Trump: Biden would 'destroy' Obamacare's protections for pre-existing conditions

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,093
136
The GOP opposition to single payer health care for all is simply based on the fact all the ultra rich executives with insurance companies will lose their gravy train.
That's half of it.

The other half is when it turns out that Socialized! Medicine! isn't the boogieman...what else that Republicans hysterically scream about is bullshit?
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,720
146
That's half of it.

The other half is when it turns out that Socialized! Medicine! isn't the boogieman...what else that Republicans hysterically scream about is bullshit?

Its not though. As it wouldn't even make the rich less rich. It'd just make the poor less poor. They need the poor fighting over scraps so they can keep as much control as possible.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Yeah thats a straight up lie. But then, lies are all over the place as this is a major election year. Not even Trump would remove this despite what he may say. Healthcare in the US is a continuing moving target, but I doubt any new legislation would include removing the pre-existing clause.
Trump is literally party to a lawsuit, today, that if he wins would remove protections for pre-existing conditions.

It’s just amazing how strong the right wing misinformation bubble is where you’ve convinced yourself he would never do a thing that he’s ACTIVELY DOING.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,198
18,669
146
Trump's running outta ammo, nobody gonna believe this that isn't all aboard the Trump train anyways.
 

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
7,150
7,645
136
I’m giving Trumps comment a thumbs down.
JXHN2YXMSYZQBPORPCDFTOO76A.gif

-Say what you will about McCain's addled old man raving after 2008, the dude bought that big dick negativity to that tumbs down 100%.

I will never see this clip and not smile like a stupid idiot every time.
 

A///

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2017
4,351
3,158
136
The GOP opposition to single payer health care for all is simply based on the fact all the ultra rich executives with insurance companies will lose their gravy train.
They don't have to. Some European countries with tax payer funded healthcare offer that as standard, but also give the choice to stop that and get on private insurance. There are so many ways to still benefit insurance executives. The idea of them losing maybe 40% in profits over time is enough to get them to not support a hybrid method.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
Yeah thats a straight up lie. But then, lies are all over the place as this is a major election year. Not even Trump would remove this despite what he may say. Healthcare in the US is a continuing moving target, but I doubt any new legislation would include removing the pre-existing clause.
Still #bothsides - ing it to defend Trump? Ok, I'll play what are the lies Biden has told in the last 7 days?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,741
126
I think Trump is frustrated at Biden because unlike Hillary he is difficult to attack. People disliked Hillary, period. The same can't be said for Biden. Yes, he has been called sleepy Joe, or has been said to have dementia. He's too old. Etc. But, those statements about Joe haven't swayed public opinion IMO.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
8,960
8,191
136
I think Trump is frustrated at Biden because unlike Hillary he is difficult to attack. People disliked Hillary, period. The same can't be said for Biden. Yes, he has been called sleepy Joe, or has been said to have dementia. He's too old. Etc. But, those statements about Joe haven't swayed public opinion IMO.
All while their babbles like a 3 year-old and can't pronounce common words.

But you are right, people not only disliked Hillary, many including myself despised her. I voted for neither in 16, but I have no problem voting for Biden this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
If you get the fuck out of your echo chamber.
You are an exponent of a particular form of mentality that is quite widespread among conservative thinkers. People in this thread have pointed that out to you under the rubric, 'Bothsidesism'. Whether this is an echo chamber effect or just the typical way rationalizations work it is certainly typical of conservative thinking. For that reason it is highly likely in my opinion, that having a peculiar but common mental bent yourself, you project that personal form of mental conditioning onto other people who are in fact free of it. There isn't a sane person in the world who would say both sides lie when confronted by a person like Donald Trump whose whole life is nothing but a total fabrication, an alternative reality, a massive fabrication of lies. This is so profoundly evident that it really makes your both sides approach look like a total joke and will earn you nothing but distain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Still #bothsides - ing it to defend Trump? Ok, I'll play what are the lies Biden has told in the last 7 days?

Why do you limit oit to 7 days? Heres some recent doozies:

Over the past year, Biden thundered that the Obama administration “didn’t lock people up in cages.” He also claimed that, “Immediately, the moment [the Iraq War] started, I came out against it.” And… “I was always labeled one of the most liberal members of Congress.” Politico’s rating of all three assertions? False.

And how does saying politicians on both sides lie defend Trump, when I straight out said what Trump said is a lie? Is your reading comprehension that bad?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Why do you limit oit to 7 days? Heres some recent doozies:

Over the past year, Biden thundered that the Obama administration “didn’t lock people up in cages.” He also claimed that, “Immediately, the moment [the Iraq War] started, I came out against it.” And… “I was always labeled one of the most liberal members of Congress.” Politico’s rating of all three assertions? False.

And how does saying politicians on both sides lie defend Trump, when I straight out said what Trump said is a lie? Is your reading comprehension that bad?

Because both sides are not remotely equivalent. Had you said 'both sides lie but Trump lies way more' I doubt anyone would have had an issue with it.

Also, you do realize that what you said earlier about Trump not ending pre-existing conditions is false, right? He's currently litigating before SCOTUS to do EXACTLY that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Because both sides are not remotely equivalent. Had you said 'both sides lie but Trump lies way more' I doubt anyone would have had an issue with it.

Also, you do realize that what you said earlier about Trump not ending pre-existing conditions is false, right? He's currently litigating before SCOTUS to do EXACTLY that.

Yeah thats what I thought. Youre saying that does not mean I was wrong. Biden has his share of lies as well. The bottom sides IS #bothsides lie. They do. Its the old yeah my guy does that your but your guy does it worse! Its like kindergarten.

Im not aware of that legislation Trump is litigating before SCOTUS.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Yeah thats what I thought. Youre saying that does not mean I was wrong. Biden has his share of lies as well. The bottom sides IS #bothsides lie. They do. Its the old yeah my guy does that your but your guy does it worse! Its like kindergarten.

It's not like kindergarten, it's real life. Functionally every person on Earth who can speak has told a lie at some point, so pointing out that everyone lies is a pointless thing. One side is vastly more honest than the other and you are attempting to obscure that.

People like you are playing right into Trump's hands you realize, right? So long as you just say '#bothsides' he can be by far the most relentlessly and purposefully dishonest person in the history of US politics and pay no price. If anything you're encouraging him to lie even more.

Just for the record, you do agree that Trump lies to a VASTLY greater degree than Biden or any other US politician of any party, correct? Just need to make sure we are both at least marginally tethered to reality.

Im not aware of that legislation Trump is litigating before SCOTUS.
California v. Texas

The United States Department of Justice told the district court in June 2018 that it mostly agreed with the general basis of the lawsuit, in that without the individual mandate, certain provisions of the ACA were invalided such as the protections it had provided for those with existing conditions, and would not defend those factors in court. However, the Justice Department still believed certain provisions of the ACA were valid.

So much for saying he wouldn't do it, huh? The lawsuit is pants-on-head insane in terms of logic, but even that didn't stop him.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
It's not like kindergarten, it's real life. Functionally every person on Earth who can speak has told a lie at some point, so pointing out that everyone lies is a pointless thing. One side is vastly more honest than the other and you are attempting to obscure that.

People like you are playing right into Trump's hands you realize, right? So long as you just say '#bothsides' he can be by far the most relentlessly and purposefully dishonest person in the history of US politics and pay no price. If anything you're encouraging him to lie even more.

Since Im not vopting for either Bidem or Trump, Im not doing anything. The sad thing for our country is neither is fit for office, and this will be yet another "pick the best of the worst".

Just for the record, you do agree that Trump lies to a VASTLY greater degree than Biden or any other US politician of any party, correct? Just need to make sure we are both at least marginally tethered to reality.

Yep

California v. Texas

This lawsuit has nothing to do with Trump. Sure, Barr endorsed it, but thats about it. If you want to tie it to Trump, then we'll call it yet another failed lawsuit byTrump. SCOTUS wont rule in favor.
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,255
2,272
136
As far as I can tell Biden hasn't invented any conspiracy theories about trump. Maybe because he know people who will consider voting for him are not that stupid? trump has a clear advantage in that department.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Since Im not vopting for either Bidem or Trump, Im not doing anything.

Yep

This lawsuit has nothing to do with Trump. Sure, Barr endorsed it, but thats about it. If you want to tie it to Trump, then we'll call it yet another failed lawsuit byTrump. SCOTUS wont rule in favor.

This is false. Here's the timeline:

1) Texas sues the federal government to invalidate the ACA, including the pre-existing condition exemption.

2) Trump's DOJ refuses to defend the law, the pre-existing condition exemption in particular, arguing it is unconstitutional.

3) After the law is not defended, the district judge rules the law unconstitutional.

4) California and other states intervene because Trump's DOJ is no longer defending it, the pre-existing condition exemption in particular.

It would be truly remarkable if you are going to argue that despite a lawsuit where Trump explicitly refused to defend against an attempt to destroy pre-existing condition protections and then argued they were unconstitutional...that he's not trying to get rid of them. He 100% is!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
This is false. Here's the timeline:

1) Texas sues the federal government to invalidate the ACA, including the pre-existing condition exemption.

2) Trump's DOJ refuses to defend the law, the pre-existing condition exemption in particular, arguing it is unconstitutional.

3) After the law is not defended, the district judge rules the law unconstitutional.

4) California and other states intervene because Trump's DOJ is no longer defending it, the pre-existing condition exemption in particular.

It would be truly remarkable if you are going to argue that despite a lawsuit where Trump explicitly refused to defend against an attempt to destroy pre-existing condition protections and then argued they were unconstitutional...that he's not trying to get rid of them. He 100% is!

I would say its not pre-existing conditions he might want to end, but the personal mandate, which I agree with. Unfortunately the way its written you can do away with one without the other.. It needs to be re-written.

Either way, SCOTUS wont rule in his favor. So meh.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
I would say its not pre-existing conditions he might want to end, but the personal mandate, which I agree with. Unfortunately the way its written you can do away with one without the other.. It needs to be re-written.

Either way, SCOTUS wont rule in his favor. So meh.

Whether or not he WANTS to remove protections for pre-existing conditions he is litigating in a way that will do exactly that.

As far as the law being written that way, clearly not. This is exactly the absolutely bonkers interpretation of the Constitution that Texas is trying to use. SCOTUS will almost certainly not rule in their favor if for no other reason it would send the US legal system spiraling into insanity.

As for having one without the other, you most certainly can as evidenced by the last two years. In case you weren't aware of how utterly insane the right wing argument is here, let me break it down, and this is not exaggerated. It is legitimately this lawless.

1) If the government says you must get insurance or else it will punish you with fines, this is constitutional because the fines are a tax.

2) If the government says you must get insurance or else it will do nothing, this is unconstitutional because the nothing the government will do to you represents an unconstitutional burden.

3) If the mandate to get insurance on penalty of nothing no longer exists the entire ACA must be invalidated because clearly Congress did not intend the law to exist without the nonexistent penalty. They apparently did not intend this despite explicitly passing a law that did exactly that.

Yeah, that's the side Trump's on. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Also, we should not be excusing politicians' behavior by assuming the courts will save us from their insanity and incompetence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie