You shouldn't take back anything you said about McCain. It was clear from his explanation of why he voted the way he did, that he did it more from a rules perspective than a desire to keep people alive.

If he puts country above party, it's a win.

Thank you, sir, for doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

Most of what politicians say are wax poetics for their constituents.

Obamacare lives thanks to citizen activism... after it sat as law long enough to become an entitlement.

The culture has also changed. We now debate healthcare is being included in the definition of a "human right" and not a product.

Say what you will of Obama but he will leave a legacy in America towards government healthcare in due time.

Conservatives keep repeating the same nonsense about "entitlement." We pay taxes, and instead of that money going to tax breaks for the rich, or loopholes and subsidies for corporations, we should get it in the form of health insurance. It's not an entitlement when we've already paid for it. It's called a re-shuffling of assets in more equitable manner.

"and instead of that money going to tax breaks for the rich"

In fairness, that's not how it works. Rich people pay for the healthcare of poor people. All we are looking at with the ACA and its repeal is whether the rich, and even no so rich people, people pay more, or less towards the health care of poor people.

The discussion is made more complex because so much of healthcare is paid for with private insurance and not tax dollars directly, but the money trail amounts to the above in the end.

How will poor people get healthcare if rich people stop paying for it?

The middle class will (as they do already).

FYI : Tens of millions of dollars are marked to be removed from medicaid, and given back as tax cuts. The rest is supposed to go to the military. This is what the new health care plan is.

Also, with the ACA, tax dollars are given to insurance companies if they fail to meet their liabilities. Insurance companies that already make obscene profits.

That's partially true, but if the money was going where it's supposed to, i.e. paying directly for medical care instead of into investor's portfolios, more people could afford to pay, and those that could would not have to pay nearly as much. And yes, it would all be a lot simpler if it was simply done via taxes. I'm fine with that.

If healthcare were free I'd be all in favor of free healthcare. What kind of monster would say "hey, I don't like you, go die in a ditch!"

Healthcare is not free. So we have to figure out how to pay for it. When 45.3% of households pay no taxes and receives healthcare as the 54.7% that do then they are granted an entitlement. They are entitled to the same products and services as those that do pay taxes. Is that right? That's the debate. It's not about evil money hoarders wishing death upon the unwashed masses.

Community means you support financially that which you do not believe in to be an appropriate expenditure by contributing to a pool. Why? Because "community" means lifting the general welfare of all. Not just the few. 'Community' also believes that capitalism, and the commoditization of everything, actually puts the handbrake on progress. Both in thought and material things, while placing the onus on labor to survive. Therefore, many of that 45% are swimming upstream never to get to the promise land of affordable health insurance.

So the short answer is yes, the 54% should pay for the 45%, especially when the top 1% is making more money than the rest by an overwhelming margin. And the way they are making it isn't legit. The economy is skewed by governmental market controls to insure those with money get corporate welfare subsidies and tax loopholes while doing absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, the right wants to keep the minimum wage in the toilet, and the poverty level at a contrived $17K/individual. The supply side economics lie. Further, the american dream of "making it" is horseshit. It's the american lie. Statistics prove that getting into the top ten or even one percent are dismal. Those that skate through the system making bucket loads of money should absolutely pay for someone else's health insurance.

I'll leave the evil money hoarders wishing death upon the unwashed masses debate for another day. Suffice it to say that many on the right believe in social darwinism. They just won't admit it.

I admit it.

Excellent. You admit being stuck in the 1700's. And with the mentality that humans haven't risen above the beast. Congratulations.

This is why we can't have nice things.

The new 100% nice-things tax?

" When 45.3% of households pay no taxes and receives healthcare as the 54.7%"

Just to clarify since it's a bit disingenuous to say 45.3% pay no taxes... ~40% of Americans usually don't pay federal -income- tax. Right now it's a bit higher due to the crash and all. Half of that 40% still pay SS and Medicare payroll taxes. And the other half are retirees. About 8% of households aren't paying any federal taxes - but that also includes people on disability, students, the unemployed and the very poor.

And that says nothing about state and city taxes, including sales tax.

Healthcare is not free. So we have to figure out how to pay for it.

We could start by asking these guys.

Another familiar name! Glad to see so many!

...just my first day here, yea this is a whole different debate which I'm sure will come about many times in the future.

"It's not about evil money hoarders wishing death upon the unwashed masses."

If it isn't, then that must be just life in general for everyone else.

You're kidding, right? You do realize that the system is more than a single transaction? Do you really think the wealth of that 54% is sustainable without the consumption of those 45%? There's a reason Walmart stopped lobbying against food stamps, it was cutting into their bottom line. They can't exist without welfare. This whole system can't exist without the masses consuming more than the wages the rich are willing to part with.

No, though I often get accused of it because my views are such an anathema to the Left. Very much so but we're in the comment section, not economic dissertations. Yes, much of it is when you consider the drain put on the economy through taxation. I'm quite certain that Walmart could exist without food stamps as it was well after they became the largest company/corporate employer in America they even began adding food markets.

"I'm quite certain that Walmart could exist without food stamps as it was well after they became the largest company/corporate employer in America they even began adding food markets."

Walmart doesn't just benefit from customers getting food stamps, it benefits from employees receiving them; government food assistance allows them to continue playing their workers less than enough to eat on.

Wow, drain put on the economy through taxation. I think that tells me everything I need to know, thanks.

This whole system can't exist without the masses consuming more than the wages the rich are willing to part with.

You buried the lead. Just saying. ;)

Or they could open up a dialog about why the lion's share of taxpayers' money goes straight to the military-industrial complex, and another huge chunk goes to corporate welfare.

Really now, 3.8 trillion in profit in 2016 and no taxes paid? Seriously? I hope that number is is the "households in that pay no taxes number" that conservatives love to cite.

But that would take away from blaming everything "wrong with America" on liberals and minorities. Or "moochers" if that's the preferred vernacular.

That's strange. I thought you were a conservative troll. What happened?

And welcome back.

I for one welcome our conservative troll overlords.

Too late. That happened quite some time ago.

There's a familiar name!

Still conservative, always pragmatist. None of what I said is a good thing. I still see it as true though.

Thanks! Took me this long to find the spiritual successor. I missed you guys!

Hey norok, welcome back.

Thanks! Glad to see familiar names.

Obamacare is still fucked up in many ways, but it's progress, and better than what the conservatives were proposing.

I've got health insurance through my company, but the deductible is still so high I never used it. From what I've read, it's projected to go up another 30% next year. Even as a liberal unaffiliated voter, I don't think it will be too long before I just take the penalty and do without. Better to be putting that money toward my retirement, if I have one.

I think you're about to embark on the same perspective switch that I did in 2009 as a college liberal turned into a middle class working taxpayer.

I believed healthcare should come from the government. Then I started paying for it. Then it started to become too expensive for me working. Then I realized people that didn't work were receiving better care without putting in the long hours I did to still not afford it.

Then I started voting Republican.

"I can't afford insurance, so those fucking poors shouldn't be able to have it either!"

I really don't mind paying for health insurance (that works), and I've been doing so for 27 years. For most of that time I've been self employed and paying the full premium out of pocket, on top of all the social security payments employers generally cover, along with all the additional insurance penalties of being an individual.

It's just gotten to the point where I pay thousands of dollars a year without actually receiving any significant benefit from it. I do get a little bit out of it in the form of lower prescription prices, but otherwise, I have to spend more than six grand a year on top of my premiums before any significant coverage kicks in.

If I stop buying insurance and pay the government mandated penalty, I'll continue to pay for health services, paying full price to see the doctor/emergency room/pharmacist, and still be saving thousands of dollars every year. I might even be more likely to go. Yes, if disaster hits, I'll be screwed but there comes a point where the cost/benefit shifts and it's just not worth it.

I don't think it's going to change how I vote, unless it's to be even more liberal.

This +9000

It's the same choice I made and millions of others.

I'd be perfectly happy with significantly higher taxes and a well regulated, universal health care system. I think Obamacare was a step in the right direction, but didn't go far enough.

Easy solution. Just quit your job and become poor. You'll get better healthcare and you won't have to work.

I think you mean to be sarcastic... but that's really what people do though not go poor. They quit normal jobs and take jobs off the books because it makes more sense economically to not report a certain income.

I see. Well, yes. From an income tax perspective, being poor and pretending to be poor are the same thing. It's not legal, though.

When you've got hungry kids and the rent is due, utility overrules legality.

So, when it comes to McCain I find myself in an awkward position.

I think he sucks, but I can not find any reason but to praise the man right now.

People are saying Collins and Murkowski deserve more respect because they were always no. However, I think that fails to understand what McCain did...

He voted yes to taking it to Reconcillation. Then voted no. He just saved us all from this thing until next year, at least. While I respect the hell out of Collins and Murkowski, I have to say I think the hype McCain got here is very well deserved.

And if he doesn't last the year, which he probably won't, then he doesn't have to go to his deathbed with the knowledge that he denied insurance to millions. He just absolved himself, knowing that the issue will come up again in a year. His hands are clean.

Meanwhile over at the WH...

"Scaramucci attacks Bannon and calls Priebus ‘fucking paranoid schizophrenic’"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/27/anthony-scaramucci-white-house-reince-priebus-steve-bannon

“I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock."

Stay classy, Trump administration!

He's not saying he never tried it.

I think he means he succeeded. Failing to suck your own cock is for losers.

Quitters never win.

And the best part about all this is that the reconciliation process used to bring this bill to a vote can only be used once a year. So if the Republicans want to bring another health care bill to the Senate floor they're going to need 60 votes or wait until next year, which is an election year.

Oh, my sweet summer child.

And I take back lots of the good things I've said about Lindsey Graham. It's like he and McCain are alternating which one votes the party line and which one votes for decency.

Don't forget the good things about Murkowski and Collins, they've been against it the whole time and McCain gets the spotlight.

Admittedly, both Murkowski and Collins were already on record as going to vote no. McCain was the wild card, especially after voting yes to debate the issue, so that's why he's getting attention. Oh, and that brain cancer thing.

And good job Schumer, holding the dems together. You know they were really trying to peel off one of the conservadems so they could say "bipartisan"