| Posted: 24 August 2018 at 11:18pm | IP Logged | 5
|
post reply
|
|
So don't use the private insurance exchanges (and I'm assuming you won't sign up for Medicare when you're old enough). But "setting the playing field" for businesses to operate in, which would include the healthcare industry, is the Government's job.
What does private insurance have to to with Federal Government run health care? It's the complete opposite. And by "setting the playing field" are you talking about the Fed under Obamacare not allowing catastrophic policies, or forbidding insurance coverage across state lines? That's the type of federal government over regulation I'm talking about.
And yes I will use Medicare. I'll have forcibly paid into it for most of my life, and unfortunately because of that there aren't many other options. I will also have to supplement that as well with supplemental health insurance, because of the poor coverage of medicare.
What's over regulation? I know corporations hate that stuff, but they hate anything that costs them money. What regulations do you find so bothersome? (I'm sure there are plenty that are past their due dates, but I'm kind of okay with the ones that enable us to breathe.)
No, it's not just the evil corporations that the that stuff. It's the small business start ups that take months for approval from the Fed. Talk to some small business owners and see what they say. I talk to them every month.
And no one is talking about the ones that "enable us to breathe". Nice attempt at a straw man, but you overreached again on that one.
Here's a Washington Post article on Obama's regulations. There are many, many more as well...
And what "big government" are you looking to get rid of? I'm honestly curious. Most people I see tend to be opposed to "Big Government" without having specifics to offer on what to cut or necessarily aware of what it is they're cutting. (See Rick Perry wanting to cut the Department of Energy as a candidate, getting tapped to run it under the Trump Administration and then publically admitting he didn't realize everything it did.) A lot of people hate the composite, but when you start going line by line, everything has supporters.
There's certainly room for right-sizing the Government. Waste happens. But to do it properly you need a scalpel, not a hammer.
The "BIG Government" I'm looking to get rid of is the one that tried to take over the health care system. The one that took over the student loan program, and wants to make college "free".The one that took over the PRIVATE American auto industry and forced private companies to close dealerships. The Federal education department that has spent billions while forcing teachers to follow ridiculous guidelines.The one that's run up a 20 Trillion dollar debt.
No, just a particularly energetic portion of his supporters. Not saying they're the majority, or even close, but they're there. Pointing that out is not the same thing as saying everyone who voted for a Trump is a racist/Nazi/whatever.
How many are there Dave? It's minuscule, and unfortunately those types have always been there. Obama had them too - not nazis, but Black Panthers who threatened people at polling places. They're gnats and unimportant. The recent Charlottsville anniversary march had 30 white supremacists marching. 30! At a place where they could get all the attention they could ever want. So let's not continue to falsely inflate their numbers or impact.
Asking here: Who promised that? My understanding was that Presidents always held firm on not doing it because it undermined the notion of a two state solution. Who said they would but didn't?
It's easy enough to find, but I'll do your homework for you. Here's statements from Obama, Bush, and Clinton.
So let's see: The Obama Administration sent a few hundred thousand to an organization promoting a "two state solution", which is in keeping with our official Government position. Using the infrastructure that money helped establish, the organization evolved into one with a goal of putting someone else in power than Netanyahu because they felt he was too hawkish. (Which I would say is a pretty fair assessment whether you feel him justified in being so or no.) So money intended for one purpose got used by the recipients towards another one and the State Department should've done a better job of ensuring that didn't happen. Not a particularly exciting conspiracy, is it?
I'd say using US taxpayers money, to try to effect the outcome of one of our closest allies democratic election to oust it's sitting Prime Minister IS a pretty exciting conspiracy...... In fact it sounds eerily familiar....I guess that isn't very exciting to you though is it Dave?
That's what happens when you unfreeze assets as part of a negotiated treaty. And why is the "deal" in quotes? Iran honored their part of the deal. They didn't do other things we would have liked them to have done, but the purpose of the deal was to hamper their nuclear program and to all people without an axe to grind with Iran, the deal succeeded in its intended purpose. Would it have been nice to have done more? Sure. But solving the immediate problem while, hopefully, laying ground work to expand on that in the future is sometimes all you can hope for.
You sure paint a rosy picture of the Iran agreement. But people can differ on the effectiveness of the agreement. However to say Iran "honored their agreement" is certainly up for debate:
But why was the $400million that US taxpayers paid to victims of Iranian sponsored terror attacks never reimbursed from the funds sent to Iran-as Bill Clinton promised (and congress approved) in 2000? Seems like Obama should have followed that law and held a few pallets of cash back from the mullahs.
Trump is considered racist because of things he does and says that come across as racist. You can be opposed to people entering the country illegal without referring to them as "animals" who are all here to join MS-13. The former is a genuine concern about border security. The latter is racism. And it's not just that, it's also his refusal to criticize those who engaging in actively racist behavior. You don't play the "both sides have good people" card when talking about a white supremacist rally.
You have a way of twisting words to fit your narrative Dave. However Trump never called people all entering this country illegally "animals" as you stated. He was talking about MS-13 members. Had he said what you claim, then you'd have a better argument of it being racist. But that's not what he said, despite your attempts to twist his words into what you wanted him to say.
|
