I'm really reluctant to post this, but I couldn't stop laughing when I read it.



https://twitter.com/Lance_Bradley/status/851864862426890240

I think they are for those things  because republicans are against them.  If trump announced that he was going to lift all restrictions on Muslim refugees, liberals would be screaming bloody murder.

What I don't understand are women liberals that are silent on the treatment of Muslim women and get so outraged at the idea of fighting radical islam.

And the ironic thing is, for all the leftists whining about Trump's money and income inequality, rich people like Trump would feel it the least were he to do so.  Trump can afford to live in armored compounds and travel with professional armed security; most people can't.  Trump's job isn't about to be taken by an illegal willing to work sweatshop conditions for half the pay without complaining. 

So which party is it that is looking out for the little guy?

Improvement, but the establishment GOP won't let it go forward.

Meaning the GOP leadership were only willing to vote for it when they knew it didn't have a chance of becoming law. 

The funny thing is, that's how we got Obamacare, too -- When Scott Brown won the special election to replace Ted Kennedy and became the 41th vote against cloture on Obamacare, he forced the Democrats in the House to pass on the version of the bill that already passed the Senate. It was a version that most never expected to become law as it read -- they always believed it would be "worked out" in conference committee between the two houses.  Alas...

The Freedom caucus is the reason we still have Obamacare. 

Not even wrong. Obama, Pelosi and Ried are the reason we have Obamacare.  And the incremental changes that were the AHCA would not have changed that.  Meaning -- but for the Freedom Caucus -- we STILL would have had Obamacare, with the added "benefit" that its impending collapse could be plausibly blamed on the GOP.

Trump, Spicer and some others are saying that after the GOP failure to pass a new health bill, the Democrats OWN Obamacare.

I disagree.  I think they owned it before.  Now, the Freedom Caucus shares ownership with the Ds.

Absolutely not.  Failing to vote for a half-assed O'care-lite does not mean that the Freedom Caucus "owns" Obamacare.  To the contrary, had they passed this bill and O'care-lite predictably cratered anyway, then the GOP would have owned its failure.

Obamacare was designed to fail.  After it did, the "only" option left would be single-payer.

Nothing "good" (broadly speaking, there are certainly isolated winners and losers) usually comes from governments trying to remake markets into what some people wish that they would be. 

Although I often use the Google-Wiki combination for a quick primer on issues, it is not authoritative. The full Wiki article on US health insurance describes medical accident insurance offered in the 1850's.

But put that aside, and just work through the logic.  Think about the mechanics of the medical market with and without insurance.  Absent widespread (employer-based) health insurance, would individuals save an amount equal to their premiums each year to be available for medical expenses?  Some might; still others might save generally, but not as much and/or not dedicated only to health expenses; most will save little or nothing and attempt to cash flow their needs.  This would greatly reduce the medical industry's pricing power. 

Now, even for those who saved the full measure, once that individual pool of money is exhausted, would doctors have any ability to access the saved funds of others (outside perhaps immediate family members) in order to pay for extraordinary care?  The insurance model necessarily means that funds from those who don't need services are used to pay for those who do.  Ergo, doctors/hospitals/pharma can charge more to those who do need it, and those people have a resource from which to pay the amount charged.

Listen, I'm a capitalist.  I'm not necessarily ascribing a sinister motive to any of this or putting red horns on your neighborhood family doctor.  But if we are going to seriously discuss any attempt to "fix" the system, aka, provide health care services to people who can't otherwise afford it, or more generally reduce the cost of health care overall ('bend the cost curve'), then pursuing a model that is designed and operates to increase cost doesn't seem logical, does it?