Poll - Total Votes: 8 See Poll Options
Reason10 · 70-79, M
Fox news, mostly. Because it is the ONLY news source that gives all sides of every issue, it is the most balanced. And it is the most factual.
More facts, fewer opinions.
Most of America agrees. Fox outclasses all the other networks in the ratings, when it comes to news.
More facts, fewer opinions.
Most of America agrees. Fox outclasses all the other networks in the ratings, when it comes to news.
View 24 more replies »
CedricH · 22-25, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Well, I certainly don’t find the statement objectionable.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@CedricH It is almost word for word what you post here on the regular.
CedricH · 22-25, M
ElwoodBlues · M
@Reason10 says
Source: https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/06/29/congressional-budget-office-confirms-senate-republican-reconciliation-bills-medicaid-cuts-are-more-draconian-than-the-house-passed-bill/
No you can't. I've already posted the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL several times and you haven't read it.
Yes, it's long. It requires an educated eye to read it.
You DON'T understand the bill. The the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office DOES understand the bill. And here's what they say.Yes, it's long. It requires an educated eye to read it.
⚠ The Senate Republican reconciliation bill would cut gross federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) spending by $1.02 trillion over the next ten years. That means the Senate bill’s Medicaid and CHIP cuts are $156.1 billion or 18 percent larger than even the House-passed bill’s draconian cuts of $863.4 billion over ten years.
⚠ These larger gross Medicaid and CHIP cuts are driven by changes to the House-passed bill that would further restrict state use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, eliminate eligibility for many lawfully present immigrants, cut federal funding for payments to hospitals furnishing emergency Medicaid services, and further reduce certain supplemental payments to hospitals and other providers (known as state-directed payments). The spending effect of these additional cuts is modestly offset by increased Medicaid and CHIP spending from provisions not in the House-passed bill including a rural health transformation program, increased federal Medicaid funding for Alaska and Hawaii, and expanded waiver authority for home- and community-based services.
⚠ Overall, the Senate Republican reconciliation bill’s Medicaid, CHIP, Affordable Care Act marketplace, and Medicare provisions would increase the number of uninsured by 11.8 million in 2034, relative to current law. In comparison, the House-passed bill would increase the number of uninsured by 10.9 million in 2034. (More detailed CBO estimates of the specific Medicaid health coverage effects under the Senate Republican reconciliation bill are not yet available. For example, CBO estimates the House-passed bill’s Medicaid and CHIP provisions would cut Medicaid enrollment by 10.5 million by 2034 and by themselves, increase the number of uninsured by 7.8 million by 2034.)
⚠ These larger gross Medicaid and CHIP cuts are driven by changes to the House-passed bill that would further restrict state use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, eliminate eligibility for many lawfully present immigrants, cut federal funding for payments to hospitals furnishing emergency Medicaid services, and further reduce certain supplemental payments to hospitals and other providers (known as state-directed payments). The spending effect of these additional cuts is modestly offset by increased Medicaid and CHIP spending from provisions not in the House-passed bill including a rural health transformation program, increased federal Medicaid funding for Alaska and Hawaii, and expanded waiver authority for home- and community-based services.
⚠ Overall, the Senate Republican reconciliation bill’s Medicaid, CHIP, Affordable Care Act marketplace, and Medicare provisions would increase the number of uninsured by 11.8 million in 2034, relative to current law. In comparison, the House-passed bill would increase the number of uninsured by 10.9 million in 2034. (More detailed CBO estimates of the specific Medicaid health coverage effects under the Senate Republican reconciliation bill are not yet available. For example, CBO estimates the House-passed bill’s Medicaid and CHIP provisions would cut Medicaid enrollment by 10.5 million by 2034 and by themselves, increase the number of uninsured by 7.8 million by 2034.)
Source: https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/06/29/congressional-budget-office-confirms-senate-republican-reconciliation-bills-medicaid-cuts-are-more-draconian-than-the-house-passed-bill/
CedricH · 22-25, M
@ElwoodBlues
I‘m not a conservative and neither is Trump, he’s a nationalist populist demagogue. I‘m a neoliberal, influenced by classical liberal philosophers like John Locke, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith or economists like Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, or Joseph Schumpeter. So I‘m definitely not Burkean. I do believe in the power of drastic and rapid changes and disruptions to further progress, prosperity and freedom.
Anyways, I do acknowledge your reservations about my predictions. I‘m not a health care expert myself, mind you, I merely consume analyses and commentary produced by experts and institutions who specialize on these issues. But they‘re also human and they can be wrong. At an impasse like this one, Henry Kissinger would usually suggest to let history adjudicate the issue before him and his counterpart.
The father of modern conservatism is Edmund Burke. He says we don't really know what we're doing, so take small steps, make small changes. The vast changes tRump is about to sign into law are the opposite of conservatism.
I‘m not a conservative and neither is Trump, he’s a nationalist populist demagogue. I‘m a neoliberal, influenced by classical liberal philosophers like John Locke, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith or economists like Milton Friedman, Friedrich von Hayek, or Joseph Schumpeter. So I‘m definitely not Burkean. I do believe in the power of drastic and rapid changes and disruptions to further progress, prosperity and freedom.
Anyways, I do acknowledge your reservations about my predictions. I‘m not a health care expert myself, mind you, I merely consume analyses and commentary produced by experts and institutions who specialize on these issues. But they‘re also human and they can be wrong. At an impasse like this one, Henry Kissinger would usually suggest to let history adjudicate the issue before him and his counterpart.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@CedricH It is interesting that CBO is viewed as iron clad when it does estimates on Democratic Party bills but as soon as it is the GOP the exact same people claim it is guess work.
Citation needed. The so called welfare queen has been a right wing urban legend since Reagan and nobody has ever found anything to substantiate that.
There are a great many people who shouldn’t be eligible for Medicaid who technically are (especially Obamacare expansion enrollees with an income between 100%-133% of the federal poverty line). But there are also those who are technically ineligible and still mistakenly enrollled.
Citation needed. The so called welfare queen has been a right wing urban legend since Reagan and nobody has ever found anything to substantiate that.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ElwoodBlues · M
I'm a reader. I can read 3X as fast as most talking heads talk, and I can skim to the relevant parts far faster.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@ElwoodBlues Very respectable.
Reason10 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues I can read 3X as fast as most talking heads talk, and I can skim to the relevant parts far faster.
No you can't. I've already posted the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL several times and you haven't read it.
Yes, it's long. It requires an educated eye to read it.
And unfortunately for you, there's nowhere to color in it.
No you can't. I've already posted the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL several times and you haven't read it.
Yes, it's long. It requires an educated eye to read it.
And unfortunately for you, there's nowhere to color in it.
SomeMichGuy · M
@ElwoodBlues ...and unless they have ACTUAL "value added"...
YoMomma ·
Wherever
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
All of the above and reading long, boring policy papers which is how I know this war with Iran has been planned at least as far back as 2009. The Brookings Institute literally has it layed out point by point in 2009.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
CedricH · 22-25, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) had been pretty specific about it in the late 1990s and early 2000s, long before Brookings caught on, besides, Iran didn’t have a known nuclear program in the 1980s, it was developed and discovered in the 1990s.
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) had been pretty specific about it in the late 1990s and early 2000s, long before Brookings caught on, besides, Iran didn’t have a known nuclear program in the 1980s, it was developed and discovered in the 1990s.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@CedricH Big picture sure. But do you have trouble with reading comprehension. The Brookings Institute paper is a point by point plan of conducting the war which we are seeing in real time including manufacturing the consent for the war and the "problem" with trying to convince people that an illegal offensive war is defensive.
Also the nuclear program is irrelevant and is not what this is about. If you believe that you are even more gullible than I thought. Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program in 20 years.
And you can find compilations going as far back as the 80s Bibi trying to start this war and claiming that Iran is weeks away from a bomb since 1995.
Also the nuclear program is irrelevant and is not what this is about. If you believe that you are even more gullible than I thought. Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program in 20 years.
And you can find compilations going as far back as the 80s Bibi trying to start this war and claiming that Iran is weeks away from a bomb since 1995.
nudistsueaz · 61-69, F
None of the above