The Democrats congressional campaign message is simple and truthful — protect affordable health care and entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) from Republican efforts to destroy them.

So, you need proof? On Oct. 22, Trump signed an order giving health insurers authority to charge policyholders more for pre-existing conditions. Twenty state attorney generals have filed a joint lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

When asked to respond to the current 17 percent reduction in tax revenue as a result of passage of the Trump tax cuts for the top 1 percent of taxpayers, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "It's time to have a bipartisan approach to the cost of entitlements."

So, tax cuts for the top 1 percent must be paid for by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers who need entitlements to guarantee some basic stability in their lives? Intolerable.

By the way, many of the signatories of the aforementioned lawsuit are now claiming support for pre-existing conditions. Sorry guys, you can't do both.

Jerome Bourgeois

League City

Locations

(48) comments

Claudia Burnam

Hey Jerome, those 1% are just going to pass any tax increases they get to the 50%! E G Wiley

Emile Pope

Why did the 1% deserve a tax cut in the first place?

Claudia Burnam

To stimulate business that Obama policies suppressed. E G Wiley

Emile Pope

Really? Because the economy and the stock market was going so badly under President Obama?

Kelly Willis

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=gda27SWWdZg

Claudia Burnam

Emile, they moving at a snail's pace. So much so most of his term Social Security 's COLA was very small or not at all! E G Wiley

Claudia Burnam

moved not moving

Emile Pope

Really? Unlike the booming economy under Bush? trump got a booming economy under President Obama and destroyed it with trade wars and tax cuts for billionaires. Hows the stock market?

Carlos Ponce

" trump got a booming economy under President Obama and destroyed it with trade wars and tax cuts for billionaires." Lie
"Hows the stock market?" Doing better than Obama in the same time span.
Today as of this hour, DJ is up 1.26% to 25,188.88
NASDAQ up 1.76% to 7299.60
S&P is up 1.30% 2718.26
Remember 8 years ago DJ was up over 3000 pts since Obama's inauguration.
Under Trump DJ is up over 5000 pts. LOOKING BETTER!

Emile Pope

Garbage. The market is nearly where it was when the year started. It went up nearly 2000 every year President Obama was in office and never went below what it was the year before...some economy...

George Croix

Nearly 2000 per year? Isn't that like somebody who lost 40.1 lbs saying they lost nearly 50.........
Of course, the booming energy sector pushed big market and economic gains, the fossil fuels one, not the money loser 'green' one, despite being fought tooth and nail by Obama, et al, but why let reality rear it's ugly head....
Another yardstick is that the Dow dropped about 1400 points between Obama's election and inauguration, while it went up about 1500 points between Trumps election and inauguration.
Anyone wanting to make a case could...could.... say that was because of who won those elections.....they wouldn't exactly be entirely right, but they'd be closer than some other fuzzy math...... [whistling]

Carlos Ponce

Emile you do know the information you post is a LIE and cannot be corroborated anywhere. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
The "year to date" change for Dow Jones is UP 1.89% according to CNN. The change since October 31, 2017 is +7.57%.
For the stock market to go up 2000 every year since Obama took office (7,949.09) would place it near 24,000 (23,949.09) as he left in January 2017. Close, but it was actually 19,732.40 - missed it by about 4000. He actually brought it up an average of 1472.91 per year, not 2000.
Under Trump who took office in January 2017 Dow Jones was brought up to 25,253.11, an increase of 5520.71 in 1.75 years.
Sources:
Dow Jones as Obama took office
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/101314/where-was-dow-jones-when-obama-took-office.asp
Dow Jones when Obama Left Office
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-Dow-when-President-Obama-left-office
Same source for when Trump took office
Current Dow Jones
https://money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/

Emile Pope

Including the time before trump took office and giving him credit for it? What a laugh...

Emile Pope

The Dow was 26000 in January. Today nine months later it’s at 25,115. That’s almost a thousand points lower than nine months ago. And that’s only because it’s gone up 600 points in the last two days. It was down to 24,400!!!!!. Never had a drop like that once President Obama got control of the economy. No improvement in the Dow since January... Tired of winning yet?

Carlos Ponce

Emile posts "No improvement in the Dow since January... Tired of winning yet?"
Not tired of winning. If you BOTHERED TO FOLLOW THE NEWS you will see a downturn due to the actions of the Federal Reserve. Trump didn't care for it.
Are you invested in the stock market? I suggest you don't. You don't understand.

George Croix

Still, winning, Pope...just like you, too, are, but you are terrified that others who used to think like you will realize they've been suckered for decades by voting for left wing promises, then getting a handful of poop in return, until the next election.
There are still a lot of people who figure a job is more valuable than a promise....

Emile Pope

Making excuses for the Dow. Who nominated the Federal Reserve chairman? TRUMP!!! So the guy trump personally recommended tanked the market under trump? This is the second time that the Doe tanked this year. Now it’s less than it was in January. January!!! That’s stagnant.

Carlos Ponce

To put it simply, Emile, one does not look at short term gains and losses. You look at trends over the long haul.As illustrated and shown earlier, the Dow Jones climbed 3000 points from January 2009 to October 31, 2010 under Obama. But it has climbed over 5000 points under Trump from January 2017 to October 31, 2018. Same place in their presidencies. Check with me in January 2025 when Trump's tenure is over. THEN make a comparison!
WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING! WINNING!

Gary Miller

Who should pay for pre existing conditions? The population without Pre existing conditions didn't try to get along without health care until it was too late. Paying extra for conditions that would have been covered if they had had health care before they needed it is their penalty for trying to beat the system. Not buying fire insurance until your house is burning is the same thing.

Emile Pope

More excuses for brutality. Guess you shouldn't have to pay school taxes if your child doesn't attend...

Victor Krc

School taxes are already a public cost just as the drive for single payer "insurance" is seeking to make health care a public cost. We still have private sector insurance that is affected by the pre-existing insurance issue. What you are really saying is that the taxpayers should pay for private school tuition even though most taxpayers' children do not attend. Also, family members should be able to purchase "life insurance" after grandma or grandpa dies.

Victor Krc

That's right Gary. We should not be using the word "insurance" in referring to those who try to obtain insurance after their health deteriorates. We are playing into those word games the liberals like to use to stifle debate. Using the word "subsidy" instead of "insurance" would make the debate more honest. All this talk of "insuring" pre-existent conditions is trying to smooth the way to single payer (guess who?) "insurance". No free market insurance company could stay in business very long if people were allowed to get "insurance" after their health deteriorates. The cost must be born by someone in the form of higher premiums or taxpayer subsidies.

Gary Scoggin

You’re right, Gary. Folks like my son, who was born with muscular dystrophy, should have known better and Self funded his medical care before he was born. That slacker him, trying to beat the system like that! I get your point: If coverage for those people takes one dollar out of your pocket, then they don’t deserve to live.

George Croix

Author, but you CAN do exactly that, and SHOULD do so
Healthy people should not have to pay the same premiums as a person who is already in poor health.
Just as a Toyota Camry owner does not pay the same rate as a Shelby Cobra owner does.
The owner of a 10 million dollar mansion doesn't pay the same rate as the owner of a 3 BR ranch.
We are only created equally, and from that point on, Life screws some of us over, and some of us screw ourselves over......
I commend you, though, on your successful memorization of those other usual leftist talking points, which only stand up to the scrutiny of a blind person..............

Steve Fouga

I believe in a kinder approach, where healthy people DO have to pay the same as those already in poor health.

George Croix

Good for you, Steve.
The self-declared Good and Kind People deserve their say, too...........

Victor Krc

So Steve, then what you want is "single payer insurance" like Britain's National Health Care. There is no way anyone could effectively price premiums in a free market under your assumption.

Steve Fouga

Victor, I fully agree. Medical care should be nationalized, and regulated. I believe that's the only way it can be guaranteed for all.

George Croix

Do you think Doctor's income should also be regulated, Steve?

Gary Scoggin

Steve. Radical conservatism like you see here has room for kindness only if it doesn’t cost them anything.

George Croix

Yes, it's very radical to expect other people to make some effort to keep themselves healthy........and to not believe that one size fits all......
I stand guilty as accused....
Cheerfully.............

George Croix

ps:
Maybe we should compare charitable donations made yearly, Gary, and low man has to pay the other guy's for a year....?

Gary Scoggin

Huh? I give what I can to causes I support. Mainly my Church. I assume you do much the same. How in the world is this a competition? It’s not all about money. At least not to me.

George Croix

"...room for kindness only if it doesn’t cost them anything."

Your words.

Jarvis Buckley

My opinion , Pope has right to spew his proponganda. I believe he honestly believes what he prints. He seems so unhappy. I hope brighter days are ahead for him.

George Croix

Question:
Why are there uninsured pre-existing conditions, unless they chose to do so by paying the yearly tax, that wasn't a tax, until it was, for non compliance
If, as required by Obamacare, they bought the insurance they were supposed to buy, their condition would be a covered now.
Is that not so?
Did they gamble on always paying the yearly tax, until sick enough to then demand full coverage as the so-called ACA allowed?

Now, FUTURE pre-existing conditions I understand, and have no bone to pick with insuring them, as long as rates take the pre-condition into account, but if you have the opportunity right now to insure yourself with the ACA, and don't, then how is that anybody's problem but of your own making down the line?

Mike Zeller

Here's some "Food for Thought". Lets say all you guys against pre-existing conditions, have health insurance. While being covered, you develop some type of ailment, that from now on, will be considered a pre-existing condition,"God Forbid". You are stuck with your insurance company and whatever premium they want to charge you, from now on, because no other insurance company covers pre-existing conditions. Your, up a creek, when your premium doubles, triples, ...

Jim Forsythe

Piggy backing on the above.
Then you are let go, because they are going out of business.. Since you have pre-existing conditions good luck finding insurance.
The other thing that may happen is your company changes insurance companies and the new insurances company says you have pre-existing conditions so we can not cover you.

Carlos Ponce

" While being covered, you develop some type of ailment, that from now on, will be considered a pre-existing condition.."
That is a contradiction. If you develop the ailment while being covered by insurance then by definition it cannot be considered "pre-existing".

Jim Forsythe

It is for your next job and insurance that will be different than the insurance that you had at your last job.

Mike Zeller

Thank you Jim, I'll type a little slower for Carlos.

George Croix

A good start is to stop electing people hung up on minimum wage and elect more that want maximum wage...and are doing what's needed to get more of them.....

Trying to insure everybody for everything just means eventually nobody will be insured for anything once all the OPM runs out.......
Life is not a big tent, it's a lifeboat.......

George Croix

This one guy has no issue with insurance for pre-existing conditions as long as the premiums for it reflect the additional costs to treat it.
Speaking of food, this isn't like the grocery store where everybody pays the same for a gallon of milk, or the same for a Whataburger...

Maybe I could trade my yearly ACA mandated PAP smear and my 'lactation services' in on a different policy, though...........

George Croix

ps:
There's a BIG difference between being 'against pre-existing condition' insurance, and with not wanting to subsidize people who have screwed themselves up by their bad life choices, and now want to pay no more than people who have not done so.
And THAT is a LOT different from people BORN with a pre-existing condition, or developed one later despite efforts to stay healthy....they had no choice in the matter.

One size fits all for health care?
No...

Paul Hyatt

For the liberals who want everything that Canada and England offer when it comes insurance, I would suggest that they go talk with some of those people. When the ACA was being debated and shoved down our throats several of the people from England that had been transferred to our location in Texas City would tell us that the US is insane if they go to this type of insurance. They had lived under that type of deal from where they came from and they would tell us upfront that it was NOT a plan that any sane person would want from themselves much less their family members....Like they would say rationing happened all of the time and the time that they had to wait to see a specialist was ridiculous...The ones who want the government to supply them with everything need to wake up and realize that a government that is big enough ot give you everything is big enough to one day take all that you have! Look at Venezuela, Cuba and other nations who live like that, those places are h*ll holes for their citizens.... Do we really want to live like that? If so move to those places and see all that they have to offer! There is NOTHING in our Constitution that guarantees that we will have food, shelter, insurance etc.... If there is I would love for someone to point it out....

Emile Pope

Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate. You mention Venezuela and Cuba, never Norway or Germany where universal health care is great. And nothing was shoved down your throat. You must be talking about the tax cuts for the rich...

Carlos Ponce

Norway - There are significant waiting times for many procedures. Many Norwegians often go abroad for medical treatments. The average weight for a hip replacement is more than 4 months. “Approximately 23 percent of all patients referred for hospital admission have to wait longer than three months for admission.” Also, care can be denied if it is not deemed to be cost-effective. Norwegians can opt out of the the government system and pay out-of-pocket. Many pay out-of-pocket and travel to a foreign country for medical care when waiting lists are long.
Germany -The U.S. has four times as many MRI units per capita and twice as many CT scanners per capita. Tanner claims that the existence of a small private insurance market helps to supplement technology spending. For instance, CT scanners at one point were almost non-existent in the public sector, but competition with private insurance companies meant that the public system had to add more CT scanners.
Care is frequently rationed. For instance, the elderly and those with terminal illnesses are often denied care. Since hospitals are run through a global budget, this can reduce their incentive to treat those with serious, expensive-to-treat medical conditions.
From DrWalt. com "The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World "

George Croix

So, let's just 'deem' actual fact to not be so......very 'progressive'....
[rolleyes]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.