I'm not sure I wouldn't just let the damn thing collapse and then get rid of it with something new.

The problem is what's the new thing going to look like?  Insurers make their money by insuring healthy people, and they need healthy people to pay for the sick ones.  They loose money by insuring sick people, since the sick people will never pay the insurance company more than they spend on their illness (if sick people paid the insurance company more than it cost to treat themselves what need would they have for an insurance company?).

So in order to get insurers to cover sick people, you need more healthy ones to sign up.  Hence the mandate.  And you need to insure poor people, or they wind up costing even more on the dole.  Hence subsidies.  In order to cover sick and poor people whatever gets put in place is going to wind up looking a whole lot like Obamacare, which itself was based on the plan Mitt Romney used in Massachusetts. 

Now if you want scrap either insuring the poor or insuring sick people (or both) it gets a lot easier.  Indeed, the current reverse Robin Hood plan of the GOPs is sufficient.  But at that point I think you're going to have a lot of pissed off people, as the GOP is finding out much to their chagrin.  Like I said, the Djin is out of the bottle.

exactly how did that POS obamacare slow down thr growth of medical expenses?

I truly don't know, and I doubt anyone does.  Like the POTUS said, it's complicated.  I've just seen numbers from a variety of sources suggesting an effect.  To one clear, all that's been seen is a reduction in the rate of medical expenditure increase.  Medical expenses are still going up (they should be, lots of folks retiring) but at a slower rate than prior to Obamacare.  I know, not much to crow about, but bette retain a hole punch the eyelid.

One isn't supposed to wear the flag lest it touch the ground.

I didn't much notice, but I don't get out much.

I always said his administration would be entertaining.

Reductio ad absurdum....   "Trumpians" bear no illusions as to what Putin is or what he represents. I can't tell if you believe what you write or you think we are so stupid we will just accept your premises.  Honestly, we just understand the absurdity of the media trying to turn alleged communications before the campaign or actual communications of a cabinet appointee into some type of collusion between Trump and the Russians.

I actually said I believed exactly the opposite.  I just think it is a pity that Conservatives are ignoring Russian interference in democratic elections just because their guy won. 

Especially when said media ignored actual collusion that lined Hillary's pockets when she signed off on the deal that gave the Russians control over 20% of our uranium reserves/supply.   

It was widely reported.  Problem is, as bad as that looks there were a half dozen other agencies that all had to sign off on that deal.  Even had the Russians succeeded in suborning her to their purposes, that doesn't explain the other cabinet level officials that similarly signed off.  I don't know how anyone in Russia can "own" a Uranium mine in North America.  What are they going to do, dig it out and take it with them?  My guess is they lost that investment when they invaded Crimea.

Russia has had an unprecedented negative (for us) resurgence under the impotence of Obama and failed democrat initiatives.   Putin understood Obama is a pussy.  He manipulated and out maneuvered Obama, Clinton and Kerry at every turn.  He took over parts of the Ukraine with barely a whimper from Obama, even though we had promised that we would protect them when they disarmed.   

Guilty as charged.  That said, what would you have Obama do?  Start a full scale European war with Russia?  Still, they tried their own detente and Putin spit it back in their faces.  I guess that Black Sea port is a big deal to him.  That said we should have seen this coming.  The Russians have previously carved out their own little states within Georgia and Belarus.

I have to ask you though, Trump's mission is to "make America great again",  why do you and your ilk want America to fail?

The difference between you and me is really simple.  In order for America to be great again it had to stop being so at some point.  I don't think it ever did.  I think America is truly far greater than she ever was, and will be greater still in the future, The Feral Shouting Meatball notwithstanding.  His ascendency will be a bump in the road, but only that.  America is far too vibrant to be led that far off track by one egomaniacal moron.

When the day comes that you post something devoid of bullshit, come back and speak up. We won't hold our breath.
I'm sure your triple zero IQ will have trouble deciphering this, but ask a seven year old. They can help you get the gist of it.

They can also help you tell the difference between the TV remote and a thermometer for when you pontificate your lies about MMGW.

Insults are nothing new from you, and only demonstrate how bereft you are of cogent argument.

The teensiest bit of searching turns up plenty of refuting material and qualified dissenting voices, Michael.  One example from Carlos Slim's blog, even:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/skeptic-of-climate-change-john-christy-finds-himself-a-target-of-suspicion.html?_r=0

Science is not a body of agreed-upon facts merely, it is a method.  If one chooses not to make the leap of "belief and faith" in scientists, and in the media, and in the paradigm hung out as "settled," in my mind that one is a wise one.

You can find an internet site to support whatever you want.  You can claim the Earth is flat, or that the Pyramid of Ghiza was built by Martians, or the Moon landings were faked or any number of utterly silly things.  When you can point me to such an article in a refereed peer-reviewed journal I might start listening.  Part of critical thinking is understanding to whom you should be listening.  I do have the capacity to evaluate how "trustworthy" a scientific source really is.  Just a professional skill.

The fellow in the article does indeed seem to be the genuine article.  He's extremely well published, though I can't find his funding sources (the institutional web site is pathetic).  Sadly, he seems to spend far more time in front of Congressional committees than doing science.  That said, he's published in some of the top scientific journals, thus the thought that he's somehow being "silenced" for his views is utter hogwash.

Moreover, you will never find a scientific endeavor that does not have its outliers.  The fellow across the hall didn't believe in Evolution, he was and is a Creationist.  Does that imperil Evolutionary science?  Cary Mullis himself doesn't think HIV causes AIDS.  on that basis will you go and get a transfusion from a sufferer?