>>You've used the term "fake news" in every single post

That is my reasoned conclusion based on observation. Not just my own - surveys have confirmed that the corporate media slants over 95% of coverage against Trump. E.g. Bill posted an example of fake news trawling through a 1-hour Trump speech to find a few seconds of thin gruel to write a whole "fact check" article while ignoring blatant falsehood from their own political allies.

>>and you spend a great deal of your time defending Trump and blaming the media.

Loaded terms rejected. When somebody issues a grand proclamation against Trump, I ask for evidence. On the rare cases that actual evidence is produced, often it's based on fake news paraphrase. Perhaps you recall the "reasonable people on both sides" defamatory smear that you bought into and is regularly quoted by Biden with zero corporate media pushback.

>>If ObamaCare is struck down, the numbers or worse than 11 million, it's more like 21 million people will loose their coverage:

11 million was your figure; I quoted 25 million. No matter: voila the weasel wording that underlies this smear. Yes, 25 million may lose ACA and other coverage *in its current form* but coverage *in its current form* is not the same as loss of healthcare as you had asserted- unless you believe the GOP plans to replace ACA with zip. The "ACA coverage or nothing" proposition required by your argument, is fake news. Had you read the December paper, you would know this.

And yes I know both sides do this - there are those who claim that socialized healthcare would "rip healthcare away from over 100 million families" which is based on the same weasel-worded falsehood.

Meanwhile I have to return to the fact that ACA failure became inevitable after refusal to enforce individual mandate doomed it to price increases that only the most heavily subsidized (including the very sick) can afford. AKA the death spiral. FWIW, this is the point SCOTUS is asked to rule on - that refusal to enforce individual mandate invalidates the ACA scheme that depended on it. There's no question as to the fact; I don't know whether SCOTUS will agree the fact justifies striking ACA down. What I do know, is that millions already have and will continue to exit plans dominated by the sick. I'm disappointed in myself that I seem unable to get your agreement on this.

>>21 Million -> will loose heath coverage
>>12 Million -> adults will loose medicade coverage
>>133 Million -> number of people with pre-exiting conditions that will get screwed
>>171 Million -> Americans who no longer face caps on expensive treatments will get screwed
>>60 Million -> Medicare beneficiaries would face changes to medical care and possibly higher premiums.
>>2 Million -> Young adults with coverage through their parents’ plans will get screwed

The source from which you are pasting either willfully excludes or predates the GOP's December paper that you refuse to read while claiming exclusive expertise. Sheesh, you even have the temerity to quote my own observations about Medicaid recipients and covered kids back at me, as if they're your own!

>>..and since you seem to think the GOP is not trying to do this, here is a good starting point on 60 or so of the times they've tried ...although the real number is over 70 (it's a short list)...

Nobody denies that the GOP has tried to end ACA, most famously when McCain sabotaged the attempt. but ending ACA is not the same as ending healthcare for millions any more than nationalized care would do.

>>I don't expect to hear back from you until you've read all of the above so it won't be a "anti-intellectual ad hominem conversation"

Tell you what - go and read it yourself, then honor me with directed answers to my own observations about Medicaid expansion recipients (mostly in blue states) and kids currently covered to the age of 26. What's being considered for them? I don't believe you know or care when it's so much easier just to chant "11 million will have healthcare ripped away from them". Prove me wrong.