Clown lie: Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

[Dschrute3]

I agree, Trump shouldn't have said that. It's up to you to take care of yourself and your family. If you're waiting for, or demanding Government do it for you, you're destined to be a bitter loser. We're $20 Trillion in Debt. The Gravy Train's destined to derail at some point. I would advise Americans get prepared for that day.

Do you see Trump doing anything to reduce our national debt, as he promised?

Trump's not a 'Fiscal Conservative.' He never has been. I warned folks about believing he was. Personally, i didn't expect that of him. I supported him for just a couple of issues. I never viewed him as a 'Fiscal Conservative.'

But regardless, folks better stop relying on and demanding Government fix all their problems. The Gravy Train is about to derail. Americans better start realizing that. It's $20 Trillion and counting.

Where is the debt reduction that Rump promised us

Like i said, it won't likely happen. He's not a 'Fiscal Conservative.' But Hillary Clinton was far worse. I didn't vote for Trump on the Debt issue. I voted for him on a couple other issues. That being said, i seriously doubt he can possibly spend as much as Obama. So i guess that's the best we can hope for. It is what it is.

Obama didn't spend anything

Spending can't be any worse than under Obama. Trump likely won't even come close to Obama's Debt. But he's gonna spend his share too.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

whitehall, post: 16672296,

The Hussein administration put middle class families in debit because they couldn't afford the mandatory insurance packages or the $10,000 deductible.

More middle class families were helped by the ACA because most middle class families are covered on employer plans which were unchanged. Millions of middle class families with preexisting conditions were in many cases saved from bankruptcy by the ACA. You don't speak for middle class families. Nearly seven in ten reject what Trump wants now to destroy health care now that he has been elected.

Most know what a liar Trump is. Hope you figure it out soon.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dschrute3, post: 16832093

Spending can't be any worse than under Obama. Trump likely won't even come close to Obama's

The debt increase since Obama took office was largely based upon loss of revenue from the Great Bush Recession. Paying for the Iraq War debacle. The need for stimulus to get the economy back to under 5% unemployment.

Trump inherented no recession and an unemployment rate under 5%.

Trump has no comparable problems regarding income to the Federal Treasury and the ACA does not increase debt one iota.

The rate of annual increases of healthcare overall is at record lows and the uninsured rate us at record lows.

If Trump were an intelligent man and decent human being serving all the American people instead of serving the wealthy and the Breitbart white minority, he would build on the gains from the pits of Bush43 hell that Obama has given us and keep steady that progress.

But he can't. Trump is a fraud that will terrorize rhe debt like no other.

Already asking taxpayers for $5 billion to build a boondoggle wall that he promised Mexico would pay for.

And you Beitbartbuffoons believed him.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dschrute3, post: 16831851

I agree, Trump shouldn't have said that.

That's it? That's all we get from Breitbart World? Trump shouldn't have said that. Oh my, he shouldn't have sexually assaulted women and bragged about getting away with because he is a celebrity.

Don't you see how that reflects on you, Trump voter?

The last thing we will hear out of Trump is that he ran for president on issues that he intended to keep his word. He should fight to get more people covered because that was his word. Now he is fighting his ass off to make sure less people are covered.

And that's ok. You elected a pathological liar and now praise him for being a liar to get elected.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

03.19.2017 - 5:47 PM EDT
Do We Have Lift Off?
We've seen a few drop-offs in support for President Trump since he took office two months ago. But they've mainly rebounded to a relative stability with a high single digit deficit in public approval. This is his steepest dive to date.

 

[Dschrute3]

Dschrute3, post: 16832093

Spending can't be any worse than under Obama. Trump likely won't even come close to Obama's

The debt increase since Obama took office was largely based upon loss of revenue from the Great Bush Recession. Paying for the Iraq War debacle. The need for stimulus to get the economy back to under 5% unemployment.

Trump inherented no recession and an unemployment rate under 5%.

Trump has no comparable problems regarding income to the Federal Treasury and the ACA does not increase debt one iota.

The rate of annual increases of healthcare overall is at record lows and the uninsured rate us at record lows.

If Trump were an intelligent man and decent human being serving all the American people instead of serving the wealthy and the Breitbart white minority, he would build on the gains from the pits of Bush43 hell that Obama has given us and keep steady that progress.

But he can't. Trump is a fraud that will terrorize rhe debt like no other.

Already asking taxpayers for $5 billion to build a boondoggle wall that he promised Mexico would pay for.

And you Beitbartbuffoons believed him.

 

[Dschrute3]

Dschrute3, post: 16831851

I agree, Trump shouldn't have said that.

That's it? That's all we get from Breitbart World? Trump shouldn't have said that. Oh my, he shouldn't have sexually assaulted women and bragged about getting away with because he is a celebrity.

Don't you see how that reflects on you, Trump voter?

The last thing we will hear out of Trump is that he ran for president on issues that he intended to keep his word. He should fight to get more people covered because that was his word. Now he is fighting his ass off to make sure less people are covered.

And that's ok. You elected a pathological liar and now praise him for being a liar to get elected.

Ah, you pulled a Fake News there. There was much more to my reply. You only posted the first sentence. Very disingenuous. Shame on ya.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dschrute3, post: 16837032

Ah, you pulled a Fake News there. There was much more to my reply. You only posted the first sentence. Very disingenuous. Shame on ya.

There's a typical right winger cop out. Your sentence was not taken out of context and the intent of what you meant was not changed. The remainder of your post was cited and was always just a click away.

I made a point about your statement. Whatever was the remainder of your post had nothing to do with my point.

If you can't defend your willingness to never challenge Trump for lying, why respond at all with nothing by crybaby whine?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

a) it does not have to make any money to stay in business - in fact it can loose money and still keep operating because all it has to do is demand the populace as a whole pay more in taxes or be punished by the IRS. Normal business can not do that.

You are nukkingfutz. The government cannot raise taxes except by the consent of the governed. And they cannot punish people through the IRS unless they violate the law. Again all laws passed with the consent of the governed.

You just don't know how to live in a nation of laws made by the consent of the governed.

ummm, no tax bill is passed with the consent of the governed, no law is ever passed with the consent of the governed...what made up world do you live in sir?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Imnukingfutz, post: 16796328

Im against the Federal Government being involved in any way, shape or form with anything to do directly with our healthcare system.

You are opposed to Medicare. Good for you.

You oppose it, but what if it were a public option sold right out there competing with private insurers.

Are you opposed to Freedom of Choice. Why can't my daughter and son in law running a small landscaping business buy a plan from the government if that is in their best interest.

You say they can't because you are against the Federal Government being involved in any way, shape or form with anything to do directly with our healthcare system.

Who the hell are you to decide for everybody else?

If the government can't do it better and at lower cost than private insurers can, then what is the problem with letting the non-profit government compete with private insurers?

Are you afraid the government will be the insurer of choice.

Well, there are several reasons I am against the government being in the health insurance business;
1) Constitutionality - the 10th Amendment states what it states for a reason, to stop the Federal government from overstepping its authority (not like it matters much here lately, they seem to make up theri own rules as we go) but there is no provision in the Constitution that gives the government the ability to be a health care provider. Please, show us in the Constitution where exactly it says the government is to provide peoples healthcare?
2) The government can not be a HC provider in competition with private enterprise for several reasons
a) it does not have to make any money to stay in business - in fact it can loose money and still keep operating because all it has to do is demand the populace as a whole pay more in taxes or be punished by the IRS. Normal business can not do that.
b) The government makes laws protecting itself while penalizing competition puts private insurance at a clear disadvantage
3) Medicare (in comparison to the top 10 HC insurance providers) has more denied claims than all 10 combined - it is exempt from the ACA rules.
4) name 1 government program that ever came in on budget and accomplished what it set out to do....War on Poverty, War on Drugs, Welfare, Social Security, Education, Finance........every single thing the government has put its nose into where it doesnt belong has been a fiasco.

I could keep going and going and going but I think you understand.

To error is human to really screw things up for everyone requires government intervention.

The government is not in the health care business. The insurance companies write the policies and set their own rates, not the government

Those policies are set by the government, have you not heard of the ACA? Yes the insurance companies do sell the policies but they are dictated by the ACA for their content. The insurance companies can not give you a policy that covers less than the government mandate. If they do give you a policy that is better than what the government says, the government levies an additional tax on you for having the audacity to give your family better coverage than what they dictate.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Iceweasel, post: 16790379

Trump and the GOP congress could do nothing and wait for it and say "told ya" or they can try to fix a very complicated thing, since it's been forced on all of us.

That very complicated thing brought the uninsured rate down by 20 million. Trump promised to do better than that and have no American left uninsured.

That was an often repeated promise.

Now we know it was all a lie. Don't go BBBBUTTTT Obama!

Trump's lie horrendous. The number of uninsured goes way up under Trumpcare.

The confession is in.

.
White House Admits Trump ‘Insurance For Everybody’ Guarantee Isn’t Going To Happen
“The only way to have universal care, if you stop to think about it, is to force people to buy it under penalty of law.”

White House Admits Trump 'Insurance For Everybody' Guarantee Isn't Going To Happen | The Huffington Post


Not only is the promise not gonna happen it is worse. More people lose coverage under Trump-endorsed-Care. Trump is no champion of people left behind. He is a liar - looking out only for his class. That is no class, no integrity.

not very complicated if you realize it is a power grab by an over reaching government - it can be easily fixed.

 

[Dschrute3]

Dschrute3, post: 16837032

Ah, you pulled a Fake News there. There was much more to my reply. You only posted the first sentence. Very disingenuous. Shame on ya.

There's a typical right winger cop out. Your sentence was not taken out of context and the intent of what you meant was not changed. The remainder of your post was cited and was always just a click away.

I made a point about your statement. Whatever was the remainder of your post had nothing to do with my point.

If you can't defend your willingness to never challenge Trump for lying, why respond at all with nothing by crybaby whine?

Nah, you went Fake News. It is what it is.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

a) it does not have to make any money to stay in business - in fact it can loose money and still keep operating because all it has to do is demand the populace as a whole pay more in taxes or be punished by the IRS. Normal business can not do that.

You are nukkingfutz. The government cannot raise taxes except by the consent of the governed. And they cannot punish people through the IRS unless they violate the law. Again all laws passed with the consent of the governed.

You just don't know how to live in a nation of laws made by the consent of the governed.

something else, the CBO report NEVER said that anyone would be thrown off or loose their medical plan...never not anywhere in their report. to say such a thing would be a lie - what was said...and I will quote the text -

The CBO states "Most of the people who would be uninsured would be in that position voluntarily. They're not going to be "kicked off" their healthcare plan, they will just decide to not want coverage"
"Most of the increase [in the uninsured] would stem from repealing the penalties associated with the individual mandate"

Try learning the complete facts rather than listening to the talking heads and talking points...you wont look as ignorant (as per definition, not as an insult)

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Imnukingfutz, post: 16840084

Try learning the complete facts rather than listening to the talking heads and talking points...you wont look as ignorant (as per definition, not as an insult)

Why did you respond to my post while never attempting to address the subject of my post?

Is there some kind of cognitive difficulty here?


Do you want to try again or do you agree with me:

"The government cannot raise taxes except by the consent of the governed. And they cannot punish people through the IRS unless they violate the law. Again all laws are passed with the consent of the governed."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The CBO states "Most of the people who would be uninsured would be in that position voluntarily. They're not going to be "kicked off" their healthcare plan, they will just decide to not want coverage"

You are being disingenuous: of course young people won't buy insurance when they think they don't need it.

What Trump,Ryan, McConnell CARE does is Fuck the older working folks before they reach Medicare eligibility.

Read the CBO yourself:

"21-year-old, 40-year-old, and 64-year-old with income at 175 percent of the FPL in 2026 would all pay roughly $1,700 toward their reference premium under current law, even though the reference premium for a 64-year-old is three times larger than that for a 21-year-old in most states. Under LyingTtumpCare the premiums for older people could be five times larger than those for younger people in many states, but the size of the tax credits for older people would only be twice the size of the credits for younger people. Because of that difference in how much the tax credits would cover, CBO and JCT estimate that, under the legislation, a larger share of enrollees in the nongroup market would be younger people and a smaller share would be older people.

According to CBO and JCT’s estimates, total federal subsidies for nongroup health insurance would be significantly smaller under the legislation than under current law for two reasons. First, by the agencies’ projections, fewer people, on net, would obtain coverage in the nongroup health insurance market under the legislation. Second, the average subsidy per subsidized enrollee under the legislation would be significantly lower than the average subsidy under current law. In 2020, CBO and JCT estimate, the average subsidy under the legislation would be about 60 percent of the average subsidy under current law. In addition, the average subsidy would grow more slowly under the legislation than under current law. That difference results from the fact that subsidies under current law tend to grow with insurance premiums, whereas subsidies under the legislation would grow more slowly, with the consumer price index for all urban consumers plus 1 percentage point. By 2026, CBO and JCT estimate that the average subsidy under the legislation would be about 50 percent of the average subsidy under current law."

Loss of subsidies will force people who need assistance off healthcare coverage.

It's actually no good for anybody under LyingTrumpCare.

Trump promised health insurance for every American not forcing more off by cutting funding or allowing more to voluntarily leave the market until they need it and become a burden on all working Americans anyway. Or are you saying young people are immortal but if the need a doctor we should let them die because they could not be bothered with insurance when they were young and healthy?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

The CBO states "Most of the people who would be uninsured would be in that position voluntarily. They're not going to be "kicked off" their healthcare plan, they will just decide to not want coverage"

You are being disingenuous: of course young people won't buy insurance when they think they don't need it.

What Trump,Ryan, McConnell CARE does is Fuck the older working folks before they reach Medicare eligibility.

Read the CBO yourself:

"21-year-old, 40-year-old, and 64-year-old with income at 175 percent of the FPL in 2026 would all pay roughly $1,700 toward their reference premium under current law, even though the reference premium for a 64-year-old is three times larger than that for a 21-year-old in most states. Under LyingTtumpCare the premiums for older people could be five times larger than those for younger people in many states, but the size of the tax credits for older people would only be twice the size of the credits for younger people. Because of that difference in how much the tax credits would cover, CBO and JCT estimate that, under the legislation, a larger share of enrollees in the nongroup market would be younger people and a smaller share would be older people.

According to CBO and JCT’s estimates, total federal subsidies for nongroup health insurance would be significantly smaller under the legislation than under current law for two reasons. First, by the agencies’ projections, fewer people, on net, would obtain coverage in the nongroup health insurance market under the legislation. Second, the average subsidy per subsidized enrollee under the legislation would be significantly lower than the average subsidy under current law. In 2020, CBO and JCT estimate, the average subsidy under the legislation would be about 60 percent of the average subsidy under current law. In addition, the average subsidy would grow more slowly under the legislation than under current law. That difference results from the fact that subsidies under current law tend to grow with insurance premiums, whereas subsidies under the legislation would grow more slowly, with the consumer price index for all urban consumers plus 1 percentage point. By 2026, CBO and JCT estimate that the average subsidy under the legislation would be about 50 percent of the average subsidy under current law."

Loss of subsidies will force people who need assistance off healthcare coverage.

It's actually no good for anybody under LyingTrumpCare.

Trump promised health insurance for every American not forcing more off by cutting funding or allowing more to voluntarily leave the market until they need it and become a burden on all working Americans anyway. Or are you saying young people are immortal but if the need a doctor we should let them die because they could not be bothered with insurance when they were young and healthy?

Thats not from the CBO report - the CBO report wouldnt refer to itself or call it Lying Trump Care.

Read the actual report not what someone says that it says

You really should find impartial reports and news articles - a slant in any direction is still slanted bull squeeze.