It has determined that leftist organization are behind the funding. I think the Dems thought it would work in their favor. But from what I have seen this caravan and their talking points has backfired on them. It appears that the majority of voters don’t want them to come into the country. Hence the conspiracy theory about the bombs being sent to Democrats. They want the attention to be turned away from the caravan disaster and the Kavanaugh debacle.

I have heard that allegation but not seen any proof. I am sure you have some since you aren't swayed by propaganda as you say.

Is there a reason why you're focusing so much on the ACA?  He tried to nix it, but GOP didn't step up.  He also promised a wall, but that hasn't happened yet...or has it?

I do say that he is delivering on more of his campaign promises than most presidents do (jobs, N.Korea,  ISIS, etc...).  Or at least trying to deliver, again more than most presidents do.

I give him a lot of slack if he doesn't deliver because he is fighting the entire fake news organization and DNC.  And having almost little to no support or anyone from the GOP to stand up for him when he's being attacked.  This takes a strong leader.  Many would have either resigned or caved in and played ball.

I do understand that the president doesn't have the power to fulfill every promise they make while running since they don't control congress so I give slack to Trump in some areas.

I think Trump has done a number of good things and a number of bad things.

The part about the ACA is that his administration signed onto the lawsuit attempting to strike down the ACA. If you strike down the ACA without something to put in its place the preexisting coverage will cease to exist. That is the crux of the matter as I understand the current lawsuit.

I do understand that the president doesn't have the power to fulfill every promise they make while running since they don't control congress so I give slack to Trump in some areas.

I think Trump has done a number of good things and a number of bad things.

The part about the ACA is that his administration signed onto the lawsuit attempting to strike down the ACA. If you strike down the ACA without something to put in its place the preexisting coverage will cease to exist. That is the crux of the matter as I understand the current lawsuit.

Insurance for pre-existing coverage is a misnomer. It cannot exist by definition.

Insurance is something you pay up front and then claim benefits from if you experience a covered event/situation/illness.

Saying insurance covers pre-existing illnesses is crazy.  It would be like going up to the craps table, watching the shooter roll a 12, then putting down a table limit bet on the "field".  That's not a bet. That's a sure thing, just like asking an insurance company to provide benefits for an illness you already know you have.

What needs to happen is there needs to be a premium adjustment for pre-existing illnesses.  Basically, you'll pay more for benefit coverage, but it'll give you coverage for newly diagnosed illnesses and prescriptions, tests, etc.  You won't be rejected based on the pre-existing because you'll be paying extra for the services.

Some companies already offered insurance coverage that excluded the pre-existing illness from benefits under that policy but with a rider you can purchase to provide services for that illness.  So it's not like ACA invented pre-existing illness coverage.  ACA simply made everybody pay more so men could help pay for OBGYN and women could help pay for prostate exams.  This is why most of the healthy young people ACA counted on to subsidize the older, sicker patients with their increased premiums opted out.  It was cheaper to pay the annual tax/penalty than struggle with premium payments.

If you can't afford the additional costs, there will always be subsidies under Medicare and Medicaid.  But it at least shifts the burden of increased premium costs to the people needing the services and not every single person under that plan.

I would love to drive my whole life without insurance and be able to call up the day after I hit someone to sign up and file a claim. Pre-existing damage coverage.  Bwahahahaha!!!

If you look at Trump's record he isn't the most trustworthy guy out there so forgive me if I don't have full fait his AHCA will do that. Trump hasn't even gotten rid of the ACA, one of the main things he campaigned on.

And secondly, this is a complex issue. Try to remember that not everyone knows everything you do, some people are trying to get a handle on it through discussions and reading news stories.

I’m not going to Google this stuff for you. You are obviously lazy because numerous people here including myself have accused of you of you not making the effort you should if you want to speak to the facts. This is BS.

When did you start caring about other people?  It is obvious to me you are trying to obfuscate from the lies you kept defending earlier.

Once again you are full of BS. If you are not smart enough to realize you should have just stopped, I don’t want to continue with you. I’m done here.

I have heard that allegation but not seen any proof. I am sure you have some since you aren't swayed by propaganda as you say.

Google is your best friend. Don’t be lazy.

I’m not going to Google this stuff for you. You are obviously lazy because numerous people here including myself have accused of you of you not making the effort you should if you want to speak to the facts. This is BS.

When did you start caring about other people?  It is obvious to me you are trying to obfuscate from the lies you kept defending earlier.

Once again you are full of BS. If you are not smart enough to realize you should have just stopped, I don’t want to continue with you. I’m done here.

Amen 

Google is your best friend. Don’t be lazy.

Not always, and sometimes gotta dig super deep to find the real stuff.

Thank god for screen shots so people can get info before it's changed/erased.

Not always, and sometimes gotta dig super deep to find the real stuff.

Thank god for screen shots so people can get info before it's changed/erased.

Careful.  Apparently bitcoin and the dark web are not culprits for causing global warming. . .

Careful.  Apparently bitcoin and the dark web are not culprits for causing global warming. . .

You never know.  Someone makes buku dollars off of bit coin.  Buys stupid stuff like jets, cars, boats, trains.  So more pollution.  Gotta think 4D. 

You never know.  Someone makes buku dollars off of bit coin.  Buys stupid stuff like jets, cars, boats, trains.  So more pollution.  Gotta think 4D. 

Actually, the theory is, since BitCoin is mined using computers that suck up electricity, the amount of energy being "wasted" in the world could be adding 2 degrees on average to world temperatures.

That assumes everyone doing the mining isn't using solar or wind power for most of their mining calculations.

 

Actually, the theory is, since BitCoin is mined using computers that suck up electricity, the amount of energy being "wasted" in the world could be adding 2 degrees on average to world temperatures.

That assumes everyone doing the mining isn't using solar or wind power for most of their mining calculations.

 

Someone should ask Hirono since she's in town now.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mueller-refers-plot-false-claims-him-fbi-174956246--politics.html

Funniest shit I read all week.

Insurance for pre-existing coverage is a misnomer. It cannot exist by definition.

Insurance is something you pay up front and then claim benefits from if you experience a covered event/situation/illness.

Yet somehow it is covered! I think part of the problem is that as medical science advances we are finding more and more things related to people's genes. Depending on how one defines a condition, a whole group of illnesses could be said to be pre-existing by the fact it exists in their DNA even though the condition never showed signs.

What needs to happen is there needs to be a premium adjustment for pre-existing illnesses.  Basically, you'll pay more for benefit coverage, but it'll give you coverage for newly diagnosed illnesses and prescriptions, tests, etc.  You won't be rejected based on the pre-existing because you'll be paying extra for the services.

I agree that that could be a starting point, at least in theory. The downside that I would worry about is when people don't opt in for this extra coverage. Then when/if they do have a medical problem from a preexisting condition and cannot afford it they go to the emergency room for service they cannot afford and we end up paying for it anyway. Now some people are just making a poor choice but others in low income brackets might choose not to purchase this extra coverage because the cost is out of their budget.

Similarly, one of the big problems of Obamacare was the different tiers that were offered. The low tiered ones had lower premiums but higher deductibles which inevitably worked against the lower income people. They would buy the cheaper plans and then get hit with bigger bills when they actually had a higher cost medical visit. This is then compounded by the fact that the higher copays/deductibles discourages people from going to a doctor when needed and therefore illnesses aren't caught till later and cost more to treat later.

One of my biggest criticisms is that everyone talks about health insurance but not so much about the costs. I was listening to the news in the car this morning and they told of some story about outrageous costs. A lady went in for a comprehensive allergy test, the type where they make a grid on your back and expose each area to dozens of different allergens. When she got the bill it was about $40,000! Even after negotiating with the doctor and then with the insurance company itself, her portion was $4,000 if I remember correctly.

I was pondering a split medical insurance system, where catastrophic insurance could be covered by the government but the general doctor visits for colds and annual checkups be covered by the individual or by their private insurance. Make the annual check ups mandatory in order to receive the government catastrophic coverage. Just an idea in its infancy, one of a few I had, but I will stop there, I am getting kind of off topic.

I’m not going to Google this stuff for you. You are obviously lazy because numerous people here including myself have accused of you of you not making the effort you should if you want to speak to the facts. This is BS.

When did you start caring about other people?  It is obvious to me you are trying to obfuscate from the lies you kept defending earlier.

Once again you are full of BS. If you are not smart enough to realize you should have just stopped, I don’t want to continue with you. I’m done here.

I never asked you to google anything for me, nor did I even ask you a question. I did my own googling before I made the post. I heard it on one source then did my own search to confirm it with a second source before I posted it.

All I asked you to do is to show understanding, a simple understanding that on a complex issue people don't always get all the information right. Unfortunately you aren't even capable of doing that. 

Google is your best friend. Don’t be lazy.

 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Yet somehow it is covered! I think part of the problem is that as medical science advances we are finding more and more things related to people's genes. Depending on how one defines a condition, a whole group of illnesses could be said to be pre-existing by the fact it exists in their DNA even though the condition never showed signs.


I agree that that could be a starting point, at least in theory. The downside that I would worry about is when people don't opt in for this extra coverage. Then when/if they do have a medical problem from a preexisting condition and cannot afford it they go to the emergency room for service they cannot afford and we end up paying for it anyway. Now some people are just making a poor choice but others in low income brackets might choose not to purchase this extra coverage because the cost is out of their budget.

Similarly, one of the big problems of Obamacare was the different tiers that were offered. The low tiered ones had lower premiums but higher deductibles which inevitably worked against the lower income people. They would buy the cheaper plans and then get hit with bigger bills when they actually had a higher cost medical visit. This is then compounded by the fact that the higher copays/deductibles discourages people from going to a doctor when needed and therefore illnesses aren't caught till later and cost more to treat later.

One of my biggest criticisms is that everyone talks about health insurance but not so much about the costs. I was listening to the news in the car this morning and they told of some story about outrageous costs. A lady went in for a comprehensive allergy test, the type where they make a grid on your back and expose each area to dozens of different allergens. When she got the bill it was about $40,000! Even after negotiating with the doctor and then with the insurance company itself, her portion was $4,000 if I remember correctly.

I was pondering a split medical insurance system, where catastrophic insurance could be covered by the government but the general doctor visits for colds and annual checkups be covered by the individual or by their private insurance. Make the annual check ups mandatory in order to receive the government catastrophic coverage. Just an idea in its infancy, one of a few I had, but I will stop there, I am getting kind of off topic.

The only people ignoring the cost of healthcare are the Democrats.  If that's where you get your information, it's no wonder you have the opinion "that everyone talks about health insurance but not so much about the costs."

It was Democrats that defeated the Republican plan to allow purchasing prescription drugs from Canadian providers to reduce drug costs as much as 80% in some cases.

It was Democrats who refuse to discuss how ACA is causing a rise in all healthcare providers' premiums, some up 400%, because of the structure of restrictions and requirements it created.

It is Democrats not discussing the impact of ACA on employers, and how they reduce hours for workers and avoid employing more people to circumvent the mandates.

Yeah, people have been talking about it for years.  The MSM -- not so much.

Not sure if this was a specific campaign promise, but I know it was mentioned several times on the campaign trail ("anchor babies" and "chain migration").

Looks like the law may be on Trump's side to do this....

Trump is right – ending birthright citizenship is constitutional

President Trump’s announcement Tuesday that he is preparing an executive order to end birthright citizenship has
the left and even some conservatives in an uproar. But the president is correct when he says that the 14th Amendment
to the Constitution does not require universal birthright citizenship.

An executive order by President Trump ending birthright citizenship would face a certain court challenge that would
wind up in the Supreme Court. But based on my research of this issue over several years, I believe the president’s
view is consistent with the view of the framers of the amendment.


Those who claim the 14th Amendment mandates that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically an American citizen
are misinterpreting the amendment in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers.

Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S.
soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration.

Most countries around the world do not provides birthright citizenship. We do so based not upon the requirements of
federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. That should be changed.

Many Republicans, Democrats and independents believe the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on
U.S. soil, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of amendment, which
was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that
“all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second,
critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics of the president’s possible action erroneously claim that anyone present in the United States has “subjected”
himself or herself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists,
diplomats, and illegal immigrants alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual
and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that
they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted. But it does not place them within the
political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the
United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The amendment was intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and
were subject to its complete jurisdiction. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment,
said that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-is-right-ending-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

He's asking you to put more effort into being better informed.  And burden of proof doesn't apply when trying to convince someone who is basing their stance on a belief based on what amounts to their "gut feel" on the matter is as opposed to looking at facts and then coming to a logical conclusion.  That's why at least I find it difficult to have a rational conversation with you.  You seem to have a set belief on something, often not backed up by facts or evidence, and then call for others to convince you otherwise.  That's why Inspector is asking you to present evidence supporting your position, which pretty much you never do.  You continually base your position on your opinion and how you feel.  That is not a logical discussion. 

He's asking you to put more effort into being better informed.  And burden of proof doesn't apply when trying to convince someone who is basing their stance on a belief based on what amounts to their "gut feel" on the matter is as opposed to looking at facts and then coming to a logical conclusion.  That's why at least I find it difficult to have a rational conversation with you.  You seem to have a set belief on something, often not backed up by facts or evidence, and then call for others to convince you otherwise.  That's why Inspector is asking you to present evidence supporting your position, which pretty much you never do.  You continually base your position on your opinion and how you feel.  That is not a logical discussion.

I asked him for his source supporting his claim that the caravan was funded by Democrats. There was no gut feeling, no emotion, not even a stance. I didn't say his claim was wrong.

Inspector never asked me for any evidence, I asked him for his evidence. If I said something and he asked for evidence I would answer. If he did and I missed it then I apologize and would gladly do so when pointed out where. Like I said, I checked two sources to veifry before making the post I did. I was never asking him to do homework for me. He didn't agree with what I said and he came out swinging instead of having a real discussion. That was my beef with him.

Not sure if this was a specific campaign promise, but I know it was mentioned several times on the campaign trail ("anchor babies" and "chain migration").

Looks like the law may be on Trump's side to do this....

Trump is right – ending birthright citizenship is constitutional

I did hear discussions on the radio about this and a change in understanding of the meaning would end the birth tourism, where people come in one day and leave right after the birth. There was a case of a Chinese guy claiming citizenship under the amendment and the courts had that he was a citizen but they took note to recognize that his parents didn't just visit, they were actually established aliens in the country

I don't see how Trump would have the power to affect the change though, it would be the SCOTUS who would have to set a new presidence about the interpretation of the 14th amendment. The article doesn't really explain that part.