 |
Surprised you even watch Bill Maher, since that liberal refers to the dufus as a whiny little beetch, but I suppose conservative rather talk about HC than Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, Russia, or Impeachment as a court ruling says the redacted portions of the Mueller Report be turned over to congress which of course will be appealed and add to the obstruction in a legal and constitutional congressional investigation.
Wonder what Barr is up to with HIS criminal investigation of the Mueller Report?
good ;I wanted the whole thing released from the start . Guess they can add any charges they want when they conclude their secret kangaroo court .Quote:
a court ruling says the redacted portions of the Mueller Report be turned over to congress
Guessing now that the precedent is now set by an Imperial black robe that a Grand Jury proceeding is no longer confidential .Either that or the idiot judge determined that the kangaroo court the House is conducting is a legitimate judicial proceeding . But that can't be can it ? In a legitimate proceeding the witnesses would be subject to cross examination ;the accused would be permitted the right to confront the accuser .(oh that pesky 6th amendment ) .That is why in the past Congress voted on an impeachment inquiry so they could at least make it appear to be legit .
They had better hurry …. If the House doesn't impeach real soon then they risk having half their candidates for President sitting in a Senate trial instead of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire .
I don't know why you righties can't get the facts through your thick heads. This is the INVESTIGATIVE phase. The cops don't have witnesses be cross-examined during their investigation. Don't you watch any cop shows on TV? The TRIAL phase is when witnesses are cross-examined, defendants can confront their accusers, and present their version of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
As for the whistleblower, he is no longer needed for the trial since Trump himself, Mulvaney and Rudy have all confessed. No more evidence is needed. The Trump lawyers know all this and conveyed it to Trump, but Trump wants blood.
He wants the whistleblower identified so one of his crazies out there can do some damage to the person. Rocket Science 101. I'm sure you know all this Tom, you may be on the wrong side, but you're no dummy.
That's not a problem. Still plenty of time for campaigning.Quote:
They had better hurry …. If the House doesn't impeach real soon then they risk having half their candidates for President sitting in a Senate trial instead of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire .
Hillary Clinton is old news? You need to start watching the news.Quote:
Um, *cough cough* aren't both of them, like um, old news? And they looked like dinosaurs at Cummings' funeral.
Talaniman: Word is that Barr and company is seeking the "ring" that made up the Dossier in terms of the information suppliers and IF these people were paid and by whom...He is also looking at FBI entrapment practices involved.....But the biggest link he is wanting to find is the FISA warrants or, most probably why they were unwarranted based upon unverified reports with the big thrust being that he thinks the FBI lied in order to get a judge or judges to grant the warrants.
Barr is following his bosses marching orders and making a big show of it publicly. The dufus has been hollering witch hunt and hoax forever with the loony right amplifying the message and demanding JUSTICE. I can get with a review of everything the government does, but you would be unwise to trust the motives of Barr, given his predilliction for lying to protect his boss, or his lying cheating boss.
He's got his talking points though against the Impeachment charges and I suspect he may well still be trying to clear Vlad of what EVERYBODY says was cyber attacks of our elections. What? You think the dufus isn't a wholly owned subsiduary of everything Vlad wants?
E Warren says her Medicare for All plan will cost about 5 trillion per year, which of course means it will cost more than 5 trillion per year. That is more than the current TOTAL fed budget which itself is not being paid for without massive borrowing. She then tries to tell us that it will not mean tax increases for the middle class. And you wonder why people vote for Trump? If liberal dems want people to vote for their candidate, then they better find someone better than the insanity represented by Warren or Sanders. Sanders has his own Med for all plan that will cost merely 3 trillion per year.
jlisenbe: Ain't no way any thinking person would vote for these blithering dingbats.....they can't even lie good, which is the first discipline of a politician.....Maybe I'm jaded, but this whole HEALTH CARE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD viewpoint is insane: You are going to die! Everyone wants to live forever: that ain't happening! This life we live is preordained: You had better live life to the fullest and enjoy it while you can, while your health is good: Stop worrying about what is out of your control. Warren and Sanders are psychos, especially WARREN: Just saw a video of here at a CONSERVATIVE symposium from 1992 where she said that anyone not paying their credit card debt should be thrown in jail! She changed from being a women on the Right to being a woman on the left.....but, then again, she changed from being an INDIAN to a whiter than white woman overnight, too......Bernie didn't change: He's always been a Bolshevik! Took one of his three honeymoons in SOVIET RUSSIA but now he hates Russia....back when they were solid commies, he loved Russia! Go figure!
I wonder if you would have the same view if you or your family were actually in the situation of catastrophic illness or injury, or even high maintenance disease or ailments? While 85% of Americans enjoy the benefit of employer based health insurance, put yourself in the shoes of those that do NOT have that benefit, and have medical needs. I can only speak for myself, but labor negotiations for many years with my employer was less about more money in wages than it was about more medical coverage and benefits.Quote:
Maybe I'm jaded, but this whole HEALTH CARE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD viewpoint is insane:.../Vac
Health insurance is a pain to have when you don't NEED it, but catastrophic if you NEED it but don't have it. Even if you do, as I have always had, costs are through the roof for some things and I can only imagine what very sick poor people go through without it. No ordinary human can afford it, so I guess you and yours are really healthy and don't see a need for it being a priority, and I hope your good health continues, but it's hardly insane for people with life threatening conditions to deal with, or even high maintenance conditions suffered by many.
I'm not convinced Bernie and Liz have the right ideas or how to pay for it, but for many it's a priority, because there is a great NEED for medical care. I got mine, but for many others they got none. I suspect you got yours TOO! Maybe visit some hospitals and tell people sorry you're going to die any way. Let me know how that works for you. Explain to them how rising costs of health care means you can't afford your insulin.
Go ahead I dare you! Now that's insane! Or at least ask repubs what they are going to do after they repeal Obama Care! Their plan is pretty much YOUR ideas so I can see you go for it. Die MOFO, you can't afford that kidney transplant! That's some plan dude! It's INSANE!
What's your idea for paying for the kidney transplant which typically cost a quarter of a million dollars in the United States?Quote:
you can't afford that kidney transplant!
If the dems will nominate a candidate who will not support abortion, will promise a balanced budget, and will appoint sensible federal judges, I will vote for that person.
And why does it cost that much? My younger son was DOA by the time the ambulance got him to the ER, yet he was billed over $10k for ER services.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Talaniman: I hear your argument...and you make valid points, that can not be denied....I don't want to sound like a horse's arse all the time, which I do quite often...I'm probably different than most because I'm a fatalist: Whatever is God's plan can not be changed...and that's all that I will say about faith before someone calls me a religious nutcase: this is not religion, exactly, but a set or rules and a lot of faith. Healthcare is a NECESSARY EVIL for the very reason you mention: You don't use it but you pay for it. However, I have yet to hear a single PLAN, whether it be Demo or Repub, that is truly viable: They cost too much and they weigh SO, SO HEAVY on the Middle Class that they are suffocating. So, what is the answer: I surely don't know and I don't think anyone else does, either.
The plans are supposed to cover huge costs by hospitals and doctors plus meds sold by Big Pharma. Hmm, are all those costs fair and affordable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The notion of profits over people, is deplorable, so changing profit to non profit is the START of my solution as well as regulating compensation for research and development. Maximizing positive outcomes, while reigning in RISING costs to consumers is a win/win for both. 15% profit as the law is currently written over costs that includes advertising is legalized stealing on close scrutiny, as well as the timeline for ROI, which invites abuses. Does that mean a more effective streamlining of regulations? You bet it does, but we have to also recognize the GOVERNMENT investment side of the R/D equation.
If holding your nose and voting for the dufus was good enough for you, then holding my nose and voting for the dem nominee will work for me.Quote:
If the dems will nominate a candidate who will not support abortion, will promise a balanced budget, and will appoint sensible federal judges, I will vote for that person.
You fool no one JL with your sensible judges comments though, and I read it as conservative judges that will overturn the legality of Roe v Wade, as the law of the land. Such a litmus tests is just to narrow for me and smacks of the same argument you make for all those liberal ACTIST judges you say do not follow the law.
I believe God gave humans free will and the ability to rise to the challenge of problem solving. Or we drown in our own shat! I laid out my opinion above for your perusal. I'm not a fatalists nor a religious nut. I think we should choose to RISE to the challenge no matter the OBSTACLES.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Let's suppose we do as you propose, even there should be no great confidence that non-profits will be the answer, but if we take off the 15% profit from the quarter million kidney transplant, how do you propose we pay for the remaining 210 grand?Quote:
The notion of profits over people, is deplorable, so changing profit to non profit is the START of my solution as well as regulating compensation for research and development. Maximizing positive outcomes, while reigning in RISING costs to consumers is a win/win for both. 15% profit as the law is currently written over costs that includes advertising is legalized stealing on close scrutiny, as well as the timeline for ROI, which invites abuses. Does that mean a more effective streamlining of regulations? You bet it does, but we have to also recognize the GOVERNMENT investment side of the R/D equation.
What was the Constitutional rationale for the Roe decision? Do you know what it was?Quote:
You fool no one JL with your sensible judges comments though, and I read it as conservative judges that will overturn the legality of Roe v Wade, as the law of the land. Such a litmus tests is just to narrow for me and smacks of the same argument you make for all those liberal ACTIST judges you say do not follow the law.
"Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade
EXCELLENT question and the right one. To be clear the 15% profits is arrived at not by individual costs, but overall costs after expenses. So looking at expenses you calculate profit AFTER those expenses. Take out the PROFIT and apply the 15% allowable by law to cost gives us a reduction of those costs. To further reduce those costs, you add revenue by using a bigger revenue pool, much the same as employers enjoy by pooling their employees. It's a contracted fixed cost that workers and employers have borne in lieu of raises for decades. The model is that healthy workers in the pool, mitigate the costs of workers that are not as healthy, and its made huge profit for insurance companies even as they have raised profits at the same time. Sure costs have gone up, but that's an artificial cost based on projected profit targets. It has become automatic and the fact insurance companies raise what state regulators must approve every few years without exception is the legacy of more profits which is the current incentive to pick and chose what procedures they allow YOUR doctor to take. Not saying it's a completely bad thing, but limiting procedures and jacking up profits IS a bad thing we should be eliminating.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The goal is better care outcomes and options for everybody, not just those that can afford it, and bend the cost curve downward over time compared to the 10/12% increase every couple of years. 2% over 5/10 years is a more ideal model for consumers.
You sure make me do a lot of homework don't you? That's okay, but in simple terms people are seeking the freedom to make their own choices concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those who use to be in the closet folks are coming into the light. That includes of course all the social and ethnic minorities, who want control over their own lives.Quote:
What was the Constitutional rationale for the Roe decision? Do you know what it was?
I have posted the 14th Amendment below. See if you can find the part guaranteeing a right to privacy. Also see if you can figure out how an amendment prohibiting any state depriving a person of life could somehow be construed to guarantee a right for a doctor to kill an unborn child.Quote:
The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
I agree, but how do we get there? That's the big question. If medical care continues to rise at the current rate, then there are no answers. I have a bill from my grandmother in 1949 when she spent six days in the hospital for less than a hundred bucks. How have we gotten from that point to where we are today? If the same thing had happened with food, then we would be paying five hundred dollars for a loaf of bread.Quote:
The goal is better care outcomes and options for everybody, not just those that can afford it, and bend the cost curve downward over time compared to the 10/12% increase every couple of years. 2% over 5/10 years is a more ideal model for consumers.
I agree. Why doesn't an unborn child get the right to live rather than being brutally killed? Giving me a link the the Roe decision doesn't answer the question.Quote:
That's okay, but in simple terms people are seeking the freedom to make their own choices concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
Ruling:Quote:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
A woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, while decision gave women autonomy during the first trimester of pregnancy, different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters were allowed.
We obviously disagree on that right to privacy, but the law is very clear as to woman having that right, rather than guys like you believing she does NOT. You are a minority on this as a nationwide issue by the way.
https://www.thoughtco.com/abortion-i...states-3367873
The debate continues but the LAW is clear as is the intent to change it.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:29 AM. |