Only 43% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/facts-figures-43-percent-of-republicans-think-obama-is-muslim/?_r=0
Kill me.
I kinda hope that on his final day he is all like.
a salaam alaikum
drops the mic.
See!!! We elected a Muslim president.
In a twisted way I am quite proud of that.
That’s the thing that really infuriates me. The accusation that Obama is a Muslim implies that a Muslim should not be President. Fuck that. Why not?
Uhh… why would we want a terrorist to run the country? Are you insane?
I wouldn’t care if the President worshipped a neon green frog if they were intelligent, kind, compassionate, reasonable and strong when we need them to be.
I don’t see why we have to insist one religion or exclude one religion as some sort of auto qualifying or dis-qualifying trait. And I say that as a member of a religion that is actually “standard” in this country. I just hate that we’re still talking about this 8 years later.
Guys, get your facts straight! Obama is Zoroastrian.
Ultimately, you gotta win with the voters you have not the voters you want.
In my fantasy version of democracy, each ballot has a set multiple choice questions about the Constitution (probably the same ones that are on a citizenship test), and your vote is pro-rated based on your score on those questions. 70% correct? Only get 70% of a vote.
You can’t do that. Education is a poll tax. Only the priveledged would be able to vote then. Learning is hard on a lot of people.
In my fantasy version of democracy, it’s a monarchy and I am God-King For Eterntiy
So, given the nature of the federal government, I figured it would be worth linking this:
Which, for those conservatives on this board, is not some venom spewing liberal takedown. It is a pragmatic look at the most likely plans we should expect to see floated in the coming months.
One common theme: older people will pay more, preexisting conditions will make some form of return, and more than a few stealth tax increases on the middle class (by removing tax exemptions for employer sponsored medical coverage).
Another factor is almost all will likely see an increase in the number of uninsured, though weighting it more older than the current uninsured we see under the ACA. Basically young people would more likely get coverage, or less likely to drop it, while older people will see a significant increase in dropped coverage due to cost increases.
And the funniest one? You remember how conservatives railed against the individual mandate? Look at Orrin Hatch’s plan. Lol, individual mandate indeed.
The Republicans’ plans for the health care system are a freaking disaster. They’re not just gunning for Obamacare but for Medicare (by “reforming” it aka gutting it, privatizing it and moving it away from a single-payer system). Ryan and co. are licking their chops.
That’s a decent piece, and highlights some things that I was originally super freaked out about, but am perhaps LESS freaked out about now (Because my girlfriend has diabetes, which basically means insurance has screwed her in the past).
The pre-existing conditions thing, and focal point on continuous coverage, is interesting. In that, it allows insurance companies to charge you more if you don’t get insurance, until after you’re sick. This makes sense to me, as it’s effectively going for the same goal as the individual mandate, but doesn’t really force you to do it. Basically, it lets you be stupid and not pay for insurance, take your chances, and then pay more if you get sick later. Not totally terrible, because it gives responsible people with pre-existing conditions a way to not get screwed.
Ultimately though, the devil is in the details. But the ACA’s details were basically never even discussed during its initial passage, so in that regard, it’s worth at least considering the GOP plans. But consideration doesn’t mean, “just let them try something!” It means giving a fair analysis of the plans.
I lost a lot of respect for Ryan when he supported Trump, albeit in a mealy mouthed way. But the guy is probably one of the smartest policy wonks the GOP has. I think that he has the capacity to put together something that works, and ultimately could probably actually constitute an improvement to the ACA while also garnering GOP support, simply by virtue of it not being associated with Obama. But I’m still skeptical.
I cannot get behind any program that would gut Medicare. I’m sorry but I have too many relatives that would affect. Notably, that would put a pretty decent amount of them into a situation of either avoiding care they need, or going bankrupt.
Yes, and the trick is that any move towards allowing ‘preexisting conditions’ opens up possibilities for persons with insurance to get hosed when using said insurance. Lest we forget, denying coverage for something due to a ‘preexisting condition’ was something of the national past time for insurance companies.
And this is the bigger danger IMO. For precisely the reason @Skipper mentions.
The big issue I have, though, is like the ACA it has little outlined for how to deal with pricing. That is as big, or bigger, than simply insurance. Drug pricing, the opacity of hospitals, the exorbitant rates? All major issues that are not brought up.
Without somehow controlling costs it is just a waste of time. Sure, some will get coverage who don’t have it, meanwhile others lose coverage do to costs, or just not get medical care because of the costs.
Insurance don’t mean squat if you can’t afford to actually use it.
Right, and how do you deal with something like the jackholes at Mylan? The preferred conservative method of ‘leave it for the markets’ has failed us. So how do you reign in such naked and malicious price gouging?
I ask you specifically, but also @Timex, as you are two of the more conservative posters here. Obviously there are different possible answers, but I’d be curious what your take is.
Not least because the ‘liberal’ possibilities have no chance of getting passed in the next few years.
The problem with continuous coverage is that anyone who loses a job (or has to go part-time and loses benefits) for any significant period of time is screwed. The only affordable options for continuous coverage are employer-based. I’d support continuous coverage restrictions only if they somehow take that into account - maybe a provision that pre-existing condition rates can only go up if you turned down a plan offered to you as a result of full-time employment.
Any kind of pre-existing condition provision makes me nervous. My wife has a pre-existing condition that requires (and will, probably for the rest of her life) monthly doctor visits and relatively expensive medications. If I change jobs, which results in me changing insurance companies, the new provider could just say “pre-existing, we won’t cover her doctor or medications once you move over to us”. That scares me. It means my only choices would be 1) pay out the nose to keep our current insurance without an employer discount, 2) pay out the nose for the doctor and medications or 3) I guess bury my wife?