WWTBAM Bored

You know a President can't pardon himself or a relative against state fraud charges, in case they follow here.

silverscreenselect wrote:You know a President can't pardon himself or a relative against state fraud charges, in case they follow here.

Or anyone else. Only federal crimes.

Or in other words, "Hey! Look over here, away from Trump's accomplishments!"

tlynn78 wrote:Or in other words, "Hey! Look over here, away from Trump's accomplishments!"

What accomplishments?

silverscreenselect wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Or in other words, "Hey! Look over here, away from Trump's accomplishments!"

What accomplishments?

Being the biggest criminal and fraud in political history. That's one hell of an accomplishment, given what guys like Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, Tom DeLay, "Dollar Bill" Jefferson, and Bob Torricelli did.

This is rich. The Trump Foundation issued a statement objecting to claims that the Trump Organization improperly controlled it. That statement came from a Trump Organization e-mail address. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Or in other words, "Hey! Look over here, away from Trump's accomplishments!"

What accomplishments?

Raising my taxes to lower his.
Increasing our health insurance premiums.
Stripping protections from those with pre-existing conditions (okay, he's still working on that one).
Tearing thousands of children from their parents' arms. (Think Elian Gonzales writ large.) --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

tlynn78 wrote:Or in other words, "Hey! Look over here, away from Trump's accomplishments!"

What accomplishments?

Raising my taxes to lower his.
Increasing our health insurance premiums.
Stripping protections from those with pre-existing conditions (okay, he's still working on that one).
Tearing thousands of children from their parents' arms. (Think Elian Gonzales writ large.) --Bob

Good. I hope your health insurance premiums have gone up A LOT!!!!!!

You are a wealthy, successful attorney and your entire belief system is predicated on people like you paying more than your fair share.

Furthermore, you didn't give a Flying F__K when people like me were caught up in multi-year 50% Obamacare-driven premium increases.

Bob Juch wrote:

Can you limit crap like this to your facebook account? We don't need to see it here. It's really annoying.

Bob #'s >>>"Raising my taxes to lower his.<<<

After you just telling us how successful an attorney you are all week-Class envy does not wear well on you.

Spock wrote:Bob #'s >>>"Raising my taxes to lower his.<<<

After you just telling us how successful an attorney you are all week-Class envy does not wear well on you.

I didn't say I was successful. I said I'm good at my job. --Bob

Bless your hearts. I pity you.

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
What accomplishments?

Raising my taxes to lower his.
Increasing our health insurance premiums.
Stripping protections from those with pre-existing conditions (okay, he's still working on that one).
Tearing thousands of children from their parents' arms. (Think Elian Gonzales writ large.) --Bob

Good. I hope your health insurance premiums have gone up A LOT!!!!!!

You are a wealthy, successful attorney and your entire belief system is predicated on people like you paying more than your fair share.

Furthermore, you didn't give a Flying F__K when people like me were caught up in multi-year 50% Obamacare-driven premium increases.

As a result of trump removing the healthcare mandate, there are no ACA-compliant plans available in Arizona. I now have to get a high-deductible, high-copay, 90-day plan to cover my wife and her daughter. It costs $158/month and is useless unless one of them gets a major disease.

Spock wrote:Furthermore, you didn't give a Flying F__K when people like me were caught up in multi-year 50% Obamacare-driven premium increases.

You're wrong about that. I care a lot. It won't be that much longer before my son and his pre-existing conditions will need to be able to find insurance on his own, rather than relying on the guarantee implemented under the Affordable Care Act that he can stay on my insurance until he's 26. But as you may recall, Republicans adamantly refused to consider any fixes whatsoever to the system, insisting that the only "change" that was on the table was an outright complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Now that the public actually faced that possibility squarely, we can see it's not what the American people want, and that's because the Affordable Care Act has led to a lot more people getting insurance.

Put the blame for spiking health care prices squarely where it belongs -- on Republicans who are actively sabotaging the system by refusing to consider a public option (allowing people to buy into Medicare), by taking steps to lure healthy people out of the risk pools (thereby increasing premiums for anyone who wants to or must buy insurance), and now by bringing a long-shot (to say the least) lawsuit that would eliminate protections for those, like my son and his mother, with pre-existing conditions.

Improving the Affordable Care Act doesn't have to be that hard. Or it wouldn't be if Republicans had been willing to cooperate even a little bit. Maybe now that they've tried and failed to repeal it they'll be more willing to cooperate with Democratic repair efforts the next time the Democrats control Congress. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:Bob #'s >>>"Raising my taxes to lower his.<<<

After you just telling us how successful an attorney you are all week-Class envy does not wear well on you.

I didn't say I was successful. I said I'm good at my job. --Bob

Above average

Improving the Affordable Care Act doesn't have to be that hard.

What you fail to understand is that a good number of people object off the bat the federal government being involved in healthcare. Period. We don't want it fixed. We want market-based solutions. Don't bother to argue the merits of Obamacare. We've been through that before. That one point of federal government involvement is the non-negotiable kicker.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Improving the Affordable Care Act doesn't have to be that hard.

What you fail to understand is that a good number of people object off the bat the federal government being involved in healthcare. Period. We don't want it fixed. We want market-based solutions. Don't bother to argue the merits of Obamacare. We've been through that before. That one point of federal government involvement is the non-negotiable kicker.

Not to a majority of the American people. That's why Virginia very nearly flipped the General Assembly last year, and why it is now participating in the Medicaid expansion.

More to the point, calling it non-negotiable leaves those of us who disagree with you no alternative but to bulldoze you. So don't complain when that's exactly what we do. This is my family's health we're talking about so I'm not backing down and I'm not giving up. Now that a majority of the American people sees things my way on this issue and the courts have definitively held the Affordable Care Act to be constitutional, we'll take whatever political steps we need to in order to make it happen. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:Furthermore, you didn't give a Flying F__K when people like me were caught up in multi-year 50% Obamacare-driven premium increases.

You're wrong about that. I care a lot. It won't be that much longer before my son and his pre-existing conditions will need to be able to find insurance on his own, rather than relying on the guarantee implemented under the Affordable Care Act that he can stay on my insurance until he's 26. But as you may recall, Republicans adamantly refused to consider any fixes whatsoever to the system, insisting that the only "change" that was on the table was an outright complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Now that the public actually faced that possibility squarely, we can see it's not what the American people want, and that's because the Affordable Care Act has led to a lot more people getting insurance.

Put the blame for spiking health care prices squarely where it belongs -- on Republicans who are actively sabotaging the system by refusing to consider a public option (allowing people to buy into Medicare), by taking steps to lure healthy people out of the risk pools (thereby increasing premiums for anyone who wants to or must buy insurance), and now by bringing a long-shot (to say the least) lawsuit that would eliminate protections for those, like my son and his mother, with pre-existing conditions.

Improving the Affordable Care Act doesn't have to be that hard. Or it wouldn't be if Republicans had been willing to cooperate even a little bit. Maybe now that they've tried and failed to repeal it they'll be more willing to cooperate with Democratic repair efforts the next time the Democrats control Congress. --Bob

I know this doesn't fit your narrative, but you need to work for an employer who provides better benefits. At least ten years ago my employer provided insurance that covered our kids to 26.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:Furthermore, you didn't give a Flying F__K when people like me were caught up in multi-year 50% Obamacare-driven premium increases.

You're wrong about that. I care a lot. It won't be that much longer before my son and his pre-existing conditions will need to be able to find insurance on his own, rather than relying on the guarantee implemented under the Affordable Care Act that he can stay on my insurance until he's 26. But as you may recall, Republicans adamantly refused to consider any fixes whatsoever to the system, insisting that the only "change" that was on the table was an outright complete repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Now that the public actually faced that possibility squarely, we can see it's not what the American people want, and that's because the Affordable Care Act has led to a lot more people getting insurance.

Put the blame for spiking health care prices squarely where it belongs -- on Republicans who are actively sabotaging the system by refusing to consider a public option (allowing people to buy into Medicare), by taking steps to lure healthy people out of the risk pools (thereby increasing premiums for anyone who wants to or must buy insurance), and now by bringing a long-shot (to say the least) lawsuit that would eliminate protections for those, like my son and his mother, with pre-existing conditions.

Improving the Affordable Care Act doesn't have to be that hard. Or it wouldn't be if Republicans had been willing to cooperate even a little bit. Maybe now that they've tried and failed to repeal it they'll be more willing to cooperate with Democratic repair efforts the next time the Democrats control Congress. --Bob

I know this doesn't fit your narrative, but you need to work for an employer who provides better benefits. At least ten years ago my employer provided insurance that covered our kids to 26.

So does mine, but by the time I started working here, that portion of the Affordable Care Act had already taken effect. I don't know whether they did so earlier. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Improving the Affordable Care Act doesn't have to be that hard.

What you fail to understand is that a good number of people object off the bat the federal government being involved in healthcare. Period. We don't want it fixed. We want market-based solutions. Don't bother to argue the merits of Obamacare. We've been through that before. That one point of federal government involvement is the non-negotiable kicker.

So you believe if you can't afford medical care you should die if you have cancer?

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Improving the Affordable Care Act doesn't have to be that hard.

What you fail to understand is that a good number of people object off the bat the federal government being involved in healthcare. Period. We don't want it fixed. We want market-based solutions. Don't bother to argue the merits of Obamacare. We've been through that before. That one point of federal government involvement is the non-negotiable kicker.

So you believe if you can't afford medical care you should die if you have cancer?

So you believe if you can't afford the water bill, rent or grocery bill you should die of dehydration, elements or starvation? The point being, who pays for it all.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
What you fail to understand is that a good number of people object off the bat the federal government being involved in healthcare. Period. We don't want it fixed. We want market-based solutions. Don't bother to argue the merits of Obamacare. We've been through that before. That one point of federal government involvement is the non-negotiable kicker.

So you believe if you can't afford medical care you should die if you have cancer?

So you believe if you can't afford the water bill, rent or grocery bill you should die of dehydration, elements or starvation? The point being, who pays for it all.

The Affordable Care Act has proven more efficient (from the standpoint of government expenditures) than the prior system. We're saving a ton of money not having to treat people who waited until their conditions were emergencies, and we're gaining a ton of productivity from people who can stay healthier because they can afford preventative care and earlier care. We're saving a whole bunch of overhead not having to worry any more about pre-existing conditions. Medical providers also are getting paid more often by insurance instead of having to write off as uncollectible bills issued to people who go into bankruptcy because they had no hope of paying them.

Simply put, it's cheaper for everyone to keep people healthy than to treat them after they get sick, and we long ago made the decision as a nation that people are going to get at least Emergency Room care whether they can afford it or not.

Now, the recent sabotage of the Act is going to make it more expensive for the government. By actions including but not limited to eliminating the penalty for the individual mandate, the Republicans ensured that fewer healthy people will buy insurance. They'll choose to gamble with other people's money that they won't get sick, and many of those who lose the gamble will simply declare bankruptcy, sticking the rest of us with their bills. The net result of this will be that insurers will have to raise premiums. But that won't affect people who are eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act because they'll still pay the same price. The government subsidy will simply increase as necessary to keep it that way. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: So you believe if you can't afford medical care you should die if you have cancer?

So you believe if you can't afford the water bill, rent or grocery bill you should die of dehydration, elements or starvation? The point being, who pays for it all.

The Affordable Care Act has proven more efficient (from the standpoint of government expenditures) than the prior system. We're saving a ton of money not having to treat people who waited until their conditions were emergencies, and we're gaining a ton of productivity from people who can stay healthier because they can afford preventative care and earlier care. We're saving a whole bunch of overhead not having to worry any more about pre-existing conditions. Medical providers also are getting paid more often by insurance instead of having to write off as uncollectible bills issued to people who go into bankruptcy because they had no hope of paying them.

Simply put, it's cheaper for everyone to keep people healthy than to treat them after they get sick, and we long ago made the decision as a nation that people are going to get at least Emergency Room care whether they can afford it or not.

Now, the recent sabotage of the Act is going to make it more expensive for the government. By actions including but not limited to eliminating the penalty for the individual mandate, the Republicans ensured that fewer healthy people will buy insurance. They'll choose to gamble with other people's money that they won't get sick, and many of those who lose the gamble will simply declare bankruptcy, sticking the rest of us with their bills. The net result of this will be that insurers will have to raise premiums. But that won't affect people who are eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act because they'll still pay the same price. The government subsidy will simply increase as necessary to keep it that way. --Bob

Um, I don't think this is true.