Opportunity wrote:
Demublican wrote:Wrong 2x using only 3 words!
Dang, that's impressive!
Now, if you only had the self discipline to leave out the "ahem" you would have been a perfect 2 for 2. Alas, another opportunity lost.
Ahem, no, Trumpkin.
0/10
Welcome to North Korea, comrades
eric a blair wrote:
Welcome to North Korea, comrades
https://twitter.com/MattNegrin/status/890584702612119552
I heard Mooch saying those things. Couldn't believe what I was hearing.
It does sound incredibly like Dear Leader.
Well, on the bright side, at least we now have a leader who might be able to tie Dear Leader on the golf course (I don't think you can actually win against a guy who consistently shoots 18 for 18 holes but perhaps Trump can tie him). Could be a very useful skill when you consider how many deals are made based on bets on the golf course.
This level of brown nosing is outrageous to just weird. I've never seen this with other presidents. It's like there's a mandate that if you are part of the team you must do this like it's part of the job description. Fvcking weird
Over The Hedge wrote:
eric a blair wrote:Welcome to North Korea, comrades
https://twitter.com/MattNegrin/status/890584702612119552I heard Mooch saying those things. Couldn't believe what I was hearing.
It does sound incredibly like Dear Leader.
Well, on the bright side, at least we now have a leader who might be able to tie Dear Leader on the golf course (I don't think you can actually win against a guy who consistently shoots 18 for 18 holes but perhaps Trump can tie him). Could be a very useful skill when you consider how many deals are made based on bets on the golf course.
Correct, it has helped some, but at what cost? It has hurt many, many more than it has helped and that is not a left or right statement. To not admit that is simply ignorant on all levels. Understand what it did to the middle class, then come to talk to me. Sad how people, seemingly smart, only see one part of things.
Fat hurts wrote:
I think eric acknowledged that Obamacare is not perfect. You are also correct that it is not working for everyone.
Obamacare is working the best in places like Kentucky where the law was fully embraced. They set up their own exchange, expanded Medicaid, and took the uninsured rate from 20.4% down to 7.8%.
Not surprisingly, all states where the uninsured rate went down by 9% or more were in states that expanded Medicaid. In other states, they don't care if the working poor get sick and die.
But even in those non-expansion states, Obamacare has helped. All states saw more people gain coverage. Nationwide, the uninsured rate went from 17.3% to 10.9% between 2013 and 2016.
itsbaddude wrote:If Obamacare was working then it would not be such a big deal. It is a big political deal. In fact, probably the biggest issue that concerns the middle class.
Of course, if you have affordable healthcare right now it works for you. You should not dismiss other people's concerns because you disagree with them. This country is very big, vast and diverse. There is no way a single person can know what is happening everywhere. You need to trust what people say.
I don't think it has hurt more people that it has helped. If it is so damaging, why do only around 20% want it repealed immediately?
Switz Swerving wrote:
Correct, it has helped some, but at what cost? It has hurt many, many more than it has helped and that is not a left or right statement.
To not admit that is simply ignorant on all levels. Understand what it did to the middle class, then come to talk to me. Sad how people, seemingly smart, only see one part of things.
Fat hurts wrote:I think eric acknowledged that Obamacare is not perfect. You are also correct that it is not working for everyone.
Obamacare is working the best in places like Kentucky where the law was fully embraced. They set up their own exchange, expanded Medicaid, and took the uninsured rate from 20.4% down to 7.8%.
Not surprisingly, all states where the uninsured rate went down by 9% or more were in states that expanded Medicaid. In other states, they don't care if the working poor get sick and die.
But even in those non-expansion states, Obamacare has helped. All states saw more people gain coverage. Nationwide, the uninsured rate went from 17.3% to 10.9% between 2013 and 2016.
Switz Swerving wrote:
Correct, it has helped some, but at what cost? It has hurt many, many more than it has helped and that is not a left or right statement.
To not admit that is simply ignorant on all levels. Understand what it did to the middle class, then come to talk to me. Sad how people, seemingly smart, only see one part of things.
What are you talking about?
Can you give a single stat or point of reference?
You say it has helped some but hurt more.
Who was helped and who was hurt?
Another one talking in generalities.
The people that it helped were the millions that made too much for medicaid and made too little to afford coverage on their own or didn't have employer provided coverage.
Most of the people that had employer coverage stayed the same. Most saw smaller premium increase that were fast rising before.
The people that were "hurt" were those with insufficient policies that had to pay more for better benefits.
And some people that were self employed may have had issues with unpredictable costs in a niche market.
But I really want to know who you think were hurt by this - other than saying "many, many more"
L L wrote:
Switz Swerving wrote:Correct, it has helped some, but at what cost? It has hurt many, many more than it has helped and that is not a left or right statement.
To not admit that is simply ignorant on all levels. Understand what it did to the middle class, then come to talk to me. Sad how people, seemingly smart, only see one part of things.
What are you talking about?
Can you give a single stat or point of reference?
You say it has helped some but hurt more.
Who was helped and who was hurt?
Another one talking in generalities.
The people that it helped were the millions that made too much for medicaid and made too little to afford coverage on their own or didn't have employer provided coverage.
Most of the people that had employer coverage stayed the same. Most saw smaller premium increase that were fast rising before.
The people that were "hurt" were those with insufficient policies that had to pay more for better benefits.
And some people that were self employed may have had issues with unpredictable costs in a niche market.
But I really want to know who you think were hurt by this - other than saying "many, many more"
he's just another right wing talk radio listener repeating half truths and lies.
do you listen to right wing radio? I do sometimes - it's completely infuriating how they lie and shade and tell half truths. They will go on and on about Obamacare as if it were a disaster that was killing people for fun. The hosts only want to provide a quick shot of partisan hate...truth is irrelevant.
This guy is just repeating talking points, that's all. He has no facts.
Demublican wrote:
Opportunity wrote:Ahem, no, Trumpkin.
0/10
-10/10, Trumpkin.
I respectfully disagree sir. I am middle class and I don't anyone, not one person who likes it or who it has benefitted. Where did you come up with those figures and are they from an unbiased source?
eric a blair wrote:
I don't think it has hurt more people that it has helped.
If it is so damaging, why do only around 20% want it repealed immediately?
Switz Swerving wrote:Correct, it has helped some, but at what cost? It has hurt many, many more than it has helped and that is not a left or right statement.
To not admit that is simply ignorant on all levels. Understand what it did to the middle class, then come to talk to me. Sad how people, seemingly smart, only see one part of things.
Dimwit Trump who doesn't know wtf he's talking about, puts officials in tough position of walking back the implications of his tweets. Can't this dumba$$ fvck up just slightly less?
Opportunity wrote:
Demublican wrote:0/10
-10/10, Trumpkin.
"The Republican strategy of repealing the Affordable Health Care Act before devising a replacement plan
has the support of only one in five Americans, a poll released Jan. 6 finds."
Read more:
http://usa.inquirer.net/896/20-americans-back-repeal-obamacare-no-replacement#ixzz4o4MD3iZpFollow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Switz Swerving wrote:
I respectfully disagree sir. I am middle class and I don't anyone, not one person who likes it or who it has benefitted. Where did you come up with those figures and are they from an unbiased source?
eric a blair wrote:I don't think it has hurt more people that it has helped.
If it is so damaging, why do only around 20% want it repealed immediately?
Switz Swerving wrote:
I respectfully disagree sir. I am middle class and I don't anyone, not one person who likes it or who it has benefitted. Where did you come up with those figures and are they from an unbiased source?[quote]
LOL ... -10/10 for posting one of the weakest trolls in this entire thread.
Your response and that of LL is why this thread is in the condition that it's in.I didn't call you anything, if I did, please point it out. Saying someone is ignorant on a subject is tame at most from my seat, it's fair. I'm not throwing out numbers either. I can throw out personal experiences from friends and doctors that I've visited numerous times, and not one, I repeat not one likes it. I know what you'll do with that statement, but that speaks volumes about you, not me. I've got Prostrate Cancer and I'm 47 years old. I see a lot of doctors in many different fields, including cardiologist due to racing heart conditions. If I recorded what I was told, you'd still call me a liar. Well, shame on you. I had to postpone a surgery till January last year due to my UHC deductible. I'd post my deductible, but I've read thru this thread, you'll just call me a liar. Again, shame on you.Only 20%? I find that very, very hard to believe.
eric a blair wrote:
L L wrote:What are you talking about?
Can you give a single stat or point of reference?
You say it has helped some but hurt more.
Who was helped and who was hurt?
Another one talking in generalities.
The people that it helped were the millions that made too much for medicaid and made too little to afford coverage on their own or didn't have employer provided coverage.
Most of the people that had employer coverage stayed the same. Most saw smaller premium increase that were fast rising before.
The people that were "hurt" were those with insufficient policies that had to pay more for better benefits.
And some people that were self employed may have had issues with unpredictable costs in a niche market.
But I really want to know who you think were hurt by this - other than saying "many, many more"
he's just another right wing talk radio listener repeating half truths and lies.
do you listen to right wing radio? I do sometimes - it's completely infuriating how they lie and shade and tell half truths. They will go on and on about Obamacare as if it were a disaster that was killing people for fun. The hosts only want to provide a quick shot of partisan hate...truth is irrelevant.
This guy is just repeating talking points, that's all. He has no facts.
Switz Swerving wrote:
I'm not throwing out numbers either. I can throw out personal experiences from friends and doctors that I've visited numerous times, and not one, I repeat not one likes it. I know what you'll do with that statement, but that speaks volumes about you, not me.
I don't know anyone that speaks Chinese. Based on that, almost no one speaks Chinese.
Or maybe my personal experience isn't representative of the larger world.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Switz Swerving wrote:I'm not throwing out numbers either. I can throw out personal experiences from friends and doctors that I've visited numerous times, and not one, I repeat not one likes it. I know what you'll do with that statement, but that speaks volumes about you, not me.
I don't know anyone that speaks Chinese. Based on that, almost no one speaks Chinese.
Or maybe my personal experience isn't representative of the larger world.
The troll, Switz S, lives in his mom's basement and has no friends, not even his mom. So, he only know himself.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned Trump that firing Mueller would be start of ending Trump President. Graham also put Trump on notice that firing Sessions lead to holy hell.
Trump is DONE. Either by letting the investigation proceed, or by firing Mueller or Sessions to try to end the investigation.
“The idea that the president would fire Mueller ― or have somebody fire Mueller ― because he doesn’t like Mueller or Mueller is doing something he doesn’t like... then we become Russia,†Graham said. “Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency unless Mueller did something wrong.â€
“The president’s not in the business of drawing red lines when it comes to the law,†added Graham. “The law is above any presidential red line.â€
“If Jeff Sessions is fired there will be holy hell to pay,†he promised.
“This is not just a diversion, this is unnerving,†he said of Trump slandering his own attorney general. “Some of the suggestions the president is making go way beyond what’s acceptable in a rule of law nation.â€
“This is not draining the swamp. What he’s [doing] is turning democracy upside down.â€
I'm not advocating that Trump fire anybody, but I can assure you nothing different will happen. I know you want something to happen, but he has every right to fire and or replace people.It has been many months and you leftist have not come to grips that Trump will be your president for a long time. You also need to realize that there will be payback for the next Democrat president down the line.
Dog Eat Cheeto wrote:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned Trump that firing Mueller would be start of ending Trump President. Graham also put Trump on notice that firing Sessions lead to holy hell.
Trump is DONE. Either by letting the investigation proceed, or by firing Mueller or Sessions to try to end the investigation.
“The idea that the president would fire Mueller ― or have somebody fire Mueller ― because he doesn’t like Mueller or Mueller is doing something he doesn’t like... then we become Russia,†Graham said. “Any effort to go after Mueller could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency unless Mueller did something wrong.â€
“The president’s not in the business of drawing red lines when it comes to the law,†added Graham. “The law is above any presidential red line.â€
“If Jeff Sessions is fired there will be holy hell to pay,†he promised.
“This is not just a diversion, this is unnerving,†he said of Trump slandering his own attorney general. “Some of the suggestions the president is making go way beyond what’s acceptable in a rule of law nation.â€
“This is not draining the swamp. What he’s [doing] is turning democracy upside down.â€
You fail, troll. 0/10.You have no clue who Lindsey Graham is. Trump does own and run Congress. They can destroy and remove him as they see fit. Trump has ZERO say in the matter. The investigation continues and buries Trump, or he fires Mueller or Sessions and he get buried.You are free to move to an Island Trump buy where he can start his own tiny country. How about that iceberg that recently broke loose from Antarctica?
itsbaddude wrote:
I'm not advocating that Trump fire anybody, but I can assure you nothing different will happen. I know you want something to happen, but he has every right to fire and or replace people.
It has been many months and you leftist have not come to grips that Trump will be your president for a long time. You also need to realize that there will be payback for the next Democrat president down the line.
Dog Eat Cheeto wrote:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)