It's more than clear that the votes aren't there and this bill won't pass.

Normally, there would not be a vote. However, Trump wants one. If a vote goes through, it could signal the end of Paul Ryan as a credible SOTH.

So, Who wins?

Does voting Ryan mean you think there won't even be a vote today?

That's what should happen. Tell Trump to piss off with his threats.

Write In: With this bill .... nobody wins. Even if it passes.

How long until Trump's next twitter tantrum?

(03-24-2017 12:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Write In: With this bill .... nobody wins. Even if it passes.

I agree...but I meant who wins this tug-o-war?

No vote happens = Ryan wins
Vote Happens = Trump wins

(03-24-2017 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:24 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Write In: With this bill .... nobody wins. Even if it passes.

I agree...but I meant who wins this tug-o-war?

No vote happens = Ryan wins
Vote Happens = Trump wins

You see this as Paul Ryan fighting Donald Trump. I see this as the two working together to permanently enshrine the core of ObamaCare over the protests of the few actual conservatives and libertarians in Congress.

I think Trump is playing Ryan like the fool he is. Ryan takes the bullet regardless of the vote outcome.

(03-24-2017 12:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No vote happens = Ryan wins
Vote Happens = Trump wins

Is this just for today?

What if they rewrite AHCA in two weeks? You're saying that doesn't count as what we currently know as ACHA?

It's a win-win for Trump either way. If those stupid Republicans that are on the edge go with Rand Paul they will suffer in the elections when their time comes because it will be brought up. Trump has nothing to lose. He did what he had to do and if they don't vote for the bill he'll just sit back and let Oblundercare fizzle on its own. He won't come to its aid either, I can guarantee you that unless the Reps agree to do at that future time what they should do today.

Remember a very useful tidbit that no one brings up anymore. Health care is not a constitutional have-to. It's not guaranteed no where in the constitution.

Trump doesn't give a s___ about the American people.

He wants a vote, and truly does not care what the outcome is.

It passes -- he wins
It fails -- he destroys the people who voted against it, so he wins

(03-24-2017 12:36 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Health care is not a constitutional have-to. It's not guaranteed no where in the constitution.

Yes it is.

We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.


That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

(03-24-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:36 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Health care is not a constitutional have-to. It's not guaranteed no where in the constitution.

Yes it is.

We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.


That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

+1

(03-24-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:36 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Health care is not a constitutional have-to. It's not guaranteed no where in the constitution.

Yes it is.

We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.

That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

Moron or Troll, I'm done with you on this thread.

(03-24-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes it is.

We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.


That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

Yea, I can see Thomas Jefferson now discussing things with the framers. "Say Ben, do you think we should require men to pay for maternity care?"

(03-24-2017 12:46 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.

That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

+1

C'mon cb... You're smarter than that. Putting aside the correctness or not of single payer or total market driven health care, you can't believe that a statement of purpose "Life, Liberty, and Persauit of Happieness" in the Declaration of Independence is a constitutional right?

(03-24-2017 01:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes it is.

We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.


That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

Yea, I can see Thomas Jefferson now discussing things with the framers. "Say Ben, do you think we should require men to pay for maternity care?"

Really dude. I suppose all these women are getting pregnant without men?

(03-24-2017 01:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 01:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes it is.

We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.


That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

Yea, I can see Thomas Jefferson now discussing things with the framers. "Say Ben, do you think we should require men to pay for maternity care?"

Really dude. I suppose all these women are getting pregnant without men?

Unless she was raped, only women can control their bodies. Men get no choice so men should not pay for it, be it abortion, health care, or child support. The choice is all on the woman, which is what they say they want. Let them have it.

(03-24-2017 01:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Really dude. I suppose all these women are getting pregnant without men?

I'm a single man. I fail to see why I should subsidize maternity care. I'd love to hear Tom explain why as a gay man he, in particular, should be subsidizing maternity care for all the "breeders".

(03-24-2017 01:16 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Unless she was raped, only women can control their bodies. Men get no choice so men should not pay for it, be it abortion, health care, or child support. The choice is all on the woman, which is what they say they want. Let them have it.

+3 rep

(03-24-2017 12:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:36 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Health care is not a constitutional have-to. It's not guaranteed no where in the constitution.

Yes it is.

We all have a right to life. Can't have that without healthcare.


That's what the founders meant, anyway. You interpreting it otherwise, is a false interpretation.

oh please show me where in the constitution states that the government should provide healthcare to the people...