Nancy Pelosi...

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
The GOP had an entire caucus of dozens RWNJ Tea Partiers/"Freedom" Caucus willing to take us into a massive recession in 2013. This is 4 of the farthest left members of Congress throwing their weight around because they're popular on Social Media. They don't have much support from their other members, which is what Pelosi pointed out.
Isn’t this where lefties would respond by saying “yeah but”?
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
Almost all of them favor a public option. Only 3 favor true Medicare 4 All and eliminating private insurance. That's exactly what I said. 2 still can't read. Oh well.
Again, not true. 13 favor some version of medicare for all. And they've been vague about how far it would go.

3 said private insurance HAS TO GO. howie's using the soft language "replace". But the key is, will they use government force to ban private insurance or not.
4 said private insurance can stay, for now. Does that mean they don't plan for medicare to replace private? No it does not.

13 said we don't need to get rid of it (which can change).
2 won't say (biden, harris).

So to state, only 3 are for medicare for all to replace private insurance is at worst, is at best "a gross mischaracterization".

Finally, we've just lived through Obama repeatedly lying for 4 years about if you like your dr you keep your dr. Now we're supposed to believe that Democrats pushing for Medicare for all will defend private insurance because they said it can stay for now or we don't need to eliminate it? Even Obama's outright promise, with no vague language was enough.

But Howie just wants Trump gone, so he'll white wash anything.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Lot of blathering.

Punch line: only 3 of 25 want to get rid of private insurance, exactly as he said.

You’re hand-waiving and taking wild guesses, then trying to pass it off as something better than that.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
There are 25 people running. 3 of them are in favor of Medicare for all replacing private insurance. 3 out of 25. Just stop.
If you provide insurance for “free” to 50% of the US, out of taxpayers pockets, it will kill private insurance as we know it. Employers will cut tax free benefits to employees and suggest that they take government provided insurance.

So effectively, all of the Dem candidates, including Delaney, are for ending private insurance as we know it. The only difference is that some will kill it more slowly than others, like Bernie, who wants to kill it fast.

If you disagree, please explain to me exactly how my above theory is wrong?
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
2
Points
36
If you provide insurance for “free” to 50% of the US, out of taxpayers pockets, it will kill private insurance as we know it. Employers will cut tax free benefits to employees and suggest that they take government provided insurance.
Wild guess. No evidence.

1) businesses adapt all the time. Part of the game, to be honest.

2) lots of people may prefer the private insurance because it is higher quality in several aspects, and gives access to better clinics and clientele. If workers demand that, it will be supplied, as it is now.
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
“Y’all”? Is that your impersonation of Hillary speaking to gathering of black voters in the south?

I’ve never said Obama was illegitimate or a Muslim. As far as being a Socialist, he was an “aspirational” Socialist.

And you accuse me of “mischaracterizations”? Shame on you howie.
No. That would be "I ain't in no ways tired" or something like that.

I didn't say you did specifically. But plenty of your fellow Fox News Loving Trump boot-lickers did, hence 'y'all.'
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
Wow, you’re confused. Are you for deporting illegal immigrants than have court ordered deportation or not? And if you are, how do you propose that we deport those unwilling to leave without our assistance?

“Instill terror” in whom? Illegals that have been ordered to leave?
The Fellas always point out that Obama deported record #'s of people and that's true. But he focused on deporting those that had committed crimes beyond simply being here.

Trump is not doing that. He is deporting people who have been here decades and have spouses and kids who are citizens. This is not necessary and done purely for the cruelty of it because he can and because it gives his fanboys hard-ons. Announcing mass raids like this instills terror not only in the people being deported but their families, neighbors etc.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
Lot of blathering.

Punch line: only 3 of 25 want to get rid of private insurance, exactly as he said.

You’re hand-waiving and taking wild guesses, then trying to pass it off as something better than that.
Calling a public option "medicare for all" confuses matters. But 2 knows what I meant and is pretzeling as usual.

The Fellas have insisted since the ACA debate that the Dem dream is to eliminate private insurance. And 10 years after later a whopping 3 of 25 candidates for President support it, while the other 90% favor a public option which is the same thing they tried to get included 10 years ago. So much "radicalization."
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
If you provide insurance for “free” to 50% of the US, out of taxpayers pockets, it will kill private insurance as we know it. Employers will cut tax free benefits to employees and suggest that they take government provided insurance.

So effectively, all of the Dem candidates, including Delaney, are for ending private insurance as we know it. The only difference is that some will kill it more slowly than others, like Bernie, who wants to kill it fast.

If you disagree, please explain to me exactly how my above theory is wrong?
Why would it be "free" to 50%? Everyone I've heard discuss it outside of Sanders and Warren are proposing an option to buy into Medicare/Medicaid at the current cost. Not free.

Again, outside of the 3, no one is favoring repealing the ACA. Not only won't employers do that for competitive reasons, but the ACA rules would remain in place.
 

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
2
Points
36
^^^ practicality is just no fun.

Extremes like libertarianism and hyper-conservative conspiracies are the only way you can get your rocks off on the internet. Stop ruining their fun!
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
The Fellas always point out that Obama deported record #'s of people and that's true. But he focused on deporting those that had committed crimes beyond simply being here.

Trump is not doing that. He is deporting people who have been here decades and have spouses and kids who are citizens. This is not necessary and done purely for the cruelty of it because he can and because it gives his fanboys hard-ons. Announcing mass raids like this instills terror not only in the people being deported but their families, neighbors etc.
Obama supposedly deported over 400K per year. I thought crime was supposed to be low among illegals. If 400K have a criminal record of some kind, that’s a lot of crime committed by illegals.

How do you know who Trump is focusing on for deportation?

And I’ll ask again since you didn’t answer the first time, are you for or against deporting illegals that have court order deportation orders? If yes, how would you propose getting them to leave?

If no, you apparently are for amnesty for any illegals that have family here. How is that fair to the immigrants the want to enter the country legally?

Trump is not calling the raids, Dems are. They are the ones “instilling fear”.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Why would it be "free" to 50%? Everyone I've heard discuss it outside of Sanders and Warren are proposing an option to buy into Medicare/Medicaid at the current cost. Not free.

Again, outside of the 3, no one is favoring repealing the ACA. Not only won't employers do that for competitive reasons, but the ACA rules would remain in place.
Some candidates have proposed Medicare for all for free. Some have proposed lowering the age of Medicare to 50. Some have proposed “buying in”.

A little more than 1/2 the country, 180 million, are covered under a employee healthcare insurance. That means the other 140+ million will be covered by Medicare, Medicaid would be eliminated, and those currently receiving Medicare would likely see changes in quality b/c that many people on the current Medicare coverage and reimbursement is not financially sustainable for healthcare providers.

If someone is “buying in”, it’s an imperative that it be at an economical price relative to private insurance, otherwise what’s the point. If it is a lower price, anyone who is not covered by employer insurance will likely take that option, and it will be subsidized by the taxpayer. With a lower government mandated reimbursement price, who will healthcare providers shift costs and necessary profit margins too? Private insurers and their customers.

As costs rise for private insurers over time, employers will cut benefits to employees b/c employees will have a guaranteed lower cost option and businesses will not be able to take the financial burden of the shifted costs from the insurer to their business.

It would happen faster if it were free, but it would ultimately happen, even if it’s a buy-in, except for a privileged few.

Then, it will be lower quality, socialized medicine, Medicare-for-all with the taxpayers subsidizing all of it to keep a lower quality of healthcare providers in practice/business.

Tell me where I’m wrong?
 

DEGopher

Active member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
367
Reaction score
71
Points
28
That's a gross mis-characterization and you know it. Trump is implementing unnecessary raids of people who have not committed any other crime for no reason other than to instill terror and rile up his base.
News flash, Trump is also implementing raids on drug dealers who have not committed any other crime. He also has issued a raid on a child sex trafficking ring of people who have not committed any other crime. Heck, he even issued a raid on Lori Laughlin for racketeering, when that was the only crime she has been accused of committing.

It’s how law enforcement works. They are all necessary if your interested in the rule of law.

Now if you don’t like the law, then change it. The democrats could have done this during the Obama’s first term, but they didn’t.
 
Last edited:

Gophers_4life

Active member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
6,215
Reaction score
2
Points
36
You’re wrong because you make wild guesses and try to pass them off as educated guesses.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
Obama supposedly deported over 400K per year. I thought crime was supposed to be low among illegals. If 400K have a criminal record of some kind, that’s a lot of crime committed by illegals.

How do you know who Trump is focusing on for deportation?

And I’ll ask again since you didn’t answer the first time, are you for or against deporting illegals that have court order deportation orders? If yes, how would you propose getting them to leave?

If no, you apparently are for amnesty for any illegals that have family here. How is that fair to the immigrants the want to enter the country legally?

Trump is not calling the raids, Dems are. They are the ones “instilling fear”.
How is Trump not the one calling for the raids? You're delusional.

I'm all for deporting anyone who has committed a crime beyond being undocumented. And that's who should be focused on, as the last administration did. There are tons of stories of this administration deporting people who have been here for years, have families and have committed no crimes. Why? Have we already deported all of the "bad" ones?

We need a real solution for the people that have been here for years. Yes the Dreamers, but the older people too. Do you disagree?
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
Some candidates have proposed Medicare for all for free. Some have proposed lowering the age of Medicare to 50. Some have proposed “buying in”.

A little more than 1/2 the country, 180 million, are covered under a employee healthcare insurance. That means the other 140+ million will be covered by Medicare, Medicaid would be eliminated, and those currently receiving Medicare would likely see changes in quality b/c that many people on the current Medicare coverage and reimbursement is not financially sustainable for healthcare providers.

If someone is “buying in”, it’s an imperative that it be at an economical price relative to private insurance, otherwise what’s the point. If it is a lower price, anyone who is not covered by employer insurance will likely take that option, and it will be subsidized by the taxpayer. With a lower government mandated reimbursement price, who will healthcare providers shift costs and necessary profit margins too? Private insurers and their customers.

As costs rise for private insurers over time, employers will cut benefits to employees b/c employees will have a guaranteed lower cost option and businesses will not be able to take the financial burden of the shifted costs from the insurer to their business.

It would happen faster if it were free, but it would ultimately happen, even if it’s a buy-in, except for a privileged few.

Then, it will be lower quality, socialized medicine, Medicare-for-all with the taxpayers subsidizing all of it to keep a lower quality of healthcare providers in practice/business.

Tell me where I’m wrong?
Who's proposing Medicare for all for "free"? Even Bernie acknowledges that he would have to raise payroll taxes to pay for it. That's not free. I have not seen any of those proposing a public option suggest that it should be free.

I agree that the reimbursement rate for Medicare is not sustainable if extended to all or even a much larger %. The rates should be adjusted to match reality and the buy in should be at that price.

If the buy in is not cheaper/better than private insurance, no one will buy in. Some who are unemployed/self-employed still will, but that will be it. In that case, why is it a problem? If it is vastly better/cheaper than private insurance, then yes, private insurers will gradually die off as most people switch to it, in which case the Dems will be proven right. Private insurance would not go away completely just as it hasn't in Europe.

If Medicare reimbursement rates are adjusted, I have no issue with the public option. If they keep them artificially low, then it's not a true competition.

In any event, it's better than the GOP healthcare plan which is to gut the ACA in court, throw the entire industry into chaos and then um.....er....we'll let you know after the election. Believe me!
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
News flash, Trump is also implementing raids on drug dealers who have not committed any other crime. He also has issued a raid on a child sex trafficking ring of people who have not committed any other crime. Heck, he even issued a raid on Lori Laughlin for racketeering, when that was the only crime she has been accused of committing.

It’s how law enforcement works. They are all necessary if your interested in the rule of law.

Now if you don’t like the law, then change it. The democrats could have done this during the Obama’s first term, but they didn’t.
So you don't think we should prioritize deporting those who have committed other crimes beyond being undocumented?
 

DEGopher

Active member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
367
Reaction score
71
Points
28
So you don't think we should prioritize deporting those who have committed other crimes beyond being undocumented?
I was merely replying to the post I quoted and overlooked your other posts missing your points about prioritization.

I do agree that prioritization is important, and those that are committing multiple crimes should go first.

That being said, I have not seen anything to suggest that this isn’t the priority. Well, except in sanctuary cities.
 
Last edited:

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
How is Trump not the one calling for the raids? You're delusional.

I'm all for deporting anyone who has committed a crime beyond being undocumented. And that's who should be focused on, as the last administration did. There are tons of stories of this administration deporting people who have been here for years, have families and have committed no crimes. Why? Have we already deported all of the "bad" ones?

We need a real solution for the people that have been here for years. Yes the Dreamers, but the older people too. Do you disagree?
Howie, you so frequently speak in ambiguity without any proof of your claim. You’re talking out your @ss. Give me some evidence or statistics that prove your claim.

“I’m all for deporting anyone who has committed a crime beyond being undocumented”. Bullsh!t! Lefties will have lots of stories about the innocent victim illegals that get rousted out of their homes after being here years, but we won’t hear the details about how they abused their wife or child, had multiple DUIs, etc.

There is no evidence to suggest that Trump and ICE don’t have priority deportations based on criminal records and/or long outstanding deportation orders.

How long someone has gotten away with living here when they violated deportation orders is of no concern to me. The fact that they have evaded justice is no excuse for allowing them to stay. To treat them differently, nullifies our immigration laws and encourages further illegal immigratation.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
Howie, you so frequently speak in ambiguity without any proof of your claim. You’re talking out your @ss. Give me some evidence or statistics that prove your claim.

“I’m all for deporting anyone who has committed a crime beyond being undocumented”. Bullsh!t! Lefties will have lots of stories about the innocent victim illegals that get rousted out of their homes after being here years, but we won’t hear the details about how they abused their wife or child, had multiple DUIs, etc.

There is no evidence to suggest that Trump and ICE don’t have priority deportations based on criminal records and/or long outstanding deportation orders.

How long someone has gotten away with living here when they violated deportation orders is of no concern to me. The fact that they have evaded justice is no excuse for allowing them to stay. To treat them differently, nullifies our immigration laws and encourages further illegal immigratation.
Enforcement of U.S. immigration laws has historically been guided by policies that emphasize prioritization. However, this practice has largely been abandoned since the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

This fact sheet explains the shift in enforcement philosophy under the Trump administration and outlines the effects of this change. The get-tough approach to enforcement—portrayed by the administration as an attempt to “restore the rule of law”—in effect diverts the attention of law-enforcement agencies from those who have committed serious crimes and those who are serious public threats.

Enforcement Without Priorities
Whereas prior policies outlined a framework for prioritizing U.S. resources—such as emphasizing the removal of persons convicted of serious crimes—the Trump administration expanded “enforcement priorities” so broadly as to render the term meaningless. As U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stated in a year-end report, ICE no longer exempts groups of removable [noncitizens] from enforcement. In other words, all undocumented immigrants have become targets—even if they have lived in the United States for many years, have U.S.-born children, and have never had a run-in with law enforcement.


https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...rcement-priorities-under-trump-administration
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Who's proposing Medicare for all for "free"? Even Bernie acknowledges that he would have to raise payroll taxes to pay for it. That's not free. I have not seen any of those proposing a public option suggest that it should be free.

I agree that the reimbursement rate for Medicare is not sustainable if extended to all or even a much larger %. The rates should be adjusted to match reality and the buy in should be at that price.

If the buy in is not cheaper/better than private insurance, no one will buy in. Some who are unemployed/self-employed still will, but that will be it. In that case, why is it a problem? If it is vastly better/cheaper than private insurance, then yes, private insurers will gradually die off as most people switch to it, in which case the Dems will be proven right. Private insurance would not go away completely just as it hasn't in Europe.

If Medicare reimbursement rates are adjusted, I have no issue with the public option. If they keep them artificially low, then it's not a true competition.

In any event, it's better than the GOP healthcare plan which is to gut the ACA in court, throw the entire industry into chaos and then um.....er....we'll let you know after the election. Believe me!
I’m using the term “free” b/c that is the language of some lefties, including Bernie. He begrudgingly acknowledged that most people will pay more in taxes, but said it would be more than made up for in no premiums and no deductibles, which is another way of saying “free”.

The buy-in HAS to be cheaper. Otherwise, there is no purpose in having it available from the government.

You acknowledge that the current reimbursement rates will not be financially realistic for a much larger number of participants. Great. But the rest of your theory makes no economic sense.

The healthcare variables of quality and availability of care, demand of care, and real cost of care are dynamic and impact one another. Lefties want to ignore the dynamic impact that these have on the others as if they are in their own vacuum, but that is either willful ignorance and lying, or just ignorance.

You act if as increasing reimbursement rates would be no big deal. In fact, it will significantly increase the estimated costs for taxpayer subsidized healthcare. But we have to assume that it will reimburse at a significantly lower rate than private insurers or, again, there would be no purpose in it if it did not lessen the price of care. Healthcare providers will have to shift the burden to private insurers and their customers in the form of higher premiums and deductibles to make up for providing lower cost healthcare to a vastly larger population.

Again, as businesses get pinched for the higher costs of providing healthcare insurance to employees, they will either pass those costs along to their employees or more likely push employees into the government provided insurance. A smaller and smaller portion of private insurers will exist until it is no longer feasible to even consider providing employer healthcare insurance benefits.

This doesn’t prove Dems right or anything except that disproportionately shifting costs from one group to another will force the group bearing the most expenses to leave that group.

And, as I said, the factors I mentioned will all be affecting one another. If healthcare has no deductible, people will be much more likely to seek care than they currently do with co-pays and deductibles. If it’s free, more people will utilize it with more frequency (demand).

If healthcare providers are squeezed on pricing, they will attempt to reduce their costs. As costs are reduced, quality will likely decline as will availability of care. With availability decreasing as demand increases, longer waiting times will occur. And so on.

Medicare-for-all or buy-in Medicare is a plan that will lead to declining quality and availability of healthcare, increase wait times and delays, and will only reduce costs as a result of rationing and the decline in the quality of healthcare.

It will be more affordable and it will also suck.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Enforcement of U.S. immigration laws has historically been guided by policies that emphasize prioritization. However, this practice has largely been abandoned since the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

This fact sheet explains the shift in enforcement philosophy under the Trump administration and outlines the effects of this change. The get-tough approach to enforcement—portrayed by the administration as an attempt to “restore the rule of law”—in effect diverts the attention of law-enforcement agencies from those who have committed serious crimes and those who are serious public threats.

Enforcement Without Priorities
Whereas prior policies outlined a framework for prioritizing U.S. resources—such as emphasizing the removal of persons convicted of serious crimes—the Trump administration expanded “enforcement priorities” so broadly as to render the term meaningless. As U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stated in a year-end report, ICE no longer exempts groups of removable [noncitizens] from enforcement. In other words, all undocumented immigrants have become targets—even if they have lived in the United States for many years, have U.S.-born children, and have never had a run-in with law enforcement.


https://www.americanimmigrationcoun...rcement-priorities-under-trump-administration
Says the immigration advocacy organization. Why don’t you just ask AOC? They probably both agree on open borders.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Justin Amash is an outlier. Unlike most of his brethren, Justin Amash truly cares about the country.
Justin Amash cares about his own opinion, like most people. The fact that he holds unique views makes him an “outlier”.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
16,603
Reaction score
871
Points
113
Justin Amash cares about his own opinion, like most people. The fact that he holds unique views makes him an “outlier”.
His views are only "unique" because he isn't a lemming/follower, and prioritizes country over party. Among Republicans, both of those traits are indeed rare.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
His views are only "unique" because he isn't a lemming/follower, and prioritizes country over party. Among Republicans, both of those traits are indeed rare.
He’s no fan of Democrats either and basically says they’re at least as bad.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
1,378
Points
113
Whatever you do, don't call Trump racist. That's offensive


 
Last edited:

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
1,378
Points
113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
One of the more ignorant and partisan things Nancy Pelosi has said, “make America white again”.

She originally made those comments about Trump wanting to ask the citizenship question on the census. Counting people doesn’t change the racial make up of the country.

But this appears to be a narrative that she has decided to pursue. Dems are so used to defaming Republicans with insults, that they’ve begun to do it to each other when things don’t go their way.

And, Nancy is trying to calm the rift between her and “the Squad”. What better way than to use Trump as a deflection?
 
Top Bottom