Moving forward

[TemplarKormac]

You grasp that Republicans hold the house, right?

The same Republicans who despise Trump.

If the Republicans play the Democrat's game, Trump will use his pen and phone. Remember who set that precedent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

You admit to being a racist homophobe?

Interesting.

We admit that you're a vile demagogue who thinks that slander and libel are legitimate discourse.

You're pissing on your shoes.

 

[HenryBHough]

If those alleged FEMA camps exist would it not be foolish to waste them?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

The left - Congress - worked with Bush, particularly after 9/11. Obama had just as much dignity and put up with a lot of crap from the opposition. Unlike Bush, the right decided to obstruct everything before Obama even entered office. This was clearly stated. Has that happened before? I honestly don't think so. Each of these things sets precedents for future excesses. So when does someone step up and say enough is enough?

I admit - there's a side to me that would relish it if the Dems did to the Pubs just what the Pubs have been doing to Obama. But that wouldn't good for the country. I'm just not sure what ability exists to overcome this on either side?

Actually, there WAS some noise about opposing his VIEWS, not so much about the person. And if you remember, ObamaCare was rammed into being without all it's details intact by a FULLY PARTISAN House and Senate controlled by the Dems for a very short time at the BEGINNING of his term.

The thing is...what I remember about Obamacare is less that it was "rammed" in that they had every opportunity to be involved in it, but they refused because it was "Obamacare". The total irony of it was that Obamacare used many components that the Republicans had previously supported or even proposed - until it was Obama. That is hard to understand in any other way than that it was because it was Obama proposing it.

The Dems didn't really take the initiative to correct all their OTHER issues while they HAD a lock on the WH and the Congress.

Losing side SHOULD regroup, rethink, AND LEARN from their mistakes. And prepare to be the OPPOSITION.
Organizing that opposition is MORE important than trying to toss banana peels at a mandate election like this one was. Buck up.. Sharpen the pencils.. Figure out how to be heard..

Absolutely - and frankly it's a wake up call to BOTH parties, because though the Republicans "won" they didn't - Trump won. And he's going to remake the party or splinter it. Maybe not a bad thing. How the Dems approach this will be interesting. Their midlife crisis has been less public then the Republicans.

How do you see this as a mandate election with such a narrow victory - narrow in that he did not win the popular vote?

The way ObamaCare was written ACTUALLY -- is that it was NOT written at all. It's was a massive 9000 pg (?) "fill in the blank" exercise. Every other line of the text was suffixed with ".... as the Secretary shall determine"".

So when Nancy Pelosi said -- "we won't know whats in the bill til we pass it" -- Folks thought she was just a moron. Turns out -- she was confessing that they had NO IDEA what the law was gonna look like until the Massive Minions of Morons at the Agencies slowly and ackwardly penciled in the details. A process that STILL isn't done or implemented !!!!!

So just parroting that it was a "republican bill" is just the spin you consumed. We STILL don't have full disclosure or implementation of "what's in it"..

It'll be repealed before it's ever fully disclosed, they may as well it's imploding anyway

Do you really think that is good? Forget the partisan stuff for a moment. A lot of people have insurance that didn't before but needed it. People with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance and that is HUGE for many people. Medicaid expansion has helped another huge group of people - people who aren't poor enough to qualify for programs that help the poor, but aren't wealthy enough to afford insurance, or can't afford the high cost of prescription co pays and other things that might not be covered. I totally agree there are problems, but I don't agree with repealing (no surprise right?).

What's going to happen to all those people who are suddenly stripped of insurance?

What's going to happen to people with pre-existing conditions who lose their insurance and can't get new insurance or can't afford the suddenly exhorberant cost?

If you FORCE insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions without simultaneiously providing a large pool of compartively healthy people to offset the cost for them (which can only be done through a mandate) - then rates are going to skyrocket for everyone in order to cover the cost. That's sort of happening anyway because there aren't yet enough healthy people enrolled.

I've heard claims that they'll replace it with tax credits and allowing people to cross state lines and buy cheaper insurance but that ignores to huge realities.

Tax credits are only workable if you earn enough to begin with so you can pay up front for all your costs right?

The idea of crossing state lines is also not well thought out. Insurance companies compute their rates based actuarials, on the characteristics of each state. They look at demographics that can effect health like jobs, obesity, smoking, cancer rates, population age etc etc - and those are what create the rates for each state. So a state like mine, WV, has a pretty high insurance cost. Main industries are mining, timber, farming - all with high rates injury and chronic health problems. Obesity is also high (thankgodformississippiwearentthehighest), smoking is high, rates of preventative healthcare low and the overall population is aging. Another state with different demographics and risk factors may have a lower rate BECAUSE of those risks. So if people start being allowed to buy insurance across state lines in order to take advantage of states with lower risk factors and lower costs then what are the insurance companies going to do to offset that? My guess is increase it everywhere, in order to accomodate the changes or - adjust the rate to the individual based on where they live, in which case it won't be any cheaper.

Just from a personal perspective - it's made a difference to my family. Prescription drug costs - even with what my insurance covered was over $400 a month (for my husband). Now it's more like $50. That is a lot of money and repealing Obamacare would bring those costs back.

So while Obamacare itself has some problems - are they so insurmountable the entire thing must be scrapped...and where does that leave millions of people?

what about the people that pay three times what they used to and can no longer afford to use their insurance just so your subsidies can be available. Do you have any compassion for those people? would you meet them in the middle and pay maybe 200 a month for that drug so that someone else might be able to afford to see a doctor also?
There is no free. Remember, if that 400 dollar drug now costs you 50, someone else is paying the 350 for you. Is that fair?

 

[Moonglow]

Trump ain't shit till January 20th...

Really?

Then why will he board Airforce One tomorrow, while you sit in your single wide?

Ive always wanted to live in a trailer park just to experience it. But Ive never had the nerve to leave my large secluded property. Im not sure I could handle kids on my grass. Their drunk moms during the day while their boyfriends are hard at work at the welding shop could be a bonus though.

I moved out of the suburbs because of that very reason, now live on 43 acres, no one is close enough to see...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

We "deplorables" spoke....you lost

Yes, you are fucking deplorable.

I bet your kids are so proud of you. Hey everybody! Our mommy voted for the pussy grabber!

I feel sorry for those kids having to deal with you as their "mother", you disgusting fucking piece of shit.

Your post is a perfect example of the divisiveness of the Left.

How can we ever come together when the Left is full of hate for anyone who disagrees with them

Typical leftist...and he'd be wise to leave my children out of comments...rules are rules

 

[NYcarbineer]

You grasp that Republicans hold the house, right?

The same Republicans who despise Trump.

If the Republicans play the Democrat's game, Trump will use his pen and phone. Remember who set that precedent.

Notice the flip flops? It's a flip flop epidemic.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

We did give him a chance, though unwillingly because he's a Socialist whackjob, but I must say that he exceeded our expectations... he has done significantly more damage to this nation, significantly faster than we expected.

Anyway, on the topic of Trump, are you blind enough to think Clinton can bring us together better than he can? I mean, if you think so, we could just have Trump lie even more often, sell policies and pardons, and start allowing people to die. Democrats seem to embrace that sort of thing, given the amount of votes Hillary got.

Also, hi Coyote~<3

I didn't say Clinton could have. In fact, had she won, I would be asking the same question of her - what will she and her supporters do to help heal this country? In fact, a while back I started a thread on that - for both candidates, but it got pretty much derailed with the usual partisan fighting.

Aww no "hi" for me? That makes me sad.

To be fair, you really don't have to ask what either one will do to help the Nation, as both just want to help themselves. Trump is there to keep Clinton out, no more, no less. He's just less evil.

Sorry sweetie - I'm being rude, hiya back at you

I don't think either one is evil - many Clinton voters voted to keep Trump out, many Trump voters voted to keep Clinton out.

Typically elections at the end of a two-term presidency favor the opposing party, in that this aspect, the results were totally predictable. What obscured many things were the dynamics of the individual characters.

Given the leaked emails and the results of her holding public offices, it's pretty clear Clinton is evil, Trump is just self-serving. Things Trump has done in the past just amount to being a jerk. Things Hillary has done have resulted in destroyed lives, deaths, criminal activity in general.

I'm a little proud of myself, I managed to accurately predict this election, and a few of the states Trump would get~
I told a friend a month ago that Trump would get Florida~

I don't agree. One is the leaked emails - which represent little more then a huge data dump, with no time (or political will) to try and verify in terms of accuracy, context etc. There were many instances where it was shown there were alterations - just for an example. They represent an unverified source of information that people take for granted is accurate. We also no NOTHING about emails from Trump's side do we? How can you say he is not "evil" if you don't have his leaked emails? All you can say is you have no way of knowing.

I don't think in terms of "evil" with most people (there are some I would classify as evil - Hitler and his associates, the leaders of ISIS) - but neither Trump nor Hillary are even remotely comparable. The accusations of "deaths" falls right into Conspiracy Theory Land - so I don't grant that legitimacy. I'd rather go with what can be proven by facts and I won't use the "evil" label.

When a person engages in "business practices" that result in slews of people, mostly small businessmen and vendors - going unpaid for the work they did - is that not "destroying lives" and "criminal activity in general"? That's more then being "a jerk" in my book.

And - your prediction was good! Congrats

So, you think the sheer volume of all those emails and contents therein were merely fabrications? Not only those, but we have confirmation of her involvement in various criminal activity. Even ignoring the volume and contents, and the file leaks, there's the fact that it wasn't anything new, but confirmation of what we already knew. Would you be willing to claim Hillary isn't corrupt?

I think in terms of evil. If you're not a friend of justice, you're a harbinger of varying degrees evil.

It depends on the quality of labor. I don't know enough about the incident to give an opinion on it.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Trump ain't shit till January 20th...

Really?

Then why will he board Airforce One tomorrow, while you sit in your single wide?

Ive always wanted to live in a trailer park just to experience it. But Ive never had the nerve to leave my large secluded property. Im not sure I could handle kids on my grass. Their drunk moms during the day while their boyfriends are hard at work at the welding shop could be a bonus though.

I moved out of the suburbs because of that very reason, now live on 43 acres, no one is close enough to see...

I only have ten, but its all wooded and the house is pretty much dead center, so I cant see anyone or hear anyone either.
43 is a nice piece of property,

 

[Coyote]

Actually, there WAS some noise about opposing his VIEWS, not so much about the person. And if you remember, ObamaCare was rammed into being without all it's details intact by a FULLY PARTISAN House and Senate controlled by the Dems for a very short time at the BEGINNING of his term.

The thing is...what I remember about Obamacare is less that it was "rammed" in that they had every opportunity to be involved in it, but they refused because it was "Obamacare". The total irony of it was that Obamacare used many components that the Republicans had previously supported or even proposed - until it was Obama. That is hard to understand in any other way than that it was because it was Obama proposing it.

The Dems didn't really take the initiative to correct all their OTHER issues while they HAD a lock on the WH and the Congress.

Losing side SHOULD regroup, rethink, AND LEARN from their mistakes. And prepare to be the OPPOSITION.
Organizing that opposition is MORE important than trying to toss banana peels at a mandate election like this one was. Buck up.. Sharpen the pencils.. Figure out how to be heard..

Absolutely - and frankly it's a wake up call to BOTH parties, because though the Republicans "won" they didn't - Trump won. And he's going to remake the party or splinter it. Maybe not a bad thing. How the Dems approach this will be interesting. Their midlife crisis has been less public then the Republicans.

How do you see this as a mandate election with such a narrow victory - narrow in that he did not win the popular vote?

The way ObamaCare was written ACTUALLY -- is that it was NOT written at all. It's was a massive 9000 pg (?) "fill in the blank" exercise. Every other line of the text was suffixed with ".... as the Secretary shall determine"".

So when Nancy Pelosi said -- "we won't know whats in the bill til we pass it" -- Folks thought she was just a moron. Turns out -- she was confessing that they had NO IDEA what the law was gonna look like until the Massive Minions of Morons at the Agencies slowly and ackwardly penciled in the details. A process that STILL isn't done or implemented !!!!!

So just parroting that it was a "republican bill" is just the spin you consumed. We STILL don't have full disclosure or implementation of "what's in it"..

It'll be repealed before it's ever fully disclosed, they may as well it's imploding anyway

Do you really think that is good? Forget the partisan stuff for a moment. A lot of people have insurance that didn't before but needed it. People with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance and that is HUGE for many people. Medicaid expansion has helped another huge group of people - people who aren't poor enough to qualify for programs that help the poor, but aren't wealthy enough to afford insurance, or can't afford the high cost of prescription co pays and other things that might not be covered. I totally agree there are problems, but I don't agree with repealing (no surprise right?).

What's going to happen to all those people who are suddenly stripped of insurance?

What's going to happen to people with pre-existing conditions who lose their insurance and can't get new insurance or can't afford the suddenly exhorberant cost?

If you FORCE insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions without simultaneiously providing a large pool of compartively healthy people to offset the cost for them (which can only be done through a mandate) - then rates are going to skyrocket for everyone in order to cover the cost. That's sort of happening anyway because there aren't yet enough healthy people enrolled.

I've heard claims that they'll replace it with tax credits and allowing people to cross state lines and buy cheaper insurance but that ignores to huge realities.

Tax credits are only workable if you earn enough to begin with so you can pay up front for all your costs right?

The idea of crossing state lines is also not well thought out. Insurance companies compute their rates based actuarials, on the characteristics of each state. They look at demographics that can effect health like jobs, obesity, smoking, cancer rates, population age etc etc - and those are what create the rates for each state. So a state like mine, WV, has a pretty high insurance cost. Main industries are mining, timber, farming - all with high rates injury and chronic health problems. Obesity is also high (thankgodformississippiwearentthehighest), smoking is high, rates of preventative healthcare low and the overall population is aging. Another state with different demographics and risk factors may have a lower rate BECAUSE of those risks. So if people start being allowed to buy insurance across state lines in order to take advantage of states with lower risk factors and lower costs then what are the insurance companies going to do to offset that? My guess is increase it everywhere, in order to accomodate the changes or - adjust the rate to the individual based on where they live, in which case it won't be any cheaper.

Just from a personal perspective - it's made a difference to my family. Prescription drug costs - even with what my insurance covered was over $400 a month (for my husband). Now it's more like $50. That is a lot of money and repealing Obamacare would bring those costs back.

So while Obamacare itself has some problems - are they so insurmountable the entire thing must be scrapped...and where does that leave millions of people?

what about the people that pay three times what they used to and can no longer afford to use their insurance just so your subsidies can be available. Do you have any compassion for those people? would you meet them in the middle and pay maybe 200 a month for that drug so that someone else might be able to afford to see a doctor also?
There is no free. Remember, if that 400 dollar drug now costs you 50, someone else is paying the 350 for you. Is that fair?

What about them?

How about fixing it so it works for everyone? Do I have compassion for them? Sure. Do YOU have compassion for those who will be affected by repealing Obamacare? Maybe not so much?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

We "deplorables" spoke....you lost

Yes, you are fucking deplorable.

I bet your kids are so proud of you. Hey everybody! Our mommy voted for the pussy grabber!

I feel sorry for those kids having to deal with you as their "mother", you disgusting fucking piece of shit.

Your post is a perfect example of the divisiveness of the Left.

How can we ever come together when the Left is full of hate for anyone who disagrees with them

maybe we need to evaluate why they hate us to start with. What is it about their opinion that they are afraid of losing?
Take the first step then see if they will move in toward you.

 

[Moonglow]

Trump ain't shit till January 20th...

Really?

Then why will he board Airforce One tomorrow, while you sit in your single wide?

Ive always wanted to live in a trailer park just to experience it. But Ive never had the nerve to leave my large secluded property. Im not sure I could handle kids on my grass. Their drunk moms during the day while their boyfriends are hard at work at the welding shop could be a bonus though.

I moved out of the suburbs because of that very reason, now live on 43 acres, no one is close enough to see...

I only have ten, but its all wooded and the house is pretty much dead center, so I cant see anyone or hear anyone either.
43 is a nice piece of property,

It was such a bargain I couldn't pass it up, compared to land closer to NW Arkansas that was 20k an acre...plus it is in a recreational area. The Elk River is 4 miles away and then their is Grand Lake and the Three Rivers area within twenty miles.....

 

[Moonglow]

The thing is...what I remember about Obamacare is less that it was "rammed" in that they had every opportunity to be involved in it, but they refused because it was "Obamacare". The total irony of it was that Obamacare used many components that the Republicans had previously supported or even proposed - until it was Obama. That is hard to understand in any other way than that it was because it was Obama proposing it.

Absolutely - and frankly it's a wake up call to BOTH parties, because though the Republicans "won" they didn't - Trump won. And he's going to remake the party or splinter it. Maybe not a bad thing. How the Dems approach this will be interesting. Their midlife crisis has been less public then the Republicans.

How do you see this as a mandate election with such a narrow victory - narrow in that he did not win the popular vote?

The way ObamaCare was written ACTUALLY -- is that it was NOT written at all. It's was a massive 9000 pg (?) "fill in the blank" exercise. Every other line of the text was suffixed with ".... as the Secretary shall determine"".

So when Nancy Pelosi said -- "we won't know whats in the bill til we pass it" -- Folks thought she was just a moron. Turns out -- she was confessing that they had NO IDEA what the law was gonna look like until the Massive Minions of Morons at the Agencies slowly and ackwardly penciled in the details. A process that STILL isn't done or implemented !!!!!

So just parroting that it was a "republican bill" is just the spin you consumed. We STILL don't have full disclosure or implementation of "what's in it"..

It'll be repealed before it's ever fully disclosed, they may as well it's imploding anyway

Do you really think that is good? Forget the partisan stuff for a moment. A lot of people have insurance that didn't before but needed it. People with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance and that is HUGE for many people. Medicaid expansion has helped another huge group of people - people who aren't poor enough to qualify for programs that help the poor, but aren't wealthy enough to afford insurance, or can't afford the high cost of prescription co pays and other things that might not be covered. I totally agree there are problems, but I don't agree with repealing (no surprise right?).

What's going to happen to all those people who are suddenly stripped of insurance?

What's going to happen to people with pre-existing conditions who lose their insurance and can't get new insurance or can't afford the suddenly exhorberant cost?

If you FORCE insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions without simultaneiously providing a large pool of compartively healthy people to offset the cost for them (which can only be done through a mandate) - then rates are going to skyrocket for everyone in order to cover the cost. That's sort of happening anyway because there aren't yet enough healthy people enrolled.

I've heard claims that they'll replace it with tax credits and allowing people to cross state lines and buy cheaper insurance but that ignores to huge realities.

Tax credits are only workable if you earn enough to begin with so you can pay up front for all your costs right?

The idea of crossing state lines is also not well thought out. Insurance companies compute their rates based actuarials, on the characteristics of each state. They look at demographics that can effect health like jobs, obesity, smoking, cancer rates, population age etc etc - and those are what create the rates for each state. So a state like mine, WV, has a pretty high insurance cost. Main industries are mining, timber, farming - all with high rates injury and chronic health problems. Obesity is also high (thankgodformississippiwearentthehighest), smoking is high, rates of preventative healthcare low and the overall population is aging. Another state with different demographics and risk factors may have a lower rate BECAUSE of those risks. So if people start being allowed to buy insurance across state lines in order to take advantage of states with lower risk factors and lower costs then what are the insurance companies going to do to offset that? My guess is increase it everywhere, in order to accomodate the changes or - adjust the rate to the individual based on where they live, in which case it won't be any cheaper.

Just from a personal perspective - it's made a difference to my family. Prescription drug costs - even with what my insurance covered was over $400 a month (for my husband). Now it's more like $50. That is a lot of money and repealing Obamacare would bring those costs back.

So while Obamacare itself has some problems - are they so insurmountable the entire thing must be scrapped...and where does that leave millions of people?

what about the people that pay three times what they used to and can no longer afford to use their insurance just so your subsidies can be available. Do you have any compassion for those people? would you meet them in the middle and pay maybe 200 a month for that drug so that someone else might be able to afford to see a doctor also?
There is no free. Remember, if that 400 dollar drug now costs you 50, someone else is paying the 350 for you. Is that fair?

What about them?

How about fixing it so it works for everyone? Do I have compassion for them? Sure. Do YOU have compassion for those who will be affected by repealing Obamacare? Maybe not so much?

My wife will lose her job, but I am sure she will get another...

 

[gipper]

We "deplorables" spoke....you lost

Yes, you are fucking deplorable.

I bet your kids are so proud of you. Hey everybody! Our mommy voted for the pussy grabber!

I feel sorry for those kids having to deal with you as their "mother", you disgusting fucking piece of shit.

Your post is a perfect example of the divisiveness of the Left.

How can we ever come together when the Left is full of hate for anyone who disagrees with them

maybe we need to evaluate why they hate us to start with. What is it about their opinion that they are afraid of losing?
Take the first step then see if they will move in toward you.

Did that...in the 1980s. I learned it is not possible.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My bias are clear, as I presented. I'm honest about them. Are you about your own? Did you give Obama that chance?

Believe it or not, I stayed up all night to watch Obama's inauguration on Jan 20, 2008. I had a piss poor sleep schedule then, but I sure as hell wasn't going to miss witnessing a colossally historic event. That was history. I wasn't going to deny the fact that he was the first black man to ascend to the White House. Despite voting for McCain, I was hopeful Obama would bring about a better future. Despite all the bitterness I had against him, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I knew I couldn't always be the extremist that I was, and so my trek to the center of the political spectrum began that morning.

I have biases of my own, but I am constantly learning to overcome them to see the reality that IS reality. I try not to remain attached to them. Attached to hatred. If I was so dedicated to my hatred, the moment that hatred is taken away would be the moment I had to deal with the underlying pain. Never.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Trump ain't shit till January 20th...

Really?

Then why will he board Airforce One tomorrow, while you sit in your single wide?

Ive always wanted to live in a trailer park just to experience it. But Ive never had the nerve to leave my large secluded property. Im not sure I could handle kids on my grass. Their drunk moms during the day while their boyfriends are hard at work at the welding shop could be a bonus though.

I moved out of the suburbs because of that very reason, now live on 43 acres, no one is close enough to see...

I only have ten, but its all wooded and the house is pretty much dead center, so I cant see anyone or hear anyone either.
43 is a nice piece of property,

It was such a bargain I couldn't pass it up, compared to land closer to NW Arkansas that was 20k an acre...plus it is in a recreational area. The Elk River is 4 miles away and then their is Grand Lake and the Three Rivers area within twenty miles.....

I was left 50 acres in Parthenon when my uncle died years ago. we knew this because he had told us and showed us the will. However as soon as he died his brother ransacked the house (trailer) and the will "dissapeared" and the property had to go to the closest living relative.
I was bummed.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The thing is...what I remember about Obamacare is less that it was "rammed" in that they had every opportunity to be involved in it, but they refused because it was "Obamacare". The total irony of it was that Obamacare used many components that the Republicans had previously supported or even proposed - until it was Obama. That is hard to understand in any other way than that it was because it was Obama proposing it.

Absolutely - and frankly it's a wake up call to BOTH parties, because though the Republicans "won" they didn't - Trump won. And he's going to remake the party or splinter it. Maybe not a bad thing. How the Dems approach this will be interesting. Their midlife crisis has been less public then the Republicans.

How do you see this as a mandate election with such a narrow victory - narrow in that he did not win the popular vote?

The way ObamaCare was written ACTUALLY -- is that it was NOT written at all. It's was a massive 9000 pg (?) "fill in the blank" exercise. Every other line of the text was suffixed with ".... as the Secretary shall determine"".

So when Nancy Pelosi said -- "we won't know whats in the bill til we pass it" -- Folks thought she was just a moron. Turns out -- she was confessing that they had NO IDEA what the law was gonna look like until the Massive Minions of Morons at the Agencies slowly and ackwardly penciled in the details. A process that STILL isn't done or implemented !!!!!

So just parroting that it was a "republican bill" is just the spin you consumed. We STILL don't have full disclosure or implementation of "what's in it"..

It'll be repealed before it's ever fully disclosed, they may as well it's imploding anyway

Do you really think that is good? Forget the partisan stuff for a moment. A lot of people have insurance that didn't before but needed it. People with pre-existing conditions can now get insurance and that is HUGE for many people. Medicaid expansion has helped another huge group of people - people who aren't poor enough to qualify for programs that help the poor, but aren't wealthy enough to afford insurance, or can't afford the high cost of prescription co pays and other things that might not be covered. I totally agree there are problems, but I don't agree with repealing (no surprise right?).

What's going to happen to all those people who are suddenly stripped of insurance?

What's going to happen to people with pre-existing conditions who lose their insurance and can't get new insurance or can't afford the suddenly exhorberant cost?

If you FORCE insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions without simultaneiously providing a large pool of compartively healthy people to offset the cost for them (which can only be done through a mandate) - then rates are going to skyrocket for everyone in order to cover the cost. That's sort of happening anyway because there aren't yet enough healthy people enrolled.

I've heard claims that they'll replace it with tax credits and allowing people to cross state lines and buy cheaper insurance but that ignores to huge realities.

Tax credits are only workable if you earn enough to begin with so you can pay up front for all your costs right?

The idea of crossing state lines is also not well thought out. Insurance companies compute their rates based actuarials, on the characteristics of each state. They look at demographics that can effect health like jobs, obesity, smoking, cancer rates, population age etc etc - and those are what create the rates for each state. So a state like mine, WV, has a pretty high insurance cost. Main industries are mining, timber, farming - all with high rates injury and chronic health problems. Obesity is also high (thankgodformississippiwearentthehighest), smoking is high, rates of preventative healthcare low and the overall population is aging. Another state with different demographics and risk factors may have a lower rate BECAUSE of those risks. So if people start being allowed to buy insurance across state lines in order to take advantage of states with lower risk factors and lower costs then what are the insurance companies going to do to offset that? My guess is increase it everywhere, in order to accomodate the changes or - adjust the rate to the individual based on where they live, in which case it won't be any cheaper.

Just from a personal perspective - it's made a difference to my family. Prescription drug costs - even with what my insurance covered was over $400 a month (for my husband). Now it's more like $50. That is a lot of money and repealing Obamacare would bring those costs back.

So while Obamacare itself has some problems - are they so insurmountable the entire thing must be scrapped...and where does that leave millions of people?

what about the people that pay three times what they used to and can no longer afford to use their insurance just so your subsidies can be available. Do you have any compassion for those people? would you meet them in the middle and pay maybe 200 a month for that drug so that someone else might be able to afford to see a doctor also?
There is no free. Remember, if that 400 dollar drug now costs you 50, someone else is paying the 350 for you. Is that fair?

What about them?

How about fixing it so it works for everyone? Do I have compassion for them? Sure. Do YOU have compassion for those who will be affected by repealing Obamacare? Maybe not so much?

I believe in personal responsibility, if a plan could be presented that was fair I'd consider it but what happened was wrong, hard working people that strived to take care of their families and themselves got gouged. The thing was presented as a total lie and they knew when they presented it that it was a lie.

The funny thing is that dreaded and despised Tea Party told you all that....but you chose to believe the lies. Now you have a mess....and lost control

 

[Moonglow]

Really?

Then why will he board Airforce One tomorrow, while you sit in your single wide?

Ive always wanted to live in a trailer park just to experience it. But Ive never had the nerve to leave my large secluded property. Im not sure I could handle kids on my grass. Their drunk moms during the day while their boyfriends are hard at work at the welding shop could be a bonus though.

I moved out of the suburbs because of that very reason, now live on 43 acres, no one is close enough to see...

I only have ten, but its all wooded and the house is pretty much dead center, so I cant see anyone or hear anyone either.
43 is a nice piece of property,

It was such a bargain I couldn't pass it up, compared to land closer to NW Arkansas that was 20k an acre...plus it is in a recreational area. The Elk River is 4 miles away and then their is Grand Lake and the Three Rivers area within twenty miles.....

I was left 50 acres in Parthenon when my uncle died years ago. we knew this because he had told us and showed us the will. However as soon as he died his brother ransacked the house (trailer) and the will "dissapeared" and the property had to go to the closest living relative.
I was bummed.

That sucks.....My kids will never have to go through that, since I have no siblings...My sister died at 47 in 2007 from a heart attack...

 

[Moonglow]

I am sure our lackluster Congress can not come up with another plan...

 

[Coyote]

I didn't say Clinton could have. In fact, had she won, I would be asking the same question of her - what will she and her supporters do to help heal this country? In fact, a while back I started a thread on that - for both candidates, but it got pretty much derailed with the usual partisan fighting.

Aww no "hi" for me? That makes me sad.

To be fair, you really don't have to ask what either one will do to help the Nation, as both just want to help themselves. Trump is there to keep Clinton out, no more, no less. He's just less evil.

Sorry sweetie - I'm being rude, hiya back at you

I don't think either one is evil - many Clinton voters voted to keep Trump out, many Trump voters voted to keep Clinton out.

Typically elections at the end of a two-term presidency favor the opposing party, in that this aspect, the results were totally predictable. What obscured many things were the dynamics of the individual characters.

Given the leaked emails and the results of her holding public offices, it's pretty clear Clinton is evil, Trump is just self-serving. Things Trump has done in the past just amount to being a jerk. Things Hillary has done have resulted in destroyed lives, deaths, criminal activity in general.

I'm a little proud of myself, I managed to accurately predict this election, and a few of the states Trump would get~
I told a friend a month ago that Trump would get Florida~

I don't agree. One is the leaked emails - which represent little more then a huge data dump, with no time (or political will) to try and verify in terms of accuracy, context etc. There were many instances where it was shown there were alterations - just for an example. They represent an unverified source of information that people take for granted is accurate. We also no NOTHING about emails from Trump's side do we? How can you say he is not "evil" if you don't have his leaked emails? All you can say is you have no way of knowing.

I don't think in terms of "evil" with most people (there are some I would classify as evil - Hitler and his associates, the leaders of ISIS) - but neither Trump nor Hillary are even remotely comparable. The accusations of "deaths" falls right into Conspiracy Theory Land - so I don't grant that legitimacy. I'd rather go with what can be proven by facts and I won't use the "evil" label.

When a person engages in "business practices" that result in slews of people, mostly small businessmen and vendors - going unpaid for the work they did - is that not "destroying lives" and "criminal activity in general"? That's more then being "a jerk" in my book.

And - your prediction was good! Congrats

So, you think the sheer volume of all those emails and contents therein were merely fabrications?

Not what I said. Reread what I wrote.

Not only those, but we have confirmation of her involvement in various criminal activity. Even ignoring the volume and contents, and the file leaks, there's the fact that it wasn't anything new, but confirmation of what we already knew. Would you be willing to claim Hillary isn't corrupt?

Confirmation means indictments. If you have it produce it. Could she be corrupt? I think so. I'm not willing to claim she isn't. I'm also not willing to claim Trump isn't. My evidence for both is the same - bring on the indictments. Same with rape accusations - bring on the indictments.

I think in terms of evil. If you're not a friend of justice, you're a harbinger of varying degrees evil.

I disagree. Evil and justice are two different things. Once you start applying the term "evil" lightly - you cheapen it. It's like people who throw the term "Nazi" and "Stalinist" and "Hitler" willy nilly at those who they don't happen to like. I think once you apply the term evil you can lose sight of humanity. For instance - is it evil for Trump to left those people unpaid? Was it evil for Trump to refuse to rent to blacks? How does that compare to the evil that is ISIS or Hitler? Can you honestly compare HIllary and Trump to those?

It depends on the quality of labor. I don't know enough about the incident to give an opinion on it.

In those incidences - they were the result of Trump choosing bankruptcy over paying, and it happened multiple times. Are you giving more leeway to Trump then to Clinton?