President Trump- The Implications

[TulsaMoon]

THIS is the real world version of 'death panels'.  Nothing to do with Obamacare, of course, but the RWRE must throw up something to deflect attention from reality.

Leads to rationing.  Someone has to decide who lives and dies, don't they?  Triage on a national scale - somewhere along the line, someone says it just isn't 'worth' spending a couple million on this person.  Jump to "Soylent Green" ....


Unless there are 'safety nets'.  You are just making the case over and over for getting rid of commercial insurance...  I recommend a law that says no member of the US Congress, or Executive branch, or the Judicial branch, shall have any health insurance plan better than the lowest paid citizen of the US.   And let's take it one step further - no member of those groups shall have a pension or "golden parachute" plan better than the lowest among us.   That is the egalitarian - fair and balanced - approach.

Agreed, and so does she. This passed 429-0

https://mcsally.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/house-unanimously-passes-mcsally-bill-striking-ahca-exemptions-members

[heironymouspasparagus]

Agreed, and so does she. This passed 429-0

https://mcsally.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/house-unanimously-passes-mcsally-bill-striking-ahca-exemptions-members

Lol...that is the quintessential definition of a worthless, meaningless, trite, specious, intellectually bankrupt, intelligence insulting bill.  It does absolutely nothing since Congress will never subject themselves to the same issues we have to deal with on a daily basis.  It is a perfect Anatole France moment...

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."


She voted yes to get rid of Obamacare, so we can see where she really comes from - still part of the problem rather than working to solve it.

[TulsaMoon]

Lol...that is the quintessential definition of a worthless, meaningless, trite, specious, intellectually bankrupt, intelligence insulting bill.  It does absolutely nothing since Congress will never subject themselves to the same issues we have to deal with on a daily basis.  It is a perfect Anatole France moment...

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."


She voted yes to get rid of Obamacare, so we can see where she really comes from - still part of the problem rather than working to solve it.

I think you need to jump down off that high horse for a second and remember one thing, Obamacare is owned by the Dem's and you have to agree it has some major issues. Does that mean that the Republicans are correct in what they are doing? No, not in my opinion BUT... They are doing the exact same thing the Dem's did when they passed this law in the first place. They are just shoving it down our throats just as it was when it was first passed. Don't think for one second that this is only a Republican screw up now just because they are doing the same. No one on either side wants to resolve a dang thing, they don't care either way. All they care about is being able to point fingers, about being re-elected and about who can bash who the most. Who can stir up the most sh&t and who can cause the most media coverage. They want people like you and I to fight instead of working it out because if we fight, they can fight and it just becomes a circle. Why would they want anything different?

Yes she voted to repeal Obamacare, but she also put forth a bill to take out the provision that exempts Congress (portions of McArthur Amendment). The SHOP portion.

Just like everyone else, members of congress and their staff must purchase their coverage through the exchanges.
Unlike most everyone else, they use the small businesses part of the health insurance marketplace and a loophole to retain robust benefits. https://obamacarefacts.com/congress-obamacare/

[heironymouspasparagus]

I think you need to jump down off that high horse for a second and remember one thing, Obamacare is owned by the Dem's and you have to agree it has some major issues. Does that mean that the Republicans are correct in what they are doing? No, not in my opinion BUT... They are doing the exact same thing the Dem's did when they passed this law in the first place. They are just shoving it down our throats just as it was when it was first passed. Don't think for one second that this is only a Republican screw up now just because they are doing the same. No one on either side wants to resolve a dang thing, they don't care either way. All they care about is being able to point fingers, about being re-elected and about who can bash who the most. Who can stir up the most sh&t and who can cause the most media coverage. They want people like you and I to fight instead of working it out because if we fight, they can fight and it just becomes a circle. Why would they want anything different?

Yes she voted to repeal Obamacare, but she also put forth a bill to take out the provision that exempts Congress (portions of McArthur Amendment). The SHOP portion.

Just like everyone else, members of congress and their staff must purchase their coverage through the exchanges.
Unlike most everyone else, they use the small businesses part of the health insurance marketplace and a loophole to retain robust benefits. https://obamacarefacts.com/congress-obamacare/

Two wrongs make a right argument...we actually are pretty much in agreement on most of that...

No high horse...just statement of fact about her disingenuous BS.  It does nothing.  Was intended to do nothing.  Certainly didn't fix the big problem with the McArthur amendment - the fact that they left that part in that allows parsing the population into risk pools - all the other waivers that weren't eliminated - like waiver for community health ratings.   A little underwriting trick that will let rates skyrocket on older people while giving younger ones an even bigger break than they had before.  So thereby limiting health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions. 

The original quote still applies -
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."


Yet this little effort cost how much time, effort, money that could have been used for something real..?  Like making some changes to Obamacare to make it work better.  (It already works well...now make it better.)

Keep hearing all the RWRE nonsense about "major issues" - none of which are anywhere near as major as they want you to believe.  Just getting rid of the 26 year limit to stay on Daddy's insurance would go a long ways toward fixing one of the biggest issues - participation.  So why not do that?



A lot like illegal immigration, there are easy fixes that could be applied but won't be.  They can't get a little piece of the action if they don't stir controversy and come up with big, hairy, expensive, fixes.  And like you said, stir emotional turmoil in the voters to keep them agitated, polarized, pissed at each other instead of the real problem source, and focused on other stuff rather than the real sleight of hand going on in the background.  It's magic.

[guido911]

[Breadburner]

Lol...At the left....

[Hoss]

Jake makes good points here.  Very disingenuous for sure.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/10/trump-fires-james-comey-tapper-opening-sot.cnn

Although I'm sure the sleepover twins will disagree.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Jake makes good points here.  Very disingenuous for sure.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/10/trump-fires-james-comey-tapper-opening-sot.cnn

Although I'm sure the sleepover twins will disagree.

[erfalf]

Jake makes good points here.  Very disingenuous for sure.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/10/trump-fires-james-comey-tapper-opening-sot.cnn

Although I'm sure the sleepover twins will disagree.

You're right, the timing is admittedly weird. If Trump was a real leader, he would have canned him on January 21st.

That being said, a serious non political discussion me and others have been having at work kind of hearkens to this situation. We've got some dead weight, some managers are more reluctant than others to kick them to the curb. I even recall as my first firing a serious reluctance, but once I "pulled the trigger" my team responded far better than I could have imagined and things were better than they ever had been. Because everyone knew what had to happen.

Is this a situation similar to that? I'm not personally involved in this situation so all I can do is play armchair quarterback. Maybe Comey truly was dead weight. Comey obviously wasn't getting anywhere on the Trump/Russia connection, so honestly no real loss there if your belief is that there is one. As if firing one man at the FBI has any real impact on the result of the investigation. He's widely viewed as the reason Trump is where he is in the first place. He's been way to public and visible and compounded even more by the fact that he keeps disseminating information that just ain't so and has to be corrected in a week. It just happened AGAIN with the comments he made regarding emails between Abedin and Weiner. We're not exactly talking about a model employee here. Hell, pretty sure Lynch was recommending to Obama that he be fired late last year/early this year. Pissing off both sides of the aisle ain't exactly a good plan to keep your job in D.C.

But again, timing seems weird, unless you consider the Yates/Clapper testimony basically saying their was no (evidence of) collusion happening the day before just a coincidence.

And I'm not going to dig up any you tube videos, but I'm sure there are hundreds calling for his head around the time of the bathroom server investigation. Their screeches this morning fall on deaf ears I'm afraid. Or people will have really short memories.

Judicial Watch's comment on the dismissal:

"This is an important move to restore public confidence in the fair administration of justice at the Federal level. Mr. Comey did not seem to understand some of the laws he was asked to enforce and unfortunately politicized his sensitive position as the FBI director. President Trump took the right step in cleaning house at the FBI."

All true. There will be shouts of impropriety, but what can't be ignored is that Comey, from an outsider's perspective, really seemed to suck at his job.

[Hoss]

All true. There will be shouts of impropriety, but what can't be ignored is that Comey, from an outsider's perspective, really seemed to suck at his job.

Except for when the President was praising him.

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/862077975797354496

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-praises-james-comey-230542

[erfalf]

Except for when the President was praising him.

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/862077975797354496

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-praises-james-comey-230542

So here you take him at his word? I'm confused because I thought Trump was an imbecile who shouldn't be believed EVER.

Besides this is hardly justification to keep dead weight on staff. As it would apply to my discussion above, because an employee does one thing right (or partly right) doesn't justify their pay.

[Conan71]

It looks really bad firing the person who is supposedly leading the investigation into Trump's admin.  IIRC, the POTUS gets to hire the FBI director.

"Now, before I appoint you, you ARE going to stop these circle jerk investigations, right?"

"Yessir, Mr. President!"

[erfalf]

It looks really bad firing the person who is supposedly leading the investigation into Trump's admin.  IIRC, the POTUS gets to hire the FBI director.

"Now, before I appoint you, you ARE going to stop these circle jerk investigations, right?"

"Yessir, Mr. President!"

This I understand.

However, Comey wasn't going to connect the dots anyway, so really what crisis are the D's looking at here.

Even the AP seemed to notice:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_COMEY_DEMOCRATS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-05-10-04-43-02

[erfalf]

And I'm sure un-shockingly, the WSJ editorial supports the idea.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/comeys-deserved-dismissal-1494380259

My overall thought is, if not now when. He obviously deserved to be let go, but because of all this hype about investigations and what not, there was never going to be a good time for Trump to do so, even though it needed to be done. He was a liability for the department, and the administration, and potentially the country.

[erfalf]

Consider this, Comey admits to opening an investigation on Clinton, who at the time was considered a lock for the president. How better to maintain your job than to be conducting an investigation on your boss. I bet, had she been elected, this would have dragged out (especially with Rs in congress) and Clinton would have been in the same boat. Can't fire the person who is leading/the face of the investigation.

Wicked smart that fella. Not very competent, but hey, he was in survival mode.