Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Daerio]

Those people aren't enrolled in TriCare, so their TriCare coverage was not affected by the ACA because they don't have a TriCare health plan in the first place.

I've already provided numerous instances of proof that TriCare coverage was not affected by the ACA, but that doesn't suit your narrative, so then your browser coincidentally acts up. Pathetic.

Just so you know, my browser acting up was a joke to indicate that maybe it was an accident that you linked to a website that doesn't actually have any information.

[Felya]

they clearly live off their parents.

there's zero point arguing with them.

they'll learn how the real world works some day.

"They live off their parents" and you are arguing with "them" on a gaming forum. Cut the superiority complex, not the first time I've pointed it out...

[Daerio]

No, it's right in the ballpark for the norm on anecdotal examples - all of which are entirely worthless, because they can be used to prove any point. I'm not hating on you or your examples, I'm just pointing to the futility in using them to "prove" any point. It doesn't work.

The thing about being pedantic is that it isn't very convincing.

[AndaliteBandit]

Just so you know, my browser acting up was a joke to indicate that maybe it was an accident that you linked to a website that doesn't actually have any information.

You mean it didn't contain any information that suited your narrative. It did in fact quite clearly state that the ACA had no effect whatsoever on TriCare coverage, and then it went on to explain how and why.

Yet you continue to double down on your 100% claim in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary. Reminds me of someone.

[Daerio]

You mean it didn't contain any information that suited your narrative.

It didn't contain any information at all.

[cubby]

The thing about being pedantic is that it isn't very convincing.

If being accurate doesn't convince you, I'm not sure what will. Your examples suck because they're personal, and can be made to prove anything, by anyone. Easier?

[Daerio]

If being accurate doesn't convince you, I'm not sure what will. Your examples suck because they're personal, and can be made to prove anything, by anyone. Easier?

You should take a closer look at what pedantic means.

[Truculentt]

"They live off their parents" and you are arguing with "them" on a gaming forum. Cut the superiority complex, not the first time I've pointed it out...

ok, Fine. You want serious talk?


Look guys -


medical insurance is actually REALLY complicated. Just buying it is a job and a half if you don't get coverage from your employer.


trying to argue medical insurance, in a thread, and asking for evidence, is un-be-leave-a-bly retarded.


Its absolutely impossible for this conversation to be productive unless someone wants to write a book in the thread.

There's SO much to consider. There are tax ramifications, premiums, deductibles, specialty drs, perscriptions, coverage thresholds....and about 200 additional factors I haven't mentioned.

personally - I have to take 2 days a year off work to sort out my coverage. my premium is 1000 a month. it will go up this year because we're talking about having a baby.

Unless youre actually paying for your own coverage, and going through the painful process, it's just not going to make sense to you.

[cubby]

You should take a closer look at what pedantic means.

I did, in fact, look it up - because I was pretty sure you were using it wrong. I was right, but I was trying to give you an out.

Seriously, how do you think personal examples can be made to prove anything? You'll have one showing "A", and he'll have one showing "B", and I'll have one showing "C" - and at the end of the day it proves nothing. Ever.

[Daerio]

I did, in fact, look it up - because I was pretty sure you were using it wrong. I was right, but I was trying to give you an out.

Seriously, how do you think personal examples can be made to prove anything? You'll have one showing "A", and he'll have one showing "B", and I'll have one showing "C" - and at the end of the day it proves nothing. Ever.

pe·dan·tic
pəˈdan(t)ik/
adjective
of or like a pedant.

ped·ant
ˈpednt/Submit
noun
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

You may understand my confusion when you swap pedantic out with accurate and think it means the same thing.

[Edge-]

Unless youre actually paying for your own coverage, and going through the painful process, it's just not going to make sense to you.

Dunno, when I was briefly unemployed I was able to easily find and sign up for a plan on the California exchange. Wasn't painful, paid for my portion (government subsidized part of it for a while), and was pretty damn straight forward. Granted I had the basic, "Cheap plan that has low premiums and a high deductible but will keep you from going broke in case of a major injury/illness." plan rather than anything terribly fancy.

Yeah, it can be complicated, but it can be quite easy as well.

[Truculentt]

Dunno, when I was briefly unemployed I was able to easily find and sign up for a plan on the California exchange. Wasn't painful, paid for my portion (government subsidized part of it for a while), and was pretty damn straight forward. Granted I had the basic, "Cheap plan that has low premiums and a high deductible but will keep you from going broke in case of a major injury/illness." plan rather than anything terribly fancy.

Yeah, it can be complicated, but it can be quite easy as well.

Its actually a lot easier for the unemployed, disabled, or if you're under 25.

If you're over 25, above the poverty line, and claiming yourself, it's a total mess.

forget about adding someone to your policy. I'm dealing with that this year...

[Edge-]

Its actually a lot easier for the unemployed, disabled, or if you're under 25.

If you're over 25, above the poverty line, and claiming yourself, it's a total mess.

If you're under 26 you can still get covered through your parents if they have coverage, so that's not an issue.

In terms of having a job/being above the poverty line, nothing would have changed for me with the California exchange. At least not in terms of signing up. The only difference is I would have had to cover more/all of my premium without any government subsidies.

Sounds like whatever state you're in didn't bother to work with the federal government and health care providers to create an exchange that was remotely easy to work with. My experience dealing with the California exchange was surprisingly pleasant, including resolving a brief billing issue and canceling my plan when I got coverage again through my job. Like, I dreaded needing to deal with them but they were super helpful and it was some of the least amount of hassle I've ever had to deal with in terms of pretty much any insurance.

forget about adding someone to your policy. I'm dealing with that this year...

That depends on the insurance provider. Some are easier to work with, others aren't. No different than before the ACA was passed, though at least now they can't deny family members for pre-existing conditions.

[cubby]

pe·dan·tic
pəˈdan(t)ik/
adjective
of or like a pedant.

ped·ant
ˈpednt/Submit
noun
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

You may understand my confusion when you swap pedantic out with accurate and think it means the same thing.

Actually, I'm wondering why you're ignoring my point and drilling down on some semantic nonsense. A point that is actually pretty easy to agree with, and one in which I was specifically (pedantically) saying that it was nothing person at all. I would say the same thing about my personal examples, which is why I never use them. They are useless in any policy argument.

Since I'm providing you with the very definition of the word you used, here's a broader one, which includes the word accuracy - since you can't understand that "a person who is excessively concerned with minor details" is another way of describing "accurate".

- - - Updated - - -

Guys, seriously. Enough about the ACA. You're derailing the thread.

Yes, please - there is another thread devoted entirely to the ACA.

[Skroe]

Is there a comprehensive forum list of Trump supporters somewhere?

They need to never live it down.

[cubby]

Is there a comprehensive forum list of Trump supporters somewhere?

They need to never live it down.

Can we brand them? Somehow. Maybe.

[Captain N]

Can we brand them? Somehow. Maybe.

Ooo a forum title just like Everything Nice has?

[Breccia]

The New York Times drops the mic.

The New York Times' general counsel has just informed Donald Trump's lawyer, in scathing terms, that it will not retract its story about two women who claim that Trump touched them inappropriately.

In a letter to Trump attorney Marc E. Kasowitz sent Thursday, New York Times general counsel David McCraw wrote, of the request that the Times retract the story, "We decline to do so."

McCraw then laid into Kasowitz and his client, writing, "The essence of a libel claim, of course, is the protection of one's reputation. Mr. Trump has bragged about his non-consensual sexual touching of women. He has bragged about intruding on beauty pageant contestants in their dressing rooms. He acquiesced to a radio host's request to discuss Mr. Trump's own daughter as a 'piece of ass.' Multiple women not mentioned in our article have publicly come forward to report on Mr. Trump's unwanted advances."

He continued: "Nothing in our article has had the slightest effect on the reputation that Mr. Trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself."

[JohnBrown1917]

Unless youre actually paying for your own coverage, and going through the painful process, it's just not going to make sense to you.

I only pay 100 euros a month, and barely spend any time picking a provider.
Oh wait, I'm not american, my bad. Being American sounds hard,

[May90]

Has there ever been a presidential candidate with so much dirt on them as Trump? Seriously, this guy is dirty even by pop-celebrity standards, let alone politicians, let alone presidential runners...