Tbh as a Democrat I hope the obamacare repeal passes.

[WintersLegion]

The presidents party has always, with two exceptions, one due to Bush skyrocketing in popularity after 911, lost seats in midterm elections since the 40s. The Republicans may break even in the Senate due to more Democrat incumbents being up, but the chances of anything but losses in the house are pretty close to 0 barring another attack even worse than 911. Remember bush was in the low 50s pre 911. Trump is in the mid 30s.

- - - Updated - - -



They won't care immediately, but reality will dawn on them when they inevitably get sick and get kindly told to fuck off and die due to not being able to afford it anymore. Remember, up untilthe elections most people thought obamacare and the ACA were two separate things, and a good amount of people still think that because nothing that directly affected their lives has happened . . . yet. Trump voters dont care about Russia scandals because it has 0 effects on their life. Losing Healthcare is a different story.

They will find someone else to blame. I've seen posters here on MMO-Champ that swear the reason their rates went up is all Obamacares fault even after it's pointed out to them the reason their rates are so high is their state is one of those that opted out of the Medicaid expansion.

[downnola]

While I don't like the idea of 30 million people losing their insurance I do like the idea of 30 million newly uninsured angry voters throwing Republicans out of Washington for good.

Hey at least I'm honest.

"I want people to die so they vote how I want them to.

Hey I'm just being honest!"

[Masark]

"I want people to die so they vote how I want them to.

Hey I'm just being honest!"

More like "I want people to suffer the consequences of their decisions so they get smacked back into reality and vote accordingly"

[Wvvtayy]

"I want people to die so they vote how I want them to.

Hey I'm just being honest!"

"Hey I live in a fantasy dreamland where there's sunshine lollipops and rainbows everywhere and there's always a perfect solution to every problem and everyone lives happily ever after signing koombayah around a campfire together"

[Breccia]

"I want people to die so they vote how I want them to.

Hey I'm just being honest!"

Well...how many of these people have already voted to die?

Not all, true. But some of the people that would die due to losing coverage specifically voted for people campaigning to repeal the ACA, while themselves covered by the ACA. Others took a risk to vote on someone who campaigned on making a plan with better coverage for more people for less money, in exchange for losing the ACA. They, through (willful?) ignorance, voted to die, or increase the risk of death same thing. If that does not cost them, in some way, will they learn from their experience?

It's dark, but again, the OP is not killing people. He's pointing out that people already voted to kill themselves. Without consequences, choices do not matter. If you think he's bad for suggesting people die for their choices, how do you feel about people writing laws for others to die for tax cuts for themselves? I would like to believe you also find that offensive, more so in fact.

[Wvvtayy]

Well...how many of these people have already voted to die?

Not all, true. But some of the people that would die due to losing coverage specifically voted for people campaigning to repeal the ACA, while themselves covered by the ACA. Others took a risk to vote on someone who campaigned on making a plan with better coverage for more people for less money, in exchange for losing the ACA. They, through (willful?) ignorance, voted to die, or increase the risk of death same thing. If that does not cost them, in some way, will they learn from their experience?

It's dark, but again, the OP is not killing people. He's pointing out that people already voted to kill themselves. Without consequences, choices do not matter. If you think he's bad for suggesting people die for their choices, how do you feel about people writing laws for others to die for tax cuts for themselves? I would like to believe you also find that offensive, more so in fact.

I like you. You get my point exactly. Why can't most people wrap their brains around the fact that sometimes there is no outcome where no one is hurt.

A good analogy for them is this. Would it be wrong to kill 1000 people if you had the choice between that and killing 100000? And if you answer neither then the 100000 option is chosen by default.

[Felya]

I like you. You get my point exactly. Why can't most people wrap their brains around the fact that sometimes there is no outcome where no one is hurt.

A good analogy for them is this. Would it be wrong to kill 1000 people if you had the choice between that and killing 100000? And if you answer neither then the 100000 option is chosen by default.

That's not a good analogy, because no one has to die due to healthcare issues. Change is spurred by demand, not spite.

[Wvvtayy]

That's not a good analogy, because no one has to die due to healthcare issues. Change is spurred by demand, not spite.

Wrong. No one HAD to die. But thanks to the gop and their voters, people WILL die. No matter what, people are going to die because of this. The only thing anyone has any control over now is how many will die.

[downnola]

More like "I want people to suffer the consequences of their decisions so they get smacked back into reality and vote accordingly"

People did vote accordingly. Clinton won the popular vote with 65 million votes. Hoping that people lose their insurance, when millions are actively fighting against a full repeal, is nothing short of resentful idiocy.

"Hey I live in a fantasy dreamland where there's sunshine lollipops and rainbows everywhere and there's always a perfect solution to every problem and everyone lives happily ever after signing koombayah around a campfire together"

I get that you don't like your argument played back to you, but this gibberish is just that: gibberish.

It's dark, but again, the OP is not killing people. He's pointing out that people already voted to kill themselves. Without consequences, choices do not matter. If you think he's bad for suggesting people die for their choices, how do you feel about people writing laws for others to die for tax cuts for themselves? I would like to believe you also find that offensive, more so in fact.

That's not what the OP is arguing. He's specifically arguing that he hopes the GOP succeeds in repealing the ACA so that Republicans get swept out of office. If he made that argument afterwards, I didn't see it, nor do I care. The political utility in a full repeal of the ACA clearly came into his mind for Democratic "gain". It's reminiscent of Trotsky exclaiming that he hoped the peasants starved to death in Russia to help fuel the Revolution.

I'm in agreement with you that people need to take responsibility for their votes, but people don't need to fucking die for it. If that's the level Democrats need to sink to in order to win seats then to hell with them; they're not the type of people that should be leading this country either. A full repeal would be messy, and I don't see a reason to think that a new healthcare bill would come any easier than the ACA did.

[Captain N]

That's not a good analogy, because no one has to die due to healthcare issues. Change is spurred by demand, not spite.

You may want to reword that --- Good change is spurred by demand. People who felt neglected voted out of spite for what we have now. That's still change....it's just really bad change.

[Milchshake]

While I don't like the idea of 30 million people losing their insurance I do like the idea of 30 million newly uninsured angry voters throwing Republicans out of Washington for good.

Hey at least I'm honest.

I get it, I'm pretty burnt out too. After wanting healthcare/better wages for everyone, even if it meant dragging them screaming to these better policies. Only to be told these ideas are smug and condescending toward anyone who does not match the personal lifestyle choices of liberal elites.



Fuck them and their economic anxiety.

Then there's all the third party holier than thou voters. And the people that dont even bother to vote when so much is on the line.

[33kamous3]

Around the time of the 2000 Presidential election there were a lot of liberals/progressives/leftists (whatever you want to call it), mostly in their early 20's, who were making a very similar argument about GW Bush, Gore (who was seen by many at the time as too centerist), and this issues of the time. The argument was basically, "fine, just let W get elected and then everyone will see how bad things can get, and then we'll just rip the band-aid off quickly and cleanly, and everything will be clear to all." This last time around I heard some very similar things about Trump from people of similar age and outlook (albeit less thoughtful, engaged, and informed).

17 years later, we're still fighting those wars and our economy is just now recovering from the crisis, not to mention the lasting effects on our political discourse ("I think we can go dumber").

This type of stance sometimes seems like a really attractive 'solution' because it's very easy in the short term, and it's very easy to absolve yourself of any responsibility relative to whatever the repercussions will be (since you've expressed your opposition from the beginning).

We can put up our hands and say "We don't own it!" but that's just arguing over the blame while ignoring the very real problems. So you really have to ask yourself, is this about crafting a brilliant strategy or is this about creating a convenient excuse for negligence? Because the most unifying principle of the wing of the Republican party that's currently in power is the inclination to dismantle every part of social government except for the military and the police, and they're not at all ashamed of that.

The problem is that blame is not necessarily going to stick on the Republicans, even if it's nearly or 100% all on them; it's the Democrat's fault, it's Obama, Hillary, Radical Islamist Mexican drug-smuggling welfare queens, feral inner-city black folks, and whatever else they come up with. Shifting blame is now an art and a science. Say what you will about the Republicans (and others), but they are very, very good at it.

[Very Tired]

While I don't like the idea of 30 million people losing their insurance I do like the idea of 30 million newly uninsured angry voters throwing Republicans out of Washington for good.

Hey at least I'm honest.

EDIT: WOW the point of this post has gone over so many heads, so I'm gonna edit in
a later post of mine explaining my point better.

I find it very depressing that it has come to this, actually. I don't want anyone to be hurt. I feel for the people who didn't vote for this to happen and are still going to be hurt by this. But in the current situation the only two possible outcomes, the gop fucks us over big time and the hard line Republican voters get hurt enough to realize what's happening and begin to change things, at the cost of a lesser but still significant amount of innocent people being hurt too. Or the Republicans fuck us a bit less hard now but in return are allowed to continue destroying us as a nation unhindered hurting far more people over a much longer period of time. It really pains me that that's what things have come to, it makes my blood boil thinking about it. But until it dawns on everybody that there are no other possible outcomes people are going to think I'm evil for simply being a realist.

It's not going to get repealed for exactly that reason and republicans know it. Never in history has an entitlement as large as this been given to the American population and then taken away. There would be riots in the street and hell to pay. That's why the republicans been trying to repeal and REPLACE. It's the next best thing to instead by simply reducing the budget to some much much smaller.

[Celista]

While I don't like the idea of 30 million people losing their insurance I do like the idea of 30 million newly uninsured angry voters throwing Republicans out of Washington for good.

Yeah things don't work that way. People vote against their own interests all of the time. Party affiliation is complex, we live in a country with deeply partisan politics and many people have a core part of their identity wrapped around that affiliation.

[Antiganon]

People on the blame list for this fiasco, and the reasons why:

Freedom Caucus - In favor of tax cuts for the rich to the exclusion of any other economic policy. The more entitlements they remove from people who actually need them, the better.

Senate Republicans - Meant to be a check on the yahoos in the Freedom Caucus, they actually made a bill that is even worse.

Paul Ryan - Ayn Rand is not an example to aspire to. She was a hypocrite who lambasted social safety nets while receiving handouts from social safety nets.

Mitch McConnell - Excluding more than half of the Senate when drafting legislation that impacts the day to day lives of over 300 million people is simply unconscionable.

Trump - Rhetoric about not honoring the (already committed and budgeted for) Obamacare subsidies is the biggest reason that insurers are leaving the exchanges and premiums are rising. We don't want you to "keep us in suspense". We want you to DO YOUR DAMN JOB.

Trumpkins - Hang on every word spoken by Trump, accepting that Obamacare is a failure, and ignoring the fact that it is only failing because of his rhetoric about the subsidies.

GOP Base - YEARS of screaming about repeal and replace, as though undoing Obama's accomplishments is more important than actually accomplishing anything.

Complacent Democrats - Fucking vote. I don't care if its a local dog catcher election between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton, you get out there and vote. Otherwise you shut your mouth, because your opinion is meaningless if you don't share it on Election Day.

Bernie Bros* - Writing in the primary candidate you like in the general election, when said primary candidate has explicitly endorsed his primary opponent, is a majorly stupid move.

3rd party voters - Jill Stein took enough votes from Clinton in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to swing the entire election.

Elitist Democrats** - Yes, we know your ideology is morally superior and your economic policies are proven to be more effective. That doesn't mean it is ok (or remotely a good idea, politically speaking) for you to label everyone who disagrees an ignorant deplorable.

Debbie Wasserman Schulz - Way to make the Democrat base feel disenfranchised by preferring one primary candidate over the other from the get go. Pro tip: the radical base in any party is much more likely to vote than the typical party line voter, unless you explicitly tell them that their primary vote is worthless.

Hillary - Maybe try actually being a Democrat, instead of a neoliberal corporatist hawk so out of touch with your base as to be irrelevant. Also tone down the elitism and entitled attitude.

Jill Stein - if 90% of your policy positions are the same as the Democratic Party, maybe you try to work WITH the Dems to move their platform closer to the issues you care about, rather than split the damn vote.

Myself (and others like me) - For telling myself (and anyone that would listen) for the first 6 months of 2016 that Trump would never get the GOP nom, and it would be an easy victory with the GOP base splitting the vote. For telling myself that (and anyone that would listen) for the next 5 months that there was zero way the American people could possibly elect someone so unqualified as Trump.

* I supported Bernie in the primary, but would not do so again, and did not in the general. Not because I have changed my mind on policy positions, but because I believe he will be too old in 2020 to lead the party, and the policies he espoused need a new standard bearer.

** I am probably one of those elitist Democrats as well - I live within a mile of the Atlantic ocean, and my gut reaction to most GOP voters is either "How can you be so stupid to vote against your own interests?" or "How can you possibly be this prejudiced towards anyone different from you?"

Notice who isn't on that list? The millions of innocent people who stand to lose coverage and either die or go bankrupt if this shit passes. I can get on board with watching the GOP crash and burn as it passes legendarily unpopular legislation, but not when people's lives are at stake.

[Deletedaccount1]

Paul Ryan - Ayn Rand is not an example to aspire to. She was a hypocrite who lambasted social safety nets while receiving handouts from social safety nets.

Paul Ryan is to blame for a healthcare bill you don't like because he likes Atlas Shrugged. Okay.

[Dangg]

Foolish of you to assume those people will be aware that Trump is to blame.
They just eat up whatever reason he tells them.

[Toppy]

I dont think people realize just how entrenched the republican party is in the communities they're popular. The people who vote republican are in such extreme denial over their party doing anything wrong, and so sure that Dems are terrible that they wouldnt vote against the party even if their congressmen came to their house every week and kicked them in the face. They'd just find a way to blame the democrats as the congressmen would frown and say "Hillary made me do this"

[Wvvtayy]

Around the time of the 2000 Presidential election there were a lot of liberals/progressives/leftists (whatever you want to call it), mostly in their early 20's, who were making a very similar argument about GW Bush, Gore (who was seen by many at the time as too centerist), and this issues of the time. The argument was basically, "fine, just let W get elected and then everyone will see how bad things can get, and then we'll just rip the band-aid off quickly and cleanly, and everything will be clear to all." This last time around I heard some very similar things about Trump from people of similar age and outlook (albeit less thoughtful, engaged, and informed).

17 years later, we're still fighting those wars and our economy is just now recovering from the crisis, not to mention the lasting effects on our political discourse ("I think we can go dumber").

This type of stance sometimes seems like a really attractive 'solution' because it's very easy in the short term, and it's very easy to absolve yourself of any responsibility relative to whatever the repercussions will be (since you've expressed your opposition from the beginning).

We can put up our hands and say "We don't own it!" but that's just arguing over the blame while ignoring the very real problems. So you really have to ask yourself, is this about crafting a brilliant strategy or is this about creating a convenient excuse for negligence? Because the most unifying principle of the wing of the Republican party that's currently in power is the inclination to dismantle every part of social government except for the military and the police, and they're not at all ashamed of that.

The problem is that blame is not necessarily going to stick on the Republicans, even if it's nearly or 100% all on them; it's the Democrat's fault, it's Obama, Hillary, Radical Islamist Mexican drug-smuggling welfare queens, feral inner-city black folks, and whatever else they come up with. Shifting blame is now an art and a science. Say what you will about the Republicans (and others), but they are very, very good at it.

The issue with your bush gore analogy is that Bush is not as radical and crazy as trump. The Republicans that controlled Congress in those days were, for the most part, much less crazy and immature than the Republicans in control today. And even so, they may have had a point. No one saw 911 coming.

If not for 911, Democrats would have won in the 2002 midterms and Bush would not have been reelected. To see how massive of an effect 911 had, look at a chart of bush's approval ratings. It was in the mid low 50s, then 911 happened and it skyrocketed to 90 then slowly dropped. It was still riding high in 2002 and by 2004 it was around the same as pre911, just enough to get him reelected. Then immediately after that it started dropping like a rock. By 2006 when dems finally won Congress it was in the mid 30s, about where trump is now. Then in all of 2008 it was hovering in the mid 20s, finally exiting with an approval of 22%.

[MoanaLisa]

While I don't like the idea of 30 million people losing their insurance I do like the idea of 30 million newly uninsured angry voters throwing Republicans out of Washington for good.

You may get your wish. However, you are basically wishing for people to get sick and die to make a political point. It may work out that way. That doesn't mean that we should wish for it in advance. However, if 30 million people do lose their insurance then people should make sure that whoever is responsible should pay a cost for that.