ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%

  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
I'm starting to sour on Donald myself. I mean, he's been president for a little over two months now and he hasn't single handedly fixed health care. I realize that the entire MSM, every dem, and half of the republicans are against him, but I thought he was magic. Bummer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: screwduke1, PhattyJ4UK, FusterCluck and 2 others
It's not about Donald. It's the Repubs in general and healthcare is a joke.

Why he didn't walk away and take his out while he had it was bad on his part. Now he is back gung ho saying they will get it done. "It" sucks again I'm sure and he needs to walk away from a bill that will be a failure.

Govt healthcare will suck no matter what.

Make fun of those who tell you this all you want, it's a bad policy and should be avoided and let this running egg smear all over Obama, not us.

But of course he can't, because his tax cuts were based on money saved by cutting healthcare costs. So now not only is healthcare not a stand alone policy that will screw us, but it's tied to tax cuts which were also promised and will be taken away as this stupid bill fails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: warrior-cat
The Watergate-sized scandals rocking the Trump and Obama administrations

Scandal No. 1 started with reports that Russian hackers tried to tip the presidential election to Trump. Soon came the added charge that Trump’s team was working with Vladimir Putin, as described in the discredited dossier about Russian hookers.

Clinton insisted often that Trump was guilty of something, and her media handmaidens still fan the smoke in a desperate search for flames. Though there is zero evidence so far, the continuing FBI investigation gives Democrats an opening to make up their own facts, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did Friday by suggesting that Russia is blackmailing Trump.

The next piece of collusion evidence will be the first, but that hasn’t stopped the left’s fantasies about impeaching Trump. Some are breaking the law to build their case.

That brings us to Scandal No. 2, which got a late start, but it’s moving fast and is closer to pay dirt. As far fetched as it might have seemed when Trump first charged that Obama “wire-tapped” him, there is compelling evidence that Trump was onto something very big.

Numerous media reports continue to reveal that federal agents gathered secret information about Trump’s team and used it to sabotage him. If it can be proven that a sitting president used government authorities to spy on a candidate who then became president and orchestrated leaks of classified material, Watergate, by comparison, really would be a second-rate burglary. The odds favor the possibility that Obama was the king of dirty tricks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymmot31, bigblueinsanity, AustinTXCat and 1 other person
krazykats said:
So thinking about this whole game being played out through the media and I think it's safe to assume that the democrats were dropping news in an effort get Trump or his team talking during his or their conversations with or about Russian govt.

It didn't ever happen to the degree they were hoping and so they kept their talking points fired up in hopes that it would still come to fruition.

Seemingly once Trump came out firing about surveillance the accusations came out in full force and seemed to be close to bringing his term to a demise.

But now he has withstood the firestorm and is still virtually clean, meanwhile we are damn close to destroying Obama politically in this country.

Good luck libs. You can ignore all you want but shit is hitting the fan on your establishment.
Click to expand...
No one but you me and others on here know that. Talking to liberals and regular Democrats yesterday, they were all up in arms about Trump signing the bill/law/rule (whatever it is) about selling your browsing history to the highest bidder (their words). They could not believe that now all of their information will be out there:rolleyes:. I told them that their stuff has been out there for years and ask them all about Obama's loosening the the reigns on the intelligence community right before leaving office and all of the spying and information gathering they were doing on Trump for political reasons. "What are you talking about?" "Where did you get your fake news from Fox?" They have no clue and then shot back with Bush loosened the reigns on the intelligence community and started all of the spying on US citizens. They really did not believe Obama did anything wrong and said they have heard nothing about what I was telling them.
 
C8kt_I4UMAAJ6pC.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill - Shy Cat, ymmot31, screwduke1 and 7 others
warrior-cat said:
No one but you me and others on here know that. Talking to liberals and regular Democrats yesterday, they were all up in arms about Trump signing the bill/law/rule (whatever it is) about selling your browsing history to the highest bidder (their words). They could not believe that now all of their information will be out there:rolleyes:. I told them that their stuff has been out there for years and ask them all about Obama's loosening the the reigns on the intelligence community right before leaving office and all of the spying and information gathering they were doing on Trump for political reasons. "What are you talking about?" "Where did you get your fake news from Fox?" They have no clue and then shot back with Bush loosened the reigns on the intelligence community and started all of the spying on US citizens. They really did not believe Obama did anything wrong and said they have heard nothing about what I was telling them.
Click to expand...

It's unbelievable how uninformed these people are. Ask them to look at their Facebook and Google terms of service to see that their information was sold a long time ago. They had the monopoly on their info. Trump opened it up to other companies. I don't agree with it but that's what happened when he signed the bill. I think they should have rolled back privacy laws but all he did was even the playing field for existing laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YourPublicEnemy
Some folks just like to bitch, man. They live to look gift horses in the mouth and find loose threads on a new shirt. These people can't enjoy anything in their lives, so politics is a great place for them to play... b/c it supplies constant fodder and a permanent platform from which to bitch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymmot31
fuzz77 said:
The difference is that if the person driving the Honda wrecks he car and isn't insured, nobody else pays to fix his car.
The person whose home is flooded without flood insurance doesn't get paid for his loss.
Compare that with what happens with healthcare. You're sick, injured, have a medical emergency you go or are taken to the ER, treated and cared for. Can't pay? They aren't going to return you to your original condition. The money is already spent, the care already delivered. Who do you expect to absorb the loss? The healthcare provider?? Right. They figure those losses into their rates you idiot!

Bury your head in the sand all you want...that ain't changing regardless of who is in the White House or congress.

Has nothing to do with being a liberal and everything with actually understanding the landscape of healthcare. Sorry that you're either too stupid or too lazy to understand the same.

When you figure out a plan where people who cannot pay for care don't get it and therefore the cost of their care doesn't get shifted to you and me then you can come make your comparisons to auto and flood insurance. Until then, you're ignoring the elephant in the room.
BTW, you also have to figure out how the low reimbursement rates for Medicare/Medicaid don't also get cost shifted as well.
Click to expand...

Hospitals should be responsible for carrying that cost. They get gigantic tax breaks by being allowed to claim 501c3 status.

They need to actually earn that status. Or the IRS needs to revoke it.
 
bigblueinsanity said:
Hospitals should be responsible for carrying that cost. They get gigantic tax breaks by being allowed to claim 501c3 status.

They need to actually earn that status. Or the IRS needs to revoke it.
Click to expand...
501c3 is for non-profits. Guess you missed the news that non-profit hospitals are becoming pretty much dinosaurs thanks to HCA, CHS and the other for-profit hospital chains that are taking over the market. They offload the charity care the comes to their ERs to the nearest non-profit weakening that competitor ability to compete and even operate. White knight for-profit hospital chain rides in and buys the non-profit hospital and converts it to a for-profit entity.
Non-profits still have to be able to provide care and pay staff so as charity care increases, they are forced to raise rates which allows the for-profit competitors to do the same. That or close their doors. Maybe you should research how many hospitals have closed.

Not sure how much charity care you expect non-profits to be able to absorb and not affect their ability to deliver quality care.

What is obvious in this thread is that there is little understanding of healthcare economics. Also the hypocrisy of those who don't want to pay for the care of others but insist that others do so.
 
The IRS took millions from innocent people because of how they managed their bank accounts, Inspector General finds.

......
While structuring is technically a crime, it's something of a secondary one. The reporting requirements were enacted in order to detect serious criminal activity, such as drug dealing and terrorism. They "were not put in place just so that the Government could enforce the reporting requirements," as the Inspector General's report puts it.

But according to the report, that's exactly what happened at the IRS in recent years. The IRS pursued hundreds of cases from 2012 to 2015 on suspicion of structuring, but with no indication that it was related to any criminal activity. Simply depositing cash in sums of less than $10,000 was all that it took to arouse agents' suspicion, and the eventual seizure and forfeiture of millions of dollars in cash from people not otherwise suspected of criminal activity.....

eek.gif


Thanks, Obama!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymmot31 and screwduke1
AustinTXCat said:
The IRS took millions from innocent people because of how they managed their bank accounts, Inspector General finds.

......
While structuring is technically a crime, it's something of a secondary one. The reporting requirements were enacted in order to detect serious criminal activity, such as drug dealing and terrorism. They "were not put in place just so that the Government could enforce the reporting requirements," as the Inspector General's report puts it.

But according to the report, that's exactly what happened at the IRS in recent years. The IRS pursued hundreds of cases from 2012 to 2015 on suspicion of structuring, but with no indication that it was related to any criminal activity. Simply depositing cash in sums of less than $10,000 was all that it took to arouse agents' suspicion, and the eventual seizure and forfeiture of millions of dollars in cash from people not otherwise suspected of criminal activity.....

eek.gif


Thanks, Obama!
Click to expand...
I believe the sentence above that I highlighted is incorrectly written...and should say "depositing cash sums of more than $10,000...". Banks are required by law to report all cash deposits > $10,000 and have been required to do so for many, many years in attempts to catch money launderers.
Actually, it's not just deposits, it's any transaction > $10,000.

That law was passed October 26, 1986...

Thanks Ronny!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinTXCat
fuzz77 said:
501c3 is for non-profits. Guess you missed the news that non-profit hospitals are becoming pretty much dinosaurs thanks to HCA, CHS and the other for-profit hospital chains that are taking over the market. They offload the charity care the comes to their ERs to the nearest non-profit weakening that competitor ability to compete and even operate. White knight for-profit hospital chain rides in and buys the non-profit hospital and converts it to a for-profit entity.
Non-profits still have to be able to provide care and pay staff so as charity care increases, they are forced to raise rates which allows the for-profit competitors to do the same. That or close their doors. Maybe you should research how many hospitals have closed.

Not sure how much charity care you expect non-profits to be able to absorb and not affect their ability to deliver quality care.

What is obvious in this thread is that there is little understanding of healthcare economics. Also the hypocrisy of those who don't want to pay for the care of others but insist that others do so.
Click to expand...

I know full well what the irc code section means. Otherwise I wouldn't just fling it out there.

I don't care about the supposed plight of hospitals. I'm not buying it. For decades, these entities were gifted tax exempt status while kicking patients out the door at the first opportunity.

If one gets the benefit of tax exemption, they deserve the burden
 
bigblueinsanity said:
I know full well what the irc code section means. Otherwise I wouldn't just fling it out there.

I don't care about the supposed plight of hospitals. I'm not buying it. For decades, these entities were gifted tax exempt status while kicking patients out the door at the first opportunity.

If one gets the benefit of tax exemption, they deserve the burden
Click to expand...
You don't have to like it or care... but to deny the facts is simply self-imposed ignorance.
Hospitals are closing all over because they are unable to sustain their operations due to low Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates and absorbing charity care. Even non-profits still have to balance the books. Have to pay staff, pay the light bill...
 
AustinTXCat said:
The IRS took millions from innocent people because of how they managed their bank accounts, Inspector General finds.

......
While structuring is technically a crime, it's something of a secondary one. The reporting requirements were enacted in order to detect serious criminal activity, such as drug dealing and terrorism. They "were not put in place just so that the Government could enforce the reporting requirements," as the Inspector General's report puts it.

But according to the report, that's exactly what happened at the IRS in recent years. The IRS pursued hundreds of cases from 2012 to 2015 on suspicion of structuring, but with no indication that it was related to any criminal activity. Simply depositing cash in sums of less than $10,000 was all that it took to arouse agents' suspicion, and the eventual seizure and forfeiture of millions of dollars in cash from people not otherwise suspected of criminal activity.....

eek.gif


Thanks, Obama!
Click to expand...

That's almost unbelievable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AustinTXCat
fuzz77 said:
I believe the sentence above that I highlighted is incorrectly written...and should say "depositing cash sums of more than $10,000...". Banks are required by law to report all cash deposits > $10,000 and have been required to do so for many, many years in attempts to catch money launderers.
Actually, it's not just deposits, it's any transaction > $10,000.

That law was passed October 26, 1986...

Thanks Ronny!
Click to expand...


You're wrong.

Structuring is the act of depositing amounts below $10,000 with intent of avoiding the requirement to report transactions over $10,000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigblueinsanity, augustaky1, Moopyj and 1 other person
fuzz77 said:
I believe the sentence above that I highlighted is incorrectly written...and should say "depositing cash sums of more than $10,000...". Banks are required by law to report all cash deposits > $10,000 and have been required to do so for many, many years in attempts to catch money launderers.
Actually, it's not just deposits, it's any transaction > $10,000.

That law was passed October 26, 1986...

Thanks Ronny!
Click to expand...

Wrong - the article stated exactly what it wanted to. The $10,000 and above reporting is a thing, but this article is about targeting people from "structuring".

"Most people impacted by the program did not appear to be criminal enterprises engaged in other alleged illegal activity," according to the Inspector General's press release. "Rather, they were legal businesses such as jewelry stores, restaurant owners, gas station owners, scrap metal dealers, and others."

More troubling, the report found that the pattern of seizures -- targeting businesses that obtained their money legally -- was deliberate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: augustaky1 and AustinTXCat
FattyJ, show your work, to get full credit. Lol.

Else fuzz and others will think the antifa are brilliant minds, coming up with such a wonderful socialist solution to poverty!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhattyJ4UK
fuzz77 said:
You don't have to like it or care... but to deny the facts is simply self-imposed ignorance.
Hospitals are closing all over because they are unable to sustain their operations due to low Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates and absorbing charity care. Even non-profits still have to balance the books. Have to pay staff, pay the light bill...
Click to expand...
Ask yourself one important question about what you just typed. What entity is causing the false set of economics described in your post and why would we want them even more involved in our health care?
 
  • Like
Reactions: warrior-cat and ymmot31
Hahaha, I don't think its Trump aides that'll end up in jail...

Unless Susan Rice was a Trump aide
 
screwduke1 said:
Hahaha, I don't think its Trump aides that'll end up in jail...

Unless Susan Rice was a Trump aide
View embedded media
Click to expand...
[laughing] Click bait. According to their own article, he never said "Trump aides". From what he said, as far as we know, he could be talking about Susan Rice.

“I wouldn’t be surprised after all of this is said and done that some people end up in jail,” he said Tuesday on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

“My impression is that people will probably be charged, and I think people will probably go to jail,” the House Intelligence Committee member added.

Castro declined to answer whether his prediction includes members of Trump’s administration or the president’s transition team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ymmot31 and screwduke1
fuzz77 said:
You don't have to like it or care... but to deny the facts is simply self-imposed ignorance.
Hospitals are closing all over because they are unable to sustain their operations due to low Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates and absorbing charity care. Even non-profits still have to balance the books. Have to pay staff, pay the light bill...
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the argument. No one forced them to choose non profit status. They've enjoyed decades of no taxation. If they don't like giving basic care to uninsured, then they should back up and pay taxes for every year they claimed exempt.

They can't have it both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

UK_Dallas

Paddock game thread ***Auburn***

Replies
16
Views
660
The Paddock - General Discussion Forum
hmt5000
hmt5000
JonathanW

Western NC in need of help!!!

Replies
55
Views
2K
The Paddock - General Discussion Forum
IdaCat
IdaCat
Jeff Drummond

Basketball ****** Blue-White Event Live Thread *******

Replies
220
Views
7K
The House of Blue
BBNSZN914
BBNSZN914
kyboss360

Sports Tweet thread:

Replies
0
Views
557
The House of Blue
kyboss360
kyboss360
DraftCat
  • Poll

Championship - Son_Of_Saul vs. drcats2013

Replies
62
Views
1K
Rupp Rafters - Basketball Forum
Fox2monk
Fox2monk
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back