Kansas Crimson

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:48 pm And the republican alternative is ...?

Drop pre existing conditions so that more poor people declare bankruptcy due to not being able to pay their medical bills, passing those costs down to everyone else anyways while also fucking poor people for decades.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:13 pm

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:48 pm And the republican alternative is ...?

Drop pre existing conditions so that more poor people declare bankruptcy due to not being able to pay their medical bills, passing those costs down to everyone else anyways while also fucking poor people for decades.

What world are you living in to forget TAX CUTS? The solution, in addition to that you mention above, is to drop the top marginal rate to 25%, capital gains rate to 2% and eliminate estate tax. That will definitely solve the pre-existing conditions problem.

zsn wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:04 pm
Back to the regularly scheduled demagoguery:

Be nice to Feral.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:13 pm

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:48 pm And the republican alternative is ...?

Drop pre existing conditions so that more poor people declare bankruptcy due to not being able to pay their medical bills, passing those costs down to everyone else anyways while also fucking poor people for decades.

You believe in the Easter Buddy too?

Former Acting Director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement John Sandweg says President Trump's suggestion to eliminate immigration judges is "the single dumbest idea I've ever heard" in terms of dealing with border crossings.

Great idea, Trump. What a moron.

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:45 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:04 pm

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:35 pm

How nice for you.

Yes. Me and everybody else in 36 states.

How nice for you and the other people living in those particular states.

A loss of group coverage meant they had to pay the entire premium themselves and this made it difficult for them to find affordable health insurance and many were priced out of affording healthcare because of their pre existing conditions.

I was once one of those, who discovered that having taken allergy shots meant that I had a pre-existing upper respiratory condition and would not be covered for any illnesses like that. Eventually, I got group coverage once again.

seahawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:29 am

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:45 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:04 pm

Yes. Me and everybody else in 36 states.

How nice for you and the other people living in those particular states.

A loss of group coverage meant they had to pay the entire premium themselves and this made it difficult for them to find affordable health insurance and many were priced out of affording healthcare because of their pre existing conditions.

I was once one of those, who discovered that having taken allergy shots meant that I had a pre-existing upper respiratory condition and would not be covered for any illnesses like that. Eventually, I got group coverage once again.

Well, that's sad to hear seahawk, but apparently it doesn't matter, because DC had coverage:

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:31 pm I had pre-existing condition coverage long before the ACA.

Jussayin.

Cuz you actually know better.

I would say that the problem you've identified here didn't necessitate throwing out the baby with the bathwater...but given what your party does to babies, I decided that's, maybe, not the best choice of terms.

jfc

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:19 pmjfc

I know, right?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:58 am I would say that the problem you've identified here didn't necessitate throwing out the baby with the bathwater...but given what your party does to babies, I decided that's, maybe, not the best choice of terms.

"but given what your party does to babies"?

WTF does that even mean?
Her party's leaders don't make anybody do anything in terms of their rights to either carry a baby to birth or abort a baby. Can't say that's a good or a bad thing but you and plenty of others probably feel it is bad. So be it.
As I have said numerous times before, there is a big difference between being "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion".
What her party "does to babies"?
The majority of pregnant Democrats give birth to their babies. They provide a home for those babies. They love and cherish their babies.
If abortion was legal in 1966 I very well may have been aborted. Since I have never met my birth parents I don't know what the circumstances were that they felt the need to put me up for adoption and what thoughts they had. I would be interested to know if it was more difficult for my mother to put me up for adoption - or if it would have been easier to abort me.
Your post is so fucking simplistic and offensive. I could say something nasty and offensive to you but two wrongs don't make a right and what good would that do either of us?
Buy hey - I'll say congrats! You got a rise out of someone and a response/reaction.

On a related note - Your party is doing what about guns and gun violence? If Republicans gave a shit about that as much as they give a shit about abortions maybe they wouldn't come off as hypocritical assholes to me.

That's it. End of rant.
Carry on.

tl;dfc

There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:40 pm tl;dfc

There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Sounds like something an OB/GYN would say.
You forget attribution?

Nope.

I figured you'd all know that that's the Governor of Virginia talking about making babies born alive "comfortable" until they can hurry up and die.

And of course I don't expect any of you to find that horrifying.

That's the point.

Northam left the U.S. Army in 1992 at the rank of major, having completed eight years of service.[18] Since 1992,[19] Northam has been a pediatric neurologist at Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk, Virginia.[20]

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:24 pm And of course I don't expect any of you to find that horrifying.

That's the point.

Same conversation that most people have concerning their parents.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:40 pm tl;dfc

There are — you know when we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of, obviously, the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Horrifying!

You know what else I find somewhat horrifying?
Your feeling what you have to say is important and your loving to share your opinion/s with others but when they share their's with you - you often choose to be dismissive and/or condescending.

Trump’s ‘truly bizarre’ visit to Mt. Vernon

The 45th president — no student of history — marveled at the first president’s failure to name his historic compound after himself.

During a guided tour of Mount Vernon last April with French president Emmanuel Macron, Trump learned that Washington was one of the major real-estate speculators of his era. So, he couldn’t understand why America’s first president didn’t name his historic Virginia compound or any of the other property he acquired after himself.

“If he was smart, he would’ve put his name on it,” Trump said, according to three sources briefed on the exchange. “You’ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you.”

The VIPs’ tour guide for the evening, Mount Vernon president and CEO Doug Bradburn, told the president that Washington did, after all, succeed in getting the nation’s capital named after him. Good point, Trump said with a laugh.

...Trump’s lack of interest in presidential history, said the historian Jon Meacham, means that he has “basically thrown out the one data set available to him. We don’t have anything else to study. It’s all you got.”

[...]

Considering my background, I resent this too.