I think conservatives would be fine with immigration… if there wasn’t a constant attempt from the left to destroy individualism and capitalism, the very reasons immigrants want to come to America to begin with. You can’t really select an immigrant that supports “America’s values” if there is an ongoing attempt from the left to change those “values”.

It used to be that you could immigrate to America from a socialist shithole, but would be forced to assimilate into a culture of individualism/capitalism to survive.

Now you can immigrate to America from a socialist shithole, and just join the leftist army and try to turn America into a socialist shithole.

3/13/2017 12:22:44 PM

it's too bad most of the reasonable conservatives have been chased off this forum

3/13/2017 12:36:45 PM

There is no empirical evidence that suggests that unless you are lumping in ILLEGAL immigration with legal. Muslims specifically for the longest time were a GOP bloc and to this day are pretty affluent in this country compared to other minorities.

What King is doing is conflating Europe's problems with ours when the realities are vastly different. LePen and Wilders are deplorable but Europe does have problems and that is the reason they have risen somewhat. I get that.

3/13/2017 12:38:30 PM

Yes there is -It's called voting data. Legal immigrants and illegal immigrants (anchor babies) are more likely to vote democrat. That always struck me as an odd thing to do, move to someone else's country and then try to change it rather than "conserve" it.

3/13/2017 1:55:32 PM

I know right? It's almost like they look at the two parties' agendas and make a choice based on which most aligns with their interests. Crazy!

3/13/2017 2:28:39 PM

that CBO, tho

3/13/2017 5:15:04 PM

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/americanhealthcareact_0.pdf

3/13/2017 5:30:10 PM

Quote :

"I know right? It's almost like they look at the two parties' agendas and make a choice based on which most aligns with their interests. Crazy!"

Interesting, if their "interests" are socialist policies, why are they leaving more socialist countries to come here?

It's almost as if what "aligns with their interests" is access to our tax payer dollars and capitalist prosperity. Crazy!

Think of every other country as a sinking ship, and 'Murika is still afloat, pulling in drowning survivors. The survivors would have to have some nerve to tell us that punching holes in the ship's hull will make it sail better... but for immediate gratification people do stupid, unsustainable things (ie, Bernie Sanders).

3/13/2017 6:04:55 PM

The millions of poor immigrants who moved to the USA over the last 3 centuries didnt get off the boat and say "oh man I can't wait to keep shit exactly how it is and be a second class citizen and have my children work in a factory for 12 hours. Sure glad I didn't die from a lack of potatoes"

Also your concept of socialism is on par with a retarded 9th grader.

3/13/2017 6:13:32 PM

JCE?

http://gizmodo.com/popular-youtuber-jontron-has-some-batshit-crazy-thought-1793231221

Wait this guy is Persian and Hungarian???? Well then

[Edited on March 13, 2017 at 8:59 PM. Reason : Z]

3/13/2017 8:51:21 PM

Can any of our conservative TWWers explain how the GOP ACA solution benefits society and makes America Great Again?

3/13/2017 9:26:28 PM

Quote :

"that CBO, tho"

3/13/2017 10:16:41 PM

Quote :

"The millions of poor immigrants who moved to the USA over the last 3 centuries didnt get off the boat and say "oh man I can't wait to keep shit exactly how it is and be a second class citizen and have my children work in a factory for 12 hours. Sure glad I didn't die from a lack of potatoes" Also your concept of socialism is on par with a retarded 9th grader. "

There is a huge difference between being a settler centuries ago vs. being an illegal immigrant sneaking into a welfare state. The first one required assimilation for survival, the 2nd does not.

My concept of socialism is based on common sense, something that eludes bernie bots. If you have more takers than givers into a system, it isn't sustainable.

3/14/2017 12:17:19 AM

While I only have my families anecdotal evidence....

My great great grandparents moved to Minnesota in 1910 from Hungry, never became citizens and spoke Hungarian at home and in their community. From what I've found my great great grandfather filled paperwork to become a citizen but died in 1916 and my grandmother never became a citizen. My great grandmother, born in 1914 was a US citizen only be she came out of the womb in Minnesota. She spoke Hungarian at home for most of her life and still did to her sisters until she died in 2013.

Your entirely entire world view is oddly narrow and it seems you have no real grasp on your own family history. We need to be serious about immigration and our immigration laws but all of our ancestors came here and functioned in their own worlds. Your hilarious complaining about anchor babies accounts for millions of republican voters (my entire family in Minnesota voted for trump).

[Edited on March 14, 2017 at 2:31 AM. Reason : I'll note they lived through the massive welfare state that was the 30's and 40's. ]

3/14/2017 2:30:21 AM

-CBO destroys Ryancare
-GOP of all stripes start jumping off that sinking ship, leaving Ryan holding the bag and smiling into the camera
-whitehouse releases assessment that says Ryancare could be even worse than what the CBO says
-buttbart begins blaring old footage of Ryan bitching about having to support Trump (as if it's new and recent)
.........
-what do you bet the whitehouse comes out and starts condemning Ryan and his plan today? Personally calling out Ryan I bet, and trying to make Trump into some kind of compassionate savior (lmao). This is Bannon attempting to destroy those he sees as hurdles to his grifts/power plays/whatever.

3/14/2017 6:42:21 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_isYp06LPts&feature=youtu.be

This is hilarious, especially when the anchor continuously asks "how many hearings have you held on this bill?"

3/14/2017 10:59:37 AM

^^^ Not sure how that anecdote of your ancestors migrating here ins the early 1900s has anything to do with anchor babies in 2017.

You have a poor grasp on history if you can't understand the huge differences between 2017 and 1900s anchor babies.

1900's
-Pre welfare state
-Pre national debt out of control
-Pre 2 world wars
-Pre surplus of unskilled labor
-Pre threat of terrorism

To put it quite simply, we actually needed your ancestors back in the 1900s. America was still being built.

Now we need conservatism and fiscal responsibility, which means not importing more TAKERS when we are already running out of GIVERS. Anchor babies and their children are growing up expecting to make $15 an hour for a job that a kiosk is better suited to do. They are growing up thinking they are ENTITLED to healthcare and college, the price of both is being artificially increased by the government's socialist policies. It is unsustainable, its a Ponzi scheme, and it goes against the individualism/capitalism that was the foundation of our initial success that immigrants are so eager to get a piece of.

[Edited on March 14, 2017 at 11:06 AM. Reason : ^^^]

3/14/2017 11:06:26 AM

What world do you live in where the typical illegal immigrant is a "TAKER"?

They're working a lot harder and taking a lot less than most of us.

>To put it quite simply, we actually needed your ancestors back in the 1900s

We still need them: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/alabama-law-drives-out-illegal-immigrants-but-also-has-unexpected-consequences/2012/06/17/gJQA3Rm0jV_story.html

[Edited on March 14, 2017 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ]

3/14/2017 11:34:23 AM

Quote :

"-what do you bet the whitehouse comes out and starts condemning Ryan and his plan today? Personally calling out Ryan I bet, and trying to make Trump into some kind of compassionate savior (lmao). This is Bannon attempting to destroy those he sees as hurdles to his grifts/power plays/whatever."

While this would be an awesome Paul Ryan suffering fantasy come true, I don't think any of this is planned. It reflects what a lot of people have been saying for years: Republicans don't know how to govern, especially when it comes to healthcare. It's not like this is the first time Paul Ryan has failed either, all his budgets or entitlement reform proposals have been widely panned and could never pass the Senate. And he's supposed to be their best "policy wonk"!

3/14/2017 11:50:29 AM

Paul Ryan isn't getting tired of being cuck'd I'm sure.

3/14/2017 11:53:02 AM

Quote :

"What world do you live in where the typical illegal immigrant is a "TAKER"?"

I didn't say illegal immigrant, I said anchor baby.

3/14/2017 12:09:24 PM

I also just want to add, from the Seth Meyers video, this idiot says we should have a "sun tax," like Spain has. In relation to health care.

The "sun tax" Spain had was on energy produced and consumed without feeding the grid. Had nothing to do with health care. They also voted removed it in 2016.

3/14/2017 12:10:27 PM

JCE is most certainly a taker. He shows obvious signs of dementia.

3/14/2017 12:34:26 PM

Honestly I prefer the insults and name calling to your boring, irrelevant family anecdotes.

Though at the end of the day I guess both are equally worthless, at least the insults are mildly entertaining.

3/14/2017 1:05:16 PM

Glad they trying to get rid of individual mandate. Exceptionally fucked up to force a healthy poor person to pay for insurance instead of housing/food. It makes as much sense as fining homeless people.

3/14/2017 1:13:31 PM

subsidies, tho

3/14/2017 1:14:15 PM

have people forgot how the ACA was set up?

Also it's rich that you're lamenting the plight of the poor when in reality republicans could give a shit. They were more pissed the "wealthy" had to pay the subsidies for poor people. I mean serious bro.

[Edited on March 14, 2017 at 1:26 PM. Reason : Like what in the actual fuck]

Also it's fine if JCE thinks my family is boring. It's hard to compete when his extended family hails from the most pure of bloodlines.

[Edited on March 14, 2017 at 1:29 PM. Reason : Pooorrrurd]

3/14/2017 1:24:21 PM

> block public option
> block and obstruct medicaid expansion as much as possible, create the medicaid gap
> obstruct the creation of insurance markets in your state as much as possible
> complain about how terrible ACA was because of these things

3/14/2017 1:38:25 PM

would it work if we noted all medical expenses on our taxes and the government gave us that money back?

How big of a hole would that dig?

3/14/2017 1:46:43 PM

You guys. Most people don't have a problem with the rich paying subsidies. The problem is that those in the middle class feel they are carrying the largest portion of the burden through their taxes, while simultaneously seeing their own premiums rise along with their deductibles.

I believe that not having insurance is pretty stupid, regardless of your age, because tragedy could strike at any time. I also believe that people should have the option to be stupid. That's why I've always felt like the individual mandate was/is criminal. But based on the latest that I've heard, that mandate is still in the latest plans.

3/14/2017 1:50:03 PM

well then you will be disappointed to know that the penalty for not having insurance under the new plan is much harsher than the penalty under ACA and now that penalty goes right into the pockets of the insurance companies

3/14/2017 1:55:30 PM

It's not even how the ACA was setup, it seems people don't understand the entire concept of insurance or risk pooling. Yes, the healthy pay for the sick, that's how it works. Similarly, good drivers pay for car crashes and responsible home owners pay for kitchen fires. And before you say "but high risk pools", even if they weren't grossly underfunded, it's still a horribly expensive and inefficient way to provide access to care.

No one plans on getting diabetes, heart disease or cancer and the idea of selling cheaper insurance that doesn't cover the "expensive" stuff is stupid. You can say you're taking a calculated risk, that it's your choice, but you're gambling against bankruptcy or death. It's also stupid because when you do have that healthcare emergency, what are you going to do, refuse care at the ER because you know you can't pay for it and feel it's unfair to burden your fellow citizens with the cost?

It's just incredible to me that we're still having this debate in 2017. Don't you think if there was a "conservative" way to reduce costs and expand coverage, it would have emerged by now? Things like tort reform and selling across state lines reducing costs are fantasies, the first doesn't work and the other is already allowed by federal law but insurance companies don't do it. HSAs are even stupider, if everyone was able to save $13,000/year then we wouldn't have any problems.

You either pay for the healthcare of people who need it but can't afford it or you let them die. The only thing we're arguing about is how best to do the former, which we've already established isn't to the right of Obamacare.

3/14/2017 2:00:50 PM

if you own a car you buy car insurance

if you are breathing in the United States of American you buy health insurance.

its pretty obvious to see people who do not have insurance do not go to the doctor and never have preventative care. Thus they get sick more often and cost more money in the long run. its not rocket science.

[Edited on March 14, 2017 at 2:05 PM. Reason : why arnt people freaking the fuck out over car insurance? Its not cheap!]

3/14/2017 2:04:32 PM

We mandate car insurance because your actions behind the wheel can have consequences to other people and their property.

Your health only affects you.

[Edited on March 14, 2017 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2017 2:21:08 PM

This Vox article noted an important distinction between the penalties for not having insurance under the ACA versus not having insurance under the AHCA:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/14/14908956/continuous-coverage-ahca-gop

Quote :

"The individual mandate created a cost to being uninsured. Each year, those without coverage would have to pay the government $695 or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever was greater. The premium surcharge is different. It penalizes people when they decide to purchase coverage - but not during the time they’re actually uninsured. And that means the policy could play out in ways we don’t fully understand or expect. 'You're not suffering any consequences for being uninsured beyond not being protected,' says Larry Levitt, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. 'It's only when you decide to buy coverage that you pay a penalty and that could discourage you from signing up.'"

3/14/2017 2:30:25 PM

^^except that it doesn't, health insurance would only just impact you if we decided that all medical care including emergency medical care requires guarantee of payment up front


[Edited on March 14, 2017 at 2:32 PM. Reason : and even then there are indirect results]

3/14/2017 2:30:47 PM

Quote :

"it seems people don't understand the entire concept of insurance or risk pooling"

How about the entire concept of insurance?

If you can't be denied based on a pre-existing condition, it isn't insurance. If a tornado destroys my home but I can buy tornado insurance a day later, it isn't insurance. It is fiscally unsustainable, even if you fine the fuck out of people that don't have homes yet to subsidize my lack of preparation.

3/14/2017 2:42:57 PM

lol, JCE doesn't understand the basics of how insurance works

3/14/2017 2:47:33 PM

JCE is really growing on me. This insurance convo is really top quality.

3/14/2017 3:04:48 PM

Quote :

"It's just incredible to me that we're still having this debate in 2017. Don't you think if there was a "conservative" way to reduce costs and expand coverage, it would have emerged by now? Things like tort reform and selling across state lines reducing costs are fantasies, the first doesn't work and the other is already allowed by federal law but insurance companies don't do it. HSAs are even stupider, if everyone was able to save $13,000/year then we wouldn't have any problems. "

It's incredible to me that we still are not looking at other sources to reduce health care. I don't understand why we can't standardize costs across the board when it comes to health care. An MRI is an MRI is an MRI. It shouldn't cost me 2400 at one imaging center, and 3600 at a different one. Yea yea capitalism, I can go where I want, but why not start with getting these out of control costs under wraps?

I know I know *raises hand*
Yes rjrumfel
Is it because lobbyists are the ones who really wrote the ACA and the new Republican replacement?
VERY GOOD RJRUMFEL. You get a star for today.

3/14/2017 3:36:06 PM

You want to fix prices?

Who will enforce that?

3/14/2017 3:45:06 PM

health ain't home. that's all I'll say about that dumb tornado thing.

3/14/2017 4:07:57 PM

Different types of insurance are different? How enlightening.

3/14/2017 5:19:56 PM

It really seems like JCE thinks that if you buy tornado insurance after a tornado it will pay for damage for that tornado

3/14/2017 5:29:09 PM

No, the point was that is how the ACA was set up, meaning it isn't insurance, it is just redistribution of wealth that ass-fucks the middle class and makes healthcare unaffordable for everyone.

I forget the majority of you ITT are leftists who still think the ACA was a success.

3/14/2017 5:33:37 PM

Either your analogy was terrible or you really don't understand that if you buy insurance after an event it doesn't pay for that event.

Which one are you going with? Terrible analogy?

[Edited on March 14, 2017 at 5:37 PM. Reason : Good thing this dude lives in a rented aprtment with 2 roommates ]

3/14/2017 5:37:04 PM

Whether you're a libertarian or a socialist in regard to healthcare, health insurance is a flawed concept.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/07/there-is-never-a-free-market-in-health-care/#23dfb5781147

Quote :

"an insurance-funded medical system means abandoning an unregulated free market for health care. The insurer-model creates a three-party managed market in which the patient has surrendered their buying power and much of their discretion to an entity whose interests are not aligned with their own. Insurance companies don’t bleed. Insurance companies don’t get pregnant. Insurance companies don’t get cancer. Insurance companies have certain needs and interests that will never line up squarely with their customers'. I cannot represent my own needs in a conflict with my insurance company when I am seriously ill. At the most critical moment I am at the mercy of an entity with interests at conflict with my own."

3/14/2017 5:39:23 PM

Quote :

"Different types of insurance are different? How enlightening."

Yeah, that's the conclusion you should have had BEFORE presenting your stupid tornado analogy, not after.

Quote :

"If you can't be denied based on a pre-existing condition, it isn't insurance."

So I guess all those kids born with pre-existing conditions are just shit out of luck for the rest of their lives, huh? What a horrible asshole you are.

3/14/2017 5:44:08 PM

in all these plans you either have millions of people with no insurance or rich/middle class subsidizing other people's insurance payments.

Derp

3/14/2017 6:18:35 PM

Quote :

"I know I know *raises hand* Yes rjrumfel Is it because lobbyists are the ones who really wrote the ACA and the new Republican replacement? VERY GOOD RJRUMFEL. You get a star for today."

which designated lobby lobbied for this bill?

the lobby of the ultra-rich?

3/14/2017 7:09:39 PM