Wheres the Republican alternative to ACA?

[Skjellyfetti]

Idiots.

President Trump said Monday that "nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated," as Republicans have been slow to unite around a replacement plan for ObamaCare.

"I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," Trump said after a meeting with conservative governors at the White House.

The GOP governors were in town this weekend for their annual conference and met with Trump to talk about a variety of things, but it's likely the conversation largely focused on healthcare.

Governors have been split on what should be done with ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion, which brought health coverage to many even in deep-red states.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/32 ... omplicated

[CID1990]

Theyre learning what smart conservatives knew back in 2009- that the ACA should have been killed on the vine instead of running later on repealing an entitlement program. One that would transform the industry in such a way as to make it impossible to get rid of

Now we'll be putting expensive bandaids on it until the end of the republic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Theyre learning what smart conservatives knew back in 2009- that the ACA should have been killed on the vine instead of running later on repealing an entitlement program. One that would transform the industry in such a way as to make it impossible to get rid of

Now we'll be putting expensive bandaids on it until the end of the republic

in the absence of any idea at all - you will receive bad ideas - disguised as solutions



The Republican Party - The party of No Ideas
The Democratic Party - The party of Bad Ideas

[CID1990]

Theyre learning what smart conservatives knew back in 2009- that the ACA should have been killed on the vine instead of running later on repealing an entitlement program. One that would transform the industry in such a way as to make it impossible to get rid of

Now we'll be putting expensive bandaids on it until the end of the republic

in the absence of any idea at all - you will receive bad ideas - disguised as solutions



The Republican Party - The party of No Ideas
The Democratic Party - The party of Bad Ideas

Oh the GOP has PLENTY of ideas

But then they get characterized as wanting to push little old ladies off a cliff... or starve schoolchildren...

How much money does our government demand each year just for operating costs again?

Bringing that down is an idea... only don't cut MY special project...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

in the absence of any idea at all - you will receive bad ideas - disguised as solutions



The Republican Party - The party of No Ideas
The Democratic Party - The party of Bad Ideas

Oh the GOP has PLENTY of ideas

But then they get characterized as wanting to push little old ladies off a cliff... or starve schoolchildren...

How much money does our government demand each year just for operating costs again?

Bringing that down is an idea... only don't cut MY special project...

And word is the Military Budget is going up almost 10%
So... Remember when you were touting Trump the isolationist as a good way to save money
and I enthusiastically agreed with you

Of course that could be "Fake News" I have no idea... Cluck will explain it to me
He's the only one who understand Trump

[kalm]

Yep. If go with cutting taxes, increasing military spending, and then cutting taxes.

This will also solve the immigration crisis, education system, and help stop global warming.

[Skjellyfetti]

Don't forget about Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan!

[CID1990]

Yep. If go with cutting taxes, increasing military spending, and then cutting taxes.

This will also solve the immigration crisis, education system, and help stop global warming.

The oceans stopped rising in 2008 so at least you can tick that one off the list


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Oh the GOP has PLENTY of ideas

But then they get characterized as wanting to push little old ladies off a cliff... or starve schoolchildren...

How much money does our government demand each year just for operating costs again?

Bringing that down is an idea... only don't cut MY special project...

And word is the Military Budget is going up almost 10%
So... Remember when you were touting Trump the isolationist as a good way to save money
and I enthusiastically agreed with you

Of course that could be "Fake News" I have no idea... Cluck will explain it to me
He's the only one who understand Trump

I'm a Trump the Isolationist guy for a number of reasons- pretty much the same as the Gary Johnson the Isolationist guy

Saving money is one small piece of the pie but I think more in terms of strategic interests

Our current mess we call a military is not equipped or prepared for what should be its only function: national defense.

I have said all along I doubt Trump is a fiscal hawk- likely quite the opposite and he has said as much (infrastructure, big wall)

All that said, we either need to accept that since 1992 we have allowed our military to slip into a conventionally un-survivable collection of expensive toys - and that it works for blowing up troglodytes in the Levant from afar (and not much else)

or we now have to suck up some heavy spending to convert it back into something the Russians and Chinese will be wary of

I'm cool with either one, really - I've stopped believing we aren't going to die by national suicide one way or the other anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Why do we need to have a military always ready for war, though? If faced with an actual war - can't we just mobilize like we always did prior to WWII?

Why do we need to suck up some heavy spending to convert it to something the Russians and Chinese will be wary of? We could cut our spending in half and still spend more than China and Russia combined. Instead of "suck[ing] up some heavy spending" - how about we just convert to a non mobilized wartime military?

We've been a war time military for the past ~75 fucking years.

[JohnStOnge]

The Democrats already won on this. They established their premise. What the Republicans are doing now is trying to say that they can do what the Democrats wanted to do better than the Democrats can. But it's still what the Democrats wanted to do. Government's going to guarantee certain things.

[CID1990]

Why do we need to have a military always ready for war, though? If faced with an actual war - can't we just mobilize like we always did prior to WWII?

Why do we need to suck up some heavy spending to convert it to something the Russians and Chinese will be wary of? We could cut our spending in half and still spend more than China and Russia combined. Instead of "suck[ing] up some heavy spending" - how about we just convert to a non mobilized wartime military?

We've been a war time military for the past ~75 **** years.

^^^^ this right here is pure ignorance.

Here's mobilization for WWII-

In 1941 typewriter companies and auto manufacturers re-tooled and started making guns, state of the art aircraft, and tanks. The ability to run die and machine tools was as complicated as it got, and pretty much everything could be designed with slide rules. Grumman gave the blueprints to General Motors, and GM cranked out TBFs. Colt gave blueprints to Martin Typewriters, and Martin turned out M1 carbines.

Our strategic industries (steel, etc) went into overdrive, fueled by WVA/KY coal and indigenous iron mining, fueling steel mills that literally dotted the country from stem to stern. It didn't take much because the raw industries were already in place domestically. We can't build a skyscraper in New York without foreign steel so I'm not sure how that stuff is just going to pop up overnight.

Here's mobilization in the 21st century, Mr. Genius-

State of the art aircraft and tanks require materials processing and manufacturing techniques found nowhere else in American industry. Comcast, Aetna, Bank of America and John Deere can't fvcking make them. Plus, we have so few points of manufacture domestically today that a conventional warhead on a cruise missile will render us unable to produce squat on day one. They won't even need nukes. Our 200 F-22s will last about a month (the ones we don't stick underground) and when the Chinese shoot our satellites out of the sky those high tech F-35s won't be able to download updates. They'll last about a week. Within three months we'll be fighting with Cold War era planes (with no missiles because we can't produce them and have marginal stockpiles)

We have next to NO strategic industries left in the US that could amount to any kind of general wartime effort. Add to that the fact that most of our materials for proprietary technologies like rare earths are mined where again?

So yeah, Shelly... we'll ramp up over the period of two years in a war with China in 2021 and produce P-40 Warhawks and Sherman tanks. But we can make lots of guns so there's that. Maybe we can strike a gentleman's agreement with the Chinese to get them to spot us a couple years.. like back in the days when airplanes could only fly 700 miles one way and that trip to Paris meant taking a ship.

China and Russia spend the money where it counts. Our military employs about 80 support pogues for every one warfighter. The Chinese and Russians' ratio is several times tighter than that. Just because there's a continual cash bonfire over at DoD doesn't mean it is going to anything closely related to actually defending the country.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

It isn't an either/or thing. Our whole medical system isn't going to vanish if we have a single-payer system; there will always be health care on demand for those who want it.

This. The only part that needs to be socialized is basic insurance. Providers and manufacturers can remain private, innovate, and profit.

Just because we socialized broadband infrastructure doesn't mean that Comcast has innovated less or cut services...

And then doctors who want to pay back their med school bills ... or better yet... drive their Bentley to the country club... will not accept the government controlled insurance.

Instead, those doctors (they'll be the good ones) will take cash payment for services from patients who can afford to pay, creating the two tiered system that we see in just about every country that has government paid healthcare.

The rest of us schmucks will wait our turn. A few of us will get better care (the rich and the poor) but the middle class will see a marked decline in service and quality.

I'm not saying it's better or it's worse, but it is what happens, without fail.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kalm]

And word is the Military Budget is going up almost 10%
So... Remember when you were touting Trump the isolationist as a good way to save money
and I enthusiastically agreed with you

Of course that could be "Fake News" I have no idea... Cluck will explain it to me
He's the only one who understand Trump

I'm a Trump the Isolationist guy for a number of reasons- pretty much the same as the Gary Johnson the Isolationist guy

Saving money is one small piece of the pie but I think more in terms of strategic interests

Our current mess we call a military is not equipped or prepared for what should be its only function: national defense.

I have said all along I doubt Trump is a fiscal hawk- likely quite the opposite and he has said as much (infrastructure, big wall)

All that said, we either need to accept that since 1992 we have allowed our military to slip into a conventionally un-survivable collection of expensive toys - and that it works for blowing up troglodytes in the Levant from afar (and not much else)

or we now have to suck up some heavy spending to convert it back into something the Russians and Chinese will be wary of

I'm cool with either one, really - I've stopped believing we aren't going to die by national suicide one way or the other anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reminds of the intro to this song...

phpBB [video]

[Skjellyfetti]

State of the art aircraft and tanks require materials processing and manufacturing techniques found nowhere else in American industry. Comcast, Aetna, Bank of America and John Deere can't fvcking make them. Plus, we have so few points of manufacture domestically today that a conventional warhead on a cruise missile will render us unable to produce squat on day one. They won't even need nukes. Our 200 F-22s will last about a month (the ones we don't stick underground) and when the Chinese shoot our satellites out of the sky those high tech F-35s won't be able to download updates. They'll last about a week. Within three months we'll be fighting with Cold War era planes (with no missiles because we can't produce them and have marginal stockpiles)

We have next to NO strategic industries left in the US that could amount to any kind of general wartime effort. Add to that the fact that most of our materials for proprietary technologies like rare earths are mined where again?

So yeah, Shelly... we'll ramp up over the period of two years in a war with China in 2021 and produce P-40 Warhawks and Sherman tanks. But we can make lots of guns so there's that. Maybe we can strike a gentleman's agreement with the Chinese to get them to spot us a couple years.. like back in the days when airplanes could only fly 700 miles one way and that trip to Paris meant taking a ship.

China and Russia spend the money where it counts. Our military employs about 80 support pogues for every one warfighter. The Chinese and Russians' ratio is several times tighter than that. Just because there's a continual cash bonfire over at DoD doesn't mean it is going to anything closely related to actually defending the country.

Your response reads like you think I said we should reduce our defense budget to $0.

If we reduced the budget in half... to $250 billion... we'd still be producing a fuckton of weapons.

We wouldn't have to rely on Bank of America to produce weapons. There would still be defense contractors (just scaled back).

Again, that would be more than China and Russia spend COMBINED. I'm not arguing we should eliminate all defense spending until we have a full scale war with China or Russia.


And, all of this ignores the fact that we're not having a tank war with China or Russia. We'd have a nuclear winter before both sides are engaged in a full scale ground war.

China and Russia spend the money where it counts. Our military employs about 80 support pogues for every one warfighter. The Chinese and Russians' ratio is several times tighter than that. Just because there's a continual cash bonfire over at DoD doesn't mean it is going to anything closely related to actually defending the country.

I agree completely. We could do a whole lot better with the money we spend.

We could have a perfectly prepared military on about half the budget. So far you've just provided arguments for why we need a defense budget at all. I'm not saying we need to eliminate all spending.

You're arguing that we need to "suck up to some heavy spending." But, spending isn't the problem. We're SPENDING plenty.

When you say that... you sound like a liberal saying the solution to every problem is to throw more money at it.

[CID1990]

State of the art aircraft and tanks require materials processing and manufacturing techniques found nowhere else in American industry. Comcast, Aetna, Bank of America and John Deere can't fvcking make them. Plus, we have so few points of manufacture domestically today that a conventional warhead on a cruise missile will render us unable to produce squat on day one. They won't even need nukes. Our 200 F-22s will last about a month (the ones we don't stick underground) and when the Chinese shoot our satellites out of the sky those high tech F-35s won't be able to download updates. They'll last about a week. Within three months we'll be fighting with Cold War era planes (with no missiles because we can't produce them and have marginal stockpiles)

We have next to NO strategic industries left in the US that could amount to any kind of general wartime effort. Add to that the fact that most of our materials for proprietary technologies like rare earths are mined where again?

So yeah, Shelly... we'll ramp up over the period of two years in a war with China in 2021 and produce P-40 Warhawks and Sherman tanks. But we can make lots of guns so there's that. Maybe we can strike a gentleman's agreement with the Chinese to get them to spot us a couple years.. like back in the days when airplanes could only fly 700 miles one way and that trip to Paris meant taking a ship.

China and Russia spend the money where it counts. Our military employs about 80 support pogues for every one warfighter. The Chinese and Russians' ratio is several times tighter than that. Just because there's a continual cash bonfire over at DoD doesn't mean it is going to anything closely related to actually defending the country.

Your response reads like you think I said we should reduce our defense budget to $0.

If we reduced the budget in half... to $250 billion... we'd still be producing a **** of weapons.

We wouldn't have to rely on Bank of America to produce weapons. There would still be defense contractors (just scaled back).

Again, that would be more than China and Russia spend COMBINED. I'm not arguing we should eliminate all defense spending until we have a full scale war with China or Russia.

China and Russia spend the money where it counts. Our military employs about 80 support pogues for every one warfighter. The Chinese and Russians' ratio is several times tighter than that. Just because there's a continual cash bonfire over at DoD doesn't mean it is going to anything closely related to actually defending the country.

I agree completely. We could do a whole lot better with the money we spend.

We could have a perfectly prepared military on about half the budget. So far you've just provided arguments for why we need a defense budget at all. I'm not saying we need to eliminate all spending.

You're arguing that we need to "suck up to some heavy spending." But, spending isn't the problem. We're SPENDING plenty.

When you say that... you sound like a liberal saying the solution to every problem is to throw more money at it.

No, skelly, those other companies won't ramp up production because they CAN'T. That's the point. John Deere would never be able to produce modern fighters. Nor would they be able to produce tanks because they cannot produce Chobham armor and they can't manipulate it.

Our naval fleet is a shell of what it was in 1992. Our ability to project non-nuclear power relies solely on a few aircraft carriers, which China already has a method of killing. Our top of the line air superiority aircraft is a maintenance intensive, proprietary machine which is married to highly vulnerable airfields, and there are only 200 copies.

We are largely dependent on other countries to sell us the base materials that are crucial to war making ability. So even if we had the industrial base (we don't) it wouldn't have anything to work with.

There is no ability for us to "spin up" to a wartime footing. A conventional war with China would be won or lost in a matter of days- shoot our carriers at sea, and shoot our satellites down and we're finished. We'll have what we start out with and that's nothing, comparatively speaking. In order to prevent that, we need redundant command and control systems, a re activation of our maritime anti submarine patrols (we pretty much knew where all the Russian subs were) and we need to harden our space based gear and put a LOT more up there.

That's your shitload of spending right there and we haven't built the first plane or tank.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

Your response reads like you think I said we should reduce our defense budget to $0.

If we reduced the budget in half... to $250 billion... we'd still be producing a **** of weapons.

We wouldn't have to rely on Bank of America to produce weapons. There would still be defense contractors (just scaled back).

Again, that would be more than China and Russia spend COMBINED. I'm not arguing we should eliminate all defense spending until we have a full scale war with China or Russia.




I agree completely. We could do a whole lot better with the money we spend.

We could have a perfectly prepared military on about half the budget. So far you've just provided arguments for why we need a defense budget at all. I'm not saying we need to eliminate all spending.

You're arguing that we need to "suck up to some heavy spending." But, spending isn't the problem. We're SPENDING plenty.

When you say that... you sound like a liberal saying the solution to every problem is to throw more money at it.

No, skelly, those other companies won't ramp up production because they CAN'T. That's the point. John Deere would never be able to produce modern fighters. Nor would they be able to produce tanks because they cannot produce Chobham armor and they can't manipulate it.

Our naval fleet is a shell of what it was in 1992. Our ability to project non-nuclear power relies solely on a few aircraft carriers, which China already has a method of killing. Our top of the line air superiority aircraft is a maintenance intensive, proprietary machine which is married to highly vulnerable airfields, and there are only 200 copies.

We are largely dependent on other countries to sell us the base materials that are crucial to war making ability. So even if we had the industrial base (we don't) it wouldn't have anything to work with.

There is no ability for us to "spin up" to a wartime footing. A conventional war with China would be won or lost in a matter of days- shoot our carriers at sea, and shoot our satellites down and we're finished. We'll have what we start out with and that's nothing, comparatively speaking. In order to prevent that, we need redundant command and control systems, a re activation of our maritime anti submarine patrols (we pretty much knew where all the Russian subs were) and we need to harden our space based gear and put a LOT more up there.

That's your shitload of spending right there and we haven't built the first plane or tank.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

JD doesn't even produce tractors anymore worth the name anymore.

We need mid east oil less every day. Time to get out.

[kalm]

So we probably should have protected a few industries that were key to national defense?

[CID1990]

So we probably should have protected a few industries that were key to national defense?

I've always been consistent that strategic industries should be regulated in such a way that discourages them from offshoring. I would even go so far as to say that I would support the nationalization of a small portion of those industries, OR maintaining plants (or having the government purchase shuttered ones) in a ready status so that they can be powered up at a moment's notice.

This isn't a left or right issue - national defense is the number one duty of the Federal government. I remain a small, decentralized government guy on all issues except this one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

An essay/analysis on China's "Carrier-Killer" Missiles:

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... lete-19366

The ASBM is essentially a sea denial/anti-access weapon, not a sea-control weapon. It cannot prevent the USN from killing Chinese ships, only change the method by which the Americans do so. The use of such a weapon in anger would carry the potential for grave escalatory consequences on both sides. It’s difficult to imagine what, besides Taiwan, China and the United States might be willing to tolerate such risk for.

As such, it’s not entirely clear how transformative the weapon really is. It certainly marks an important contribution to China’s arsenal, and a harbinger of China’s growing power. It’s impact, however, is more incremental than revolutionary, especially in context of the steady growth of China’s other anti-access options.

I do have confidence in the United States' ability to adjust to this particular Chinese threat. For the long term I do wonder though. I do believe that the population of China has a higher overall intelligence distribution than the population of the United States does. I think China has been stifled by cultural and political factors. I think the United States has benefited a lot by being a place where top brains from all over the world have come to nest. Don't know if China can overcome that if it continues. But I do think China is probably more of a threat in the long term than Russia is.

[JohnStOnge]

So we probably should have protected a few industries that were key to national defense?

I've always been consistent that strategic industries should be regulated in such a way that discourages them from offshoring. I would even go so far as to say that I would support the nationalization of a small portion of those industries, OR maintaining plants (or having the government purchase shuttered ones) in a ready status so that they can be powered up at a moment's notice.

This isn't a left or right issue - national defense is the number one duty of the Federal government. I remain a small, decentralized government guy on all issues except this one.

The thing is though that one wonders where "national defense" ends and "national influence" begins. I think most would agree that we use our military for way more than just direct national defense.

I guess part of it depends on how one defines "national defense." Like for instance I think that in spite of statements about us not needing Middle Eastern Oil we do have an interest in Middle Eastern Oil. Is it "national defense" when we take military action to protect our interest in Middle Eastern Oil?

I think some would say "yes" and others would say "no."

[YoUDeeMan]

I do think China is probably more of a threat in the long term than Russia is.

No kidding.

Hey, welcome back from your vacation from reality.

[CID1990]

I've always been consistent that strategic industries should be regulated in such a way that discourages them from offshoring. I would even go so far as to say that I would support the nationalization of a small portion of those industries, OR maintaining plants (or having the government purchase shuttered ones) in a ready status so that they can be powered up at a moment's notice.

This isn't a left or right issue - national defense is the number one duty of the Federal government. I remain a small, decentralized government guy on all issues except this one.

The thing is though that one wonders where "national defense" ends and "national influence" begins. I think most would agree that we use our military for way more than just direct national defense.

I guess part of it depends on how one defines "national defense." Like for instance I think that in spite of statements about us not needing Middle Eastern Oil we do have an interest in Middle Eastern Oil. Is it "national defense" when we take military action to protect our interest in Middle Eastern Oil?

I think some would say "yes" and others would say "no."

I've already covered that in exhaustive detail. National defense is domestic defense, and assistance to allies who, if invaded in a war, would act as stepping stones to the US.

It does not refer to guaranteeing security to other countries with no strategic significance to the US.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

in the absence of any idea at all - you will receive bad ideas - disguised as solutions



The Republican Party - The party of No Ideas
The Democratic Party - The party of Bad Ideas

Oh the GOP has PLENTY of ideas

But then they get characterized as wanting to push little old ladies off a cliff... or starve schoolchildren...

How much money does our government demand each year just for operating costs again?

Bringing that down is an idea... only don't cut MY special project...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Like the Heritage Foundation's Affordable Care Act.

[houndawg]

I've always been consistent that strategic industries should be regulated in such a way that discourages them from offshoring. I would even go so far as to say that I would support the nationalization of a small portion of those industries, OR maintaining plants (or having the government purchase shuttered ones) in a ready status so that they can be powered up at a moment's notice.

This isn't a left or right issue - national defense is the number one duty of the Federal government. I remain a small, decentralized government guy on all issues except this one.

The thing is though that one wonders where "national defense" ends and "national influence" begins. I think most would agree that we use our military for way more than just direct national defense.

I guess part of it depends on how one defines "national defense." Like for instance I think that in spite of statements about us not needing Middle Eastern Oil we do have an interest in Middle Eastern Oil. Is it "national defense" when we take military action to protect our interest in Middle Eastern Oil?

I think some would say "yes" and others would say "no."

Less so now than it used to be, even more less so with each passing month. Good way to free up a quarter-trillion dollars for infrastructure repair.