Trump to shine in the 2nd debate?

[Elfiero]

You are wrong about everything. Everything that you think you know is false. Everything that you believe in is a sham. Everything that libtards and their nonproductive followers do revolves around taking money from the workers and giving it to the do-nothings. You are a goddamned idiot.

And we resort to the Ad hominem as we've lost the argument.

Thanks for playing... Oh and straighten your tin foil hat, it got knocked around there a bit.

 

[IndySteel]

And we resort to the Ad hominem as we've lost the argument.

Thanks for playing... Oh and straighten your tin foil hat, it got knocked around there a bit.

I don't bicker with retards.

 

[oneforthebus]

There was not an amount of premium the person could pay to get coverage because of their condition.
That's flat out wrong.

I'm sorry, but it's not flat out wrong. Insurance you can get after you already get sick isn't insurance. It's subsidizing your illness on the backs of people who did the right thing and paid for insurance when they were healthy. THAT is flat out wrong.

It's like being allowed to buy car insurance after you wreck your car.

 

[Elfiero]

I don't bicker with retards.

I guess that leaves you no room for introspection.

Good luck.

 

[IndySteel]

I guess that leaves you no room for introspection.

Good luck.

That's weak as hell. You bicker with yourself? ******* retard.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

When are the Democrats going to have a debate? Is Hildebeast trying to put the kibosh on debates because she isn't very good at answering questions?

 

[IndySteel]

When are the Democrats going to have a debate? Is Hildebeast trying to put the kibosh on debates because she isn't very good at answering questions?

What difference does it make?

 

[oneforthebus]

When are the Democrats going to have a debate? Is Hildebeast trying to put the kibosh on debates because she isn't very good at answering questions?

The less people see and hear from her, the more they like her. They learned that lesson in her last primary. Her approval ratings start to plummet the moment she opens her mouth.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The less people see and hear from her, the more they like her. They learned that lesson in her last primary. Her approval ratings start to plummet the moment she opens her mouth.

Also it's painfully obvious that she doesn't like to mingle with and take questions from the little people.

 

[fedderone]

I'm sorry, but it's not flat out wrong. Insurance you can get after you already get sick isn't insurance. It's subsidizing your illness on the backs of people who did the right thing and paid for insurance when they were healthy. THAT is flat out wrong.

It's like being allowed to buy car insurance after you wreck your car.

Uh, yeah, happens all the time.
You don't get coverage for the wreck you were in.
You get coverage going forward from that day.
So the next wreck you have is covered by the insurance.
Wow. How unfair. ( Please note sarcasm. I'm laying it on rather thick ).

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Uh, yeah, happens all the time.
You don't get coverage for the wreck you were in.
You get coverage going forward from that day.
So the next wreck you have is covered by the insurance.
Wow. How unfair. ( Please note sarcasm. I'm laying it on rather thick ).

You get a new car to insure when you total the old one. No new body to hand out. If you pick up insurance when you get diagnosed with cancer your poor life decisions are subsidized by everyone else.

 

[ark steel]

Uh, yeah, happens all the time.
You don't get coverage for the wreck you were in.
You get coverage going forward from that day.
So the next wreck you have is covered by the insurance.
Wow. How unfair. ( Please note sarcasm. I'm laying it on rather thick ).

Still not a good analogy. For the analogy to work, the probability of the second wreck would need to be 100%. There is no chance there won't be a claim.

Besides, when you insure that new vehicle they will, indeed, charge you more for the perceived higher risk.

 

[Spike]

When are the Democrats going to have a debate?

It doesn't matter - Hillary already has it won


Trump still leads Iowa; Clinton in good shape

new Iowa poll finds Donald Trump continuing to lead in the state with 24% to 17% for Ben Carson, and 13% for Carly Fiorina. In single digits but getting decent levels of support are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio at 8%, Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee at 6%, the now departed Scott Walker at 5%, and Bobby Jindal and Rand Paul at 4%. Rounding out the field are John Kasich at 2%, Chris Christie and Rick Santorum at 1%, and Lindsey Graham, Jim Gilmore, and George Pataki all at less than 1%.

Trump's recent comments about President Obama waging a war on Christianity don't hurt him much with the GOP base. 69% agree with the sentiment that the President has waged a war on Christianity, with only 17% disagreeing. Trump's probably not hurting himself too much with his negativity toward Muslims either- only 49% of Republicans think the religion of Islam should even be legal in the United States with 30% saying it shouldn't be and 21% not sure. Among Trump voters there is almost even division with 38% thinking Islam should be allowed and 36% that it should not..............



............On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is in pretty good shape. She leads with 43% to 22% for Bernie Sanders, 17% for Joe Biden, 3% for Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb, and 2% for Lincoln Chafee. Among Biden's voters 43% say Clinton would be their second choice to only 15% for Sanders. Reallocate them to their second choice and Clinton would lead Sanders 50/25, almost identical to the 52/25 lead we found for her last month when we didn't include Biden

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...ll-leads-iowa-clinton-in-good-shape.html#more

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Also it's painfully obvious that she doesn't like to mingle with and take questions from the little people.

Hillary hates midgets!!! She's a midgetphobe!!!!

 

[oneforthebus]

Uh, yeah, happens all the time.
You don't get coverage for the wreck you were in.
You get coverage going forward from that day.
So the next wreck you have is covered by the insurance.
Wow. How unfair. ( Please note sarcasm. I'm laying it on rather thick ).

You don't get a new car for the one you wrecked with the insurance you bought after you wrecked it. If you could do that, no one would buy insurance until they wrecked, which totally defeats the purpose of insurance. So what do you do...you force people to buy insurance. But what happens if for some people, the insurance itself is way, WAY more expensive than the penalty for not having insurance? Intelligent people wouldn't bother buying the insurance.

No sarcasm, I'm keeping it simple so maybe you will be able to grasp the concept.

 

[fedderone]

You get a new car to insure when you total the old one. No new body to hand out. If you pick up insurance when you get diagnosed with cancer your poor life decisions are subsidized by everyone else.

The only problem with that is, it's not always about poor life decisions.
Sometimes you just get cancer. Sometimes you just develop allergies. Sometimes you're just a klutz a fall and break your leg.
I personally know people who had cancer and were the biggest health nuts, vegans, never drank/smoked a day in their life, always exercising.
The human body is not an exact science. It's why the narrative as to what is good/what is bad/what your body needs is constantly changing.

And if you're paying into the system ( your insurance premium ), that's not being subsidized. That's getting the coverage you pay for.
Subsidized means you pay nothing while everyone pays for you.
BIG difference.

 

[oneforthebus]

The only problem with that is, it's not always about poor life decisions.
Sometimes you just get cancer. Sometimes you just develop allergies. Sometimes you're just a klutz a fall and break your leg.
I personally know people who had cancer and were the biggest health nuts, vegans, never drank/smoked a day in their life, always exercising.
The human body is not an exact science. It's why the narrative as to what is good/what is bad/what your body needs is constantly changing.

And if you're paying into the system ( your insurance premium ), that's not being subsidized. That's getting the coverage you pay for.
Subsidized means you pay nothing while everyone pays for you.
BIG difference.

EXACTLY. With Obamacare, some people pay into the system, while others have their insurance heavily subsidized by the rest of us or for free. It's a transfer of wealth, no more, no less. It's also insurance that many of us don't want or need, but are forced to pay for, even if we'd prefer to pay less and get less coverage.

 

[Vis]

You don't get a new car for the one you wrecked with the insurance you bought after you wrecked it. If you could do that, no one would buy insurance until they wrecked, which totally defeats the purpose of insurance. So what do you do...you force people to buy insurance. But what happens if for some people, the insurance itself is way, WAY more expensive than the penalty for not having insurance? Intelligent people wouldn't bother buying the insurance.

No sarcasm, I'm keeping it simple so maybe you will be able to grasp the concept.

Intelligent people wanted insurance before the penalty.

 

[Vis]

EXACTLY. With Obamacare, some people pay into the system, while others have their insurance heavily subsidized by the rest of us or for free. It's a transfer of wealth, no more, no less. It's also insurance that many of us don't want or need, but are forced to pay for, even if we'd prefer to pay less and get less coverage.

All insurance is the transfer of wealth, mostly from the insured to the company but also from the pool to those who suffer losses. The part of the equation that gets ignored is that the uninsured are more expensive for everyone than the insured. The fewer uninsured there are, the lower the costs are across the board for everyone. The right wing think tank that thought up obamacare recognized this.

 

[fedderone]

Still not a good analogy. For the analogy to work, the probability of the second wreck would need to be 100%. There is no chance there won't be a claim.

Besides, when you insure that new vehicle they will, indeed, charge you more for the perceived higher risk.

Yeah, cars and the human body is a very poor analogy.
Not everyone owns cars and drive. Everyone has a body.
Wrecking your car or someone else's car without insurance you're out a car and money and depending on the situation may have your license suspended, go to jail, etc.
If you come down with AIDS from a blood transfusion or develop some rare form of cancer from no fault of your own, these people should just be left to drain their life savings and die?
If there were no such thing as health insurance and/or the Affordable Care Act ( which, by the way was supposed to provide insurance for everyone which it still has not as there are still tens of millions without ) then I would agree.
If you wanna argue that they should pay a higher premium than others, I'll entertain that argument.
But total denial based on that? Sorry, that's where I draw the line in supporting capitalism vs being a common sense humane human being.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

The only problem with that is, it's not always about poor life decisions.
Sometimes you just get cancer. Sometimes you just develop allergies. Sometimes you're just a klutz a fall and break your leg.
I personally know people who had cancer and were the biggest health nuts, vegans, never drank/smoked a day in their life, always exercising.
The human body is not an exact science. It's why the narrative as to what is good/what is bad/what your body needs is constantly changing.

And if you're paying into the system ( your insurance premium ), that's not being subsidized. That's getting the coverage you pay for.
Subsidized means you pay nothing while everyone pays for you.
BIG difference.

I worded poorly. Your poor life decision wasn't getting cancer, it was not having insurance in case you have a big illness/injury.

 

[fedderone]

I worded poorly. Your poor life decision wasn't getting cancer, it was not having insurance in case you have a big illness/injury.

Understandable.
The only issue that could arise would be a middle class person losing their job.
A typical person that basically lives paycheck to paycheck.
Sometimes it's a decision between keeping your house, knocking out utilities, eating, feeding yourself/kids.
At this point, health insurance may become unaffordable. You may rationalize that you could do without until you get another job......which you typically can.
This is a risk you calculate and take. And you must live with your decision.
But before the ACA, this would have made you excluded for certain conditions due to your lack of coverage prior to getting the new coverage.
Maybe there was a waiting period, or maybe excluded altogether. ( And in most states, your actual number of days for lapse in coverage plays a role, too. )

I hate, nay, LOATHE the ACA.
It's a piece of garbage screwjob to ALL Americans.
NOTHING should be forced on you.
But I liked the Pre-Existing clause portion of it due to my experience in the industry.
That could have been handled on a single piece of paper, though.
I just find it tough to swallow discriminating against someone when it comes to their life, to their well being, to their general health.
Kind of different from a car which is essentially a luxury.

 

[Vis]

Understandable.
The only issue that could arise would be a middle class person losing their job.
A typical person that basically lives paycheck to paycheck.
Sometimes it's a decision between keeping your house, knocking out utilities, eating, feeding yourself/kids.
At this point, health insurance may become unaffordable. You may rationalize that you could do without until you get another job......which you typically can.
This is a risk you calculate and take. And you must live with your decision.
But before the ACA, this would have made you excluded for certain conditions due to your lack of coverage prior to getting the new coverage.
Maybe there was a waiting period, or maybe excluded altogether. ( And in most states, your actual number of days for lapse in coverage plays a role, too. )

I hate, nay, LOATHE the ACA.
It's a piece of garbage screwjob to ALL Americans.
NOTHING should be forced on you.
But I liked the Pre-Existing clause portion of it due to my experience in the industry.
That could have been handled on a single piece of paper, though.
I just find it tough to swallow discriminating against someone when it comes to their life, to their well being, to their general health.
Kind of different from a car which is essentially a luxury.

The reason the ACA is forced is because EMTALA exists. Even the Heritage Foundation wasn't willing to get rid of EMTALA so they came up with the ACA framework.

 

[ark steel]

Yeah, cars and the human body is a very poor analogy.
Not everyone owns cars and drive. Everyone has a body.
Wrecking your car or someone else's car without insurance you're out a car and money and depending on the situation may have your license suspended, go to jail, etc.
If you come down with AIDS from a blood transfusion or develop some rare form of cancer from no fault of your own, these people should just be left to drain their life savings and die?
If there were no such thing as health insurance and/or the Affordable Care Act ( which, by the way was supposed to provide insurance for everyone which it still has not as there are still tens of millions without ) then I would agree.
If you wanna argue that they should pay a higher premium than others, I'll entertain that argument.
But total denial based on that? Sorry, that's where I draw the line in supporting capitalism vs being a common sense humane human being.

From what I hear, there are plenty of liberals who would willingly give all they have for this person's healthcare. Oh, wait, they just want to give OTHER people's money.

On a serious note, it is, exactly, my opinion that they should pay higher premiums if they are at-risk. Obama"care" prevents that now, but, prior to that, simple economics and risk theory/tolerances prevented it, as I described earlier. It isn't, really, denial, it is the realization that no one could either afford the policy or would buy it.

 

[ark steel]

Understandable.
The only issue that could arise would be a middle class person losing their job.
A typical person that basically lives paycheck to paycheck.
Sometimes it's a decision between keeping your house, knocking out utilities, eating, feeding yourself/kids.
At this point, health insurance may become unaffordable. You may rationalize that you could do without until you get another job......which you typically can.
This is a risk you calculate and take. And you must live with your decision.
But before the ACA, this would have made you excluded for certain conditions due to your lack of coverage prior to getting the new coverage.
Maybe there was a waiting period, or maybe excluded altogether. ( And in most states, your actual number of days for lapse in coverage plays a role, too. )

I hate, nay, LOATHE the ACA.
It's a piece of garbage screwjob to ALL Americans.
NOTHING should be forced on you.
But I liked the Pre-Existing clause portion of it due to my experience in the industry.
That could have been handled on a single piece of paper, though.
I just find it tough to swallow discriminating against someone when it comes to their life, to their well being, to their general health.
Kind of different from a car which is essentially a luxury.

You cannot have the pre-existing clause without the force of making everyone buy health insurance. it crumbles without the second. Well, it will, probably, crumble anyway, but you get my meaning.