Politics WV Governor to switch from Democrat to Republican

[Rastapopoulos]

The question is: how was this guy EVER a Democrat?

Following in Strom Thurmond's hallowed footsteps.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Apparently he was a Republican up till 2015, so this is not a huge leap for him...

 

[Denny Crane]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...emerge-as-possible-pick-for-energy-department

50th vote to repeal Obamacare.

 

[MarAzul]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...emerge-as-possible-pick-for-energy-department

50th vote to repeal Obamacare.

Excellent! Even better than flipping Joe in place.

 

[Minstrel]

Not quite that simple. West Virginia is one of the states that opted into the Medicaid expansion and the governors of the states that have done so, even the Republican ones, have been against the congressional Republicans' repeal and/or replace plans. So it's not at all clear that he'd appoint someone who'd vote for it, especially considering the Republican plans generally have the most devastating effects in rural areas like West Virginia.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not quite that simple. West Virginia is one of the states that opted into the Medicaid expansion and the governors of the states that have done so, even the Republican ones, have been against the congressional Republicans' repeal and/or replace plans. So it's not at all clear that he'd appoint someone who'd vote for it, especially considering the Republican plans generally have the most devastating effects in rural areas like West Virginia.

You never heard the governor speak.

You might try that. Have a clue.

 

[Minstrel]

You never heard the governor speak.

You might try that. Have a clue.

Yeah, Republicans spoke against Obamacare for 7 years. According to the "clue" you believe you get from rhetoric, Obamacare clearly was repealed on day 1 of Trump's presidency, rather than Republicans struggling with a hundred different watered-down plans because, as it turns out, very few of them actually want to be on the hook for a repeal.

I think I'll avoid your clues. They haven't stood you in very good stead so far. Thanks for the offer, though.

 

[dviss1]

Yeah, Republicans spoke against Obamacare for 7 years. According to the "clue" you believe you get from rhetoric, Obamacare clearly was repealed on day 1 of Trump's presidency, rather than Republicans struggling with a hundred different watered-down plans because, as it turns out, very few of them actually want to be on the hook for a repeal.

I think I'll avoid your clues. They haven't stood you in very good stead so far. Thanks for the offer, though.

And all while speaking out against it, every fucking one of them knew it was a Republican plan, passed first by Mitt Romney, presented by Bob Dole as a response to Hillarycare, written line by line mandate and all....

By the Heritage Foundation...

The average Republican doesn't know this and they've been duped to believing that it's a

"Government takeover of healthcare"

When it's their fucking plan through and through.

 

[dviss1]

http://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/assuring-affordable-health-care-all-americans

This was written by the Heritage Foundation in 1989. It explains Obamacare fully.

Y'all have been duped.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

And all while speaking out against it, every fucking one of them knew it was a Republican plan, passed first by Mitt Romney, presented by Bob Dole as a response to Hillarycare, written line by line mandate and all....

By the Heritage Foundation...

The average Republican doesn't know this and they've been duped to believing that it's a

"Government takeover of healthcare"

When it's their fucking plan through and through.

Ha! Liberals admitting they copied the Republican's homework.

 

[Minstrel]

Ha! Liberals admitting they copied the Republican's homework.

Well, I know you're joking BUT ACTUALLY--

Obama and most of the Democrats in the House wanted something closer to single-payer or a public option. Obamacare was the compromise position to both the conservative elements within their party (the Blue Dog Democrats, which worked) and to an effort to pass the bill in a bipartisan manner (which, obviously, did not work).

 

[dviss1]

Ha! Liberals admitting they copied the Republican's homework.

Obama was not a liberal.

 

[dviss1]

Well, I know you're joking BUT ACTUALLY--

Obama and most of the Democrats in the House wanted something closer to single-payer or a public option. Obamacare was the compromise position to both the conservative elements within their party (the Blue Dog Democrats, which worked) and to an effort to pass the bill in a bipartisan manner (which, obviously, did not work).

Single payer was never on the table. The public option was the starting point in the negotiations. Obama happily killed that...

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, Republicans spoke against Obamacare for 7 years. According to the "clue" you believe you get from rhetoric, Obamacare clearly was repealed on day 1 of Trump's presidency, rather than Republicans struggling with a hundred different watered-down plans because, as it turns out, very few of them actually want to be on the hook for a repeal.

I think I'll avoid your clues. They haven't stood you in very good stead so far. Thanks for the offer, though.

Trump demanded repeal and replace. Congress voted to just repeal it something like 40 times. They were all on the hook all along.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/assuring-affordable-health-care-all-americans

This was written by the Heritage Foundation in 1989. It explains Obamacare fully.

Y'all have been duped.

You really need to read it. It doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[dviss1]

You really need to read it. It doesn't say what you think it does.

No you fucking read it Denny! Read this shit!

"2) Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance. Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have li a bility insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement. This man d ate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals, not businesses. Thus to the extent that anybody should be required to provide coverage to a family, the household mandate assumes that it is t h e family that carries the first responsibility. Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Pors c he and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not h e has insurance. If we find that he has spent his money on other things rather than insurance, we may be angry but we will not deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. A mandate on individuals recognizes this impl i cit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself."

REPUBLICANS WROTE THE MANDATE.

 

[Denny Crane]

It still doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[dviss1]

They even use the liberal argument of car insurance...

You've been duped.

 

[dviss1]

It still doesn't say what you think it does.

It's certainly says that the Republicans were for the mandate. And as a matter of fact they wrote it.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's certainly says that the Republicans were for the mandate. And as a matter of fact they wrote it.

That's why republicans voted for it. When was that?

It doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[Minstrel]

Denny will keep repeating "It doesn't say what you think it does" because he knows you're right. Don't spend too much time on his trolling.

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny will keep repeating "It doesn't say what you think it does" because he knows you're right. Don't spend too much time on his trolling.

You haven't read it either. I did.

 

[barfo]

You haven't read it either. I did.

Your post doesn't say what you think it does.

barfo

 

[dviss1]

That's why republicans voted for it. When was that?

It doesn't say what you think it does.

To quote you:

"weak sauce"

Jesus christ. We live in a world where republicans will vote down their own bills bro...

Should we put lying past them?

 

[MarAzul]

REPUBLICANS WROTE THE MANDATE

Denny will keep repeating "It doesn't say what you think it does" because he knows you're right. Don't spend too much time on his trolling.

It is bullshit. Doesn't matter who wrote it.

 

[Minstrel]

It is bullshit. Doesn't matter who wrote it.

That's a fair response. It's still originally a conservative idea (as the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank). That doesn't mean you have to like it, of course.

 

[MarAzul]

That's a fair response. It's still originally a conservative idea (as the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank). That doesn't mean you have to like it, of course.

Equating the Federal government requiring people to buy a product of any kind as on equal footing with States requiring people buy auto liability insurance is weak in the mind.

 

[Minstrel]

Equating the Federal government requiring people to buy a product of any kind as on equal footing with States requiring people buy auto liability insurance is weak in the mind.

It was the reasoning put forth by the Heritage Foundation. That said, I think the reasoning mostly works, even if it's not exactly the same situation.

 

[MarAzul]

I think the reasoning mostly works, even if it's not exactly the same situation.

Like I said. Weak in the mind.

 

[Minstrel]

Like I said. Weak in the mind.

Agree to disagree.