Our health care certainly hasn't become more affordable under the current administration
Vote for Mr. Trump why ? Check out please
- Thread starter Raj-the -cuck
- Start date
You have a pretty short memory about the passage of PPACA, The Democrats had control of both houses and it was made clear to the Republicans their input was not wanted or needed. I recall Nancy Pelosi's famous comment "We need to pass this bill to find out what is in it." Now PPACA isn't working out as planned and it is the Republican's fault. Typical politics. PPACA is a classic example of what happens when corporate greed is combined with bureaucratic ineptness.
Around 70% of the new enrollees were enrolled in Medicaid, which will end up getting dumped on the states when the Federal government stops subsidizing it
Twobifour is brainwashed? Possibly but I must say your positions seems to be pretty inflexible and not all that well informed.
Come on Mac Your sarcasm is legendary "old buddy"
Liberals make the assumption that Government intervention is the solutions to all problems. You should take a hard look at the history of health care costs and compare the rise with the progressively increased government involvement in the health care industry.
I seem to recall you touting PPACA as the solution to all our health care woes. Things not working out?
That is partially true!... yes we had control of both house at the time... but Obama wanted it to be a non-partisan effort... there were 4 republicans on it also... chuck Grassley was the lead Republican.... but it only lasted a short time... and he and the others announced they couldn't be a part of it... there was a big write up on the real reason...talk about the money Hillary gets for speeches... Grassley got a huge amount from a couple of ******* companies... and so did the others either in campaign contributions or.... but they were paid off!
there is just no stopping corruption or greed
I've never touted PPACA as the solution, Torp. I've supported it; several times in the political threads I've mentioned my preference toward a single-pay system. But, that said, if the conservatives weren't tossing wrenches into the system every few days I'm sure PPACA would be running a lot more efficiently. What should concern the public is the Republican's efforts to make PPACA fail (at the cost of taxpayers) so they can prove a point. Their constant obstruction & sabatoging of government affairs, and lack of initiating anything POSITIVE for the country is the EXACT reason why we have Donald Trump as the Republican party representative. They have NO plan, as they've seemed to timely bring up every election cycle, but, that's their ongoing LIE. They only have one game ... "trickle down" tax cutting and shrinking government (their deceiving term for ridding the country of entitlements).
Last edited:
.....You're so frik'n funny, you really are. Republicans have done everything to drive the cost of health care UP, old man ... and you know that. How can you post such BS? They're the party that preaches the power of capitalism, then they refuse to allow the health exchanges to be set up to create competition; instead, they drive up the cost of health care for everyone else by bankrupting hospitals that can no longer afford to allow the use of their emergency rooms as a 'drive through' health care service. Republicans are notorious of 7 straight years of obstruction to the operations of the federal government and the people are going to response in November.
......I work with insurance benefits on a daily basis, and I'm quite aware of what NC, SC, VA are doing. Funny thing is, when you go look at the states that are in financial troubles, most all are Republican run states and drawing some of the largest subsidies. Check out Alabama ... they just entered the financially straped state status, and now their top 3 officials (Gov., Spkr Hse, and Judge) are under indictments and possibly going to JAIL.
Last edited:
Thank you, its people like you and "bobblehead twins" who have help me perfect it.
Last edited:
You have piqued my interest. Just what have the Republicans done to drive up health care costs? The health care exchanges don't seem to have done so well. As I recall 12 of 23 non profit exchanges have shut down and the nations biggest insurer United Healthcare is pulling out of most of the markets. Healthcare costs for the average family have tripled since 2001. But to be entirely fair the last years increase was lower than previous years, still over an $1,100 increase. It remains to be seen if this is a statistical bump or the start of a trend. The majority of the people that have acquired coverage have done so through Medicaid. This is a ticking bomb. Medicare and Medicaid account for about a quarter of the budget. That debt load is not sustainable. At some point the Federal money goes away and the states are left swinging in the wind to pick up the tab. And those that have coverage? Most are not happy with their plans, 3% of the insured individuals and families that have to deal with cancer end up filing bankruptcy. A Hell of a lot of people are finding that when they have a serious illness or injury there is often some damned expensive items that just aren't covered. There are about half again as many Republican Governors as there are Democratic so it is simply a matter of numbers. You actually consider PPACA a success? I am not the one shoveling the BS here. PPACA is a bad joke, a very bad expensive joke.
Brainwashed teabagger....wow really. How is it any different than being a brainwashed progressive liberal except being on the other side of the isle from you.@TwoBiFour you need to be de-programed. Give us a break, FREEDOMMAINRADIO? You think anyone's going to sit and listen to 43:55 minutes of this ******* except a brainwashed TeaBagger? You gotta be kidding. Do you think you could get ANYTHING any further to the RIGHT?
You're so brainwashed with TeaParty politics, its pitiful. All they do is stir the hornet nest, then, when people get stung, point the finger at some reason, other than themselves, as to why everyone got stung. They go from one thing to the next with that only focus to screw things up what someone else does. Mind you, they do NOTHING constructive themselves. Its one thing to be uncooperative, and its totally another being obstructive & destructive. The people are wising up to the idiots. This thing with Trump is of their own doing and I hope they get burned good for it ... and it appears they're going to be.
What's really sad is that you think YOUR LIFE will improve if those idiots were able to control Washington. Look, they have 2 things in mind ... cut taxes to rob the country of revenue, and to eliminate as many entitlement programs as they can ... PERIOD! Your health insurance will NOT become more affordable, if even attainable, with their directives.
I swear, these brainwashed people have their heads pushed so far up their own asses they recognize the crap because they've never smelled anything different.
Trump Hits the Panic Button at the Hint of a Third Party Run
It’s hard to tell if conservative pundit William Kristol was being serious or just wanted to mess with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump when he tweeted a promise over the weekend that a conservative third-party alternative to the billionaire would soon declare interest in the presidency.
“Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance,” he wrote.
It was a strange thing for Kristol, who edits the Weekly Standard, to just toss off in the middle of a holiday weekend. The move to draft a high-status conservative to challenge Trump under the banner of a third party has been around for some time and has so far been thoroughly unsuccessful. Hoped-for candidacies of retired Marine Corps general James Mattis, former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney or vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan have all fizzled out.
Likewise, the assertion that a third-party candidate would, at this point, have “a strong team and a real chance” seems optimistic. It’s late in the game to launch a presidential bid, and unless the candidate Kristol has in mind already has Trump-like name recognition, the effort to get his or her name on ballots across the 50 states and to persuade at least a plurality of the electorate to deliver their votes would be daunting.
Similarly, developing a “strong team” would be a major challenge this late in the game. Though to be fair, there are a lot of experienced Republican operatives within the #NeverTrump movement who would probably jump at the chance to join a credible opposition campaign.
Kristol’s promise was immediately leapt upon by Trump supporters. Calling it a “betrayal of this country," Breitbart.com writer David Horowitz huffed, “The Kristol attack on the Republican Party and its presumptive candidate Donald Trump is an attack on all Americans and needs to be seen in that light.”
Trump himself took to Twitter, as is his wont, to blast the conservative pundit as a “loser,” “dummy,” "lightweight” and more. In a series of tweets that suggested a certain degree of nervousness, he warned that if the erstwhile Republican establishment indeed launches or supports a third-party bid, the result would be to hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
“Say Goodbye to the Supreme Court,” Trump warned.
And there’s little doubt that on that score at least, Trump has it right. A more traditional Republican candidate running as an independent would give #NeverTrump Republicans who cannot abide Hillary Clinton an alternative to the two major party candidates.
It would also -- and this is the most compelling argument for a traditional Republican to run as an Independent in November -- give many Republicans who might otherwise have stayed at home in November a reason to come to the polls, which could protect down-ballot Republicans.
Kristol and his supposed candidate for the presidency would have to pretend they were in it to win it, though the fracture it would cause within the GOP would make that virtually impossible. The real goal, in all likelihood, would be to try to protect Republican House and Senate candidates and statewide office seekers from an anti-Trump voter backlash.
The other possibility, though, is that Kristol was sitting around drinking beer with some friends at a Memorial Day weekend barbecue, and thought, “You know what would be fun? Spoiling Donald Trump’s holiday weekend.” A few seconds of typing into his smartphone’s Twitter app would definitely have done the job.
It’s hard to tell if conservative pundit William Kristol was being serious or just wanted to mess with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump when he tweeted a promise over the weekend that a conservative third-party alternative to the billionaire would soon declare interest in the presidency.
“Just a heads up over this holiday weekend: There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance,” he wrote.
It was a strange thing for Kristol, who edits the Weekly Standard, to just toss off in the middle of a holiday weekend. The move to draft a high-status conservative to challenge Trump under the banner of a third party has been around for some time and has so far been thoroughly unsuccessful. Hoped-for candidacies of retired Marine Corps general James Mattis, former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney or vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan have all fizzled out.
Likewise, the assertion that a third-party candidate would, at this point, have “a strong team and a real chance” seems optimistic. It’s late in the game to launch a presidential bid, and unless the candidate Kristol has in mind already has Trump-like name recognition, the effort to get his or her name on ballots across the 50 states and to persuade at least a plurality of the electorate to deliver their votes would be daunting.
Similarly, developing a “strong team” would be a major challenge this late in the game. Though to be fair, there are a lot of experienced Republican operatives within the #NeverTrump movement who would probably jump at the chance to join a credible opposition campaign.
Kristol’s promise was immediately leapt upon by Trump supporters. Calling it a “betrayal of this country," Breitbart.com writer David Horowitz huffed, “The Kristol attack on the Republican Party and its presumptive candidate Donald Trump is an attack on all Americans and needs to be seen in that light.”
Trump himself took to Twitter, as is his wont, to blast the conservative pundit as a “loser,” “dummy,” "lightweight” and more. In a series of tweets that suggested a certain degree of nervousness, he warned that if the erstwhile Republican establishment indeed launches or supports a third-party bid, the result would be to hand the presidency to Hillary Clinton.
“Say Goodbye to the Supreme Court,” Trump warned.
And there’s little doubt that on that score at least, Trump has it right. A more traditional Republican candidate running as an independent would give #NeverTrump Republicans who cannot abide Hillary Clinton an alternative to the two major party candidates.
It would also -- and this is the most compelling argument for a traditional Republican to run as an Independent in November -- give many Republicans who might otherwise have stayed at home in November a reason to come to the polls, which could protect down-ballot Republicans.
Kristol and his supposed candidate for the presidency would have to pretend they were in it to win it, though the fracture it would cause within the GOP would make that virtually impossible. The real goal, in all likelihood, would be to try to protect Republican House and Senate candidates and statewide office seekers from an anti-Trump voter backlash.
The other possibility, though, is that Kristol was sitting around drinking beer with some friends at a Memorial Day weekend barbecue, and thought, “You know what would be fun? Spoiling Donald Trump’s holiday weekend.” A few seconds of typing into his smartphone’s Twitter app would definitely have done the job.
The Libertarian Johnson-Weld Ticket Is Bad News for Donald Trump
omewhere between a discussion about whether or not blind people should be allowed to drive cars and a striptease by a hefty bearded man hoping to be elected party chairman, the Libertarian Party selected its presidential and vice presidential candidates for the 2016 election cycle. And, strange as it may seem, it could have a real impact on the results of the general election in November.
Meeting in Orlando, Florida, the Libertarians selected former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts governor William Weld as their presidential and vice presidential nominees, respectively. While neither is what you would call a political firebrand, both have served as the chief executive of a state, and that makes the Libertarian ticket a far more credible alternative to voters disillusioned with the two-party system than it has ever been in the past.
This is not to say that a Johnson-Weld ticket has any chance at all of winning the White House. At the moment, among the combined members of the House and Senate, state governors and members of state senates and the lower houses of state legislatures, the number of Libertarians currently holding elected office is: 1. That’s .0001 percent of available elected positions in the country.
However, in the 2012 election, when Johnson topped the ticket with former Orange County, California, Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, the Libertarians took one percent of the national presidential vote.
While that sounds trivial, in an election year when the Republican Party faces huge demographic obstacles, a full percentage point is a giant worry. And in a year when the party’s nominee is all but certain to be Donald Trump, a marginally credible Libertarian ticket is an absolute nightmare.
The area of overlap between the GOP and Libertarians is, generally, the leave-us-alone constituency, which prefers the least intrusive version of the federal government possible. Trump -- with promises of a federal deportation *******, maintenance and even expansion of the social safety net, and religious tests for immigration -- is anathema to many in that group.
For months, Republicans personally opposed to Trump have been actively, and sometimes very publicly, seeking a plausible alternative to the New York billionaire. So far, no plausible third-party candidate has emerged, and that’s great news for Johnson and Weld, who could well emerge as a safe harbor for small-government conservatives who can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump.
That’s not to say the conversion will be easy. The Libertarian convention had plenty of the moments of absurdity that, over the years, have relegated the party to the fringe in the past. Johnson, at one point, was booed for suggesting that the government has an interest in licensing people to drive motor vehicles. At one point, there was actually a discussion of whether or not blind people ought to be barred from driving. Late on Sunday, a candidate for party chairman demonstrated his commitment to transparency by performing a strip-tease on stage.
In the end, though, the party nominated what is probably its most qualified ticket ever, at least in terms of real experience in government. And for the #NeverTrump element of the Republican Party, that might be just enough to justify voting for them.
And for Trump, whose path to the White House, while real, is very narrow, that’s bad news.
omewhere between a discussion about whether or not blind people should be allowed to drive cars and a striptease by a hefty bearded man hoping to be elected party chairman, the Libertarian Party selected its presidential and vice presidential candidates for the 2016 election cycle. And, strange as it may seem, it could have a real impact on the results of the general election in November.
Meeting in Orlando, Florida, the Libertarians selected former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts governor William Weld as their presidential and vice presidential nominees, respectively. While neither is what you would call a political firebrand, both have served as the chief executive of a state, and that makes the Libertarian ticket a far more credible alternative to voters disillusioned with the two-party system than it has ever been in the past.
This is not to say that a Johnson-Weld ticket has any chance at all of winning the White House. At the moment, among the combined members of the House and Senate, state governors and members of state senates and the lower houses of state legislatures, the number of Libertarians currently holding elected office is: 1. That’s .0001 percent of available elected positions in the country.
However, in the 2012 election, when Johnson topped the ticket with former Orange County, California, Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, the Libertarians took one percent of the national presidential vote.
While that sounds trivial, in an election year when the Republican Party faces huge demographic obstacles, a full percentage point is a giant worry. And in a year when the party’s nominee is all but certain to be Donald Trump, a marginally credible Libertarian ticket is an absolute nightmare.
The area of overlap between the GOP and Libertarians is, generally, the leave-us-alone constituency, which prefers the least intrusive version of the federal government possible. Trump -- with promises of a federal deportation *******, maintenance and even expansion of the social safety net, and religious tests for immigration -- is anathema to many in that group.
For months, Republicans personally opposed to Trump have been actively, and sometimes very publicly, seeking a plausible alternative to the New York billionaire. So far, no plausible third-party candidate has emerged, and that’s great news for Johnson and Weld, who could well emerge as a safe harbor for small-government conservatives who can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump.
That’s not to say the conversion will be easy. The Libertarian convention had plenty of the moments of absurdity that, over the years, have relegated the party to the fringe in the past. Johnson, at one point, was booed for suggesting that the government has an interest in licensing people to drive motor vehicles. At one point, there was actually a discussion of whether or not blind people ought to be barred from driving. Late on Sunday, a candidate for party chairman demonstrated his commitment to transparency by performing a strip-tease on stage.
In the end, though, the party nominated what is probably its most qualified ticket ever, at least in terms of real experience in government. And for the #NeverTrump element of the Republican Party, that might be just enough to justify voting for them.
And for Trump, whose path to the White House, while real, is very narrow, that’s bad news.
Please America, lets not fuck this up. We can't let this idiot get the nuclear codes and sit in the Oval office trying to negotiate with foreign Nations. It would be a Disaster without a doubt. You think things are bad now, put Trump into office and watch how they go from bad to totally FUBAR!
I don't like Hillary at all, and I don't want Hill or Bill in the WhiteHouse personally, but even worse to be in the White House is Trump who we need to DUMP!
-----------
Hillary Clinton made the only anti-Trump argument that is needed
A wide variety of arguments can be made against electing Donald Trump president. But the one Hillary Clinton made on Thursday is good enough all by itself.
It's the same argument about tail risk that I made on Tuesday: Trump would expose the US to various potential disasters that would seem unthinkable with most other candidates of either party.
Clinton said it succinctly:
Donald Trump's ideas aren't just different. They are dangerously incoherent ...
This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes — because it's not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin ...
This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.
This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO — the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.
He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008 ...
We can't be certain which of these things he would do, but we can be certain that he's capable of doing any or all of them: Letting ISIS run wild. Launching a nuclear attack. Starting a ground war. These are all distinct possibilities with Donald Trump in charge.
A great thing about this argument is that it's a good reason for a conservative to vote against Trump, or for a moderate to do so, or a liberal, or a socialist, or somebody almost anywhere else on the political spectrum. If you're against nuclear war and global economic crisis, then this argument speaks to your concerns.
Another related great thing about this argument is that you do not need to believe that Clinton would be a great president or even a good one to be swayed by it. Clinton is not well-liked — her speech provided a strong case that you should vote for her even if you dislike her.
Indeed, the argument Clinton made on Thursday was very similar to the argument the conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke made last month when he explained why he would be voting for Clinton despite "her lies and all her empty promises."
"I mean, this man just can't be president," O'Rourke said of Trump on NPR's "Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me." "They've got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He's going to find it."
As for Clinton?
"She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters," O'Rourke said.
[BBB76: GREAT STATEMENT - HILL IS WRONG- BUT WITH NORMAL PARAMETERS. TRUMP IS JUST WAY OFF THE CUCKOO FARM.]
It's not inspiring, but it's a compelling message that could help Clinton build a broad majority coalition against Trump.
This is an editorial, not a news story. The opinions and conclusions expressed above are those of the author.
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/hill...nly-anti-trump-argument-that-is-needed-2016-6
I don't like Hillary at all, and I don't want Hill or Bill in the WhiteHouse personally, but even worse to be in the White House is Trump who we need to DUMP!
-----------
Hillary Clinton made the only anti-Trump argument that is needed
A wide variety of arguments can be made against electing Donald Trump president. But the one Hillary Clinton made on Thursday is good enough all by itself.
It's the same argument about tail risk that I made on Tuesday: Trump would expose the US to various potential disasters that would seem unthinkable with most other candidates of either party.
Clinton said it succinctly:
Donald Trump's ideas aren't just different. They are dangerously incoherent ...
This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes — because it's not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin ...
This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.
This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO — the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.
He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008 ...
We can't be certain which of these things he would do, but we can be certain that he's capable of doing any or all of them: Letting ISIS run wild. Launching a nuclear attack. Starting a ground war. These are all distinct possibilities with Donald Trump in charge.
A great thing about this argument is that it's a good reason for a conservative to vote against Trump, or for a moderate to do so, or a liberal, or a socialist, or somebody almost anywhere else on the political spectrum. If you're against nuclear war and global economic crisis, then this argument speaks to your concerns.
Another related great thing about this argument is that you do not need to believe that Clinton would be a great president or even a good one to be swayed by it. Clinton is not well-liked — her speech provided a strong case that you should vote for her even if you dislike her.
Indeed, the argument Clinton made on Thursday was very similar to the argument the conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke made last month when he explained why he would be voting for Clinton despite "her lies and all her empty promises."
"I mean, this man just can't be president," O'Rourke said of Trump on NPR's "Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me." "They've got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He's going to find it."
As for Clinton?
"She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters," O'Rourke said.
[BBB76: GREAT STATEMENT - HILL IS WRONG- BUT WITH NORMAL PARAMETERS. TRUMP IS JUST WAY OFF THE CUCKOO FARM.]
It's not inspiring, but it's a compelling message that could help Clinton build a broad majority coalition against Trump.
This is an editorial, not a news story. The opinions and conclusions expressed above are those of the author.
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/hill...nly-anti-trump-argument-that-is-needed-2016-6
Last edited:
Raj-the -cuck
Male
Who cares what Clintons say. They are not above the.Hillary should be thrown into jail for deleting emails. If she can control her husband how can she run the country. SO MR. TRUMP IS OUR NEXT PRESIDENT.Please America, lets not fuck this up. We can't let this idiot get the nuclear codes and sit in the Oval office trying to negotiate with foreign Nations. It would be a Disaster without a doubt. You think things are bad now, put Trump into office and watch how they go from bad to totally FUBAR!
I don't like Hillary at all, and I don't want Hill or Bill in the WhiteHouse personally, but even worse to be in the White House is Trump who we need to DUMP!
-----------
Hillary Clinton made the only anti-Trump argument that is needed
A wide variety of arguments can be made against electing Donald Trump president. But the one Hillary Clinton made on Thursday is good enough all by itself.
It's the same argument about tail risk that I made on Tuesday: Trump would expose the US to various potential disasters that would seem unthinkable with most other candidates of either party.
Clinton said it succinctly:
Donald Trump's ideas aren't just different. They are dangerously incoherent ...
This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes — because it's not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin ...
This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.
This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO — the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.
He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008 ...
We can't be certain which of these things he would do, but we can be certain that he's capable of doing any or all of them: Letting ISIS run wild. Launching a nuclear attack. Starting a ground war. These are all distinct possibilities with Donald Trump in charge.
A great thing about this argument is that it's a good reason for a conservative to vote against Trump, or for a moderate to do so, or a liberal, or a socialist, or somebody almost anywhere else on the political spectrum. If you're against nuclear war and global economic crisis, then this argument speaks to your concerns.
Another related great thing about this argument is that you do not need to believe that Clinton would be a great president or even a good one to be swayed by it. Clinton is not well-liked — her speech provided a strong case that you should vote for her even if you dislike her.
Indeed, the argument Clinton made on Thursday was very similar to the argument the conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke made last month when he explained why he would be voting for Clinton despite "her lies and all her empty promises."
"I mean, this man just can't be president," O'Rourke said of Trump on NPR's "Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me." "They've got this button, you know, in the briefcase. He's going to find it."
As for Clinton?
"She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters," O'Rourke said.
[BBB76: GREAT STATEMENT - HILL IS WRONG- BUT WITH NORMAL PARAMETERS. TRUMP IS JUST WAY OFF THE CUCKOO FARM.]
It's not inspiring, but it's a compelling message that could help Clinton build a broad majority coalition against Trump.
This is an editorial, not a news story. The opinions and conclusions expressed above are those of the author.
ref: http://www.businessinsider.com/hill...nly-anti-trump-argument-that-is-needed-2016-6
Similar threads
