While campaigning, Trump promised--repeatedly--not to touch Medicaid. The bill he's backing today savages Medicaid. $880 billion in cuts.
Medicaid. $880 billion in cuts
- Thread starter reluctant_to_comment
- Start date
Do you really want to open that can of worms of who said or promised what? Obama said you could keep your doctor, that premiums wouldn’t go up and taxes wouldn’t either….except the 19 associated with Obamacare.
And then there’s the 8 million….8 million!!….who opted out of the ridiculous plan and were fined. Like the Top 10 highest crime/poverty cites in our country being governed for years by Democrats, Obama was just another con in a long line of cons so many fell for by that party.
Obama's not in office anymore. Get over it. Right? I don't know a single person who lost their doctor.
I technically lost my insurance under Obamacare. But low and behold, it was only because Cigna had to bring their plan up to snuff and I was then placed on that one. Never lost coverage, but I'm sure I was counted in one of your GOP polls.
Yeah yeah the crime of the Dem cities and then there's the poverty of the Rep counties. It's okay with you that 20+ million will lose their healthcare?
I technically lost my insurance under Obamacare. But low and behold, it was only because Cigna had to bring their plan up to snuff and I was then placed on that one. Never lost coverage, but I'm sure I was counted in one of your GOP polls.
Yeah yeah the crime of the Dem cities and then there's the poverty of the Rep counties. It's okay with you that 20+ million will lose their healthcare?
“Yeah, yeah” is the best you got for our failed cities run by Democrats or the joke that is Obamacare imploding as we speak? Why do you characterize those of us wanting smaller less intrusive government with expanded state influence as heartless? I don’t want to fund women slaughtering their unborn child either that most Democrats feel just fine about, and you’re worrying about my thoughts on 20 million losing healthcare? Those are strange core values for any party.
I'm proud of the principles and values my party aspires to, proud. Can you say the same?
Do you really think "women slaughtering their unborn children" is a way to characterize all of the women who have chosen to have an abortion? I know some, and I don't think those words are applicable to any of them. There is deep and honest disagreement about when a fetus becomes a person. I myself think it's wrong and should be illegal to have a late-term abortion except in cases where the mother's life is at risk. (Abortions beyond 30 weeks are extremely rare.)
Most Americans do not wish abortion to be illegal in the period of gestation when the great majority of abortions happen. Nonetheless, a candidate's position on abortion is not a litmus test for many people within that majority--partly because since Roe v Wade there is a sense that the core issue has been decided. But for many Americans who want to see abortion at any point in gestation made illegal it is a litmus test, so a candidate who expresses support for such a position is in a good position to gain those people's votes. Enter Donald Trump who through all of his adult life was "pro-choice" until, approaching his 70th birthday and while beginning his campaign, he changed his view completely. He absolutely needed those people who want all abortions made illegal to vote for him--and by all accounts they did. I have a hard time believing that Trump's change of position was based on principles.
Last edited:
Check out California sometime. After Arnold ran it into the ground the state is all Dem and is a success story. Big cities have their own problems no matter who is charge. You point out the same shit cities to make your case. Why isn't NYC mentioned or Seattle? Who's the Republican run south and midwest going?
I've pointed out the tragedy of our cites in 2 posts, evidently a sore point with you. Maybe I'd go away from it if you came back with a reasonable response, but your side never does. You could just be honest and say "look, they've done a horrible job, maybe it's time for a change"....but you won't.
“Big cities have their own problems….no matter who is in charge”…. to quote you. I guess that interprets to you saying they’d be run as woefully by Republicans as they are now by Democrats? I’d love having your crystal ball. More than that, I wish Republicans were as good at conning people as Democrats have been over the years to at least get the opportunity to run our cities as poorly as Democrats. How's the millions upon millions we've pumped into those cities working out?
**** California is essentially a sanctuary state, that condones even encourages illegal immigrants, and you call this a success? So there's the difference. You see nothing wrong with many of our major cities out of control with crime and poverty being led by an incompetent, broken party....while calling a state that harbors illegal immigrants, defying Federal law a success.
So Philly was a shinning city on a hill when Rizzo ran it? California is thriving brother. Check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_the_50_largest_cities_in_the_United_States
Which of these are shit holes because of Dem mayors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_the_50_largest_cities_in_the_United_States
Which of these are shit holes because of Dem mayors?
As usual, you deflect off target and topic. Rizzo?
Like I said in the previous post, you call a state that harbors illegal immigrants, defying Federal law a success. Most of us don't.
My words were I didn’t want to fund women slaughtering their unborn child. Yes, I feel that strongly about funding it. They can fund themselves.
You're ok with over 59 million abortions in this country since RvW (73); just over 2000 were aborted yesterday. You feel ok with that? Remember when the role of government was to protect its people?
You're okay with 22 million people being thrown off insurance? You're okay with a child reaching their lifetime max insurance coverage by the time they're a teen?
I'm confused. It seems what disturbs you most is not "women slaughtering their unborn child" but "funding it." "They can fund themselves" sounds like you can tolerate the slaughter as long as it's not funded. (Does that include funding from insurance companies?)
I'm not OK with the number of abortions in the U.S. It represents a failure by many people and organizations. Making late-term abortions illegal will make only a tiny difference to that number--and may have some consequences that are terrible. As for early-term abortions, I can see no legal change that would have a desirable impact. And in that respect, I seem (according to every poll I've seen) to be in agreement with the majority of Americans who obviously do not regard early-term abortions as the slaughtering of children. In this area, the law is a sledgehammer that can't make crucial distinctions.
Didn’t mean to confuse; I oppose both, strongly. Unlike Reluctant who has changed topics again (above) you and I are adult enough to put our thoughts to print.
I don't care what the majority opinion is in support of this tragedy or what any poll says. The majority opinion use to argue in favor of slavery, supported the lack of child labor laws, bitterly opposed women voting, perpetuated unending denial of civil rights, blossoming in the in the 60s, 100 years after the Civil War, Slaves were labelled as property, with no rights.
These views were held as legal by the courts in the same way RvW made abortion legal. Once we looked at these issues through human eyes, of what was right and wrong, not simply the law, we recognized and amended as I believe we will with the reality of when "life" begins, instead of using it as an excuse to kill the unborn. We made similar excuses for people of color, women and children, visiting unspeakable wrongs on them.
That anyone is confused how to define life speaks to our willingness to excuse us from the truth as we've done in the past. But, because we finally recognized that slaves, women and children had value and rights, desiring the same freedoms the rest of us desire, I believe we'll also come to that very conclusion of reason and compassion for the unborn.
I don't care what the majority opinion is in support of this tragedy or what any poll says. The majority opinion use to argue in favor of slavery, supported the lack of child labor laws, bitterly opposed women voting, perpetuated unending denial of civil rights, blossoming in the in the 60s, 100 years after the Civil War, Slaves were labelled as property, with no rights.
These views were held as legal by the courts in the same way RvW made abortion legal. Once we looked at these issues through human eyes, of what was right and wrong, not simply the law, we recognized and amended as I believe we will with the reality of when "life" begins, instead of using it as an excuse to kill the unborn. We made similar excuses for people of color, women and children, visiting unspeakable wrongs on them.
That anyone is confused how to define life speaks to our willingness to excuse us from the truth as we've done in the past. But, because we finally recognized that slaves, women and children had value and rights, desiring the same freedoms the rest of us desire, I believe we'll also come to that very conclusion of reason and compassion for the unborn.
I'm not arguing that laws should always conform to public opinion polls, and I don't think the poll results about abortion should be read as indicating that the majority of Americans "approve of" abortion. What they indicate is that the majority think a law against all abortions would be wrong because most people recognize that the law can't really deal with the depth and complexity of many women's situations.
Let me give a few examples. I don't know anyone who thinks a woman who has an abortion after becoming pregnant as a result of being raped--although some may want her to continue the pregnancy and give birth--should be criminally prosecuted. Should she have to wait till the criminal justice system determines whether the accused is guilty or not? And what if for one of many reasons there is no guilty verdict--but the woman is still pregnant as a result of rape? (It happens not infrequently.)
Maybe you'll say that's an extreme example--not typical at all. But I have seen many married women in my practice who, usually along with their husbands, think they have finished having children--after giving birth to two or four or five. (Hardly ever see more these days.) The couple's birth control method fails and the woman (and her husband) discover she's pregnant and for one or two of a possible many reasons related to finances or career or psychological health decides after much thought and anguish to seek an abortion. I may want her--and them--to make a different decision, but I don't see why the law should intervene. The same applies to the young woman who, after telling the man who she expects will accept the responsibility of fatherhood, is told by the man that he doesn't want any part of fatherhood or the relationship and says he doubts he was the one who got her pregnant. And then there is the woman who discovers the fetus has a very serious medical condition. I may well make a different decision--in fact, my wife and I did in the case of one of our children--but, again, I don't see how a law banning abortions would be useful or appropriate in such situations.
Of course many abortions appear to happen very casually and after what seems little or no soul-searching, but I have a hard time seeing how a judge can look at a situation and determine motives and fully grasp the complexity of such situations. As a family doctor, I have much more familiarity with the women who are considering abortion and I have the time and the privacy to have the kind of conversations that can't happen in court, but in the end I think the decision is not mine to make.
I take your point about the attitudes and blindness that allowed slavery and that regarded women as the property of their fathers or husbands, but I think there are aspects of the abortion issue--the genuine uncertainty (at least in most people) about when the fetus becomes a person,the fact that only women become pregnant, the intimacy and complexity of the situation, etc.--that make it distinct from nearly every other issue.
One of my concerns with Trump is that he seems oblivious to everything that makes the abortion issue distinct. Remember that about a year ago he said not only that abortion should be made illegal but that women who have them should be punished? Later he backed off that--without saying what in fact he does think should happen. What that revealed to me was that here as in other areas he doesn't think through complex issues. "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated?"
