Jump to content

Intel Chiefs Contradict Trump on Global Threats


UT alum

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Wait a minute- are you saying that the smartest man in the world and greatest president ever said something that was factless?  Imagine that!!!!

I wasn’t that crazy about the plan, but when healthcare spending is approaching 18% of GDP, something has to be done. He did.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I wasn’t that crazy about the plan, but when healthcare spending is approaching 18% of GDP, something has to be done. He did.

And what has the impact been on % of GDP?

 

30 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I wasn’t that crazy about the plan, but when healthcare spending is approaching 18% of GDP, something has to be done. He did.

 

 

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

There are no facts there to perceive.

Speaking of healthcare, look here:

This is the hidden content, please

Wait a minute- are you saying that the smartest man in the world and greatest president ever said something that was factless?  Imagine that!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

There are no facts there to perceive.

Speaking of healthcare, look here:

This is the hidden content, please

This is a country smaller than out largest cities.  The US is too large to effectively manage healthcare...fact.

If you bothered to read the article, some of the main points are that they allow competition from lots of companies, there are many different plans (not all Cadillac plans), and they don’t allow freeloading on a large scale.

Main thing is this is basically a city... poor comparison to what can be done here in the US. Let the states handle healthcare as they see fit.

Also, your Democrats will never allow this plan,  they are on a fast track to single payer,  surely you see this.

The last thing they want is competition...they hate competition...their goal is to make everyone equally miserable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is a country smaller than out largest cities.  The US is too large to effectively manage healthcare...fact.

If you bothered to read the article, some of the main points are that they allow competition from lots of companies, there are many different plans (not all Cadillac plans), and they don’t allow freeloading on a large scale.

Main thing is this is basically a city... poor comparison to what can be done here in the US. Let the states handle healthcare as they see fit.

Also, your Democrats will never allow this plan,  they are on a fast track to single payer,  surely you see this.

The last thing they want is competition...they hate competition...their goal is to make everyone equally miserable. 

What you missed is everyone has to have coverage. When the cost is spread across the entire population, healthy and unhealthy, it becomes more affordable for all. It’s a public/private partnership allowing competition within set parameters. That’s about the only way it could work here. I don’t think we’re going to see the nationalization of health insurers.

Why do you think if I’m a Democrat I have to be thinking one way and one way only?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, UT alum said:

What you missed is everyone has to have coverage. When the cost is spread across the entire population, healthy and unhealthy, it becomes more affordable for all. It’s a public/private partnership allowing competition within set parameters. That’s about the only way it could work here. I don’t think we’re going to see the nationalization of health insurers.

Why do you think if I’m a Democrat I have to be thinking one way and one way only?

You won’t see the nationalization of healthcare providers, you’ll see them slowly eliminated on the way to single payer.

This is no secret, they are saying this out loud.

I’m not concerned with how you think...the Democrats I am referring to are the ones pushing these radical agendas that actually make policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...