Yes, in the middle of a pandemic, Trump asks the Supreme Court to strike down The Affordable Care Act

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,216
3,354
118
It's not that the modern republicans want to kill off the poor, they just don't want them having the same chances of survival than the well-financed and mostly white populace. It's not eugenics, it just shares some similar results.
 

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,069
1,206
118
Country
United States
It's not that the modern republicans want to kill off the poor, they just don't want them having the same chances of survival than the well-financed and mostly white populace. It's not eugenics, it just shares some similar results.

We're not killing you. We're just ensuring you don't have the resources to live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil devils x

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
We're not killing you. We're just ensuring you don't have the resources to live.
It's the right-wing version of freedom.

Other people should not stop you doing what you want, but if you don't have the resources to do anything then that's no-one's problem but your own.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Indeed. Good thing there's also a cap on chargeable premiums to address it. You must be pretty enthused about Biden's plan to set that cap lower, given your concern for affordability?
That's not a cap on what premiums can be that I'm aware of. There's a line to determine where people get government subsidies towards their health spending. The issue I'm pointing out is the artificial incentive to be inefficient, guaranteeing cash flow from the government if they're inefficient enough doesn't solve that problem. Which is not a criticism of that cap, I'm not against helping people get healthcare they can't afford, but it doesn't make "cap their margins, they'll be more efficient that way" work out any better.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,302
8,779
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Take the Affordable Healthcare Act and change not a single thing about it except that the Republicans passed it instead and you'd find that the Republicans wouldn't be making a peep.
I've read news stories about Republicans in surveys being perfectly fine with the Affordable Care Act, but they were absolutely convinced that Obamacare would destroy the country.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
I've read news stories about Republicans in surveys being perfectly fine with the Affordable Care Act, but they were absolutely convinced that Obamacare would destroy the country.
Yes. A lot of it is about presentation.

There are all sorts of interesting things you can do in this regard, though. For instance, ask people of a country whether they approve of fascism, and very few will respond positively. If you break fascism down into policies and put those to people, about 25-35% approve of a basket of policies consistent with fascism.

Edit: Part of this also reflects issues of trust and credibility.

For instance, when a left wing party advocates a government investment plan, the assumption is that this is the bad old socialist idea of tax and spend, spoiling the economy. When a right-wing party proposes the same it can get far more traction. It's not just partisanship, it's that they have a higher trust in ways - firstly not to tax and spend to excess, and also that because this is not what right wing parties normally do, so there's an assumption they must be doing it because it's really important.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
When a right-wing party proposes the same it can get far more traction. It's not just partisanship, it's that they have a higher trust in ways - firstly not to tax and spend to excess, and also that because this is not what right wing parties normally do, so there's an assumption they must be doing it because it's really important.
An assumption very well grounded in past decisions about Garden Bridges, ferry contracts, and airport runways in the Thames.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
An assumption very well grounded in past decisions about Garden Bridges, ferry contracts, and airport runways in the Thames.
As I have said before, the Tories have a teflon-like capability to withstand ill repute from their economic blunders.

You can imagine things like Labour selling off lots of the national gold reserves at a point when gold happened to be at relative low (and even then you can only know it's a low with the advantage of hindsight). It was an incredibly trivial loss, and yet 20 years later is still wheeled out as proof that Labour are incompetent. Meanwhile, within our lifetimes, 3 million unemployed (twice), the failed monetarism experiment, boom and bust Black Wednesday, the ERM debacle, austerity and so on just don't seem to make anyone wonder whether the Tories are as good as they make out.
 

dreng3

Elite Member
Aug 23, 2011
679
326
68
Country
Denmark
For ten years the republicans have been trying, and despite having "kill ACA" as one of their main goals for ten friggin years, and despite promising that they had an alternative we have never seen any workable alternative, not one.

And now this. At this point in time I think that considering the republican party anything but evil, or at the very least disgusting, is intellectually dishonest.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
It's the right-wing version of freedom.

Other people should not stop you doing what you want, but if you don't have the resources to do anything then that's no-one's problem but your own.
A pattern I've noticed lately is that extreme right wingers prefer the illusion of freedom to the real thing. Like how they refuse to support public mass transit because cars are a symbol of freedom. A symbol that also happens to be expensive AF, costly to maintain and fuel, has to be insured and can rather easily kill you and others if you're not paying attention, which is somehow more free than the ability to purchase a ticket and go literally anywhere in your country in a fraction of the time it would take to drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak and Dalisclock

Avnger

Trash Goblin
Legacy
Apr 1, 2016
2,069
1,206
118
Country
United States
A pattern I've noticed lately is that extreme right wingers prefer the illusion of freedom to the real thing. Like how they refuse to support public mass transit because cars are a symbol of freedom. A symbol that also happens to be expensive AF, costly to maintain and fuel, has to be insured and can rather easily kill you and others if you're not paying attention, which is somehow more free than the ability to purchase a ticket and go literally anywhere in your country in a fraction of the time it would take to drive.
It's because the car gives the owner personal freedom that they don't have to share with others. If everyone has the same freedom, then it's not special anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,241
3,065
118
Country
United States of America
The last time the Democrats controlled both the Senate & the House (111th Congress), the House passed 461 bills, against 411 for the current Congress.

So, they actually pass more bills when they are more likely to be signed into law.
# of total bills isn't exactly a good way to measure legislative impact in the first place, especially with respect to accomplishing an agenda.

They're doing... things! is all that says.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
It's because the car gives the owner personal freedom that they don't have to share with others. If everyone has the same freedom, then it's not special anymore.
That's what Porsches and Bentleys are for. Sure, the hoi polloi can buy cars too, but at least they can't get those cars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
# of total bills isn't exactly a good way to measure legislative impact in the first place, especially with respect to accomplishing an agenda.

They're doing... things! is all that says.
Yeah, that'd be right. But it's the metric you used to begin with. I was just pointing out a factual error.