Can Trump have one News Conference without Slamming and Insulting the Democrats?

[Markle]

Sure trump will bash obama ,,,He'll bash anyone,lie about anyone Remember his lies about Obamas citizenship??? If I was Obama I'd have gone after that pos every day of my presidency,,

Who did petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama batter for EIGHT YEARS?

Now he has bought an $8 million home in Washington, along with one in California and another in Hawaii. In addition to the Obama family, plus his mother-in-law Barack Obama has also moved his close, long-time...personal adviser Valarie Jarrett. If I'm not mistaken, he knew Valarie long before he met Michelle.

The other purpose for the house in Washington, according to the Obama regime is to fight and undermine the Trump administration.

 

[Markle]

NO not at all the degrees were quite different GWB started a war of BS Started a great recession on his watch etc etc etc and Obama never gave him both barrels Trump is crazy will say anything to make himself look good or protect his lying self

 

[Markle]

No, you have nothing. Hence, no Obamacare replacement plan. The reason is obvious; you exaggerated the impact of Obamacare, lack the brain power to devise a replacement, and were just a bunch of bullshitting, lying, posturing douchebags.

How long did it take to pass Obamacare? What bribes were used? What did we know about what was being crammed up our throats?

 

[Markle]

Nonsense. Your desperation is beyond belief.

No, you're in denial because you cannot admit that Conservatives cannot win elections based on the merits of their ideas, so they have to prevent people from voting, collude with hostile foreign powers, and gerrymander districts to such a degree that even the Conservative-leaning Supreme Court throws their redistricting maps out. If your ideas had any merits, none of that would be necessary because people would vote for them. But the only way Conservatives can win elections is if they bend (or break) the rules. That's because their ideas and policies are so unpopular, they have to rely on tricks to win elections.

Cute try. You're so desperate.

President Donald Trump Hillary Clinton on the merits of our ideas. Hillary Clinton, as self-avowed Communist and former Green Czar for Obama, Van Jones said, Hillary took over a billion dollars and flushed it down the toilet. You had a badly flawed, ill candidate who could not get away from all her criminal activities.

 

[Markle]

You fucking idiot...$6K/$12K is the out of pocket cap. You don't seem to know anything about the law you oppose. What a moron.

You really do go out of your way to prove your ignorance, don't you?

Yes, the $6,000 and $12,000 is the cap on what a young healthy person or couple has to spend, each year, before a nickel of insurance kicks in to pay.

If the low cost Bronze plan is what a young, healthy person or couple can afford, how can they afford $500-$1,000 a month in medical expenses? If they can afford $500-$1,000 a month, in addition to their insurance payments, why not buy a better plan?

You're just talking nonsense now so please, have your last, desperate word.

 

[Markle]

They can afford it, it just requires doing the hard work of figuring out taxation and fee rates. There are dozens of countries with populations the same as or smaller than CA that have single-payer health care systems. Those systems routinely beat us in nearly every single health metric there is including life expectancy, infant mortality, and cost per patient.

Your ignorance is getting boring. People and companies are already fleeing California due to the astronomical costs, taxes, and fees. Ignorant about life expectancy and infant mortality as well.

I'll just respond to the cost of [...]payer, from the Los Angeles Times. A source I'm sure even you can accept.

JUNE 1, 2017, 5:17 P.M.
REPORTING FROM SACRAMENTO
Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate — without a way to pay its $400-billion tab
Patrick McGreevy

A proposal to adopt a single-payer healthcare system for California took an initial step forward Thursday when the state Senate approved a bare-bones bill that lacks a method for paying the $400-billion cost of the plan.

[...]

Republican senators opposed the bill as a threat to the state’s finances.

“We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) said. “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.”

[...]

Single-payer healthcare plan advances in California Senate — without a way to pay its $400-billion tab

 

[Markle]

Conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. They supported Jim Crow, they supported segregation, they opposed the Civil Rights Act, they opposed the Voting Rights Act. They oppose abortion. They love Putin. Their tax cuts don't work. They oppose SSM. They find themselves consistently on the wrong side of history when it comes to everything. Is there even one piece of legislation they passed in the last 37 years that didn't have (un)intended negative consequences? Can't think of a single thing.

Loser and liar.

 

[HenryBHough]

Indeed President (you'll get used to it) Trump could...but then you libbies would whine about being neglected.

 

[Markle]

Christians also supported slavery and used the Bible to justify it. Religion spanned both belief systems then, just as it does today. Republicans did not get the CRA passed. More Democrats voted for the CRA. You are spreading a known falsehood like the good Conservative-Russian puppet you are. BTW - the Republican Party ran a platform against the CRA in 1964.

Civil Right Act - 1964
House Vote
289 Yes votes (153 Democrats, 136 Republicans)
126 Nay votes (91 Democrats, 35 Republicans)

Senate Vote
73 Yes votes (46 Democrats, 27 Republicans)
27 No votes (21 Democrats, 6 Republicans)]

The Civil rights Act - 1964

n June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73–27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson Oon July 2, 1964.[20]

Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

• The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
• Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
• The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
• The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).

By party[edit]
The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

 

[Markle]

Yep. You're a speed reader and know which parts makes your case but you love mystery so won't post anything substative.

Unlike you, I'm not coming into the subject with no prior knowledge. Those links I provided you are links I had read before. Right now, it feels like you're just making excuse after excuse for avoiding reality.

You only know what has been fed to you by the George Soros cabal. You prove that with each post.

 

[Faun]

Conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. They supported Jim Crow, they supported segregation, they opposed the Civil Rights Act, they opposed the Voting Rights Act. They oppose abortion. They love Putin. Their tax cuts don't work. They oppose SSM. They find themselves consistently on the wrong side of history when it comes to everything. Is there even one piece of legislation they passed in the last 37 years that didn't have (un)intended negative consequences? Can't think of a single thing.

Loser and liar.

True, when you break it down by political party (back then), more Republicans than Democrats supported civil rights for blacks.

... however ....

when you break it down by ideology (1964) ......

The Liberal north ... 90%

The Conservative south ... 7%

 

[Markle]

Regarding the stupid flaunted 3% overhead for Medicare. Common sense should tell anyone that there is nothing the government can do more effectively and efficiently than private industry.

JUN 30, 2011 @ 03:35 PM 32,980 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

Avik Roy, Forbes Staff
(This post is an edited excerpt of my recent article for the Summer 2011 issue of National Affairs, entitled “Saving Medicare from Itself.”)

Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies

First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don't have this kind of outside or off-budget help. Medicare's administration is also tax-exempt, whereas insurers must pay state excise taxes on the premiums they charge; the tax is counted as an administrative cost. In addition, Medicare's massive size leads to economies of scale that private insurers could also achieve, if not exceed, were they equally large.

Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic

But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second's will have a ratio of only 3%. This hardly means the second patient's insurance is more efficient — administratively, the patients are identical. Instead, the more favorable figure is produced by the second patient's more severe illness.

Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary

A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program's administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers. In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)

Remember these points the next time someone tries to tell you that Medicare is “more efficient” than private insurance.
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

Derp has also lied about life expectancy and infant mortality. All because Progressives only swallow the George Soros Cool Aid.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I am at the point where I can't stand hearing his bullshit...

"We are going to get Millions and Millions back to work" <<< Loves to exaggerated


BTW: the democrats will never vote on Trumpcare who only helps the high income..He loves to divide the country and distract from what he is really doing..




View attachment 132480



Trump blasts 'obstruction' by Democrats on fixing healthcare

No he can not, they are still having hissy fits.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Time for the Press to start laughing at him.

When have they not? The American public laughs at the so-called press: only 6% of Americans trust the press.

No, flat out laugh AT him at the pressers. When he calls them "fake news" jut roll the eyes and say "whatever" and laugh.

 

[deanrd]

No, you have nothing. Hence, no Obamacare replacement plan. The reason is obvious; you exaggerated the impact of Obamacare, lack the brain power to devise a replacement, and were just a bunch of bullshitting, lying, posturing douchebags.

How long did it take to pass Obamacare? What bribes were used? What did we know about what was being crammed up our throats?

18 months, unlike the GOP plan which is like 18 days. Talk about cramming.

 

[The Derp]

Regarding the stupid flaunted 3% overhead for Medicare. Common sense should tell anyone that there is nothing the government can do more effectively and efficiently than private industry.

So you say here that Medicare doesn't have overhead as low as claimed, yet the chief reason for why that's the case is because it contracts with private companies!

 

[The Derp]

You only know what has been fed to you by the George Soros cabal. You prove that with each post.

I have never met Soros, nor am I in communication with him. Seems you're gaslighting the media so you don't have to accept the conclusions.

 

[The Derp]

Loser and liar.

Of course, you and I both know that the parties had switched in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Those who used to be Democrats turned to Republicans by Goldwater, and the Republicans turned into Democrats. Why do you think the Conservative South is Republican now? If what you're saying is true, it would be Democratic. So you ignore the Southern Strategy because acknowledging it would undermine your argument that Conservatives support Civil Rights (they don't).

 

[ptbw forever]

Conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. They supported Jim Crow, they supported segregation, they opposed the Civil Rights Act, they opposed the Voting Rights Act. They oppose abortion. They love Putin. Their tax cuts don't work. They oppose SSM. They find themselves consistently on the wrong side of history when it comes to everything. Is there even one piece of legislation they passed in the last 37 years that didn't have (un)intended negative consequences? Can't think of a single thing.

Loser and liar.

True, when you break it down by political party (back then), more Republicans than Democrats supported civil rights for blacks.

... however ....

when you break it down by ideology (1964) ......

The Liberal north ... 90%

The Conservative south ... 7%

There were no "liberals" in 1964, moron.

Today's SJW crap would be unanimously rejected by both parties in both the North and South.

 

[Faun]

Conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. They supported Jim Crow, they supported segregation, they opposed the Civil Rights Act, they opposed the Voting Rights Act. They oppose abortion. They love Putin. Their tax cuts don't work. They oppose SSM. They find themselves consistently on the wrong side of history when it comes to everything. Is there even one piece of legislation they passed in the last 37 years that didn't have (un)intended negative consequences? Can't think of a single thing.

Loser and liar.

True, when you break it down by political party (back then), more Republicans than Democrats supported civil rights for blacks.

... however ....

when you break it down by ideology (1964) ......

The Liberal north ... 90%

The Conservative south ... 7%

There were no "liberals" in 1964, moron.

Today's SJW crap would be unanimously rejected by both parties in both the North and South.