**President Trump 2018 Thread**

[Soxbadger]

31 minutes ago, raBBit said:

They blame Trump’s abortion of a plan to save the Obamacare disaster but fail to remember that Obamacare premiums were suppose to increase 15%* each of the two years following him leaving office. 

Trump found a way to replace ACA with something that almost sucks as much as the ACA. 

Also, no one can answer what happens when a poor person who can’t afford medical ends up in the ER. 

 

 

Where can I get that 15% increase?

As I said before, last year (same plan) it was $220 per month for me. This year its over $500 per month (im actually rounding down). A 15% increase would have put my payment under $300 per month. When our firm contacted BCBS about the crazy rates, our rep told us it was due to the instability of the market and that originally the increase was going to be significantly less.

And how can I answer what happens to the hypothetical poor person. That is a question of fact and depends on a lot of variables. Some poor people have medicaid or an equivalent, which means that their healthcare is paid for by my taxes. Other poor people dont qualify and they cant pay. The hospital then will determine (or its lawyers) whether they think they can collect. Some people are lucky, they  just write it off as a loss and pass the expenses on to people with insurance. Other people are not so lucky, the hospital comes after them and they may have to file bankruptcy. 

So not sure how I can answer it, because its like asking "What happens to the person who doesnt pay their credit card bills?" It could be different for each person, there is no definitive answer.

But the real question is, why are so many people opposed to trying to create a healthcare system that is affordable for everyone, that has affordable medicine and treatments. Why are we still making marijuana illegal, etc.

Those are better questions than, what happens to the hypothetical person that we can all create to support whatever argument we want. 

[Soxbadger]

3 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Did someone force you to take that plan? I know other people that are similar to you that can get affordable health plan. Shouldn't there be a bunch of options with scalability where you can pick which plan/price point makes sense for you?

 

 

Well isnt that the same argument for people who complain about the ACA? Cant they just pick a different plan?

If we are going to compare apples to apples, lets compare. Some peoples rates got jacked under the ACA, some peoples rates got jacked because of the current administration. 

To answer the question, yes there were worse plans that I could have chosen. The worst plan is now more expensive then the best plan was last year. I chose to keep the best plan because a few thousand worth of up front costs was worth the potential savings if I had a major medical issue. Just like people under the ACA could have chosen no insurance and paid $500.

 

[caulfield12]

Of course, Rabbit doesn't think like a parent or someone with a wife and family...he thinks like a 30 year old in good health, which is MOST DEFINITELY not the majority of people in America today

 

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/proposals-for-insurance-options-that-dont-comply-with-aca-rules-trade-offs-in-cost-and-regulation/

In 2018 the Trump Administration proposed a new draft regulation that would promote the sale of short-term, limited duration health insurance policies that offer less expensive coverage because they are not subject to ACA market rules.

Short-term limited-duration health insurance policies (STLD), sometimes referred to as limited-duration non-renewable policies, are designed to provide temporary health coverage for people who are uninsured or are losing their existing coverage but expect to become eligible for other, more permanent coverage in the near future.  Historically, people who have used these policies include graduating students losing coverage through their parents or their school, people with a short interval between jobs, or newly hired employee subject to a waiting period before they are eligible for coverage from their job. Because these policies are not intended to provide long-term protection (they generally cannot be renewed when their term ends), they are lightly regulated by states and are exempt from many of the standards generally applicable to individual health insurance policies. They also are specifically exempt under the ACA from federal standards for individual health insurance coverage, including the essential health benefits, guaranteed availability and prohibitions against pre-existing condition exclusions and health-status rating.  These differences can make them considerably less expensive (for those healthy enough to qualify to buy them) than ACA compliant plans.

STLDs are similar to major medical policies in that they typically cover both hospitalization and at least some outpatient medical services, but unlike ACA-compliant policies, they often have significant benefit and eligibility limitations.  STLD policies often either exclude are have significant limitations on benefits for mental health and substance abuse, do not have coverage for maternity services, and have limited or no coverage for prescription drugs.  Policies also generally have dollar limits on all benefits or specific benefits and may have deductibles and other cost sharing that is much higher than permitted in ACA-compliant plans.  Insurers of STLD policies typically use medically underwriting, which means that they can turn down applicants with health problems or charge them higher premiums.  Policies also exclude coverage for any benefits related to a preexisting health condition: a backstop for insurers in case a person with a health problem otherwise qualifies for coverage and seeks benefits. Because STLD policies are not renewable, people who become ill after their coverage begins are generally not able to qualify for a new policy when their coverage term ends.

Due to their lower premiums, some people have been purchasing STLD policies instead of ACA compliant plans. This has happened even though STLD policies are not considered minimum essential coverage, which means that people who purchase them do not satisfy the ACA mandate to have health insurance and may be subject to a tax penalty.  In 2016, CMS expressed concern about these policies being sold as a type of “primary health insurance” and issued regulations shortening the maximum coverage period under federal law for STLD policies from less than 12 months to less than three months and prescribing a disclosure that must be provided to new applicants.  The intent of the regulation was to limit sale of these policies to situations involving a short gap in coverage and to discourage their use a substitute for primary health insurance coverage. The rule took effect for policies issued to individuals on or after January 1, 2017. In February 2018, the Trump Administration issued a new proposed regulation to reinstate the “less than 12 months” maximum coverage term for STLD policies. The preamble to the proposed regulation specified that this would provide more affordable consumer choice for health coverage. For more information about STLD policies, see this issue brief.

Extending the coverage period for STLD policies back to just under a year is likely to make them a more attractive choice for healthier individuals concerned about the cost of ACA-compliant plans.  This is particularly true beginning in 2019 when the individual mandate penalty ends and purchasers will no longer need to pay a penalty in addition to the premiums for these policies.

Under the ACA framework, STLD plans may provide a lower-cost alternative source of health coverage for people in good health.  With ACA policies as a backup, people who purchase STLD policies and develop a health problem would not be able to renew their short-term policy at the end of its term, but would be able to elect an ACA-compliant plan during the next open enrollment.

It is possible, as one estimate concluded, that more healthy individual market participants may switch to short-term policies as a result.  Such “adverse selection” would raise the average cost of covering remaining individuals in ACA-compliant plans, leading to further premium increases in those policies.  For people with pre-existing conditions who do not qualify for subsidies, the rising cost of ACA-compliant coverage could challenge affordability, especially for people with pre-existing conditions who have incomes that make them ineligible for premium subsidies.

[Jerksticks]

1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:

So instead of complaining or totally throwing it out, wouldn't it be better TO FIX OR IMPROVE IT?

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/12/02/367837115/obamacare-glitch-puts-subsidies-out-of-reach-for-many-families

Most Democrats will acknowledge its flaws, the controversial nature of the mandate (and penalties for not insuring)...the number of working poor (see story above) and especially those middle class families (independent contractors or small business owners) in the $50-100,000 income range hit hard by the law.

We also would argue that pushing all the most expensive to insure people into the high/est risk pools...while taking away the money that was coming from the mandate, is simply going to redistribute the solution away from the government in the direction of MAKING EVERYONE STILL WITH INSURANCE PAY MORE...and having MORE AND MORE people coming into hospitals for emergencies without the ability to pay, CAUSING PREMIUMS to skyrocket even more to subsidize those who go without insurance.

ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, COSTS ARE GOING UP.  It's just a matter of redistribution from the upper middle class and rich via government policy or creating a regressive situation where the the middle class continues to be the one that bears the brunt of the very real financial pain.

Or do you prefer the solution of taxing huge multinational corporations like they're doing in Seattle with Amazon...because the "negative externalities" (lack of affordable housing/increased homelessness) are taking a very real toll on the social fabric of that city?

Shouldn't corporations that are making profits in the billions (and were just shielded by government tax policy) bear some of the responsibility for finding a solution?

Maybe so caulfield, maybe so.  But I posted the point about the ACA not to discuss what should or shouldn’t have been done, but because the fact that it is literally crushing EVERYBODY as one of the main reasons half the country elected Trump. I was responding to the guy calling half the country racist, which is ridiculous.  

 

People aren’t voting because of race or xenophobia, people are voting because of their wallets and their family’s well-being.  So when Obama made everybody get dumped off their plans and forced into plans with $5000 deductibles instead of $500-$1000, they were pissed.  Now everybody has to scrape what little savings they have to get little Johnny some tests and a surgery.

 

 

Hillary didn’t really campaign.  She just basically stood for “4 more years of the current thing.”   And half the country said “F that, I might as well take my chances with the other guy who isn’t a polished politician and sometimes talks about the things that are hurting me.”

 

IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!!!  THINK ABOUT IT!!!! GET THE RACE STUFF OUT OF YOUR HEAD!  GO TO WORK TOMORROW AND IDENTIFY THE RACISTS.  THERE AREN’T ANY!  

That’s why he won!  Everyone got crushed by the ACA!  And yes, the few thousand racists in the country were happy too.  

Edited May 17, 2018 by Jerksticks

[caulfield12]

20 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

Maybe so caulfield, maybe so.  But I posted the point about the ACA not to discuss what should or shouldn’t have been done, but because the fact that it is literally crushing EVERYBODY as one of the main reasons half the country elected Trump. I was responding to the guy calling half the country racist, which is ridiculous.  

 

People aren’t voting because of race or xenophobia, people are voting because of their wallets and their family’s well-being.  So when Obama made everybody get dumped off their plans and forced into plans with $5000 deductibles instead of $500-$1000, they were pissed.  Now everybody has to scrape what little savings they have to get little Johnny some tests and a surgery.

 

 

Hillary didn’t really campaign.  She just basically stood for “4 more years of the current thing.”   And half the country said “F that, I might as well take my chances with the other guy who isn’t a polished politician and sometimes talks about the things that are hurting me.”

 

IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!!!  THINK ABOUT IT!!!! GET THE RACE STUFF OUT OF YOUR HEAD!  GO TO WORK TOMORROW AND IDENTIFY THE RACISTS.  THERE AREN’T ANY!  

That’s why he won!  Everyone got crushed by the ACA!  And yes, the few thousand racists in the country were happy too.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/trump-voters/?utm_term=.02bf6783145e

All the answers are here.

It's up to the Democrats to deliver to these voters something more appealing than the DLC platform from 1993-2016.

For the time being, it seems the progressive and moderate wings (of the Democratic Party) are willing to compromise in order to defeat Trump, but I'm not sure that means governing (afterwards) will be any easier than it is for the House of Representatives, currently being held hostage by the House Freedom Caucus.

I'd honestly rather have Trump than either Pence or Ryan, fwiw.

 

[Soxbadger]

7 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

Maybe so caulfield, maybe so.  But I posted the point about the ACA not to discuss what should or shouldn’t have been done, but because the fact that it is literally crushing EVERYBODY as one of the main reasons half the country elected Trump. I was responding to the guy calling half the country racist, which is ridiculous.  

 

People aren’t voting because of race or xenophobia, people are voting because of their wallets and their family’s well-being.  So when Obama made everybody get dumped off their plans and forced into plans with $5000 deductibles instead of $500-$1000, they were pissed.  Now everybody has to scrape what little savings they have to get little Johnny some tests and a surgery.

 

 

Hillary didn’t really campaign.  She just basically stood for “4 more years of the current thing.”   And half the country said “F that, I might as well take my chances with the other guy who isn’t a polished politician and sometimes talks about the things that are hurting me.”

 

IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!!!  THINK ABOUT IT!!!! GET THE RACE STUFF OUT OF YOUR HEAD!  GO TO WORK TOMORROW AND IDENTIFY THE RACISTS.  THERE AREN’T ANY!  

That’s why he won!  Everyone got crushed by the ACA!  And yes, the few thousand racists in the country were happy too.  

 

You keep saying the ACA crushed everyone, do you have anything to support that? Im not saying it didnt negatively impact some people, but you and a few others are the only ones who say that they were hurt.

I presume that means that most of the people in this thread were not "crushed". As Ive said multiple times, it had no impact on me and the same can be said for most of my clients and people I know.

Again, this isnt to diminish its impact on you. Its more that you cant say "everyone" got crushed. 

That being said, what people's motivation for voting in the last election was is the past. What we have to do now is fix the problems we have, The Republicans have had legislative and executive branch. What have they exactly done to make ACA better? What are the doing to make medical care cheaper? Prescriptions cheaper? Better cheaper healthcare, thats what Trump said, where is it?

At some point we have to ask why it isnt being done if its something most people want.

[caulfield12]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/cambridge-analytica-congress-wylie/index.html

Meanwhile, race, voter suppression, Cambridge Analytica (targeting entity) back in the news.

 

"Mr. Bannon sees cultural warfare as the means to create enduring change in American politics. It was for this reason Mr. Bannon engaged SCL (Cambridge Analytica's parent company), a foreign military contractor, to build an arsenal of informational weapons he could deploy on the American population," Wylie claimed, referring to Trump's former top political adviser Steve Bannon.

 

Christopher Wylie swears in to a Senate Judiciary Committee

Wylie did not provide specific evidence of voter suppression campaigns taking place in the US. But when asked by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, if one of Bannon's "goals was to suppress voting or discourage certain individuals in the US from voting," Wylie replied, "That was my understanding, yes."

 

After the hearing, Wylie told CNN that although he did not take part in voter suppression activities, he alleged that African-Americans were particular targets of Cambridge Analytica's "voter disengagement tactics," which he said were used to "discourage or demobilize certain types of people from voting," and that campaigns and political action committees requested voter suppression from Cambridge Analytica.

[Dam8610]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

Did someone force you to take that plan? I know other people that are similar to you that can get affordable health plan. Shouldn't there be a bunch of options with scalability where you can pick which plan/price point makes sense for you?

 

I mean, I guess people can go without health insurance. There ISN'T a choice for affordable health insurance, that's the point. Also, "options" and "scalability" in health insurance terms means buying plans that are so watered down they essentially cover nothing and your money goes to pay for your shiny worthless card. There are no options that "make sense for you", except maybe a platinum plan, and most people can't get access to those. There's a reason the civilized world outside of the United States have gone to single payer, and it's not because it's a bad idea.

[Jerksticks]

26 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

You keep saying the ACA crushed everyone, do you have anything to support that? Im not saying it didnt negatively impact some people, but you and a few others are the only ones who say that they were hurt.

I presume that means that most of the people in this thread were not "crushed". As Ive said multiple times, it had no impact on me and the same can be said for most of my clients and people I know.

Again, this isnt to diminish its impact on you. Its more that you cant say "everyone" got crushed. 

That being said, what people's motivation for voting in the last election was is the past. What we have to do now is fix the problems we have, The Republicans have had legislative and executive branch. What have they exactly done to make ACA better? What are the doing to make medical care cheaper? Prescriptions cheaper? Better cheaper healthcare, thats what Trump said, where is it?

At some point we have to ask why it isnt being done if its something most people want.

It SHOULD be the past.  And to me it’s obvious- 4-10k deductibles is all a person or family can get now. 

 But it’s not the past.  I’m reminded on here and the news every day that all the people around me are racists and it pisses me off.  People just wanted something different.  

 

To your our other point, which I love, is what can be done.  I really hope Trump goes full steam at drug prices.  I think a lot of people think that’s where it starts. I’m not an expert but Smirconish had an expert on the other day exposing how all these middle men basically negotiate the prices of drugs between ICs and Pharma and that Pharma makes so many patents for each drug that generics can’t get in.  

 

I truly think a change to Pharma patent law and price negotiation is about to become the president’s focus and it should be captivating news, especially when it gets to SCOTUS.  There might actually be a ruling from SCOTUS basically saying “we don’t care that the law protects you, people are being crushed.”  That would be unprecedented.   Just my prediction and I think it will be the first time everybody backs him.   Interesting time to be alive for sure. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by Jerksticks

[caulfield12]

11 minutes ago, Jerksticks said:

It SHOULD be the past.  And to me it’s obvious- 4-10k deductibles is all a person or family can get now. 

 But it’s not the past.  I’m reminded on here and the news every day that all the people around me are racists and it pisses me off.  People just wanted something different.  

 

To your our other point, which I love, is what can be done.  I really hope Trump goes full steam at drug prices.  I think a lot of people think that’s where it starts. I’m not an expert but Smirconish had an expert on the other day exposing how all these middle men basically negotiate the prices of drugs between ICs and Pharma and that Pharma makes so many patents for each drug that generics can’t get in.  

 

I truly think a change to Pharma patent law and price negotiation is about to become the president’s focus and it should be captivating news, especially when it gets to SCOTUS.  There might actually be a ruling from SCOTUS basically saying “we don’t care that the law protects you, people are being crushed.”  That would be unprecedented.   Just my prediction and I think it will be the first time everybody backs him.   Interesting time to be alive for sure. 

http://time.com/5275168/trump-plan-lower-drug-prices/

Except that sounds exactly like a Democrat plan, right?    I can't ever imagine a Republican doing such a thing...and all signs are pointing to "lots of talk/limited action" from the Trump administration so far.

In fact, Novartis spent $1.2 just to get ONE meeting with Michael Cohen to make sure that never happens, that capitalism and the free market continue to reign, regardless of the costs to consumers.

 

If Trump is willing to go against the insurance industry, doctors/AMA, Big Pharma, lobbyists....all these entrenched interests, and use the power of the presidency to actually CONTROL/LOWER/LIMIT costs to consumers, then he'll guarantee himself another 4 years.

I just don't think he has the ability to do such a thing...or stay focused on one issue long enough.   Stick to it-iveness is not exactly one of his greatest strengths.  More than anything, he goes by t.v. ratings and how his policies play out in the media.  But he would have to completely turn his back on his own party, and I'm not even sure many Democrats would be willing to embrace him for that trade-off.

 

Edited May 17, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-candidate-announces-apos-deportation-162752614.html

And below we see the implications of Trump’s “animals” rhetoric...painting with a BROAD brush ALL Mexicans

 

Williams was a former co-chair of President Donald Trump's campaign in Georgia. The senator describes himself as "anti-political correctness, anti-liberal, anti-establishment, and pro-Georgia." According to his emails, Williams is a big supporter of the federal 287 (g) immigration program. which allows local and state law enforcement to work together with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to arrest undocumented immigrants based on criminal charges unrelated to immigration.

The senator urged viewers to sign up for emails from deportationbus.com to receive the upcoming dates for the tour during the video.

According to the video, the back of the bus reads “Danger! Murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters and other criminals on board.” Right below is a “Follow me to Mexico” sign.

“If you’re as tired as I am with politicians that do nothing but talk, and you want to see this bus filled with illegals, vote Michael Williams on May 22nd,” Williams said.

Newsweek has reached out to Williams for comment about the tour.

[Dick Allen]

7 hours ago, RockRaines said:

Didn’t you already do the one about the poor guy in the hospital?

Yes he did. Supposedly you get the same care. LMAO. There was a 60 minutes story on this. Some hospital in LA used to dump the non insured a block or so away from another hospital, And I am sure the people with no insurance or bad insurance get the same care as those with the best plans. Just ask the mom who has a United Health plan that denied her liver transplant. 

If what he claims is true, why have insurance?

[Reddy]

9 hours ago, raBBit said:

When you can’t defend your actions quietly group back into the mob. Gross behavior by the bullies intolerant of different opinions. Read the new guy’s ‘whitesox2**9* or whatever his name posts. Maybe he didn’t defend his opinions in the best way possible but at no point did he attack back at any of his dissenters. It was several against one and he kept his cool against the group attack. I respect him for that. I won’t blame him when he stops posting here. There’s probably a more tolerant community out there for him where he doesn’t have to get his morals lambasted on account of some bullshit tweet that some zealots bit on hook, line and sinker. 

Yes let's be tolerant of those who call immigrants animals. 

Or, instead, we could be decent humans and condemn that type of thing. Shrug. 

[RockRaines]

7 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

Maybe so caulfield, maybe so.  But I posted the point about the ACA not to discuss what should or shouldn’t have been done, but because the fact that it is literally crushing EVERYBODY as one of the main reasons half the country elected Trump. I was responding to the guy calling half the country racist, which is ridiculous.  

 

People aren’t voting because of race or xenophobia, people are voting because of their wallets and their family’s well-being.  So when Obama made everybody get dumped off their plans and forced into plans with $5000 deductibles instead of $500-$1000, they were pissed.  Now everybody has to scrape what little savings they have to get little Johnny some tests and a surgery.

 

 

Hillary didn’t really campaign.  She just basically stood for “4 more years of the current thing.”   And half the country said “F that, I might as well take my chances with the other guy who isn’t a polished politician and sometimes talks about the things that are hurting me.”

 

IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!!!  THINK ABOUT IT!!!! GET THE RACE STUFF OUT OF YOUR HEAD!  GO TO WORK TOMORROW AND IDENTIFY THE RACISTS.  THERE AREN’T ANY!  

That’s why he won!  Everyone got crushed by the ACA!  And yes, the few thousand racists in the country were happy too.  

MILLIONS of racists. 

[caulfield12]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/us/new-york-man-restaurant-ice-threat/index.html

Would Ivana, Melania or Trump’s mother have passed this “must speak English if you’re in America” test we now apply to public conversations?  

Have we now gotten to the point where we simply assume someone is an illegal/undocumented immigrant if they dare speak Spanish instead of English (and threaten to notify ICE)?

Tomi Lahren got called out on exactly this earlier in the week but she missed the point entirely about her ancestors...that almost everyone who came to the US from the 1870’s through 1930’s barely spoke English and many families didn’t become fluent in English until the 3rd generations in the US (that often went to college/university as their economic situations improved.)

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-cohens-efforts-build-trump-tower-moscow-went-longer-previously-acknowledged-232845349.html

Michael Cohen’s efforts to build a Trump Tower complex in the heart of Moscow (tallest tower in Europe) went at least five months into the 2016 election cycle, contradicting earlier testimony it was completely dead in January, 2016.

Edited May 17, 2018 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Let me ask this...how do the 10-15% of Americans who describe themselves as evangelical/born-again Christian possibly square Trump administration directives for treating the poor and immigrants (especially women and children) with EVERYTHING in the New Testament that Jesus said?

I just don’t get it.

How can abortion be so much more important in driving voter behavior compared to the way we treat living/breathing human beings?

Like this guy running for election in Georgia who wants to drive around the state in a bus “arresting” illegals to deport them...separating families, tearing apart husbands and wives, what kind of twisted heart do you have to have to be motivated to go around doing this and revel in thinking it’s in some way acting in a manner that exemplifies the Christian faith or belief system?

Edited May 17, 2018 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

 

[RockRaines]

I'm not completely keen on judging lawyers by their client base.  

[RockRaines]

How much better would Trump's image be if he never tweeted?  

[caulfield12]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/politics/immigration-koch-brothers-libre-democrats/index.html

By the way, the Koch Brothers are actually going in the opposite direction of the Trump administration on immigration reform and even supporting 5 Democrats...

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-refers-immigrants-apos-animals-225539327.html

For him to call immigrants animals is nothing new. In 2015, he used the word twice in an interview with The Washington Post, referring to an undocumented immigrant who had been arrested for fatally shooting a woman in San Francisco. (The man’s attorneys said the shooting was unintentional, and he was acquitted.)

Last July in Ohio, Trump said “criminal aliens” were “animals” and then made a gruesome claim that they are murdering “young, beautiful” girls. Later that month, he said in New York that MS-13 “thugs” had “transformed peaceful parks and beautiful quiet neighborhoods into bloodstained killing fields” and “they are animals.”

He referred to a New York City terrorism suspect, a legal permanent resident who came to the U.S. on a diversity visa, as an “animal” in November.

In February, Trump referred to certain immigrants as “animals” who want people to suffer, and he accused Democrats of wanting to protect murderers. “I can’t get the Democrats ― and nobody has been able to for years ― to approve common-sense measures that, when we catch these animal killers, we can lock them up and throw away the keys.” 

Referring to subgroups as animals has been used to justify violence, including by Nazis during the Holocaust and by Hutu perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide. Black people have been compared to animals throughout history and were treated like them through slavery and violence. Animal metaphors have similarly been used by conquerors and colonialists to dehumanize indigenous populations. 

[Reddy]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

When the truth doesnt fit your narrative just ignore it. 

Yes. That is exactly what you do. Glad you've finally recognized it.

[RockRaines]

6 minutes ago, raBBit said:

There's also a reason that people from adjacent countries that have socialized medicine come to America for procedures.

Whats the reason people from the US go to Europe for procedures?

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, RockRaines said:

Whats the reason people from the US go to Europe for procedures?

It doesn't fit the narrative. 

[RockRaines]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

It doesn't fit the narrative. 

Here is a "shocking" stat.  MILLIONS of Americans go abroad for medical care, THOUSANDS of Canadians go abroad for care.