POLANDA : - powered by PolishForums   Classifieds [75] Off-Topic [334]
2697    

Off-Topicpage 56 of 90

2016 Presidential Elections in the US



delphiandomine
15 May 2016  #1651

After announcing that, a private contributor said he will give President Trump a $100 million for the general election bid.

Which means that Trump is now experiencing what it means to owe someone a favour politically.

johnny reb
15 May 2016  #1652

our current Muslim president has encouraged in the name of Islam.

Amazing that people can still believe this.

Mostly the European's that don't live here but let Obama tell you that he is himself that he is a Muslim.
Listen closely and learn not to pretend you know everything.

bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+watch+popup+v+tcaffmswszy

TheOther
15 May 2016  #1653

Trump says he has already loaned his primary campaign $50 million and would need as much as a $1 billion for a White House bid.

Let's see if Trump will use donated money to pay himself back. So much for "self-funding"...

delphiandomine
15 May 2016  #1654

Mostly the European's that don't live here but let Obama tell you that he is himself that he is a Muslim.

LOL Johnny :

snopes.com/politics/obama/foxvideo.asp

johnny reb
15 May 2016  #1655

Amazing some people out there still believe that Snopes tells the truth.
Most people don't even know who owns Snopes.
If they did they would not be putting much credibility in them.

delphiandomine
15 May 2016  #1656

Most people don't even know who owns Snopes.

A Canadian-American and a Californian. The Californian is an ex-registered Republican turned independent.

It really is true that being conservative equates with a lower IQ.

johnny reb
16 May 2016  #1657

Most intelligent people have come to realize that it's foolish to use only a single resource to determine the accuracy of a given story. Snopes.......really now. lol
That would make you the fool as usual.
25% of the people in America believe Obama is a Muslim and I am one of them.
Back on thread we go.
Which means that Trump is now experiencing what it means to owe someone a favour politically.

Yes, from ONE American tax payer and not multiple foreign countries like Hillary, who not like President Trump, has already taken the donation money.

delphiandomine
16 May 2016  #1658

25% of the people in America believe Obama is a Muslim and I am one of them.

Well, no-one really associates that 25% of Americans with intelligence.

johnny reb
16 May 2016  #1659

I am glad you understand that you are a no one.
Back on thread we go.

Something as simple as going back on topic confuses some people.
Take yourself for example.
President Trump will make a good president.

johnny reb
16 May 2016  #1660

Crooked Hillary lying for 13 minutes non stop.
I love the comments that follow.

youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

How could anyone vote for this witch ? How ?

Wulkan
16 May 2016  #1661

Crooked Hillary lying for 13 minutes non stop.

She'd be perfect for Harold's gang

johnny reb
16 May 2016  #1662

It only gets worse as you start looking at her political platform.
Providing even more proof that she is simply a puppet for the ruling oligarchy as last week Crooked Hillary attended a $100,000 a head fundraiser hosted by none other than Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent New York businesswoman, and supporter of Clinton.
The Rothschild banking dynasty is a family line that has been accused of pulling the political strings of many different governments through their control of various economic systems throughout the world.
Historically there is ample evidence to prove that the family has used its vast fortune to control the political apparatus of numerous nations throughout history toppling regimes and bringing entire economies to their knees.
I do believe the Rothchild's are members of the Bilderberg. (Agenda 21)
President Trump is going to have a field day exposing these things to show her real colors.
This why "THEY" won't let Trump become president and that is because he would topple these insiders that have way to much control over the governments of the world.
Tragic accident for the Donald, don't be surprised.

AdrianK9
16 May 2016  #1663

I love the new Clinton ads by Trump.

The Democrats have the perfect answer - Clinton - bark, bark, bark, bark!

Why is that so funny?

Hahahah

snopes.com/politics/obama/foxvideo.asp

Screw FOX news!!! They are nothing most then subversive anti-establishment media. They claim to be so conservative and Republican yet they're one of the top Hillary donors in this race. They've been giving money to the Clintons for years and years!

johnny reb
16 May 2016  #1664

Shhhhh..........
Don't educate delph to all of these things.
Let him pretend that he is the EXPERT on EVERYTHING posted on the PF like he does constantly.
Now that Obama is on his way out we can start the Hillary truisms.
My favorite still of the 'Anointed One' one was:
"Obama loved the poor so much that he created millions more of them."

Ironside
16 May 2016  #1665

Obama loved the poor so much that he created millions more of them."

Yes, a good one.

AdrianK9
16 May 2016  #1666

Most people hate Obama's Obamacare, but I can tell you that it has actually helped our family out. It was nearly impossible for my mother to get insurance due to a pre-existing condition and if she did, which usually insurance would just reject her anyway, the 1 or 2 companies that would take her gave her an insanely high price quote that it more closely resembles a monthly mortgage payment...

The one good thing about Obamacare is that my mom can finally get the healthcare she needs at an affordable price. She's not subsidized and pays quite a bit each month due to her and my dad's income bracket, but prior to Obamacare she didn't have health insurance because of the pre-existing condition and refusal to accept her. I do know there can be much better options to Obamacare but on a personal, family level - Obamacare has helped my family.

That is what I am so sick of - these gays complain about discrimination from cemeteries, trannies complain about discrimination when it comes to bathrooms, blacks complain about being discriminated by every white person, what about the millions of people who were unable to get health insurance or couldn't afford it because of a pre-existing condition? How is that not discrimination - you're discriminating against a person's health and won't do business with them. When my mom would call up for a quote in the past, most of the time the sales rep would say straight up we can't cover you due to your pre-existing condition. They're flat our saying - you're sick so we don't want you as a customer. Yet a baker gets flak for discrimination because he wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple and it's all over the media... nothing about millions being refused service because they were sick in the past..

Utter hypocrisy..

TheOther
17 May 2016  #1667

she didn't have health insurance because of the pre-existing condition and refusal to accept her.

Finally someone who understands and does not repeat this death panel garbage! Thank you. And now explain to me please, how any sane person could possibly vote for a candidate who would repeal the Affordable Care Act as soon as he enters the White House and cause almost 21 million people to lose their insurance coverage?

fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/measuring-trumps-healthcare-plan

johnny reb
17 May 2016  #1668

. And now explain to me please, how any sane person could possibly vote for a candidate who would repeal the Affordable Care Act

Because Trumps plan is much better then Obama Care and much cheaper.
Obama Care was designed to fail which it is miserably dying a slow death.

porky pok
17 May 2016  #1669

I just hope it dies.My health insuramce went up from 1100 for 2 to 2600 a month go figure with 10$ deductable and 20 for meds.

johnny reb
17 May 2016  #1670

Everybody that has their own private health insurance is now paying a lot more to support Obama Care.
Their private plans have almost doubled to help finance Obama Care Costs. (Redistribution)
The $50 million Hillary gave her friends to design the website for Obama Care that crashed is another story.
My neighbor who works a seasonal job made $16,000 last year and refused to buy Obama Care because she couldn't afford it.
The government fined her $325 (taken right out of her income tax return) to help pay for Obama Care and she still has no health Care.
In short, YOU WILL buy Obama Care or we will fine you.
Kids are covered under their parents health care until they are 28 years old so they pay nothing and people over 65 get medicare, the welfare population get free medicaid health care so that leaves working people (and a lot of them have their own private plan) between 29 thru 64 (and only a small percentage of them signed up for it) to finance Obama Care which no way can finance itself.
It will eventually implode.
Another Obama failure.
Trumps health care program is a much more affordable and better coverage plan and fair for EVERYBODY.
That's why I will vote for Trump besides that Crooked Hillary will be put in prison where she belongs.

TheOther
17 May 2016  #1671

Trumps health care program is a much more affordable and better coverage plan and fair for EVERYBODY.

Fair for everybody? 21 million people will lose their health insurance, and a lot more will not be able to find any insurance at affordable rates (read Adrian's post again). To make Trump's healthcare program even remotely acceptable, he would need to put a cap on litigation first and then make sure that the insurers cannot get away with refusing people coverage due to pre-existing conditions, or kick them out of their contracts because they've reached their lifetime benefit maximum. Only then would the healthcare system be fair for EVERYBODY.

I don't believe that it will be as easy to solve the severe problems of our healthcare and social security systems as Trump think it is.

1100 for 2 to 2600 a month

The can't be correct. You mean per year, right?

valuepenguin.com/average-cost-of-health-insurance

johnny reb
17 May 2016  #1672

21 million people will lose their health insurance

No, they will just switch to the Trump Care plan.
We have no idea what would make it acceptable yet.
Do you think it is fair now that single mother's get free health care under Medicaid ?
I can understand the baby getting it but why the mother ?

TheOther
17 May 2016  #1673

Do you think it is fair now that single mother's get free health care under Medicaid ?

If she's living below the poverty line, what is she supposed to do? Don't forget that we have more than 10 million working poor here in the US for example. If she can't afford health insurance, she would end up in the ER, which we would all pay for through an increase in our premiums in the end. Catch 22.

johnny reb
17 May 2016  #1674

which we would all pay for through an increase in our premiums

We are already paying that.
Another question.
make sure that the insurers cannot get away with refusing people coverage due to pre-existing conditions

Do you think pre existing conditions is fair ?
That is like me going into buy car insurance AFTER I smash it up and expect my insurance to cover it.
What's your take on that ?

TheOther
17 May 2016  #1675

Do you think pre existing conditions is fair ?

Depends. People with a birth defect, a hereditary genetic condition like certain types of diabetes, or a severe disability caused by an accident for example would be treated extremely unfair in my opinion. A life long smoker who ends up with emphysema is a different story. Insurers should still be obliged to cover these people, but the premium has to be siginificantly higher. The latter is a slippery slope though, because this principle could easily be exploited by the insurance industry to include overweight people, athletes, folks with risky jobs ... you get my drift. The best would be to put a cap on what healthcare providers, the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies are allowed to charge for a certain service, treatment or drug. Like a tariff - that's how some healthcare systems in Europe operate.

johnny reb
17 May 2016  #1676

The best would be to put a cap on what healthcare providers, the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies are allowed to charge for a certain service, treatment or drug.

Which is exactly what Trump wants to do.
Insurers should still be obliged to cover these people, but the premium has to be siginificantly higher.

WHAT ! Hold someone "accountable" and "responsible" in this day and age !
We are rightback to car insurance then.
If someone text or drinks while driving, shouldn't their premiums be significantly higher also ?
I can see the discrimination suits coming out now.
We do agree on putting caps on the monopolies in healthcare which would be a huge start.

porky pok
17 May 2016  #1677

The can't be correct. You mean per year, right?

per month

AdrianK9
17 May 2016  #1678

The can't be correct. You mean per year, right?

It is very possible. Paying a couple hundred to a grand a month is totally normal depending on income level, health, and age. My parents pay well over $1,000 a month but my dad is healthy. When I had cancer as a child we were paying $900 a month through a program called CHIP which was a type of government insurance for children - no other private insurance would cover me. This was in the early 90's so that'd be like paying $2k a month now if not more. Again, I don't see how that isn't discrimination - businesses get flak for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple yet insurance can refuse to insure a sick child? I didn't have any control over whether I got cancer or not yet it's totally legal for an insurance to refuse to insure me.

I'm not saying that Obamacare is perfect and I do believe there are better alternatives. Nonetheless, I'd much rather have my parents have expensive insurance versus no insurance. In that regard, I can say that Obamacare is better than what we had before but still has its flaws. Also, I don't like the fact that so much money has been pulled out of Medicare.

insurers should still be obliged to cover these people, but the premium has to be siginificantly higher.

That is the situation now with Obamacare - prior to that a company could just flat out reject you. As a smoker, I pay a higher premium - which is fine because I made the decision to partake in an unhealthy activity. However, prior to Obamacare, insurance companies would flat out refuse coverage for my mother. She didn't even have cancer, MS, or some kind of condition that requires regular expensive treatments - she has stomach problems and had 1 surgery because of an ulcer. That was enough for insurance companies to deny her coverage through Obamacare.

The big thing now is 'temporary insurance' which is basically a person can buy out a policy for say 6 months, do their tests or whatever else they need, but it won't satisfy the insurance requirement under Obamacare so the individual is still liable for a tax penalty at the end of the year. However, the person can see a doctor, do some basic tests and although it is expensive and the insurance doesn't cover much - it's still cheaper than paying without having any insurance at all. A lot of car companies like State Farm are really pushing these temp health policies especially for self employed individuals that can't get insurance through work and exchange plans would be too expensive.

I use to work with a lot of doctors, hospitals, etc. when I worked in sales for a medical waste company and I can tell you that the medical professionals really hated Obamacare since it made billing much more complicated, limited how they could treat patients, and limited payouts. I remember one particular situation where a doctor was arguing with Obamacare that a patient who had a pre-cancerous lung condition really needed an MRI because Obamacare didn't want to cover it at first saying it wasn't necessary for the patient.

It's not a doctor who really determines what kind of treatments the average patient receives but rather the people who handle billing for insurance companies. A company can refuse to pay for a treatment or some life saying procedure for a patient because it isn't necessary or because they're not sick enough yet. Even for HIV patients, to my understanding they have to have a very low CD4 count, meaning full blown AIDS, before they start receiving anti-virals. So if someone doesn't have money to pay for doctors, specialists, treatments, etc. they're good as dead if they have a life threatening condition.

AdrianK9
17 May 2016  #1679

Don't forget that we have more than 10 million working poor here in the US for example

10 million working poor is a very small number. This depends what your definition of 'working poor' is. To me, it would be perhaps a full time McDonald's worker or other minimum wage employee. According to Huffington Post - there are 45 million Americans at or under the 'poverty level.' However, not all of them are working. To be considered in poverty - a person must make $11.5k a year or a household of 4 make $23.5k.

If a person works full time at a minimum wage job, it would be impossible for him to be in poverty - and here's why. There are 2080 work hours in a year. At a minimum wage of $7.50 - that comes out to $15,600 a year - still a very low wage but over $4,000 above the poverty line. Once you add all the government benefits a person who makes only $7.50 an hour would qualify for like public assistance, food stamps, section 8, etc. this would greatly increase his or her income.

According to CNBC, in 2014 the average american made $44.5k a year BUT 67% of wage earners made at or less than that. The median income - meaning the middle number - was actually $28.851. That's less than $14 an hour. However, that's still more than double what poverty level would be for an individual. So if a wage earner makes $14 an hour and is the sole earner in a family of 4 - they are not considered to be in 'poverty' technically. Also, they would qualify for tons of government programs since they are a family and would actually live a very normal middle class existence as their rent, food, health care, etc. would be paid for. It's very little money but doesn't quite qualify as poverty and with all the government programs it would actually be a decent lifestyle.

According to the 2014 US Census 'Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014' report, there were 46.7 million people in poverty in the US. According to this same report, 20% of US households earn an income of under $21.4k a year.
census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf

For the fourth consecutive year, overall poverty levels were not statistically different - meaning there was hardly a difference in the total amount of people in poverty in the US despite all of the aid, assistance, etc. However, this report does that there there was a statistical increase in poverty among people who had at least a bachelor's degree, people aged 18 to 64 with a disability, and married couple families. That means that more educated people and more families slipped into poverty.

However, when the US Census considers income it does not only take into account wages earned by employment. By income, they consider 15 different things and then add them up to arrive at a total annual income. These 15 things include things like alimony, social security, unemployment, public assistance, child support, interest, financial assistance outside of the household, veteran's payments, disability, pensions or retirement, etc. So a person could be not working at all, collecting welfare at $900 a month or whatever, with rent paid for, but still be qualified as a person in poverty but not a 'working poor' since they are not working.

In the same survey - on page 16 it says - In 2014, 6.9 percent of workers aged 18 to 64 were in poverty. The poverty rate for those who worked full time,
year round was 3.0 percent, while the poverty rate for those working less than full time, year round was 15.9 percent.


So what's the best way to get out of poverty - according to the US Census - WORKING!!... what a novel idea... if you work, you won't be in poverty as only 3% of full time year round workers were in poverty whereas the poverty level is 5x higher for people who work less than full...

One would conclude by these various statistics that the majority of the 20% of US households earning under $21.4k a year aren't actually making that income through wages but rather welfare, disability, government programs, etc.

Lyzko
17 May 2016  #1680

The US has always a country of gimmicks, the latest and greatest and terribly short sighted! I call Roosevelt's New Deal, essentially "defanged" capitalism, but capitalism nonetheless. The trouble is that ever since Reagan financial success has turned into a private game, played by a supposedly elite inner circle of those who've made it somehow either by hook or by crook (and often, perhaps not always, the latterLOL).

Best way to understand the essence of the America which Roosevelt tried to soften or modify, but Reagan intensified full strength, is simply to watch (and LEARN FROM!!!!) the Marx Bros:-) "Day at the Races", "Night at the Opera" prime examples of the classic line from the first of the two which says in two lines what we're sadly all about (that and "Double Indemnity -screw the other guy over):

Chico: Well - uh, you uh needuh the code book!! GET YOUR TUTSY FRUTSY ICE CREAM!!

Groucho: There's a lotta tutsy-frutsying going on around here.


PreviousNext
Why are Muslims told to assimilate but Jews don't have to? [10]Monarchy vs The Republic [8]


Off-Topic / 2016 Presidential Elections in the UStop