Trump Says "Insurance for Everyone."

[theHawk]

Nobody is saying that but you. When people lie and claim people without insurance are left to die, we call them out on that lie by pointing out that any ER will treat those people.

No... people WILL die. ER's don't do organ transplants nor give free cancer treatments... or do preventative care for blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, etc. They also don't help pay for meds. So yes, go ahead, prove me wrong.

While you are at it, please provide proof the majority of people that get health insurance under Obamacare are prostitutes and losers buying bling and drugs.

Government already confiscates 50% of every dollar I earn, tax upon tax, fee upon fee, tell me just how much will be enough to fund this utopia of yours? 75%? 85%?

Sorry, wrong argument. I'm still waiting to hear your facts about how the majority of people that got health insurance from Obamacare are druggies and prostitutes that use their money to buy drugs and bling.

No I'm sure they are hard working citizens who get up and work a job each day...oh wait then they could afford their own health insurance. Well at least they could before Obamacare abolished all the low cost health insurance options so they could force healthy people to pay into Obamacare to fund health insurance for the moochers.

No, a lot of people can't afford their own insurance because many companies will only allow them to work part time so that they do not qualify for insurance through their company thus making the insurance affordable.

Then maybe we should change the laws so that they can qualify for insurance through the company, even if part time only.

 

[Dragonlady]

Huh? WTF is wrong with you? The lower class can barely afford to pay their ******* rent, how can they pay for health care in this country? Has living in Germany given you a lobotomy?

Most of the middle class can barely afford to pay their mortgage.
They'll just have to save more money instead of spending it on unnecessary things. Instead of tax dollars going to welfare checks, it can help subsidize their healthcare. Don't worry, there will be plenty of jobs when Trump takes over and kicks out all those illegals. Most of the lower class will be able to get two jobs.

Jesus dude. You really are out of your ******* mind. You're just not living on the same planet as the rest of us. What sort of jobs do you think illegals have anyway? Do you think they're performing open heart surgery? Do you think they're constructing elaborate plans for commercial buildings? Do you think they're arguing cases in court rooms? lol, dude...they're cleaning ******* houses, mowing lawns and picking strawberries.

Yup, they do low skill work. You know, the stuff people on welfare should be doing themselves. The stuff they would be doing if it weren't for welfare paying them to sit on their asses all day. You act as if those jobs are beneath people doing.

What made you do think that these people on welfare will give that up just to do a dirty work? Just imagine if they have kids ....... they have to pay babysitter just to make less than $10.
You are in the different planet dude.

Maybe they'll stop having kids if they can't afford it. We have to stop rewarding bad behavior if you want to see progress.

Low income people already have fewer kids than average. Mostly they get abortions, which the right wingers want to ban. 80% of women getting abortions are doing so for financial reasons because they live below the poverty line, or just above it.

Your solutions are useless, because they're based on problems that you have no concept of.

The middle class wasn't paying for Obamacare, the wealthy were. The middle class weren't being affected by Obamacare in the slightest, except that they could keep their kids on their health care until they were 26, and those with pre-existing conditions were covered. Republicans, in defunding Obamacare, just gave the top 5% a $32,000 tax cut. So much for looking out for the middle class.

Oh and the cancellation of the inheritance tax - Gift of $9 billion to Trump and his cabinet. They didn't get themselves elected for you, little man. They're lining their own pockets.

 

[Dragonlady]

Then maybe we should change the laws so that they can qualify for insurance through the company, even if part time only.

Corporations don't want that. Health care in the US, before Obamacare, was over $12,000 a year for a healthy family of four. Corporations could provide health insurance for part time workers, but they don't and they won't. In fact, many won't hire full-time workers because they don't want to pay for their health insurance. It's all about the bottom line, and with the glut of workers in lower paying jobs, they don't need to offer health care or other perks. Not good enough for you - go somewhere else and work. They'll replace you overnight.

 

[theHawk]

Most of the middle class can barely afford to pay their mortgage.
They'll just have to save more money instead of spending it on unnecessary things. Instead of tax dollars going to welfare checks, it can help subsidize their healthcare. Don't worry, there will be plenty of jobs when Trump takes over and kicks out all those illegals. Most of the lower class will be able to get two jobs.

Jesus dude. You really are out of your ******* mind. You're just not living on the same planet as the rest of us. What sort of jobs do you think illegals have anyway? Do you think they're performing open heart surgery? Do you think they're constructing elaborate plans for commercial buildings? Do you think they're arguing cases in court rooms? lol, dude...they're cleaning ******* houses, mowing lawns and picking strawberries.

Yup, they do low skill work. You know, the stuff people on welfare should be doing themselves. The stuff they would be doing if it weren't for welfare paying them to sit on their asses all day. You act as if those jobs are beneath people doing.

What made you do think that these people on welfare will give that up just to do a dirty work? Just imagine if they have kids ....... they have to pay babysitter just to make less than $10.
You are in the different planet dude.

Maybe they'll stop having kids if they can't afford it. We have to stop rewarding bad behavior if you want to see progress.

Low income people already have fewer kids than average. Mostly they get abortions, which the right wingers want to ban. 80% of women getting abortions are doing so for financial reasons because they live below the poverty line, or just above it.

Your solutions are useless, because they're based on problems that you have no concept of.

The middle class wasn't paying for Obamacare, the wealthy were. The middle class weren't being affected by Obamacare in the slightest, except that they could keep their kids on their health care until they were 26, and those with pre-existing conditions were covered. Republicans, in defunding Obamacare, just gave the top 5% a $32,000 tax cut. So much for looking out for the middle class.

Oh and the cancellation of the inheritance tax - Gift of $9 billion to Trump and his cabinet. They didn't get themselves elected for you, little man. They're lining their own pockets.

"The middle class wasn't paying for Obamacare"

Get back to us when you start accepting reality.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm an Independent.

I truly believe in having a strong military.

Doesn't everyone believe that? After all, a weak military is only good for one thing: attacking one's own people.

I don't believe in the idea you have a budget and you spend to the max of that budget just so that when the next budget comes up they don't cut it because they see you can spend money responsibly. You know that right? When these guys do a budget... they make sure to spend all the money regardless if they need to or not, so that their budget doesn't get cut in the future.

Sort of, yes, but not exactly either. Part of that "spend it all" mentality derives from not wanting to have something left over that can be directed to places either party doesn't want to see it go. There's also the psycho-optics aspect: if they don't spend it all, it looks as though they asked for money they didn't really need.

More interesting to me is why they don't balance the budget. It's not so much that I think the federal government has to have a balanced budget -- in fact for U.S. exports, that wouldn't be a good thing because it'd make the dollar stronger, thus making exported goods cost relatively more than the foreign made products with which they compete (yet another reason "bring back manufacturing" doesn't bode well for exporting manufacturers) -- but rather that for all the rhetoric about it, you'd think they'd just friggin' do it and move on to solve other/new issues. I'm just tired of hearing the same crap over and over when the fact is they what they want to do is doable and the only thing standing in the way of doing it is Congress' will to make it happen.

There are lots of people that think we should cut the military... we spend more on the military than the next 5 countries combined.

Okay...I don't measure military strength by how much is spent on the military. Does anyone? I measure it by capability.

If someone were to say "we should have the most expensive military," or even that we should have an expensive military," I wouldn't out of hand agree with them.

Well, the US is trying to produce the next generation of technology, so it's expensive. Does that lead to capability? Sure it does. However you only need such capability when you're going around invading and bombing other countries.

Fine, but that still does not allow capability to be measured by expenditures.

 

[theHawk]

Then maybe we should change the laws so that they can qualify for insurance through the company, even if part time only.

Corporations don't want that. Health care in the US, before Obamacare, was over $12,000 a year for a healthy family of four. Corporations could provide health insurance for part time workers, but they don't and they won't. In fact, many won't hire full-time workers because they don't want to pay for their health insurance. It's all about the bottom line, and with the glut of workers in lower paying jobs, they don't need to offer health care or other perks. Not good enough for you - go somewhere else and work. They'll replace you overnight.

Yes, and if you make companies help cover part-timers, then they wont have an incentive to not hire full-timers.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes, and if you make companies help cover part-timers, then they wont have an incentive to not hire full-timers.

These are people who object to covering anyone. Did you not hear the whining when they were told that companies that had more than X employees had to pay for their health insurance? They were going to be driven out of business by the expense.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for employers NOT paying these ridiculous amounts for health insurance. Especially since so much of the health insurance premiums are spent fighting paying claims. Over 30% of health insurance premiums go to administration to pre-approve, process, and fight claims. Countries with single payer health insurance have administration costs of less than 10%. So $4,000 of that premium goes to pay insurance company expenses. Ridiculous.

 

[owebo]

Yeah.....you throw competition into the business of insurance and prices come down, quality goes up, and options increase, and then for those who are incapable of getting insurance, you give them a hand......and keep the government out of as much of that as possible.....

that's how..

So simple you would think even our liberal friends would get it....:lo:

 

[owebo]

Hell has frozen over, NYCARB and I are arguing from the same side.

It's what liberals do....

 

[there4eyeM]

el

What exactly does he mean by that? Single payer?

When asked how he would pay for it, his response was "the government."

lol, this is the guy is who you Repubs voted for?

The problem with Trump is that he promises these fools anything and everything, yet never gives specifics, never goes into how to pay for shit, just mouths off these pipe dream bs promises and blows it off. But you can do shit like that when you have a nation of followers who are racist, stupid and greased up in the anal area.

Yeah, he's promising everything to everyone, and then promises to kick them in the teeth too.

Actually, he's done a pretty good job so far in keeping his promises. He promised to cut waste from government spending and he has already saved us billions by persuading Boeing and Lockheed to reduce prices on Air Force One and the F-35. He promised to keep jobs here and he has already persuaded Carrier and Ford and some others to keep jobs here instead of sending them to Mexico.

Not bad for not even being in office yet.

Has he saved billions? You can't say he has, he's not even in office yet.

Supposedly saving on the F-35. How much has he saved so far? Nothing. These companies know Trump's only got a 4 year term at the moment, they just keep things sweet. Perhaps they're saving this money by cutting back on essentials, so the US gets a fighter that in 8 years time won't be fit for shit.

But he has also promised to spend MORE or things like nukes. Oh, wow, I just save billions on this so I can spend it on something completely unnecessary. Great.

Until things actually happen, until savings come in, there's nothing.

Try to face the facts, Trump is delivering on things Obama couldn't deliver on and he isn't even in office yet. You should be glad America has a competent President who keeps his promises.

Trump said he would release his taxes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm an Independent.

I truly believe in having a strong military.

Doesn't everyone believe that? After all, a weak military is only good for one thing: attacking one's own people.

I don't believe in the idea you have a budget and you spend to the max of that budget just so that when the next budget comes up they don't cut it because they see you can spend money responsibly. You know that right? When these guys do a budget... they make sure to spend all the money regardless if they need to or not, so that their budget doesn't get cut in the future.

Sort of, yes, but not exactly either. Part of that "spend it all" mentality derives from not wanting to have something left over that can be directed to places either party doesn't want to see it go. There's also the psycho-optics aspect: if they don't spend it all, it looks as though they asked for money they didn't really need.

More interesting to me is why they don't balance the budget. It's not so much that I think the federal government has to have a balanced budget -- in fact for U.S. exports, that wouldn't be a good thing because it'd make the dollar stronger, thus making exported goods cost relatively more than the foreign made products with which they compete (yet another reason "bring back manufacturing" doesn't bode well for exporting manufacturers) -- but rather that for all the rhetoric about it, you'd think they'd just friggin' do it and move on to solve other/new issues. I'm just tired of hearing the same crap over and over when the fact is they what they want to do is doable and the only thing standing in the way of doing it is Congress' will to make it happen.

There are lots of people that think we should cut the military... we spend more on the military than the next 5 countries combined.

Okay...I don't measure military strength by how much is spent on the military. Does anyone? I measure it by capability.

If someone were to say "we should have the most expensive military," or even that we should have an expensive military," I wouldn't out of hand agree with them.

Well, the US is trying to produce the next generation of technology, so it's expensive. Does that lead to capability? Sure it does. However you only need such capability when you're going around invading and bombing other countries.

Fine, but that still does not allow capability to be measured by expenditures.

No, it doesn't. But if the US spends more than the next 9 countries put together, you'd think they have a good chance. However the US sticks to bullying smaller countries, Iraq, Libya, Syria, never Russia, China, because they know they don't stand a chance of winning.

 

[owebo]

el

The problem with Trump is that he promises these fools anything and everything, yet never gives specifics, never goes into how to pay for shit, just mouths off these pipe dream bs promises and blows it off. But you can do shit like that when you have a nation of followers who are racist, stupid and greased up in the anal area.

Yeah, he's promising everything to everyone, and then promises to kick them in the teeth too.

Actually, he's done a pretty good job so far in keeping his promises. He promised to cut waste from government spending and he has already saved us billions by persuading Boeing and Lockheed to reduce prices on Air Force One and the F-35. He promised to keep jobs here and he has already persuaded Carrier and Ford and some others to keep jobs here instead of sending them to Mexico.

Not bad for not even being in office yet.

Has he saved billions? You can't say he has, he's not even in office yet.

Supposedly saving on the F-35. How much has he saved so far? Nothing. These companies know Trump's only got a 4 year term at the moment, they just keep things sweet. Perhaps they're saving this money by cutting back on essentials, so the US gets a fighter that in 8 years time won't be fit for shit.

But he has also promised to spend MORE or things like nukes. Oh, wow, I just save billions on this so I can spend it on something completely unnecessary. Great.

Until things actually happen, until savings come in, there's nothing.

Try to face the facts, Trump is delivering on things Obama couldn't deliver on and he isn't even in office yet. You should be glad America has a competent President who keeps his promises.

Trump said he would release his taxes.

He said he won't now as he won...which is fine by me....

 

[there4eyeM]

The record shows that Trump says what he thinks is necessary to say at the moment; veracity is not relevant

 

[owebo]

The record shows that Trump says what he thinks is necessary to say at the moment; veracity is not relevant

So? The record shows Obama says what George Soros wants him to say at the moment; intelligence not needed.....

 

[usmbguest5318]

Doesn't everyone believe that? After all, a weak military is only good for one thing: attacking one's own people.

Sort of, yes, but not exactly either. Part of that "spend it all" mentality derives from not wanting to have something left over that can be directed to places either party doesn't want to see it go. There's also the psycho-optics aspect: if they don't spend it all, it looks as though they asked for money they didn't really need.

More interesting to me is why they don't balance the budget. It's not so much that I think the federal government has to have a balanced budget -- in fact for U.S. exports, that wouldn't be a good thing because it'd make the dollar stronger, thus making exported goods cost relatively more than the foreign made products with which they compete (yet another reason "bring back manufacturing" doesn't bode well for exporting manufacturers) -- but rather that for all the rhetoric about it, you'd think they'd just friggin' do it and move on to solve other/new issues. I'm just tired of hearing the same crap over and over when the fact is they what they want to do is doable and the only thing standing in the way of doing it is Congress' will to make it happen.

There are lots of people that think we should cut the military... we spend more on the military than the next 5 countries combined.

Okay...I don't measure military strength by how much is spent on the military. Does anyone? I measure it by capability.

If someone were to say "we should have the most expensive military," or even that we should have an expensive military," I wouldn't out of hand agree with them.

Well, the US is trying to produce the next generation of technology, so it's expensive. Does that lead to capability? Sure it does. However you only need such capability when you're going around invading and bombing other countries.

Fine, but that still does not allow capability to be measured by expenditures.

No, it doesn't. But if the US spends more than the next 9 countries put together, you'd think they have a good chance. However the US sticks to bullying smaller countries, Iraq, Libya, Syria, never Russia, China, because they know they don't stand a chance of winning.

One'd think, but one cannot be sure. That said, in this day and age, price and capability/quality are not linked the way they used to be. Not that price was ever a definitive indicator of anything other than the size of the dent a purchase would make in one's bank balance. Cases in point:

• Six Days War. -- Israel should have lost.
• Vietnam War. -- U.S. should have won
• Korean War -- This stalemate fiasco reverberates to this day. U.S. should have won.
• War of 1812 -- U.S. should have lost.
• Russian Afghan War -- Russia should have won.
• Revolutionary War -- Brits should have won.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are lots of people that think we should cut the military... we spend more on the military than the next 5 countries combined.

Okay...I don't measure military strength by how much is spent on the military. Does anyone? I measure it by capability.

If someone were to say "we should have the most expensive military," or even that we should have an expensive military," I wouldn't out of hand agree with them.

Well, the US is trying to produce the next generation of technology, so it's expensive. Does that lead to capability? Sure it does. However you only need such capability when you're going around invading and bombing other countries.

Fine, but that still does not allow capability to be measured by expenditures.

No, it doesn't. But if the US spends more than the next 9 countries put together, you'd think they have a good chance. However the US sticks to bullying smaller countries, Iraq, Libya, Syria, never Russia, China, because they know they don't stand a chance of winning.

One'd think, but one cannot be sure. That said, in this day and age, price and capability/quality are not linked the way they used to be. Not that price was ever a definitive indicator of anything other than the size of the dent a purchase would make in one's bank balance. Cases in point:

• Six Days War. -- Israel should have lost.
• Vietnam War. -- U.S. should have won
• Korean War -- This stalemate fiasco reverberates to this day. U.S. should have won.
• War of 1812 -- U.S. should have lost.
• Russian Afghan War -- Russia should have won.
• Revolutionary War -- Brits should have won.

Sure, there's intelligence and there's whether you're fighting at home or not. The US's policy has always been to fight away from home, makes sense, but it harder to conduct operations abroad, and you have to deal with the locals. People fight harder when they've got something to lose, like their home.

 

[Claudette]

What exactly does he mean by that? Single payer?

When asked how he would pay for it, his response was "the government."

lol, this is the guy is who you Repubs voted for?

IDK maybe. He said early in the primaries he was for it
Duh. You don't think poor people are gonna pay anything?
Americans of all stripes did, apparently.

And how is "the government" going to pay for it, Harley? lol

probably the tax payers. You know, the ones that fund the government? Maybe in the forms of subsidies?

Of course the taxpayers will be paying for all those losers who can't pay for themselves.

 

[owebo]

What exactly does he mean by that? Single payer?

When asked how he would pay for it, his response was "the government."

lol, this is the guy is who you Repubs voted for?

IDK maybe. He said early in the primaries he was for it
Duh. You don't think poor people are gonna pay anything?
Americans of all stripes did, apparently.

And how is "the government" going to pay for it, Harley? lol

probably the tax payers. You know, the ones that fund the government? Maybe in the forms of subsidies?

Of course the taxpayers will be paying for all those losers who can't pay for themselves.

Trump will free the democrats slaves....

 

[Maryland Patriot]

What exactly does he mean by that? Single payer?

When asked how he would pay for it, his response was "the government."

lol, this is the guy is who you Repubs voted for?

IDK maybe. He said early in the primaries he was for it
Duh. You don't think poor people are gonna pay anything?
Americans of all stripes did, apparently.

And how is "the government" going to pay for it, Harley? lol

probably the tax payers. You know, the ones that fund the government? Maybe in the forms of subsidies?

Glad to see TN is for free stuff.

Who said I was? I think all of this "healthcare" bullshit is absurd.
BUT I would support single payer over the bullshit we got now.

**** single payer or the ACA, How about we just accept it like it was. I dont really give a crap if Toby Joe and his family of ghettotards has insurance. What matters to me and what I have always covered on my own is my family. I have helped friends out before, but that was because I wanted to, not because some piece of shit liberal voted to steal the food off of my dinner table to buy them something they refused to work for.
I just dont get it, insurance is so important to them that they will steal from others to have it, but at the same time it has been proven that if they have to pay for it themselves, its not that important.

 

[edthecynic]

10k deductibles bankrupt people.....

LIAR! There is no 10k deductible.
The max individual deductible in 2016 was $3,350, and $6,750 for family plans.