person cannot maintain two legal marriages to two different people at the same time without it being bigamy. If a person wants to do that, have the laws restricted it? Yes. You want to develope a piece of property that is not zoned for the type of project you're planning. The law denies you that right.
[I don't say any of this to advocate or blanket the restriction of anyone's rights or to encite the activist passions of those who seem to permanently look for reasons to be offended, for excuses to protest. I'm merely stating facts.] ~
Yes, there is no way to allow everything that everyone wants. Laws should be enacted for the good of the largest number of people. However, creating laws that prohibit a subset from something does not necessarily endanger the rest of the population, i.e., same sex marriage. Puerto Rico does not have the right to vote in presidential elections because they are not a state - they are a commonwealth. They do, however, have representatives in Congress and full U.S. citizenship. They have, on many occasions, been offered the opportunity to join the Union and have chosen to remain independent.
No one is denying you the right to live in a $5 million mansion. You can't do it because you can't afford to live in one - not because someone has abrogated your right to a home. Zoning rights are enacted for the good of the majority of a community. Would you really want to be inhaling the smoke from a refinery if it was next door to your house?
There are some people who vehemently disagree with Puerto Ricans not having the right to vote in US presidential elections. One of their arguments is that the commonwealth "excuse" doesn't extend to the commonwealths of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Some even claim racism is behind the restriction. Without siding with or opposing them, do you believe by law, they are being denied a right that is available to others? ~
This post was edited by Randy D at May 6, 2017 12:35 PM MDT
SpunkySenior 