Weird Stuff/Unexplained
See other Weird Stuff/Unexplained Articles
Title: Some more bullshit Willie Posted
Source:
The Independent (UK)
URL Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w ... -president-elect-a7412621.html
Published: Nov 11, 2016
Author: Andrew Griffin
Post Date: 2016-11-11 16:06:24 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 20805
Comments: 52
Donald Trump has said that he might not repeal Obamacare, perhaps his biggest campaign promise.
The President-elect performed the apparent U-turn after his meeting with Barack Obama at the White House this week, he has said.
Mr Trump is going to look at "amending" the policy, rather than completely repealing it, he told the Wall Street Journal.
After the meeting at the White House, Mr Trump said that he and Mr Obama had discussed "some of the difficulties" the country faced but also "some of the really great things that have been achieved". Some took that latter remark as a reference to Obamacare and perhaps other policies, and a potential suggestion that Mr Trump may be won around on what has become one of Barack Obama's flagship policies but also one hated by much of the Republican party.
Mr Obama also said he was "encouraged" by Mr Trump's willingness to work with his team, telling him: "We want to do everything we can to help you succeed because if you succeed the country succeeds".
The tense meeting was far more respectful than the exchanges between the two during the presidential campaign, during which Mr Obama called Mr Trump unfit to be president, and Mr Trump said Mr Obama was "the founder of Isis".
Mr Trump said after he spoke with congressional leaders, shortly after his first meeting with Mr Obama, that healthcare would be among his top priorities in office.
“We're going to move very strongly on immigration. We will move very strongly on healthcare. And we're looking at jobs. Big league jobs,” he told the press.
Good grief... that deluded stooge is in so deep over his head he has absolutely no idea what he's flapping his yap about from one minute to the next.Getting rid of the healthcare plan was among billionaire businessman's biggest campaign promises
Poster Comment:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
Then quote the WSJ and not some flapping UK rag.......You got a quote from the WSJ?
Is FOX News pure enough for your sensitivities?
Keeping parts of it is not the same as "not repealing" wouldn't you agree? Borrowing the few good ideas it has is not a bad thing at all......
Yes, he's a carbon copy of Obama. http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-willing-to-keep-parts-of-health-law-1478895339 President-elect hints at possible compromise after vows to repeal the Affordable Care Act By Monica Langley and Gerard Baker NEW YORK—President-elect Donald Trump said that, after conferring with President Barack Obama, he would consider leaving in place certain parts of the Affordable Care Act, an indication of possible compromise after a campaign in which he pledged repeatedly to repeal the 2010 health law. [snip]
Depends on how you look at it... some people would say it's all or nothing... more reasonable people are willing to meet you halfway... there's nothing wrong with getting rid of what doesn't work and keeping/improving those things that do.
It was a serious mistake for him to meet with Obama. Trump is too easily affected by other people.
WSJ reports that Trump would consider leaving in place certain parts of the ACA. He can be polite when the occasion calls for politeness. It is not reported that he changed his mind in any way.
Correct. For example, the part of the AHA which most Republicans agreed with was the protection of people with pre-existing conditions.
President elect Trump is incorrect about this statement about Obama as the founder of ISIS. ISIS was founded far back as 2006, way before Obama was considered a candidate to run for President in 2008. But it was the help of US intelligence that helped make this happen as far back as July 31, 2005.
Dr. Death said in an interview that group consists of 3 million Americans with an annual cost of $26 billion. If the insurance companies will be expected to cover that cost, they'll spread it among everyone else they cover. Is that fair? And how do we prevent people from only signing up after they get sick?
But that is what insurance does....it spreads the risk whether it be auto, home, life, health.....no one knows what the future holds for them....if we did we would not need insurance.
a) People with pre-existing conditions are not a risk -- they're a 100% guaranteed liability. b) Why should people with health insurance be the only ones who cover those guaranteed costs? What about those who choose not to get insurance, or who get it through their employer who self-insured?
GruberCare is a pre-existing condition for Governor Mittens and the people of Massachusetts. And that is exactly why the GOP kept losing elections.
No Dump is BO Mark II, what made you think Dump didn't lean to the left when he talks out of the side of his mouth? It is just his policies are very left. Remember it was the communists who built a wall, not to keep people out, but to keep the slaves in, who looked after their own interests without regard for the rest of the world, the communists. I know he might have borrowed some policies from the right, such as removing the undesirables to a distant place, Mexico is the Siberia of North America. Wait to see what he thinks after talking to Vlad
And how do we prevent people from only signing up after they get sick? Fair or unfair, it is absolutely necessary that everybody in the nation have health insurance. If the economic burden is too great, the government will have to permanently subsidize it. Like Social Security, this is a must have, not a nice to have. Trump has always thought so too, so that's what we're going to get. To keep the costs lower, Trump is going to nationalize the market, removing all of the state regulatory barriers to the sale of health insurance policies. But everybody will have a policy - it will be mandatory, just like Social Security is. Fair or unfair, that's the way it has to be. It can be less overall expensive than Obamacare because of the nationwide mandate. It won't cover contraception and abortion, that's for sure. It will have a government subsidy, which will be set at a level that lets the insurance companies make their profit. It's a good thing that peace with Russia is another major Trump plank, because the savings from not having to continue to fight this un-necessary neo-Cold War will be needed to fund universal health insurance. The new Republican majority will be the working and middle class, not the upper class and free traders. There will no longer be trickle down economics. It will be economic nationalism and universal health insurance. Republicans will get in line with Trump and win a century of power or they will divide, Trump will get the votes for health care from moderate Republicans and Democrats, he'll get the policy through and be a hero for it, but the Republicans won't reap the political benefits. He won the election, and dragged them along for the ride. He's going to change the philosophy of the GOP. It's not going to be statist, and it's not going to be Reaganomics. It's going to be a natioalist blue-collar/middle class party.
Stone,WTF are you doing changing threat titles? Are you really THAT juvenile?
BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
I want to. Don't worry about it. Willie posts lies.
I agree that everybody in the nation should have some sort of health insurance. That simply makes sense. But why must they? Under my plan, I leave the choice to the American consumer. Under my plan, I repeal the idiotic, unfunded, 1986 federal mandate called The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) which forces hospitals to treat patients regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. Once that joke of a law is repealed, trust me, people will buy insurance.
Yeah, don't worry about it pete... C'est la vie...
With a federal payroll deduction for health insurance? Then every working schlub will be paying for their own insurance (through their employer) and everyone elses. Or do you envision employers dropping employee health insurance and dumping every working person onto the market? That will be as popular as Obamacare. My plan's better.
You support murdering babies. So you should face the guillotine. You're not a real American. You're immoral. You're immoral. You're immoral. Let that seek in geezer.
That's not true... I simply think that it's futile to try to control what women will do to their own fetus... If they don't want it, they'll find a way to get rid of it regardless of whether it's legal or illegal... If you don't like it, then go open up an orphanage or adoption agency where women can dump-off their unwanted kids...
With taxpayer money.
Huh? BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
He really isn't doing himself any favors when he does stuff like that. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
You use liberal made up words like fetus to justify your barbaric beliefs. It is a baby. You are a sicko. Your kind is worse then people who used to own people. Does that woman have the same right to control her fingers and scratch your libtarted eyes out? No you sickos just support that so called right against the innocent babies who can't defend themselves. It is a sick lot that you ally yourself with.
So according to immoral Willie if someone wants to do something that is illegal and immoral in this case. It shouldn't be illegal because they will do it anyway. Little Willie I have to tell you that you think like a really dumb ass. Bottom line is you are ok with babies being murdered. You vote for people who favor that barbarism. You belong in a mental institution not on a forum.
Because it is only affordable for everybody if everybody is in the pool. Otherwise the young and healthy won't buy it, which will skew it towards just those who are already sick, making it much more expensive. And SOME of those who don't buy it, a substantial number, will end up getting cancer or other diseases, and will die if we don't help them (because nobody but the rich can actually pay for cancer treatment with their own resources). We can't just let people die, so we will help them. And that will mean that in ADDITION to insurance costs being higher for everybody, the cost of treating the uninsured will be added on top of that. It is much cheaper for all of us, on average over time, if everybody is in the pool. Unfortunately, people won't do that voluntarily, just as they won't voluntarily save enough for retirement. We have to have mandatory Social Security and mandatory health insurance because it's the only way to keep costs as low as possible for US, GIVEN THAT we're a Christian nation and cannot just let people die on the streets because of bad luck or bad choices. The consequences of bad choices are still bad: you've gotta have cancer, you've gotta live in a crappy neighborhood where rent is low. But the consequences cannot in a civilized country be allowed to go as low as "you've gotta eat dog food, you've gotta freeze to death on the sidewalk, and you've gotta die of untreated cancer, because you made a bad call." That's too harsh. It may be satisfying intellectually in the abstract, but we're never going to go that far. So I think we should be realistic and impose what needs to be imposed to keep what we've gotta do as cheap as possible. Of course that is why I am for getting private fpr-profit insurance companies out of the mix completely and just going to French-style single-payer: make Medicare cover everybody, pay for doctors' medical school educations and provide malpractice and liability limitations IF, and only if, the doctors so subsidized agree to always take patients on Medicare. Medicaid, then, will continue to exist to cover the people too poor to pay the co-pay. Get good tort reform in there, and that is that - a comprehensive system that covers all of the basic needs. There's no other major program needed after this, other than perhaps have the government take over direct lending at low interest for the primary housing.
Read it again it's pretty self explanatory.
They would if a program was designed to fit their needs -- eg., a private medical savings account (to cover day-to-day medical expenses) that is tax free when set up with a corresponding catastrophic health insurance policy (to cover a major illness). "We can't just let people die, so we will help them." We do. The poor receive Medicaid. The elderly receive Medicare. We can subsidize the few on the margins. The remainder can afford it. If they can afford it but refuse to obtain it, f**k 'em. Why in the world should I pay for something they can afford? Once the word gets out, people will buy insurance. "We have to have mandatory Social Security" a) That program is going bankrupt -- as you well know. Yet you want to duplicate it for healthcare? b) There is talk of privatizing Social Security. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the program. c) Social Security was designed as a supplemental program, not the sole program for retirement. "Of course that is why I am for getting private fpr-profit insurance companies out of the mix completely and just going to French-style single-payer:" Screw single-payer. I'm against it.
Well, this is the place where Republicans - if they want to keep and expand the majority that Trump just gave them, are going to have to change their philosophy. They've been fighting Social Security since FDR, and Medicare since LBJ. Reagan ushered in trickle-down economics and free trade. They did not work. There is plenty in the Republican ideals that can survive and thrive: pro-life, pro-defense, pro- border control, pro-law enforcement, pro-deregulation, pro-industry taxation, pro-energy, rejecting the absurd Global Warming hysteria, general pro-business. BUT Trump just gave the Republican party the working class, the blue collar all across America. He gave them the lower middle class. This is the first time that the Republicans have had that class since they voted for Reagan, but the Reagan vote wasn't simply an economic vote, it was a vote against international weakness - our hostages were in Iran, the Soviets were in Afghanistan, Africa, Central America. We had given up the Panama Canal, our Iranian rescue mission turned into a fiery fiasco. Everything was falling to pieces, and the patriotic working class went with Reagan because he was red, white and blue. This time, the vote for Trump was PUIRELY an economic play, just like for Sanders. The Republicans have captured the attention of the working class and the struggling class. If the Republicans come through for them, they'll be the new dominant party for a generation. Reaganomic trickle-down won't cut it. The working class and middle class are dependent upon Social Security for their retirement, and they do not have the excess cash in their budgets to pay as much for health insurance as it cost. They must be subsidized. So, this is what has to go in Republican philosophy. Caring about a Reagonmic ideal that really didn't work has to give way to beefing up the structured programs for working class and middle class health care and retirement, and improving education. The rest of the Republican plan will bring back jobs, and the GOP will gradually capture even the black vote IF (and ONLY if) they brings back tons of jobs and improve the distressed lot of the working class. Health insurance is a fundamental. So is Social Security. Republicans have to bite the bullet on that and accept that the world has changed, that it just doesn't work in reality the way they'd like it to in their ivory towers, and that state support of people's health insurance and retirement insurance is a fundamental need, without which, the Republicans will never be able to keep the working class and lower middle class in their ranks. Repyvblican run Social Security and Health Care can be more efficient than Democrat-run, IF the Republicans put their back into it, recognize the need and the inevitability, and just stop bitching about it and get it done. Likewise, the VA needs to be turned into gold plan health care, instead of the current "Free clinic" level of care they give.
It is a baby. You are a sicko. No, a fetus is not a baby, nitwit.
It is a baby you fucking moron. You liberals probably grill them out. That is how much of a sicko you are. Baby killer, baby killer. Murderer! Go To Hell do not pass go do not collect redemption.
Thievery isn't christ like. But you've already been debunked but just ignore the truth.
It can't be an unborn baby unless it's a baby - just as I can't be a middle- aged Caucasian unless I'm a Caucasian. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Classic doublethink
Hillary ran on socialized healthcare and lost. Trump ran on repealing and replacing Obamacare with a market-based system and won. Trump has no obligation to adopt a losing agenda.
Communism which you espouse doesn't work. What Reagan did worked great. Get your head out of the liberals asshole.
Comments (41 - 52) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMr Trump is going to look at "amending" the policy, rather than completely repealing it, he told the Wall Street Journal.
#2. To: civilwarbuff (#1)
#3. To: Willie Green (#2)
#4. To: Willie Green, Lost In Space, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0)
that deluded stooge is in so deep over his head he has absolutely no idea what he's flapping his yap about from one minute to the next
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#5. To: civilwarbuff, Willie Green (#1)
Donald Trump, in Exclusive Interview, Tells WSJ He Is Willing to Keep Parts of Obama Health Law
Wall Street Journal
Updated Nov. 11, 2016 4:09 p.m. ET
#6. To: civilwarbuff (#3)
Keeping parts of it is not the same as "not repealing" wouldn't you agree?
#7. To: nolu chan (#5)
(Edited)
President-elect Donald Trump said that, after conferring with President Barack Obama, he would consider leaving in place certain parts of the Affordable Care Act
#8. To: rlk (#7)
#9. To: civilwarbuff (#3)
Keeping parts of it is not the same as "not repealing" wouldn't you agree? Borrowing the few good ideas it has is not a bad thing at all......
#10. To: Willie Green (#0)
The tense meeting was far more respectful than the exchanges between the two during the presidential campaign, during which Mr Obama called Mr Trump unfit to be president, and Mr Trump said Mr Obama was "the founder of Isis".
#11. To: redleghunter (#9)
"For example, the part of the AHA which most Republicans agreed with was the protection of people with pre-existing conditions."
#12. To: misterwhite (#11)
If the insurance companies will be expected to cover that cost, they'll spread it among everyone else they cover. Is that fair?
#13. To: civilwarbuff (#12)
"it spreads the risk whether it be auto, home, life, health....."
#14. To: redleghunter, pre-existing GruberCare, ACA Romney Republicans, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#9)
, the part of the AHA which most Republicans agreed with was the protection of people with pre-existing conditions
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#15. To: misterwhite (#11)
#16. To: hondo68 (#4)
he's a carbon copy of Obama.
#17. To: misterwhite (#11)
f the insurance companies will be expected to cover that cost, they'll spread it among everyone else they cover. Is that fair?
#18. To: Willie Green, AKA Stone (#0)
#19. To: sneakypete (#18)
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
"Fair or unfair, it is absolutely necessary that everybody in the nation have health insurance."
#21. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#19)
I want to. Don't worry about it.
He's clearly oblivious to how it reflects poorly on his own character... so he's certainly not going to seek professional help just because you or I or Fred or somebody else suggests it... He'll simply brush it aside and continue to do whatever he wants in his own little delusional fringe cyber-world...
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
"it will be mandatory, just like Social Security is."
#23. To: Willie Green (#21)
#24. To: A K A Stone (#23)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#23)
You support murdering babies.
#26. To: A K A Stone (#19)
I want to. Don't worry about it.
#27. To: Willie Green, AKA Stone (#21)
He's clearly oblivious to how it reflects poorly on his own character...
#28. To: Willie Green (#24)
I simply think that it's futile to try to control what women will do to their own fetus...
#29. To: Willie Green (#24)
If they don't want it, they'll find a way to get rid of it regardless of whether it's legal or illegal...
#30. To: misterwhite (#20)
I agree that everybody in the nation should have some sort of health insurance. That simply makes sense. But why must they?
#31. To: sneakypete (#26)
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
"Otherwise the young and healthy won't buy it"
#33. To: misterwhite (#32)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#28)
You use liberal made up words like fetus to justify your barbaric beliefs.
A fetus is an unborn baby... and more specifically, an unborn baby that has developed for more than 8 weeks after fertilization... Younger than that, the unborn fertilized egg is called an embryo. After they are born, babies are called newborn (ages 0–4 weeks); infant (ages 4 weeks – 1 year); toddler (ages 1–3 years); preschooler (ages 4–6 years); school-aged child (ages 6–13 years); adolescent (ages 13–19).
#35. To: Willie Green (#34)
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
are going to have to change their philosophy.
#37. To: Willie Green (#34)
No, a fetus is not a baby, nitwit. A fetus is an unborn baby
#38. To: Willie Green (#34)
No, a fetus is not a baby, nitwit. A fetus is an unborn baby...
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#33)
Caring about a Reagonmic ideal that really didn't work
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]