Trump's order on immigration and the wacko liberal response

Most conservatives are for getting rid of the high premiums and other problems in Obamacare.

Why then did the house pass Trumpcare? (which will die in the senate)Why did Trump praise Australia's Universal healthcare system if he and the rest of the conservatives are not for single payer?

I don't follow all the healthcare politics so I can't answer your questions. I've heard however that what Trump wanted is being changed a lot by others. But again a big concern with Obamacare is the high premiums some have to pay.

and do you think Trumpcare will reduce premiums but offer the same services? cause the CBO disagrees with you. In some cases premiums could rise by %800. They also found that those people who would pay lower premium would get less benefits.

And it would be much worse for the elderly. Like Faith. And me.

Faith writes: Yes - the Insurance Industry will charge whatever they can. They will deny paying out whatever they can. They are scum. They are foul middle men. Medicare for all would put the CEOs of these bloodsuckers out of business.

Hi, Faith. Yeah, I agree that it would suck to have to pay higher premiums.On the other hand, some people -- like my sister -- have finally been able to get access to affordable health care.I think some people getting health care that they wouldn't otherwise get is worth some people having to pay more.'Course my preferred solution would be to raise taxes on rich people and use the money to fund a single payer system like the civilized countries have.

The people who have to pay the higher premiums are not rich.

But they are subsidized.Far more than in any Republican plan, and the higher premiums especially for the elderly in the Republican plans make that worse.But the Republican plans do provide more freedom, the freedom to not buy what you desperately need and want but cannot afford.

Well, my sister is not rich, either. In fact, she is so not rich that she never had health insurance until the AFA.-That said, like I tell people who don't like to pay insurance premiums (I know I don't!): elect politicians who will work to make the US into one of the civilized nations. Tax citizens like the civilized nations do; reduce military spending to the levels that the civilized nations do; and then provide the level of services that the civilized nations do.

The agenda is what is being questioned. Why has the Trump administration decided to remove efforts to target domestic wingnut terrorism while curtailing folks in countries who have never targeted us? Why is Iran on the list, but Qatar is not on the list.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Another article from the New York Times: Hiding Christians in the Cellar: Fear and Heroism in a Philippine SiegeIn the Phillipine city of Marawi, supporters of the Islamic State were going through the city killing the non-Muslims that they found. There were examples of Christians being protected by other Muslims, even at the risk of their own lives! Remember, there are people who would enact oppressive laws that would treat every Muslim as if they were the same.My point is, again, that "Muslim" is not does predict a person's character or behavior with sufficient accuracy that such blanket prohibitions can be permitted.

That's great to know, it shows that no matter what evil the religion teaches personal humanity can rise above it. those are the Muslims that would pass Trump's vetting.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Would they, though? (Hypothetically that is, if these incidents had been happening in a country that is to be covered by Trump's travel ban instead of the Phillipines.)First, the travel ban didn't seem to allow these types of exceptions -- in fact, the first time the travel ban was attempted even people who already had their green cards were being denied reentry into the US.Second, what is Trump's vetting process supposed to be? The US is still using the vetting processed developed in the previous administrations. The travel ban was supposed to be a temporary measure while that vetting process while it was reviewed by the Trump administration and, if judged inadequate, fixed.What is the status of that review? Are they even doing the review? You don't have to wait until the suit against the travel ban has worked its way through the courts; in fact, if there really was a legitimate concern that the vetting process was inadequate, then it would be important to continue reviewing it even while the ban itself is still being litigated -- in fact, the review could proceed even if the travel ban isn't allowed at all.My feeling is that the vetting process was just smoke being blown to justify the ban, which itself is just meant to be red meat thrown to Trump's Islamophobic supporters. If I were more cynical, I would even suspect that some in the administration don't really care whether or not the travel ban is upheld by the courts. Either way, they will have an issue they can try to use to whip their supporters into a new frenzy.

I get it, you are just fine with terrorists getting into the country because you think any attempt to vet or discriminate at all is "Islamophobia." God must be pretty fed up with us to allow this attitude to be so prevalent.