TexasCHLforum.com

Flightmare wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=y ... r07OFbHs9c

A bit of humor to go with the new administration.

That's great!!

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/u ... 0&referer=

Jeff Sessions lets go rest of Obama Administration hold over US Attorneys.

Of course NY Times sees this as another mistake and directly targets Trump rather than Sessions.

philip964 wrote:Jeff Sessions lets go rest of Obama Administration hold over US Attorneys.

philip964 wrote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/u ... 0&referer=

Jeff Sessions lets go rest of Obama Administration hold over US Attorneys.

Of course NY Times sees this as another mistake and directly targets Trump rather than Sessions.

Took way to long, should have been done on day 1. I think Bill did it to all of them on day 1 if I'm not mistaken. But at least its done!

Mxrdad wrote:

philip964 wrote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/u ... 0&referer=

Jeff Sessions lets go rest of Obama Administration hold over US Attorneys.

Of course NY Times sees this as another mistake and directly targets Trump rather than Sessions.

Took way to long, should have been done on day 1. I think Bill did it to all of them on day 1 if I'm not mistaken. But at least its done!

Probably true, but he didn't have the opposition party in the Senate determined to drag their feet on each and every nomination. Trump had to get his AG approved first.

philip964 wrote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/u ... 0&referer=

Jeff Sessions lets go rest of Obama Administration hold over US Attorneys.

Of course NY Times sees this as another mistake and directly targets Trump rather than Sessions.

Got a chuckle from the last line in the article, where they imply that Sean Hannity/FOX News are to blame. I guess NYT still doesn't understand what "drain the swamp" means......

philip964 wrote:https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/u ... 0&referer=

Jeff Sessions lets go rest of Obama Administration hold over US Attorneys.

Of course NY Times sees this as another mistake and directly targets Trump rather than Sessions.

Since the source was the Lyin' Times I had to check another source before believing the post.

The swamp water receded minutely.

http://thehill.com/policy/international ... ent-report

President Trump’s administration has told the State Department to cut more than 50 percent of U.S. funding to United Nations programs

Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... -executive

Section 1. Purpose. This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.

bblhd672 wrote:Presidential Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... -executive

Section 1. Purpose. This order is intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch by directing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director) to propose a plan to reorganize governmental functions and eliminate unnecessary agencies (as defined in section 551(1) of title 5, United States Code), components of agencies, and agency programs.

This sounds good as written. I hope it will be more effective than the GOP proposed plan to address Obamacare. The "Obamacare repeal and replace" plan falls extremely short and misses the mark completely. It will change things but make nothing better.

It's starting to look like Repeal and Replace means replace with something even more socialist.

ninjabread wrote:It's starting to look like Repeal and Replace means replace with something even more socialist.

Maybe, but I've never quite understood the hatred for Obamacare. I'm on Medicare and so have little first hand knowledge of ACA (except for more preventative care and drug coverage).
Here's my understanding of the ACA issue.

It sure seems like having more folks covered, getting more early preventative care, that overall health care costs should be reduced in long term.

It seems like the biggest hangup is the mandate to participate but this is not unusual, similar to participating for Social Security and Medicare. Everyone is required to have at least liability auto insurance, even really good drivers with new cars.

One problem seems to be that there are variances in insurance plan premiums and deductibles but the basic quality of the insurance policies is the same, pricing is somewhat limited. But if variance in quality is allowed then it will be harder to compare when making a final choice. What should be relaxed to reduce costs?...no pre-existing conditions, overall lifetime limit, no kids up to 26?

ACA is originally based on scheme developed by conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, and the health care system in Massachusettes (which by the way seems to be working fine, with a very low uninsured rate.)

So what is there to hate so much? Obviously health care costs need further attention, especially drug prices. What else? Why are so many anxious to get rid of ACA?

I do not have health coverage as I'm currently trying to start my own business. My penalty for not having it covers illegals and poor who "can't afford it". Also, you could count the enormous dept the gov is getting into as this is another entitlement program....

dale blanker wrote:

ninjabread wrote:It's starting to look like Repeal and Replace means replace with something even more socialist.

Maybe, but I've never quite understood the hatred for Obamacare. I'm on Medicare and so have little first hand knowledge of ACA (except for more preventative care and drug coverage).
Here's my understanding of the ACA issue.

I can tell you why I hated it. I buy my own insurance for my wife and I, the premiums went up, the deductables went way up my and insurance covered fewer things, I had to change my plan, and couldn't use my clinic (doctor) anymore. I am now on Medicare, but the couple of years we were uncovered by Obamare was very costly for us.

dale blanker wrote:

ninjabread wrote:It's starting to look like Repeal and Replace means replace with something even more socialist.

Maybe, but I've never quite understood the hatred for Obamacare. I'm on Medicare and so have little first hand knowledge of ACA (except for more preventative care and drug coverage).
Here's my understanding of the ACA issue.

It sure seems like having more folks covered, getting more early preventative care, that overall health care costs should be reduced in long term.

It seems like the biggest hangup is the mandate to participate but this is not unusual, similar to participating for Social Security and Medicare. Everyone is required to have at least liability auto insurance, even really good drivers with new cars.

One problem seems to be that there are variances in insurance plan premiums and deductibles but the basic quality of the insurance policies is the same, pricing is somewhat limited. But if variance in quality is allowed then it will be harder to compare when making a final choice. What should be relaxed to reduce costs?...no pre-existing conditions, overall lifetime limit, no kids up to 26?

ACA is originally based on scheme developed by conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, and the health care system in Massachusettes (which by the way seems to be working fine, with a very low uninsured rate.)

So what is there to hate so much? Obviously health care costs need further attention, especially drug prices. What else? Why are so many anxious to get rid of ACA?

It is another Socialist plan that has no business being controlled by the Federal Government. Nowhere in the Constitution, is there a place that says, that health insurance is a right. It should be completely controlled by the free market. It is a redistribution tax, that requires those who can afford their own insurance, to also pay for those who can't. It is just another entitlement program, that is bankrupting the country already. Despite it's origins, it is not a workable plan. Most people don't realize that one of the ways it was passed so quickly, was that members of congress are exempted from the plan, which should tell everyone something about its worthiness.