Comey: Trump Campaign officially under investigation by the FBI

[Breccia]

This is going to be great, they will use their 5th amendment protections.

I honestly don't expect someone to volunteer to come in, wave their 5th Amendment rights, and leave.

Also, as we've all learned recently, it's possible to extend immunity to prevent someone from taking the 5th. Obviously, such should never be done lightly. But if Congress is really, adamantly, sure there's a problem, this remains an option. More of a last resort, though.

[Barnabas]

Hey, it's your crowd that argues that money is speech and corporations are people. Have fun with that.

Both parties fall under that category. You must've forgotten bill clinton's presidency?

- - - Updated - - -

This is going to be great, they will use their 5th amendment protections.

- - - Updated - - -



Barnabas doesn't realize how much his premiums would rise and family members being thrown off their health insurance plans if they repealed the ACA. This is the same genius line of reasoning of building a 25 billion dollar wall will be beneficial for Barnabas as well.

- - - Updated - - -



ACA isn't failing, it's just showing a glaring flaw in how private insurance is ran, and why insurance in healthcare is a fool's errand in the first place.

Mine wouldn't change one bit if ACA went the way of the dodo. See if you dump ACA you no longer have to carry the high risk people unless they cough up money to treat their ailment. Stop distorting the market and reality. KTHX. I'm for finishing the existing wall that will cost 2 billion to complete that OBAMA started. 25 billion wall is the medias wall and not the wall that will ever be built. CNN can build that wall and they can start by encircling their fake news.

[Breccia]

25 billion wall is the medias wall and not the wall that will ever be built.

Actually, that's the DHS official estimate. Not the media. Sorry.

[Muzjhath]

Mine wouldn't change one bit if ACA went the way of the dodo. See if you dump ACA you no longer have to carry the high risk people unless they cough up money to treat their ailment. Stop distorting the market and reality. KTHX.

Yes you will. Whenever one of those "high risk" people get ill, go bankrupt and thus can't pay for it. You'll be paying their bill. More so if they never had insurance in the first place more likely than not. This is the flaw in your thinking around insurance premiums. (And why the US system is broken and needs a solid fix that either includes somewhat draconian price controls on several things or a complete reform away from insurance).
Someone will always have to pay. In the system of the US the people with insurance pay for most of those without. The super rich who can afford to go without insurance I'd speculate are a minority, and they pay and are over with and don't run up costs like an uninsured who can't pay, gets in-dept, gets interest on dept, becomes bankrupt does.
Who pays after that? Well, everyone on insurance.

[Barnabas]

This is going to be great, they will use their 5th amendment protections.

- - - Updated - - -



Barnabas doesn't realize how much his premiums would rise and family members being thrown off their health insurance plans if they repealed the ACA. This is the same genius line of reasoning of building a 25 billion dollar wall will be beneficial for Barnabas as well.

- - - Updated - - -



ACA isn't failing, it's just showing a glaring flaw in how private insurance is ran, and why insurance in healthcare is a fool's errand in the first place.

Yet you want to continue funding this with tax dollars so they can impress their investors right? Government is paying for research of drugs? Result expensive drugs. Government is paying for both healthy and sick to insurance companies? Result premiums still rose significantly. Yep keep defending the lies and keep pretending the government is best at managing healthcare. You pay two or three times or maybe more times than you really ever should've.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes you will. Whenever one of those "high risk" people get ill, go bankrupt and thus can't pay for it. You'll be paying their bill. More so if they never had insurance in the first place more likely than not. This is the flaw in your thinking around insurance premiums. (And why the US system is broken and needs a solid fix that either includes somewhat draconian price controls on several things or a complete reform away from insurance).
Someone will always have to pay. In the system of the US the people with insurance pay for most of those without. The super rich who can afford to go without insurance I'd speculate are a minority, and they pay and are over with and don't run up costs like an uninsured who can't pay, gets in-dept, gets interest on dept, becomes bankrupt does.
Who pays after that? Well, everyone on insurance.

Didn't I say if ACA was gone. Your little speech is assuming ACA rules still apply. See how you are wrong now? BTW under ACA medical bankruptcy still occurs. Whenever you want to come back to reality we should talk. Until then enjoy your time in mr rogers neighborhood.

[Breccia]

Your little speech is assuming ACA rules still apply.

No.

When someone gets ill and doesn't pay, that money comes from somewhere else. Costs were passed along to customers that could pay. The ACA tried to mitigate that risk and penalty, but that risk and penalty had always been there.

[Barnabas]

No.

When someone gets ill and doesn't pay, that money comes from somewhere else. Costs were passed along to customers that could pay. The ACA tried to mitigate that risk and penalty, but that risk and penalty had always been there.

The government paid billions to hospitals before ACA and even still under ACA. Now we subsidize the healthy also when we just subsidized the people needing treatment. So costs have ballooned and nothing has changed from providers. Same attitude, same 800 usd per day for facility or 5000 usd depending on hospital. Our tax dollars go into a blackhole and you defend it somehow lol. Patient dumping is still a thing even after 140 years. New law and nothing changes.

[Breccia]

The government paid billions to hospitals before ACA and even still under ACA.

...Medicaid?

Now we subsidize the healthy also when we just subsidized the people needing treatment.

Funny story: you know even healthy people can suddenly become sick or injured, right? It'd make sense if they had insurance when that happened.

Also nice deflection attempt. You got caught saying the ACA rules were responsible for "Whenever one of those "high risk" people get ill, go bankrupt and thus can't pay for it. You'll be paying their bill. More so if they never had insurance in the first place more likely than not." Now you're attacking the system in general, which is valid, but not what you were caught doing.

[Orbitus]

By all demonstrated metrics, a gestalt single payer reform would reduce health care costs significantly.

- - - Updated - - -



"Partial" repeal is not a full repeal.

And by parts, they almost always mean the individual mandate.

Which would in effect make insurance more expensive, and in effect basically destroy the ACA because it wouldn't be funded anymore.

[Luxxor]

She did win the popular vote no? What the polls cover?

Some day you'll understand.

Did Hillary win? No

You can shove your condescending comments up your liberal ass.

[Kujako]

That is because they don't care as long as they are in power. The problem is, if they find evidence of collusion and from what Congressman Schiff said, there is evidence of it, they will be REQUIRED to impeach him. If they don't they risk their careers, their party and ALL elections from now until the end of time.

Its like a sports team to them, they don't care if their quarterback beats his wife and runs dog fights, so long as their team wins.

[Belize]

Did Hillary win? No

You can shove your condescending comments up your liberal ass.

Aw, getting salty now? Can't even address my point correctly.
How cute. Well, I guess I'd be embarrassed too if I were you, for being so willfully ignorant.

You should really just shove you head back in the sand, surrounded by your "WE WON GIT UVER IT!!1!!one!" posters, and let those of us with a basic understanding of the subject talk.

[Bullettime]

Kushner getting grilled hard now too for having undisclosed private meetings with Russian officials involved in the sanctions.

[ringpriest]

Amazing how you guys are STILL obsessed with Hillary.

To avoid acknowledging the horrifying reality that is Trump, his cultists will go to any length, up to and including abandoning their own humanity.

[Garnier Fructis]

To avoid acknowledging the horrifying reality that is Trump, his cultists will go to any length, up to and including abandoning their own humanity.

But her emails, though.

[alexkeren]

Amazing how you guys are STILL obsessed with Hillary.

Less amazing than all the obsession with Trump.

People hoping for Trump to get impeached seem to forget that Pence is very conservative. Of course at that point government would run smoother.

[ringpriest]

Less amazing than all the obsession with Trump.

People hoping for Trump to get impeached seem to forget that Pence is very conservative. Of course at that point government would run smoother.

While I'm not operating under delusions as to the competence of a radio talk show host over a professional celebrity tv personality, it makes sense that people from across the spectrum of American (and even global) politics would prefer President Pence, on the basis that he would likely have the advantages over Trump of: not suffering from so many mental illnesses, and not acting as though he were a shallow-cover agent for the government of Russia. Among others.

[Orbitus]

Less amazing than all the obsession with Trump.

People hoping for Trump to get impeached seem to forget that Pence is very conservative. Of course at that point government would run smoother.

See, the problem isn't the obsession, the problem is that you obviously don't have a problem with it. If you are American and don't feel that the Russians meddling in our election is a problem then you are part of the problem with the partisan bullshit. Thinking it is ok because "your guy won" is a problem. You don't care how he won, even if he won using illegal and downright treasonous tactics.

[alexkeren]

See, the problem isn't the obsession, the problem is that you obviously don't have a problem with it. If you are American and don't feel that the Russians meddling in our election is a problem then you are part of the problem with the partisan bullshit. Thinking it is ok because "your guy won" is a problem. You don't care how he won, even if he won using illegal and downright treasonous tactics.

You do know the DoJ has confirmed the election itself was not compromised, right?

As far as I'm concerned the pre-election stuff is minor compared to what my country has done elsewhere. PLUS, we kinda screwed Russia out of my home state. Actually royally screwed, love my PFD.

[NYC17]

While I'm not operating under delusions as to the competence of a radio talk show host over a professional celebrity tv personality, it makes sense that people from across the spectrum of American (and even global) politics would prefer President Pence, on the basis that he would likely have the advantages over Trump of: not suffering from so many mental illnesses, and not acting as though he were a shallow-cover agent for the government of Russia. Among others.

What level of confidence would people have in Pence though? If Trump is removed from office because of his ties to Russia, that leaves basically two possibilities for Pence; he was either involved in it or he was too stupid to recognize what was going on around him.

Not sure incompetence is a selling point.