cytg111
Lifer
OAN then? Please. Do share your news consumption repertoire.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Trump: Biden would 'destroy' Obamacare's protections for pre-existing conditions
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Meghan54
Lifer
Don't forget RT....but Angsty-boy is probably one of those that consume their "news" from Facebook and Youtube.
MtnMan
Diamond Member
The GOP opposition to single payer health care for all is simply based on the fact all the ultra rich executives with insurance companies will lose their gravy train.
nickqt
Diamond Member
That's half of it.
The other half is when it turns out that Socialized! Medicine! isn't the boogieman...what else that Republicans hysterically scream about is bullshit?
darkswordsman17
Lifer
Its not though. As it wouldn't even make the rich less rich. It'd just make the poor less poor. They need the poor fighting over scraps so they can keep as much control as possible.
Trump is literally party to a lawsuit, today, that if he wins would remove protections for pre-existing conditions.
It’s just amazing how strong the right wing misinformation bubble is where you’ve convinced yourself he would never do a thing that he’s ACTIVELY DOING.
GodisanAtheist
Diamond Member
I’m giving Trumps comment a thumbs down.
-Say what you will about McCain's addled old man raving after 2008, the dude bought that big dick negativity to that tumbs down 100%.
I will never see this clip and not smile like a stupid idiot every time.
They don't have to. Some European countries with tax payer funded healthcare offer that as standard, but also give the choice to stop that and get on private insurance. There are so many ways to still benefit insurance executives. The idea of them losing maybe 40% in profits over time is enough to get them to not support a hybrid method.
HomerJS
Lifer
Still #bothsides - ing it to defend Trump? Ok, I'll play what are the lies Biden has told in the last 7 days?
Mai72
Lifer
I think Trump is frustrated at Biden because unlike Hillary he is difficult to attack. People disliked Hillary, period. The same can't be said for Biden. Yes, he has been called sleepy Joe, or has been said to have dementia. He's too old. Etc. But, those statements about Joe haven't swayed public opinion IMO.
MtnMan
Diamond Member
All while their babbles like a 3 year-old and can't pronounce common words.
But you are right, people not only disliked Hillary, many including myself despised her. I voted for neither in 16, but I have no problem voting for Biden this time.
You are an exponent of a particular form of mentality that is quite widespread among conservative thinkers. People in this thread have pointed that out to you under the rubric, 'Bothsidesism'. Whether this is an echo chamber effect or just the typical way rationalizations work it is certainly typical of conservative thinking. For that reason it is highly likely in my opinion, that having a peculiar but common mental bent yourself, you project that personal form of mental conditioning onto other people who are in fact free of it. There isn't a sane person in the world who would say both sides lie when confronted by a person like Donald Trump whose whole life is nothing but a total fabrication, an alternative reality, a massive fabrication of lies. This is so profoundly evident that it really makes your both sides approach look like a total joke and will earn you nothing but distain.
blackangst1
Lifer
How about start a thread about what are your primary news sources and Ill respond? Otherwise its irrelevant to this thread.
blackangst1
Lifer
Why do you limit oit to 7 days? Heres some recent doozies:
Over the past year, Biden thundered that the Obama administration “didn’t lock people up in cages.” He also claimed that, “Immediately, the moment [the Iraq War] started, I came out against it.” And… “I was always labeled one of the most liberal members of Congress.” Politico’s rating of all three assertions? False.
And how does saying politicians on both sides lie defend Trump, when I straight out said what Trump said is a lie? Is your reading comprehension that bad?
Because both sides are not remotely equivalent. Had you said 'both sides lie but Trump lies way more' I doubt anyone would have had an issue with it.
Also, you do realize that what you said earlier about Trump not ending pre-existing conditions is false, right? He's currently litigating before SCOTUS to do EXACTLY that.
blackangst1
Lifer
Yeah thats what I thought. Youre saying that does not mean I was wrong. Biden has his share of lies as well. The bottom sides IS #bothsides lie. They do. Its the old yeah my guy does that your but your guy does it worse! Its like kindergarten.
Im not aware of that legislation Trump is litigating before SCOTUS.
It's not like kindergarten, it's real life. Functionally every person on Earth who can speak has told a lie at some point, so pointing out that everyone lies is a pointless thing. One side is vastly more honest than the other and you are attempting to obscure that.
People like you are playing right into Trump's hands you realize, right? So long as you just say '#bothsides' he can be by far the most relentlessly and purposefully dishonest person in the history of US politics and pay no price. If anything you're encouraging him to lie even more.
Just for the record, you do agree that Trump lies to a VASTLY greater degree than Biden or any other US politician of any party, correct? Just need to make sure we are both at least marginally tethered to reality.
California v. Texas
California v. Texas - Wikipedia
So much for saying he wouldn't do it, huh? The lawsuit is pants-on-head insane in terms of logic, but even that didn't stop him.
blackangst1
Lifer
Since Im not vopting for either Bidem or Trump, Im not doing anything. The sad thing for our country is neither is fit for office, and this will be yet another "pick the best of the worst".
Yep
California v. Texas
California v. Texas - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This lawsuit has nothing to do with Trump. Sure, Barr endorsed it, but thats about it. If you want to tie it to Trump, then we'll call it yet another failed lawsuit byTrump. SCOTUS wont rule in favor.
This is false. Here's the timeline:
1) Texas sues the federal government to invalidate the ACA, including the pre-existing condition exemption.
2) Trump's DOJ refuses to defend the law, the pre-existing condition exemption in particular, arguing it is unconstitutional.
3) After the law is not defended, the district judge rules the law unconstitutional.
4) California and other states intervene because Trump's DOJ is no longer defending it, the pre-existing condition exemption in particular.
It would be truly remarkable if you are going to argue that despite a lawsuit where Trump explicitly refused to defend against an attempt to destroy pre-existing condition protections and then argued they were unconstitutional...that he's not trying to get rid of them. He 100% is!
blackangst1
Lifer
I would say its not pre-existing conditions he might want to end, but the personal mandate, which I agree with. Unfortunately the way its written you can do away with one without the other.. It needs to be re-written.
Either way, SCOTUS wont rule in his favor. So meh.
Whether or not he WANTS to remove protections for pre-existing conditions he is litigating in a way that will do exactly that.
As far as the law being written that way, clearly not. This is exactly the absolutely bonkers interpretation of the Constitution that Texas is trying to use. SCOTUS will almost certainly not rule in their favor if for no other reason it would send the US legal system spiraling into insanity.
As for having one without the other, you most certainly can as evidenced by the last two years. In case you weren't aware of how utterly insane the right wing argument is here, let me break it down, and this is not exaggerated. It is legitimately this lawless.
1) If the government says you must get insurance or else it will punish you with fines, this is constitutional because the fines are a tax.
2) If the government says you must get insurance or else it will do nothing, this is unconstitutional because the nothing the government will do to you represents an unconstitutional burden.
3) If the mandate to get insurance on penalty of nothing no longer exists the entire ACA must be invalidated because clearly Congress did not intend the law to exist without the nonexistent penalty. They apparently did not intend this despite explicitly passing a law that did exactly that.
Yeah, that's the side Trump's on. Lol.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
