So you reckon slow news day?
Correction is usually such an obnoxious business. Puns make it fun.
5 Likes
Right. PTSD? The easy answer to that level of absurdity is often “well they are stupid”. Not a good answer.
except…they ARE stupid. 
1 Like
They appear stupid, which makes us snowflakes freak out, which emboldens the right, which divides us all, and then they something something (line their pockets??).
Obviously something is working for these “stupid” people, they are at the helm of maybe the most influential country in the modern world. They have a deep understanding of something, and it is working for them.
The great thing about trump, for the divisionist crowd, is that his flavor of stupid is exactly the type of wedge they need. Instead of smart people having to make up drama, they just let trump and his twitter account do that on his own time. Let trump enrage the masses and keep us busy, meanwhile the elite write checks to each other out of our tax money.
Perceived stupidity is an asset for them.
1 Like
Well apparently, now the shoe is on the other hand.
Don’t conflate this disaster with MMA. When someone taps in an MMA bout, the winner lets go. Millions of people are about to tap and congress is not going to let go.
4 Likes
Let’s hope that plan goes better than the “we have to make an outward show of supporting Trump in the general election for the sake of the party and then just focus on 2020 after he gets crushed by Clinton” plan.
3 Likes
5 Likes
And he should.
No wall, no ban, no health care (yet).
From what I’ve read: All, but six states have state laws which prevent health insurance companies from using domestic-abuse, rape, etc. etc. However, before the ACA (Obamacare) IIRC insurers were not required to be completely transparent about why a claim was denied, and a person may not know what pre-existing condition their claim was denied for, if any explanation was put forward. I’m not clear on exactly what this new law does to the transparency, but it removes the overlapping federal protections that prevented companies from doing this while the ACA was in effect. So companies could, and in some cases, did, do this based on information garnered from claims posted. The example given was that a woman was denied coverage after getting HIV preventatives, which would indicate the possibility that the person had a pre-existing condition (which the insurer had no obligation to warn you about) ranging from unknowing consensual ‘relations’ with an HIV positive person, to being pricked with a needle of unknown origin, to rape.
From what I understand, the pre-existing condition was largely for internal purposes and book keeping. IE: Further claims will not be paid to X due to pre-existing condition Y.
I could be completely wrong about what I read though, but if I’m not, the AHCA would simply remove federal protections while leaving state laws as they are. So if you happen to be in say… North Carolina, your insurer could do this. Now whether or not you’d even be aware depends on the transparency protections, which I am not clear on.
1 Like
If only he’d had a better healthcare plan, but his TB was a pre-existing condition.
4 Likes
Succeeded at LOSING!!!
2 Likes
But then the states (especially the Red states) and get rid of their laws using the federal level as the excuse.
Well, they’re not REAL Americans anyway… /s
1 Like
“That is a distinct possibility,” Blurr
State law over the past few years has been surpassing federal law by something around 100 times the legislation. It’s a much more active medium then I think most people are aware of. It isn’t in the news as much, so its harder to stay informed, but if this passes the senate, then people in those states are going to have to keep close watch on their state legislatures and petition them to keep the protections in place. If they don’t then this would be a good opportunity to clean house on a state level
1 Like
Because costs would be so high otherwise for many people, that we’d have like half the country on the streets, unable to pay their healthcare bills.
Of course the REAL solution would be to strengthen the safety net, as you indicate, not set it on fire, like this bill has done.
2 Likes
Not to mention
1 Like
this brings me no comfort whatsoever.
