I can see where you're coming from. They talked about repealing the Affordable Care Act for every year Barack Obama was in office, but we are obviously in the context of the Trump administration. Younger people may not be aware that "Obamacare" was passed without refinement through a 100% partisan vote, and highly controversial provisions like the individual mandate made it prone to attack. Donald Trump's "Repeal and replace" pitch essentially meant that the Affordable Care Act must finally go through a bipartisan process, ensuring a lasting legacy of nationalized healthcare and bringing about some semblance of national consensus. In other words, Ted Cruz lost 'bigly'. Donald Trump is not shy of infrastructure and stimulus spending either. I presume you are generally aware of this.lol no. The republican slogan of "repeal and replace" is just a slogan. They are very interested in the "repeal" part. But they have absolutely no plans on the "replace" part. They have been talking about repealing obama care since the minute it was passed, but they will not give an actual plan of what could replace it. They don't have a replacement.
Maybe some people want it repealed and some want it replaced.
They just want to repeal it and kick people off their healthcare.
The original model was signed into law by a Republican from Massachusetts through a bipartisan effort. At the time, the Heritage Foundation was endorsing efforts to improve healthcare at the state level. In addition to free markets, one of principles the heritage foundation takes interest in is federalism. Back when we used to have presidential debates, Mitt Romney argued for a relationship in which citizens may consider their states as a primary institution for representation, but obviously in a way that shares with a federal government. See the first two minutes here. Maybe Republicans should take a note from the economic initiative of Florida and Massachusetts so that they might work more effectively to outcompete progressives in their respective states. Since the Constitution is on their side, and they have dozens of unique opportunities to innovate across the country, the states probably have to fail pretty broadly for Congress to succeed in a power grab.
In reality, those who want to create a consumer-based health system and deregulate health insurance should view Romney's plan as one of the most promising strategies out there. I know, because I've been part of the Heritage Foundation team advising the governor and his staff on the design, which builds on some of my work with officials in other states.
Healthcare portion of the presidential debate 2012 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx1mjT73xYE
Romney thanked the Bush administration for approving federal authorizations to fund the law and praised the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) for his “essential” work in shaping and advancing the bill through the state legislature. “Special thanks as well to the Heritage Foundation,” Romney continued. “Two of its leading scholars are the ones who helped design and craft what we now call the Connector, which is the centerpiece of the insurance reform portion.” Once Heritage’s Dr. Robert Emmet Moffit took the stage, he praised the law for establishing a new “patient centered” and “consumer-based” market where everyone can find affordable coverage:
It was a massive giveaway to the rich, and the poor pay for it? What do you mean "the poor pay for it"?the republicans will push to balance the deficit by cutting social spending, like they always do. Most of them have signed a pledge not to increase taxes. If they are able to successfully cut social spending, then they would have successfully made the poor pay for it. IE give money to the rich via tax cuts, then balance the budget by cutting programs that help the poor.
Perfect, thank you.
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, "the rich" ought not to exist. There should be a wealth cap equivalent to a 100% tax rate.the higher their income the higher their tax rate should be. I don't think it makes sense to ever make it 100%. but since it has never been anywhere near that, it is a bit of a moot point.
The last time we had accumulated this much debt was WWII. The top income bracket was raised to over 90% within 5 years.
