Posts made by pppucci

A good number, about 15 million would forego insurance due to elimination of the individual mandate.  While this may seem good, remember that if these people do get sick, the burden of their care will eventually fall on the taxpayer.
Another 4 million would loose their employer-provided insurance, again because it will no longer be mandated.  And not everyone's premiums would go down.  In fact, those nearing retirement age would face an astronomical increase in premiums and may price them out of the market.

@Frederick:

CBO says Senate Health Care Bill will reduce deficit AND decrease the number of uninsured!
Wahh!  wahh!  WAHHH!!!   :cry2:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/senate-health-bill-would-lower-deficit-increase-number-uninsured-estimate-says.html

I used to think you were just obstinate, but now I am convinced you are BLIND.  Read your url, read the headline of the article you quote and know that 22 million will loose insurance under the Republican plan. Yes, the deficit will be decreased by 350 billion over ten years, but at what human cost? BTW, the reduction in the deficit is less than half of the tax cuts for the wealthy–-765 billion over ten years.  http://www.npr.org/2017/05/04/526923181/gop-health-care-bill-would-cut-about-765-billion-in-taxes-over-10-years

Trump is just looking for a way to muddy the waters, especially with his base, which at this point are the only ones who believe anything he says.  He accuses Obama of collusion and obstruction with Russia, so when the hammer falls he can say, "See Obama did it too!."

There was more than enough criticism of Scalise before he was shot.  In no way do the comments I quoted justify the attack.  She is simply pointing out that it is difficult to criticize a wounded man.

As I have pointed out before, county data is irrelevant.  Trump's electoral vote win was effected by slim margins in several swing states, which granted was a difficult task and not to be diminished, but to maintain he had an overwhelming mandate just simply is not true.

@raphjd:

Why is it bad to call for a religion so rooted in hatred, and invented by a child fucker,  to be eradicated?

We had to stamp out the Branch Davidians and they were far less a threat than muslims.

I know you live in the UK, but in the USA, the freedom of religion is protected by our constitution, as the first amendment protects hate speech.
The murderous acts of Islamists need to be eradicated, not the religion itself.

Whether mhorndisk was calling for the death of 1 billion Muslims or the eradication of their religion–-both are objectionable.

@strangeloop:

@pppucci:

Again, another obscure democrat–a NJ blogger.  From the same article " Several New Jersey Democrats criticized Devine’s comments and said they did not endorse violence. "
Can we limit our discussions to comments made by our members or public figures?

Stop pretending like it's some remote fringe who celebrate his shooting.

Here's prime-time MSNBC host Joy Reid implying that Scalise deserved to be shot: http://www.dailywire.com/news/17649/msnbc-host-suggests-rep-steve-scalise-deserved-be-joseph-curl

Are you going to downplay her relevance, too? A prime time host on one of the big-three cable news?

There are tons of examples of SJWs celebrating, laughing and wishing Scalise died all over the place if you care to open your eyes – they are not fringe.

Look at your tribe, and acknowledge there's a huge violence problem with it, this case being yet another example of endless examples.

This is what she said,

“_t’s a delicate thing because everybody is wishing the congressman well and hoping that he recovers, but Steve Scalise has a history that we’ve all been forced to sort of ignore on race,” Reid said. “He did come to leadership after some controversy over attending a white nationalist event, which he says he didn’t know what it was.

He also co-sponsored a bill to amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He voted for the House healthcare bill, which as you said would gut health care for millions of people, including three million children, and he co-sponsored a bill to repeal the ban on semi-automatic weapons.

Because he is in jeopardy and everybody is pulling for him, are we required in a moral sense to put that aside at the moment?”
Not exactly saying he got what he deserved.  She simply states that his condition prevents people from criticizing his POLICIES._

As for the high per capita cost of healthcare in the US versus other countries, realize the others have various forms of "socialized medicine,"and care is rationed.

@strangeloop:

I haven't fully researched the health care issue, so the following questions are not rhetorical, for Pucci etc.

If the ACA was so great, why did insurance premiums keep going up year over year under Obama?

Not only that, but the U.S. spends way more on health care than any other country.

Under Obama, that didn't change.  Isn't reform necessary?

I never said Obamacare was great.  I was simply trying to answer Frederick's original question about the tax cuts for the rich that are included in the new plan.  There are many aspects to Obamacare.  One was the insurance exchanges, which have been mostly a failure, the other is the Medicaid expansion, which ended up covering 20 million more poor people than before.
Healthcare costs are a complex subject. Part is due to new technology which drives tests to pay for it, one is the litigation-prone society, which forces doctors to order expensive tests to rule out rare diseases lest they be sued, one is pharmaceutical companies charging outlandish prices for new drugs so they can support the development  of more new drugs–and the cycle goes on and on.
Comprehensive healthcare reform will have to address more than providing insurance coverage.

You are right.  There are no democratic chairmen of congressional committees since Republicans control both houses.  That does not mean there are no Democratic public figures in Congress.  Go after your favorite targets–Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer, not some obsure NJ Democratic "advisor" and staff member.

As for the Judicial, most analysts would say it is tied 4-4 with Kennedy as the swing vote. The justices, however, do not always rule along ideological lines.

Looks like the poor boy had a circumcision go bad.  I wonder if there are urologists out there that will do reconstructive surgery.

Trumpcare repeals current direct healthcare taxes on the wealthy, as well as giving tax cuts to health insurance companioes. pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers.  The total amount of the cuts about equals the cuts to Medicaid funding.  For that reason, it has been called a massive transfer of money from the poor to the rich.  A reverse Robin Hood scenario.

Frederick, you are missing the point.  Looking at county data is completely irrelevant.  First, the electoral college votes by state, not county.  Second, how can you put on equal footing a county with 10,000 people with one that has 10,000,000?  The county data is just a way to fill in the map of the US red.  Regardless of the popular vote, if a total of 100,000 votes had gone the other way in swing states, Hilary would be President.
Again, I am not diminishing Trump's victory, which was epic, but it was not the massive mandate that you would like it to be.

@Frederick:

@pppucci:

A PhD does not cure stupidity. And stop lumping liberals together.  You may not like us, but were are not a monolithic group.

…actually.. the liberals ARE a "monolithic" group.  They are very united in their efforts to undermine the government.  Virtually NONE of them are supporting Trump - and Trump isn't even considered to be conservative enough by many Republicans.  Imagine what the demoboobs would be doing if the president was conservative!

Probably the same thing Democrats did during the Reagan and Bush administrations.  But you are right, Frederick, most of our objections to Trump have little to do with ideology.  He is simply not qualified, nor does he have the temperament to be President.

@Frederick:

I am NOT going to reveal the project I have been working on for over 5 years.  It has to do with a massive case of fraud and corruption that is virtually unknown outside of one country (and no.. it's not the USA).  My knowledge of that case is correct, and all the rest of them are wrong.  I can prove they are wrong.  And I will be proving them wrong when the time is right.   The right time is approaching.. could be before the end of this year.  A major development in this case is about to be unveiled within the next 40 hours.   (hmm.. what is he referring to?)

You sound a lot like Trump.  You should be on a reality show with a teaser like that.  Can't wait!

@Frederick:

@pppucci:

I was not implying that if they do it it's OK for us to do it.  I was suggesting we keep our discussions of opinions to public figures because there are obscure individuals on both sides that will say objectionable things that do not represent the group as a whole.

Just because the liberals choose to ignore public figures that conflict with their agenda doesn't make them obscure.

There are a lot of moonbats who don't want to acknowledge that Obama and Hillary ever existed!  How convenient!   They want to restrict all criticisms to those people who are in positions of power.  Since the republicans are in charge of virtually everything now, that is quite convenient for the liberal attacks, isn't it?

Your rantings become more removed from reality by the minute.  Republicans may control the Executive and Congress, they do not hold every elected office.  There are more than enough publicly known  Democratic targets for your ire without discussing obscure figures who have no impact on the country.

I was not implying that if they do it it's OK for us to do it.  I was suggesting we keep our discussions of opinions to public figures because there are obscure individuals on both sides that will say objectionable things that do not represent the group as a whole.

A PhD does not cure stupidity. And stop lumping liberals together.  You may not like us, but were are not a monolithic group.

@Frederick:

@pppucci:

Trump dominated in the farm belt and dairy country.  Does that mean cows and sheep voted illegally?
The entire premise is flawed without underlying facts.

Trump won over 98% of the counties across the USA.   Hillary got her wins almost exclusively in the major city centers, which are also the hot spots for crime.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/

Frederick you are a hoot and you just shot yourself in the foot.  The Snopes article you cite rates the claim as FALSE.
"the claim that Trump won all but 57 of America’s 3,141 counties appeared to  be completely untrue."

Clinton actually won 487 counties out of 3, 141.  But looking at county data is just a way to dilute the influence of New York and California.  Los Angeles county has population of 10.1 million, which is more than 43 states.
I am in no way diminishing the strength of Trump's victory, but let's not get carried away…