Trump's Promises


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been proven wrong about Trump winning.  I hope to be proven wrong again and again about Trump.

It is being rumored that the team is considering Ted Cruz for Attorney General.
It's also rumored that Mike Lee is on his list for Supreme Court.

If he actually nominates them and pushes politically to make it happen (confirmation) then I'll walk back everything negative I've said about Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Blackmarch said:

I believe it's trey Gowdy getting tapped for attorney general (good choice).

He's not on the list, or at list I haven't heard of it.  Jeff Sessions is on the list.  Another excellent choice, although I'd rather have Ted Cruz because I need Sessions in Congress and the Senate can possibly benefit without Cruz as he has tons of enemies there which will make it harder to "bridge the divide".  Cruz' divisiveness is perfect for the AG spot though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2016 at 9:51 AM, Carborendum said:

I've been proven wrong about Trump winning.  I hope to be proven wrong again and again about Trump.

It is being rumored that the team is considering Ted Cruz for Attorney General.
It's also rumored that Mike Lee is on his list for Supreme Court.

If he actually nominates them and pushes politically to make it happen (confirmation) then I'll walk back everything negative I've said about Trump.

Mike Lee is not a rumor.  He released the list he's gonna be pulling Federal Court appointees from way back in September.  Here's the list.  Note Mike Lee at #10.

1. Keith Blackwell

2. Charles Canady

3. Steven Colloton

4. Allison Eid

5. Neil Gorsuch

6. Raymond Gruender

7. Thomas Hardiman

8. Raymond Kethledge

9. Joan Larsen

10. Mike Lee

11. Thomas Lee

12. Edward Mansfield

13. Federico Moreno

14. William Pryor

15. Margaret A. Ryan

16. Amul Thapar

17. Timothy Tymkovich

18. David Stras

19. Diane Sykes

20. Don Willett

21. Robert Young

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from what i'm seeing the list hasn't been made official yet.

anyways according to ZeroHedge (FWIW) as of yesterday, the potentials are:

  • Rudy Giuliani
  • Jeff Sessions, senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who takes a hard line on immigration
  • Chris Christie, Republican New Jersey governor
  • Pam Bondi, Republican Florida Attorney General
  • Trey Gowdy, Republican congressman from South Carolina who headed the House committee that investigated the 2012 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya

with ted cruz being the most recent addition

 

link here

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-16/trump-considering-ted-cruz-attorney-general

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have expected of Trump, he is decisive.  All the news outlets are talking about Chris Christie as if it is a personal thing with Trump's in-laws or something about the bridge scandal.  I don't believe this is the case.  Chris Christie was heading the transition for National Security and he was picking from lobbyists and "haliburton" types.  I think that's why Trump put a halt on that one real fast.

Bannon instead of Gingrich for chief strategist.  I can live with that.  I think Bannon - the utlimate outsider - on one side and Priebus - the ultimate insider - on the other is total Trump style.  No echo chambers there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently it's official that Sessions has been elected.  While this is a great pick, I see some problems with continued picks from the Senate. Republicans hold a bear majority.  As we get more and more picks from the Senate, will we see some picked in states where the governor is either a Democrat or a RINO?  Then who would replace the Senator?

Bye-bye majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Apparently it's official that Sessions has been elected.  While this is a great pick, I see some problems with continued picks from the Senate. Republicans hold a bear majority.  As we get more and more picks from the Senate, will we see some picked in states where the governor is either a Democrat or a RINO?  Then who would replace the Senator?

Bye-bye majority.

I'm sure that's in consideration.  Jeff Sessions is from Alabama.  Even more than that - he represents the Southern District.  There's no way South Alabama will be okay with getting represented blue on the Senate.  Ted Cruz is Texas.  Although Texas is still solid red, the influx of new immigrants into Texas has changed that demographic.  But yeah, I also highly doubt Cruz will get replaced by blue... but if it will happen, Cruz has a higher probability than Sessions.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, this is getting interesting.

Flynn for National Security Adviser.  And Pompeo for CIA Director.  This is making me go hmmm.... I need to study this a bit to see where Trump is going with these picks.  The easy answer is decimating ISIS.  But this 2 pick combo is tricky.

Sessions for AG is easy to see.  Immigration.  That's where Trump wants to go with this.

In any case... these 3 picks (plus the 2 before) adds more weight to the conclusion that Trump is deadly serious about achieving what he has been stomping on in his rallies.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Romney for Secretary of State? 

Mitt Romney on Trump: "Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as 'The Donald.' He is the only person in the entire country to whom we have added an article before his name. And it wasn't because he had attributes we admired."

"If Trump had said 4 years ago the things he says today about the KKK, Muslims, Mexicans, disabled, I would NOT have accepted his endorsement."

Not to mention the whole #nevertrump thing

Trump on Mitt Romney: "Looks like two-time failed candidate Mitt Romney is going to be telling Republicans how to get elected. Not a good messenger!"

“He’s a choke artist, he choked, and he choked like nobody I’ve ever seen except for [Marco] Rubio in Florida when Chris Christie was grilling him.”

They hated each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

When you're a politician, friends and enemies are things you have for the short term, until a different deal comes along.  And Mitt is a politician. 

 

That's also life. Not just politics. People I thought I'd never speak to again have sprouted up to re-kindle friendships and some people I thought I'd never lose touch with have slipped away. You never know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Maybe Mitt is responding to a prompting. G-d may want Mitt on the team. I have sometimes felt like sharply and publically denouncing someone and been told to be silent.

I am going to take this a step further.  God may want Mitt Romney on the team to save us from being nuked by North Korea!  (and I for one feel much better knowing that someone with the priesthood would be in the Secretary of State position...)

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

One thing I have not heard anything about since the election: When are they going to repeal Obamacare?

Didn't you hear? Trump has softened on that.  He's not going to repeal it.  He's going to keep at least parts of it.  I had to laugh, fastest backpedal on a campaign promise ever.  In case you think I'm kidding...


 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Didn't you hear? Trump has softened on that.  He's not going to repeal it.  He's going to keep at least parts of it.  I had to laugh, fastest backpedal on a campaign promise ever.  In case you think I'm kidding...

Nope, I didn't think you were kidding.  He's famous for his backpedaling on his stance.  That was one of the valid arguments against political outsiders -- no firm positions on anything.  Don't stand for something, fall for anything.

That said, the article only mentioned the pre-existing conditions and the family members into their mid 20s.  Well, the former was already part of employer healthcare.  And the latter I thought was already the norm prior to Obamacare.

I don't like the government getting involved at all.  But those two issues are minor in my opinion.  I'm most concerned about the individual mandate.  The article was silent on that.  But Trump's willingness to keep "some items" leads me to believe he'll keep that.  And that is the most damaging to the individuals.  (Although others are more damaging to the industry).

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

@Carborendum well to be fair to Trump, all politicians backpedal and change their positions.  I should think twice before criticizing them, I have changed my views quite a bit over the years...but then I didn't make any promises to anyone either, LOL.

About Obama care, the part about pre-existing conditions is what I really care about.  Before Obama care, if you didn't have insurance through your job, then you could be denied insurance for any number of reasons.  Back in the day, my husband was self-employed and I was afraid that if I ever lost my job, I'd be in big trouble.  I wouldn't blame an insurance company for turning me away, LOL, but at the same time that is why I need insurance.  

I like the part about kids staying on for a few years, because often at that age they are in college or working crappy jobs that don't offer insurance.  Other than those two things, I don't know much about it except that a lot of people hate it, LOL.  So I was glad to hear that Trump will keep those two parts at least, even if I did find it amusing.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politicians do indeed go back on their promises all the time...  If one was charitable one might say its because the Politician learned more information and thus naturally changed their mind...  Less  charitably one could presume that a Politician didn't take an informed stance or just wanted the votes.

Lets take Obama Care... it is all interconnected so it is so we can't really take just a slice and leave the rest... here is why.

Insurance companies make money (and therefore stay in business) by making more in monthly premiums then it pays out in medical expenses.  Thus if they charge a 26 year old $40 a month (a totally made up number) that money is used the handle the expenses of the insurance company including paying out of claims of other insurees.

Why do insurance companies deny pre-existing conditions? Because if they don't... people will wait until they have a major medical issue get insurance have the bill paid and then drop insurance...  For example lets say or 26 year decided not to have insurance... and instead relied on their youth and good health to avoid medical issues and spent the $40 elsewhere.  A totally logical and reasonable action.  So they are not paying in every month. Then they get a medical condition that cost $100,000 (another totally made up number).  For this individual $40 a month (for just a few month) to cover $100,000 bill suddenly seems a really great deal.  So they hop on to the insurance plan pay $40 for the first month pay $40 for the second and the insurance pays out $100,000 for a lost of  $99,920 no business can stay in business operating like that.   So they don't cover pre-existing.

 

Thus if you have the government only mandating "Must cover pre-existing conditions.  Then you have lots of people who do not have insurance until they need it, then they get the Government mandated coverage when they need it and once they don't need it they drop out.  This causes either the insurance company to go out of business or the premium to skyrocket to even higher and unaffordable levels.

 

To solve this problem the answer is easy... Government then also mandates coverage, everybody must have insurance.  Everybody pays forever.. That works.. pre-existing conditions can be covered... But now you have a different problem.  What about the poor who can't afford insurance?  Do you throw them in jail because they can't  afford the government mandated coverage?  That is not very fair... so how about having the government use the tax dollars to help subside it...   That would work...  But guess what...  That is Obama Care in a nutshell...  You didn't reduce it, you didn't cut it back... Best case is you renamed it and shuffled some pieces around to make it look like you did something.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2016 at 8:57 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

Didn't you hear? Trump has softened on that.  He's not going to repeal it.  He's going to keep at least parts of it.  I had to laugh, fastest backpedal on a campaign promise ever.  In case you think I'm kidding...


 

You really should stop watching Mainstream Media.

Trump never softened on that because he has always stomped on keeping pieces of Obamacare - remember in the very first debates on Fox:  "I'm not gonna let people die on the streets" to which all the Republican candidates minus Carson including Fox News went apoplectic over his "support of Obamacare".

The Republicans, of course, was just using it to try to eliminate Trump... because, EVERY SINGLE REPLACEMENT HEALTHCARE BILL post Obamacare that the Republican Congress has come up with has provisions for pre-existing conditions and keeping kids up to age 25 on their parent's insurance.  Yet they stomped on the campaign trail never mentioning that because they want to make you think they are more conservative than Trump on healthcare.  Political sleight of hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2016 at 6:26 PM, estradling75 said:

Politicians do indeed go back on their promises all the time...  If one was charitable one might say its because the Politician learned more information and thus naturally changed their mind...  Less  charitably one could presume that a Politician didn't take an informed stance or just wanted the votes.

Lets take Obama Care... it is all interconnected so it is so we can't really take just a slice and leave the rest... here is why.

Insurance companies make money (and therefore stay in business) by making more in monthly premiums then it pays out in medical expenses.  Thus if they charge a 26 year old $40 a month (a totally made up number) that money is used the handle the expenses of the insurance company including paying out of claims of other insurees.

Why do insurance companies deny pre-existing conditions? Because if they don't... people will wait until they have a major medical issue get insurance have the bill paid and then drop insurance...  For example lets say or 26 year decided not to have insurance... and instead relied on their youth and good health to avoid medical issues and spent the $40 elsewhere.  A totally logical and reasonable action.  So they are not paying in every month. Then they get a medical condition that cost $100,000 (another totally made up number).  For this individual $40 a month (for just a few month) to cover $100,000 bill suddenly seems a really great deal.  So they hop on to the insurance plan pay $40 for the first month pay $40 for the second and the insurance pays out $100,000 for a lost of  $99,920 no business can stay in business operating like that.   So they don't cover pre-existing.

 

Thus if you have the government only mandating "Must cover pre-existing conditions.  Then you have lots of people who do not have insurance until they need it, then they get the Government mandated coverage when they need it and once they don't need it they drop out.  This causes either the insurance company to go out of business or the premium to skyrocket to even higher and unaffordable levels.

 

To solve this problem the answer is easy... Government then also mandates coverage, everybody must have insurance.  Everybody pays forever.. That works.. pre-existing conditions can be covered... But now you have a different problem.  What about the poor who can't afford insurance?  Do you throw them in jail because they can't  afford the government mandated coverage?  That is not very fair... so how about having the government use the tax dollars to help subside it...   That would work...  But guess what...  That is Obama Care in a nutshell...  You didn't reduce it, you didn't cut it back... Best case is you renamed it and shuffled some pieces around to make it look like you did something.

 

 

You're not looking out of the regulated box.

Have you noticed that there's no worry about pre-existing conditions when you get to ride on your big corporation employer's health insurance?  Even without Obamacare!  I was 5 months pregnant, Bush just became President, when I decided to become an employee so I can get healthcare coverage.  Blue Cross covered my entire pregnancy and even paid for my balance from ultrasounds taken before I became an employee.

So, as you can see here, you don't need government mandate to get pre-existing conditions covered.  So why does this work for big corporations?  Well... because they're big.  It's a big group of people carrying insurance.

The GOP emplacement plan leaves much to be desired as they propose that pre-existing conditions has to be covered so government subsidies will pay for it.  So... what makes the GOP think this will work when Obamacare didn't?  Yes.  Just as idiotic.

Good thing Dr. Ben Carson is on Trump's team.  Because there's a better way... the HSA coupled with a deregulation of unnecessary marketing barriers that prevent an insurance company in Florida to cover a self-employed guy in California without a group.  Because, if you can get yourself organized into a group without needing to be a big corporation... like, say, The Organization of Descendants of Fibromyalgia Victims... or something... then as a group purchase catastrophic coverage only for Fibromyalgia including pre-existing Fibromyalgia  coverage... then the cost will be manageable.

Where does HSA come into play?  Insurance is supposed to be for catastrophic events.  You don't buy car insurance to pay for your oil change, for example.  So, it would be to everyone's advantage if they pay out of pocket for a well-visit of any other non-emergency type stuff.  For example, when I was self-employed, I only carried insurance to cover Hospital and Surgical.  It cost me $120/month for a family of 4.  Any other doctor visits or prescriptions that didn't end up in a hospital stay or a surgical procedure I paid out of pocket.  So, having the HSA by the time you are born can help with that cost.  Then insurance companies will be more encouraged to compete for pre-existing conditions as they desire to be more competitive as they don't get money out of covering the common cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You're not looking out of the regulated box.

 

I said...  the only way to handle preexisting conditions... is for the insurance company to be large.

You said... Nope... insurance companies can handle preexisting conditions if they are large...

Exactly how are we disagreeing?    This has nothing to do with a "regulated box" it has everything to do with economic realities that can not be "regulated" away.

Young(ish), healthy, professionals (like you were when pregnant) generally don't have a problem with getting Healthcare.  Obama Care was never about getting them health care.  It was about getting the poor and the chronically ill health care.  And all the "regulation" can't make the economic realities go away.  Just look at the the exchanges... companies are either pulling out or failing due to cost.  And the ones hanging in there are going to raise the rates in 2017 (compared to 2016) because it is the only way they can stay in.  

Trump trying to cut some while leaving others can only make the situation worst because he can't change the underling reality that the people on Obama Care cost the system more then they put into the system.  Leaving the taxpayer footing the bill for the difference.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

It was about getting the poor and the chronically ill health care.

In the past, there was a way to take care of this and a word for it too.  It's called Charity.

Unfortunately, we have relied too much on the government to make things better instead of the individual.  There was a safety net, it was called your local community and your local church.  It's one of the reasons why people were heavily involved in church and community-they formed a safety net.

The government has crowded out much of private charity in health care.

Much of the discussion gets back to what is a right and what is a privilege. Do I have a right to a house? a car? medical insurance? The answer is no.  B/c if the answer is yes, then that means I have a right to force others to give me something.  Do I have a right to force another human being to take care of me when I am sick? The answer should obviously be no. And since that is the case it means health care isn't a right but a privilege, in that someone else must want to take care of me.  They can either take care of me b/c they love me (like a family member), because they have charity for me, or b/c I can offer them something in return for taking care of me (money).

If those are the reasons why someone would take care of me when I am sick, then those who are poor and chronically ill by almost nature must rely upon the goodness of other human beings in the form of charity to help them out.  Using force to make society pay for the chronically ill who are sick is a perversion of charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, yjacket said:

In the past, there was a way to take care of this and a word for it too.  It's called Charity.

Unfortunately, we have relied too much on the government to make things better instead of the individual.  There was a safety net, it was called your local community and your local church.  It's one of the reasons why people were heavily involved in church and community-they formed a safety net.

The government has crowded out much of private charity in health care.

Much of the discussion gets back to what is a right and what is a privilege. Do I have a right to a house? a car? medical insurance? The answer is no.  B/c if the answer is yes, then that means I have a right to force others to give me something.  Do I have a right to force another human being to take care of me when I am sick? The answer should obviously be no. And since that is the case it means health care isn't a right but a privilege, in that someone else must want to take care of me.  They can either take care of me b/c they love me (like a family member), because they have charity for me, or b/c I can offer them something in return for taking care of me (money).

If those are the reasons why someone would take care of me when I am sick, then those who are poor and chronically ill by almost nature must rely upon the goodness of other human beings in the form of charity to help them out.  Using force to make society pay for the chronically ill who are sick is a perversion of charity.

Exactly. What really, really bothers me is when conservatives/libertarians are accused of lacking compassion because we don't subscribe to the government preforming what private charities do better. It drives me insane. One little snot of a cousin of mine accused me of being "cruel" when I said governments shouldn't control heath care. I shot back "How much do you give to charity?" Shockingly, he gave virtually nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I said...  the only way to handle preexisting conditions... is for the insurance company to be large.

You said... Nope... insurance companies can handle preexisting conditions if they are large...

Exactly how are we disagreeing?    This has nothing to do with a "regulated box" it has everything to do with economic realities that can not be "regulated" away.

Young(ish), healthy, professionals (like you were when pregnant) generally don't have a problem with getting Healthcare.  Obama Care was never about getting them health care.  It was about getting the poor and the chronically ill health care.  And all the "regulation" can't make the economic realities go away.  Just look at the the exchanges... companies are either pulling out or failing due to cost.  And the ones hanging in there are going to raise the rates in 2017 (compared to 2016) because it is the only way they can stay in.  

Trump trying to cut some while leaving others can only make the situation worst because he can't change the underling reality that the people on Obama Care cost the system more then they put into the system.  Leaving the taxpayer footing the bill for the difference.

 

 

I'm saying you are not looking outside of the regulated box because... the reason insurance companies cannot offer competitive pre-existing condition coverage is because regulations prevent them from creating large groups outside of big corporations.  Obamacare is no good because even though they have a bigger pool of people, they are also regulated in what they can offer - they have to offer coverage for the common cold and even birth control pills.

Trump is trying to get the capitalist concept into healthcare instead of tying everybody's hands with senseless regulations.  Then make health insurance work like all other insurance - catastrophic safety net instead of the main means of paying for your healthcare - that's the idea behind the HSA.  This empowers people to have skin in the game in their health management.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share