How is UHC or Obamacare worse than what was before Obamacare? The problem is when you take a principle too far to the point that it hurts people's lives and ruins a nation then its no longer a principle to follow to that extent. We often have "totalitarian" policies if there is a major benefit. We force people to have driving licenses and insurance if they want to drive for example. We have laws governing how they should drive on the road, what speed they should go, where they can walk or drive on the road, etc. Sometimes you need to force behavior for the benefit of our society. The problem is that healthcare was becoming affordable for the poor and they were being financially ruined by this terrible system. Obamacare also helped make it more affordable for the sick, and aren't those people who healthcare is for anyway? I am all for extending subsidies to the middle class, providing a public option and start cutting the excessive regulations and bureaucracy in the healthcare industry and finding policies that will encourage more competition. The subsidies are there for people who are up to 400% of the poverty threshold so this claim that this is only for the poor is blatantly false. What I am saying is that if it looked almost certain Obama was going to lose very badly would you have supported him choosing a nominee? When in a few months there would have been a Republican? Isn't it better to improve a turd sandwich than to keep it a turd sandwich? Of course any policy that benefits people who are struggling with their medical payments or helps stabilize our system if its even slightly "totalitarian" is a "turd sandwich" in your eyes.
That really is not all that difficult to define. A professional politician is anyone who has made a career out of politics. (We might disagree as concerning, say, the late Ronald Reagan--the best president of my lifetime, in my opinion; and I was born in 1948--since he had previously been governor of California; but he had also had a longtime career as an actor; so I would not consider him to have been a professional politician.)
One possible solution: Exclude medical bills from bankruptcy--just as we currently exclude alimony and child support. There. See how easy that was? (1) I have no idea where you got your figures. Can you back them up (preferably, from a neutral source)? (2) I seldom do "average," as they can be highly misleading. (For instance, the average of 1, 2, 3, and 98 is 26.) The median is much more telling. Presumably, you are referring to HMOs and PPOs. (I have a PPO; it lists--on its EOB--both the "Submitted Charges" and the "Plan Allowance." (The "Submitted Charges" may be, say, $1,000, whereas the "Plan Allowance"--i.e. the "negotiate[d]" price--may be just $200--or even less.) Anything that begins with the words, "It is well known," basically means that the writer cannot cite a real source, as proof. Once again, accusations--free of any actual proof. I believe that the Democratic Party returned to its roots, under Barack Obama, by fetishizing its regard for The Poor. Personally, I would much prefer to focus upon what is best for the middle class. This is one of the few--the very few--goop points to ObamaCare, in my opinion.
Regardless of the difference between our definitions, I already gave you my answer. What is bad about Hillary, Trump is worse. This includes corruption and dishonesty. Why would I want someone who's more dishonest and corrupt than a run of the mill politician?
Your assertion that Donald Trump is "more...corrupt" than Hillary Clinton is surely an example of confirmation bias. And that is a logical fallacy. (If you are unfamiliar with it, please look it up.)
It is amazing that you all speak of Trump as unqualified. Did you ever compare his resume to Obama's, who as best as anyone knows went to secondary school where he mostly smoked pot, went to college where he presumably got some grades, but nobody knows for sure, shot the bull with law professors and law students, and community organized, whatever that is. Never held a real job, never ran a business, never built a thing.
Oh, bull! What you seem to want is for people on the losing to grovel. They are not going to do that. For the most part, they are going to laugh in your face for considering that to be an appropriate reaction to losing.
We've never had a government official who has gone so far right, that basically talk radio has taken over the government. Literally. Reminds me of that NOFX song, "Idiots Are Taking Over." The "Resistance" Movement are average Americans who weren't fooled by Trump's rhetoric during the election, about fallacies like America First, and stereotyping Mexicans. Not just those Americans, but those who voted for Trump who have now been awakened, or disillusioned by Trump's actions, especially on the military side of things.
Grovel? Absolutely not. I would expect them to regroup and try to come back next time while living with the current situation and president. However silent coups to unseat what they believe is an illegal unauthorized president is nothing short of banana republic stuff and I give them no quarter.
A large majority of insured had insurance that accepted people with pre-existing conditions and did not need Obama's "help." Almost all business provided group plans did.
I said, "Your side did win." You said, "Not according to any progressive/leftist/Democrat I know." Now you are trying to sell me this crap up above? Get off it, Rod. Get real with yourself...even if you refuse to be real about the rest of the world. You want them to grovel... ...otherwise you are going to pretend they are saying that your side did not win. Your side did win. Grow up...be happy with the win. Move on with whatever is now running you.
The "right" is really not a single, cohesive force. There are (the much-maligned) neoconservatives--as regarding which, I am one; there are the paleoconservatives; there is the center-right; and then there is "Trumpism" (which does not fit neatly into any of the other categories). As concerning some matters, Trumpism is pretty far to the right. As concerning other matters--e.g. "fair trade" (i.e. protectionism)--it actually leans leftward. So it is really an eclectic mix. It is more accurately described as populism. In any case, I certainly do not believe that those Americans on the losing side of a presidential election are following proper decorum by "resisting" the winner.
How is it an example of confirmation bias? Care to explain? Do you think Hillary is more corrupt? And it's more than just corruption. He is also far more dishonest, far more ignorant of domestic and foreign affairs, and a host of other things that make him utterly unqualified to even be the president of a university, let alone a country.
Easy. You have a preconceived opinion; so you look for examples that will confirm your opinion, while dismissing examples to the contrary. I think this is known as TDS (or "Trump Derangement Syndrome). Some people just cannot get over the fact that he won last November...
It would be easier to find an honest politician in Washington than find someone more corrupt than Hillary.
I didn't ask you what confirmation bias is. I asked how is it an example of confirmation bias, it being that "my assertion that Trump is more corrupt than Hillary." Specifically, how do you know I have a preconceived opinion of Trump and based on that opinion I go look for examples that support it? And how I dismss examples to the contrary? These are questions you don't have answers to, so you don't have to answer. What you demonstrated is an example of ignorant person pretending to know things, and the following is yet another example. Well I found Trump being more corrupt. Shouldn't be difficult for you to find a honest politician now. Who is it?
It is alot of the left but not completely. It is establishment politicians who are puppets of oligarchs. There are trillions of dollars at stake.
More corrupt than Hillary? You could make a strong argument that John Gotti was less corrupt than Hillary Clinton. Trump is a complete political outsider that could have run on the Democratic ticket and won just as easily. In fact, in case you haven't noticed, Trump is about as "middle of the road" as a candidate gets. All he wants to do is rebuild a country that has serious economic and political issues. Drain the swamp so that Americans can start rebuilding their lives. Political infighting as been corrupting America for decades and Hillary was a big part of that problem. Not to mention all of her scandals.
He is incapable of rebuilding the country if he cannot bring people together. And he is not going to bring people together with his rhetoric, twits, calling negative news fake news, making baseless accusations against past president or other democrats, criticizing Obama for playing too much golf and then plays even more himself, etc etc. Drain the swamp? Did he even pretend to do that?
He has at least 4 years to get things done and the Democrats will never get onboard with anything anyway, unless they decide America is worth moving forward without their chosen candidate at the helm. Draining the swamp will be difficult. The swamp doesn't want to be drained, it wants more corruption and money to feed it's causing. At the expense of every tax paying American.
Democrat opposition is something he has to deal with, just as Obama had to deal with republican opposition. The most important thing is to bring people together. Can he do that, with the way he is? I actually wanted to give him a chance and judge him fairly since Jan. 20th. Hoping the position of potus would mature and humble him. Can't do it. He's a massive hypocrite and a liar. I'm an objective and sensible guy. I generally give some hypocrisy and lies a pass because that's just humans being human. But Trump is on a different level.
