Snoofy is on experimental drugs...
#139 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Experimenting is for college.

You were just more interested in experimenting with penises and anuses in college.

"Yes when you figure that 44 Million have died of aids have been added to everything else we battle."

That isn't offset by the 40 million abortions?

You're the one who wants poor, sick babies forced to be born, not aborted if unwanted or unviable.

"How many people ignored the scientists and doctors and exposed themselves to a disease they knew had a 100% fatality rate?"

Smoking on Line 2.

"At the moment it appears their plan is to stop subsidizing health insurance companies who are gouging the living fuck out of me and my tax dollars because of these subsidies."

If you say so! How much did they get you for?

How much of your taxes went to ACA Subsidies, as either a percentage or a dollar amount? I bet we both agree it was next to nothing.

You think Republicans generally support screwing the farmers, then? Not Republicans in Congress, I mean your clients and such. Fuck 'em, is that the chatter at the Waffle House and the Church Luncheon?

The ? The subsidy is being taken away.
NOT the fact that a 55 year old couple is being charged $2,700 a month for a shitty plan.
#123 | Posted by eberly

Do these arguments sound good to you? Because this is just sophistry, begging the question.

You're trying to frame a dialogue in such a way as to deflect from the fact that you could completely write a new script.

Republicans are the only adults in the room who can address any and all of your injustice/crime, right now.

Apparently neither are injustices or crimes, based on Republican leadership.

When are you going to tell them?

Likely that you still engage in risky activity that caused healthcare to rise. Oh, I don't know, maybe like risky sex? I wonder what gay sex did to healthcare prices? can you elaborate? How many died due to AIDS vs COVID?
#119 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Talk about your non sequiturs? I, the Democrat am in denial of HIV, but not Republicans including President Reagan, who didn't say "AIDS" until 1987?

Bonkers stuff happened to you making you this heavily gay and this heavily closeted.

Maybe because it was better to do nothing??? Maybe STFU
#114 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Back then, Republicans did think it was better to do nothing..

Nobody's denying that.

But that's all spilled milk under the bridge, son.

We're talking about right now.

Why are Republicans not willing to do the subsides, right now?

When it's very clearly NOT better for the farmers for Republicans to do nothing.

Explain.

A loser in the last stages of admitting the truth... STFU loser
#111 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Oh this should be good.
What "truth" do you think I'm afraid of?
You're hilarious when you get all emotional!

And the democrats will keep their hands in their pockets this time?
Cause last time they had their hands out.
#105 | Posted by eberly at

Let's say it went down that way.
Why don't Republicans put their hand out?
What's the upside of not doing that?

Who owned Congress when ACA was passed
#107 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Democrats.

I won't bother asking the relevance, since I'm sure you're about to tell me...

~ It's sad to see it all collapse, in real time
At the hands of the very guy you voted for....
#95 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The guy I voted for...

Biden's still secrelty President, like Trump was, during the beginning of the Biden years?

"refuse to take ownership."

Who owns Congress right now?
Why don't they own their action -- or inaction?

So it IS nothing more than a deflection from the challenges of ACA.
#98 | Posted by eberly

The Republicans doing nothing about the challenges of the ACA?
Why, it's nothing more than a deflection from the challenges of ACA!
--Eberly

"ALL costs have gone way up for farmers.
None of you give 2 shits about any of it."

Not true, all us Democrats oppose the Trump tariffs. And the immigration camps.

You think I write "Trump is slaughtering the goose that's been laying America's golden eggs"

Because I don't care?

The whiskey is talking for you now, Eberly.

If the Democratic Party got the White House and congress ... ..are you arguing Medicare for all has a chance?
#88 | Posted by eberly

It has a better chance!
Kinda depends on which Democrats.
Hakeem Jeffries Democrats, not so much.
AOC Democrats, getting warmer.

What I would expect is more Medicaid Expansion type stuff, which Republicans opposed until the math associated with a little thing we call "reality" became a problem. Kinda funny since that "reality" is money, and money itself is intrinsically of negligible value, but it's the only thing Republicans truly value at the end of the day.

Trump is slaughtering the goose that's been laying America's golden eggs for the past 80 years, and Republicans can't figure out if farmers need health insurance.

It's sad to see it all collapse, in real time, and Republicans can't see it happening, or won't lift a finger to save it, take your pick.

Take your pick; to not see, or to not care. Those are the two factions within the Republican Party.

Farmers are About to Pay a Lot More for Health Insurance

^
I found the losers you're looking for.

I'm actually a winner on this, by your logic.

No subsides, I pay lower taxes.

Thanks for letting the subsidies expire, Republicans!

You are incapable of understanding why I'm willing to pay a few extra pennies in taxes to subsidize farmers health insurance.

You've heard of empathy, but like a blind man facing the sunset, you will never experience it.

Not even when your children were born.

That was when you... knew.

You're missing the STFU part, loser. So you're educated but still dumb as a box of fckkin rocks.
#79 | Posted by lfthndthrds

I'm not losing my ACA subsidy.
You are.

FWIW this is not a recipe for future stability
#7 | Posted by truthhurts

It's not intended to be.

The goal is to put an end to the post-war hegomny and return to territorialism.

The United States will not be policing nations, under the aegis of the United Nations, like we've been doing since 1947.

The United States will be taking control of nations, independently, unilaterally.

Over the course of our lifetimes, Republicans have gone from supporting, to universally rejecting the United Nations, in their rhetoric.

"Is that question intended to represent a reason to not discuss the realities of ACA?"

The reason not to discuss the realities of ACA is this:

What's to discuss?

Feel free to open the discussion at any time.

"Apparently, according to JPW and Laura Mohr the UN gets to dictate our foreign policy."

According to the United States Constitution, yes this is true.

We signed the treaty, and thus we are bound by our oath.

Do you disagree with that, child?

It was an good accurate post until that.
#85 | Posted by Alexandrite

And if that parts keeps Eberly from playing his deer in the headlights game at us that that part was also good and accurate.

But you raise a valid point.

Perhaps you believe Eberly's comments in this thread are truly born of his ignorance and his willingness to learn and understand.

I think that's the shtick he uses when he's smoke screening for Republicans.

Thanks for reading and understanding.

-What alternative do you offer?
Single payer. But we don't a political party who wants it.
#69 | Posted by eberly

Cute
What alternative to Republicans offer?
They have literally nothing, and haven't for fifteen years.
There's no harm in acknowledging that.

So, then, why don't we just provide universal single-payer health care, and get the profit oriented insurance companies (I'm being kind. I substituted the word "companies" for "leeches" before I posted this) out of of the cost structure?
Because we don't have a political party who wants it.
#70 | Posted by eberly

We'll assume you want it.
I certainly want it.

What do we call a political system where the people on both sides overwhelmingly want something, but neither party can give it to them?

I'm not sure what to call it, but if this is democracy, it's gotten pretty anemic.

This issue is like mythology of the Republicans being afraid to go against the NRA.

Both parties are ill-equipped to go after 18% of GDP in a system where that 18% of GDP can spend unlimited money on political influence.

But only the Republican party wants it to be that way, so strongly they've convinced themselves the Constitution demands it be that way.