What brought about the 70's flower child revolution?

How many times did the republicans try to have the ACA thrown out in the past?

Republicans in Congress have tried to repeal, defund, or otherwise significantly weaken the Affordable Care Act (ACA) dozens of times, with counts commonly cited in the 60–70+ range, depending on how “attempt” is defined. A widely referenced tally from 2017 found at least 70 Republican‑led attempts to repeal, modify, or curb the ACA since it became law in 2010.washingtonpost+1

What “how many times” usually refers to

Newsweek’s analysis (summarized in an overview of repeal efforts) reported “at least 70” Republican-led attempts to repeal, modify, or otherwise limit the ACA as of July 27, 2017.wikipedia
Another frequently cited figure is that the U.S. House had taken over 60 votes by early 2016 specifically aimed at repealing or dismantling all or parts of the ACA.wikipedia

Why numbers differ

Some counts include only full repeal votes; others include defunding efforts, delays of specific provisions, budget resolutions that would gut the law, and court challenges, which increases the total.politico+1
Because Republicans continued to pursue repeal and rollback strategies after 2017—including through litigation and tax/budget legislation—analyses looking over the full 2010–2020 period describe “over 70 attempts” to kill or significantly diminish Obamacare.fivethirtyeight+1

Bottom line

If you mean formal congressional repeal/defund-type actions, a defensible answer is over 60 House votes and at least 70 total Republican-led attempts by mid‑2017.politico+1
If you include ongoing efforts through legislation, administration actions, and lawsuits, it is accurate to say Republicans have made more than 70 attempts over the last 15 years to repeal or substantially weaken the ACA.washingtonpost+1

Most of the significant ACA “revisions” and later enhancements have primarily benefited low‑ and middle‑income individuals and families who buy coverage on the individual marketplaces, as well as people with pre‑existing conditions who rely on the ACA’s protections. Insurers and many hospitals also benefited indirectly from having more paying, insured patients rather than uncompensated care.cms+1

Main groups that benefited

Low‑ and moderate‑income individuals: Premium tax credits and later boosts to subsidies under laws like the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act sharply reduced monthly premiums for people buying marketplace plans.kff+1
People with pre‑existing conditions: The ACA’s guaranteed‑issue and community‑rating rules, which have remained intact despite repeal efforts, ensured that people with chronic illnesses could get coverage without being charged more or denied.wikipedia
Near‑retirees (50s–64): Older adults not yet on Medicare particularly gained from caps on how much more insurers can charge them and from enhanced subsidies that offset age‑rated premiums.pbs+1

How the changes showed up in practice

Marketplace enrollment has reached record highs (over 24 million enrollees for 2025), reflecting how enhanced subsidies and outreach made coverage more affordable and attractive.crfb+1
Analyses of who receives ACA subsidies show that enrollees are disproportionately from lower‑ and middle‑income households, so the financial gains from revisions and expansions have flowed mainly to those groups rather than to higher‑income people.pbs+1

Republican “replace” ideas for the ACA were never a single, unified plan but a shifting set of proposals built around a few recurring themes: less regulation, more use of health savings accounts, weaker guarantees for pre‑existing conditions, and lower federal spending and subsidies. When scored by neutral analysts, major GOP bills in 2017 were projected to reduce coverage for tens of millions compared with the ACA, which is why none of the big repeal‑and‑replace packages ultimately became law.brookings+1

Core elements Republicans repeatedly pushed

More market‑driven, skimpier coverage
- Major GOP plans would have allowed insurers to sell leaner policies with lower premiums but higher deductibles and fewer required benefits, often by rolling back parts of the ACA’s essential health benefits and benefit standards.kff
- Many proposals encouraged expanded use of short‑term or “catastrophic” plans that cover less and shift more risk and cost to patients.kff
Health savings accounts instead of robust subsidies
- A common replacement idea was to shrink or repeal ACA premium tax credits and instead steer money into health savings account‑style arrangements, arguing people should pay directly and “shop” for their own coverage.kff+1
- These designs tend to favor healthier and higher‑income people who can afford to fund accounts and handle high deductibles, while being less protective for lower‑income and sicker patients.kff

Treatment of Medicaid and pre‑existing conditions

Medicaid cuts and caps
- Leading GOP bills would have ended the ACA’s Medicaid expansion over time and converted Medicaid to capped federal funding (per‑capita caps or block grants), which the Congressional Budget Office projected would significantly reduce enrollment and state spending over time.brookings+1
Weaker protections for pre‑existing conditions
- While Republicans often said they wanted to “keep protections,” key proposals allowed states to waive community‑rating and benefit requirements, which would have made comprehensive coverage much less affordable for people with serious health needs.kff

Why none became the lasting “replacement”

The most prominent Senate repeal‑and‑replace bill in 2017 was projected to leave about 22 million more people uninsured than under the ACA, making it politically toxic and leading several Republican senators to vote it down.brookings
Since those failures, Republicans have largely shifted from full “repeal and replace” to narrower efforts that trim ACA subsidies or redirect money toward high‑deductible plans and savings accounts, rather than enacting a comprehensive alternative that matches the ACA’s coverage levels.kff+1

When core public systems like health care are aggressively deregulated or defunded, the usual pattern is that access, stability, and protections erode for the most vulnerable, while financial risk shifts from government and large institutions onto individual people and families. Outcomes can vary by policy design, but in U.S. health care the dominant effects of rolling back rules and funding are more uninsured people, thinner coverage, and greater cost exposure.pwc+2

Typical effects of deregulation

Fewer consumer protections
- Removing rules (for example, on what must be covered or how prices are set) generally lets insurers and providers offload more cost and risk to patients, often via narrower networks, more exclusions, or higher cost sharing.cato+1
- Protections like bans on denying coverage for pre‑existing conditions, limits on surprise billing, or minimum benefit standards are what keep markets from becoming “race to the bottom” environments for sicker people.communitycatalyst+1
Market instability and segmentation
- Looser rules tend to attract healthier, wealthier people into cheaper, skimpier products, leaving sicker and poorer people in more expensive pools, which drives up premiums and can push insurers to exit markets.pwc+1
- Over time, that dynamic produces more underinsured people (they technically have a policy, but it does not protect them well when they actually get sick).healthaffairs+1

Typical effects of defunding

Loss of coverage and increased uninsured rates
- Cutting subsidies or public program funding (for example, Medicaid or marketplace tax credits) leads directly to people losing or dropping coverage because it becomes unaffordable, especially for low‑income groups.sciencedirect+1
- As the uninsured population grows, hospitals and clinics face more uncompensated care, which can force service cuts or closures, especially in rural and safety‑net settings.pwc
Greater financial pressure on patients and providers
- When public money is pulled out of the system, states and providers either reduce benefits, tighten eligibility, or shift more costs to patients through premiums, deductibles, and copays.sciencedirect+1
- That cost shift can mean delayed care, skipped medications, and worse health outcomes, particularly among people with chronic illness or low incomes.healthaffairs+1

The “flower child” or hippie revolution of the late 1960s and early 1970s grew out of a perfect storm of social, political, and economic forces that made a big slice of young people decide that mainstream post‑war America was fundamentally broken. It was less a single event and more a convergence of long‑building pressures that finally boiled over into a visible counterculture of peace signs, long hair, music festivals, and “make love, not war.”britannica+2

Key forces that lit the fuse

Vietnam War and militarism
- The draft and the expanding, televised Vietnam War convinced many young Americans that their government was willing to sacrifice them for a war they saw as unjust or unwinnable, fueling anti‑war activism and dropout culture.wikipedia+1
- Massive protests, campus movements, and the sense of constant crisis helped push people toward pacifism, “peace and love” ideals, and rejection of traditional authority.ebsco+1
Rebellion against 1950s conformity and consumerism
- The tightly scripted “American Dream” of suburban homes, rigid gender roles, and corporate careers felt hollow and suffocating to many in the baby‑boom generation.thecollector+1
- The hippie ethos of simple living, communal experiments, and spiritual searching was a direct rejection of that materialism and pressure to conform.americainclass+1

Civil rights, free speech, and justice movements

Civil Rights Movement and racial injustice
- The struggle against segregation, voter suppression, and racist violence exposed deep contradictions between America’s ideals and its reality, radicalizing many young whites as they watched Black activists risk their lives for basic rights.wikipedia+1
- This fed a broader youth belief that the entire system—government, police, schools—needed fundamental change, not just minor reforms.americainclass+1
Campus free‑speech and student power
- Movements like the 1964 Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley framed universities as extensions of corporate and Cold War power, not neutral places of learning.khanacademy+1
- Students began to see themselves as a distinct class with interests opposed to those institutions, legitimizing protest, sit‑ins, and alternative lifestyles as political acts.ebsco+1

Culture, technology, and the baby boom

Huge youth cohort and post‑war affluence
- The baby boom created an unusually large group of young adults who had more education, disposable income, and time than their Depression‑era parents, which made experimentation and protest more feasible.wikipedia+1
- Economic growth meant many could afford to drop out for a while—live communally, travel, or devote themselves to art, music, and activism instead of immediately locking into careers.thecollector+1
Music, psychedelics, and new forms of expression
- Rock and folk music became both the soundtrack and the organizing tool of the movement, turning festivals like Woodstock into temporary cities built around peace, drugs, and shared culture.britannica+1
- Psychedelics such as LSD, popularized by figures like Timothy Leary (“turn on, tune in, drop out”), encouraged people to question authority, religion, and social rules, reinforcing the turn toward spiritual exploration and rejection of mainstream norms.britannica+1

Shifts in sex, gender, and identity

Sexual revolution and women’s rights
- The spread of reliable birth control and changing views on sexuality undercut traditional marriage scripts, enabling more open sexual relationships and feminist critiques of the housewife role.thekeep.eiu+1
- Feminist, gay‑rights, and later environmental movements were tightly intertwined with hippie spaces, making the “flower child” scene a hub for people challenging old rules on identity and family.ebsco+1

In short, the flower child revolution was the visible cultural face of a deeper counterculture: anti‑war outrage, civil‑rights struggles, disgust with consumerist conformity, a giant youth wave with time and money to rebel, and a powerful new mix of music, drugs, and spiritual searching that offered a different way to live.britannica+1

Something tells me we are due for another of this type of revolution but if you want to see my suggestions you'll have to dig thru my blog to see the solutions or maybe just search the term future, which so many narcissist's are not very good at seeing.

Since our republican conservative Judicial branch keeps rolling back civil rights, here's a life hack very few know, MEN, if you don't want to wrap it up, take a hot bath every night here's why it does work.

Hot baths are not an effective or reliable form of birth control. While elevated temperatures can temporarily impair sperm production and motility in males, the effects are inconsistent, reversible, and insufficient to prevent pregnancy reliably.reddit+2 (Tried and tested, just because it says it's not effective means there's always a possibility even with standard birth control, but a vasectomy is reversible and much less invasive)

Required Temperature

Studies indicate scrotal temperatures need to exceed normal body levels by 1.5-2°C (about 95°F or higher), often achieved via baths or hot tubs at 105-110°F (40-43°C) or up to 116°F (47°C) for 30-45 minutes daily over weeks.youtubethermische-verhuetung+1

Effectiveness Limits

Even with regular exposure, sperm counts may drop significantly (e.g., to below 2.1 million motile sperm/mL per WHO standards in some cases), but millions of viable sperm often remain, making conception possible.dreminozbek+2

Duration and Recovery

Effects typically emerge after 5-7 weeks of consistent heat exposure and last months until new sperm regenerate, but cessation can reverse damage in 45% of cases within 3-6 months.ucsf+2

Search This Blog

How do I keep coming up with ways to explain things?