Featured Trump: Convince me without personal attacks

The exchanges are a disaster, but not all of the ACA is failing. Expanded Medicaid (which in my state consists of premiums remitted to health insurers for private plans) is helpful to states, who now see reductions in uncompensated care. My local university hospital has been able to create jobs because of expansion in my state. Rural hospitals have been able to stay open. Otherwise, we'd have medical deserts of 100+ miles that would result in deaths, period, no matter how good your insurance is. Even the state budget has been helped, allowing much-needed highway repairs to begin.

The ACA needs major repairs, to be sure, or a suitable replacement that addresses the damage without reversing some of the positives. We have bad wiring, but that's not a reason to burn down the house. We just need a REAL (not typical "free-market" rhetoric) plan that actually addresses the issues at hand. Medical costs were spiraling out of control pre-ACA, and the state-line plan just won't work. It will just put thousands of people out of work across the country as insurance companies all relocate to the "favorable" state/states. If you don't offer a real fix, you're going to get something like Medicare for all next time.

And, for the love of everything decent, don't bring back that pre-existing condition exclusion. My relative, a conservative Republican who works for an insurance company (25+ years of experience in the industry), says that the pre-existing condition exclusion was a "nightmare to administer" and that companies actually wanted to get rid of it. They just had to have a law to kill it because of adverse selection.

Input? Perhaps. But I mean more than just having input--I mean actually taking the advice of experts and implementing it. A person can have input but no real influence on the decision.

 

If you don't help the poor, you're just going to see riots. The country is already burning in some places. Cut off support? Just wait and see what happens. It won't be pretty. We really don't need a French-style revolution in our streets.

Plus, there's a biblical precedent for doing so on a national level, along with individual charity.

 

Nullify? Major exaggeration.

Warren Court/Burger Court. We survived.

 

1 isn't a reason.
2 is a good idea.
3 is a good idea.
4 is only a good idea if it's done efficiently. We have tons of waste.
5 is good, depending on the details.
6 is very good.
7 is questionable. Free trade is typically a conservative kind of thing.
8 is ok.
9 is irrelevant. As I once heard, the VP's job "is to be alive in case the President isn't."
10 is offensive.

 

I've explicitly agreed with some of the policies listed above. But his undefined ideology is a concern, yes.

I don't consider your post a personal attack. I reserve that for direct insults.

 

Then we need an even better replacement. That solves the problem.

 

Both the 1st and the 2nd Amendments matter. Freedom of the press should be as vigorously protected as the right to bear arms.

Our founders included it for a reason.

 

Yeah, repeal it without replacing. The entire healthcare industry would go into a spin overnight.

Simply taking away insurance is not an option. A better plan has to be offered, or the next Democratic President will be brought to you by "Medicare for All."

 

I'm a moderate. I don't like a lot of what Hillary stands for, but I wasn't talking about voting for Hillary. My issue is Trump or 3rd party (out of protest).

I hold some more liberal positions and some more conservative ones.

Trade? I don't believe in protectionism because I don't think its economically productive, and it limits the ability to spread freedom to other nations. I tend to take a conservative position here.

It's telling when a candidate makes too many off -the-cuff comments period because it indicates an inability or unwillingness to keep oneself more restrained. Restraint is absolutely essential for the Presidency. Maybe Trump can change, but as of now, it's an area he needs to improve.

But would I be a conservative by very conservative terms? No. That being said, I'd probably look like the second coming of Mussolini to the far left. I am quite concerned that the far left has so much influence because the moderate Dems are MIA. I'm also quite concerned about the anger in the far right.

 

I can agree with the general desire for transparency. I don't care about reading the bill publicly. Bills are so wonky as to be unintelligible. But I do think it should be an open process.