Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Raw prejudice IMO and a backward step when we are supposed to be going forward.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

It's a massive deflection. Trump seems to operate with as much chaos as possible. Create a new fight to distract from the last one - healthcare.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Absolutely, but he's very amateurish with the smoke and mirrors.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

The senate has rejected the complete repeal now as well.

Looks like they're going for a minor repeal, i.e tax of medical devices and some parts of the mandate to buy insurance, rather than all of it. I am not sure how you can get rid of the mandate though because that's how coverage for pre-existing conditions can work, otherwise everyone waits until they're sick to get healthcare.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

'We're here, we're queer, we hate the f****** president': Furious protests erupt in New York, DC and San Francisco after Trump bans transgender people from the military
Coast to coast protests broke out Wednesday night after Trump bans transgender people from the military

seem's cardboard is out now it's laminated banners

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4o1F8R7Rk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

I'm sure I can see Ozzie Osborne in those images ;)

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

A letter from the US Military's Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest ranking military officer in the US).

http://hill.cm/w6wqj4u

Trump previously tweeted Looks like he missed someone out of his "consultation"...

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Basically he woke up, tweeted something outrageous, and so far nothing has been communicated officially. This is the President of the United States, declaring policy on twitter which he hasn't told anyone of yet.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Outrageous because this reeks of discrimination?

There is plenty of conditions and physical attributes which prevent someone from joining the army and yes, it's a form of discrimination but not necessarily unlawful discrimination.

Over the next 10 years, military experts in the US have said military spending on transgender operations and subsequent follow up long term medical treatment and medication will cost in excess over a billion dollars. Is this a reasonable cost for a institution that it's sole purpose to exist, is to protect and defend the US? (And let's not forget it's allies around the world).

Also, you have to question the fairness in a transgendic person who can get Military funding to have their bits surgically removed, yet a soldier with cancer is denied funds for cancer drugs and also very likely dismissed from the army.

Obama deliberately changed this policy at the 11th hour just before leaving office, because it would be the Trump Administration that would have to deal with it.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Don't we have transgender people in the army without a problem? It appears the US has as well.

I don't know where the 'billion dollars' comes from. According to this it's much less: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ldiers/534945/

But if that is such an outrageous cost then don't cover it in the army but still allow transgender members to serve. People have already pointed out the irony that a man who repeatedly dodged the draft gets to tell others they can't serve.

Trump might well succeed but the policy will fail in the long run. Every ban on minority groups in the army eventually does. First it was ethnic minorities, then it was homosexuals and if Trump wants to extend that to transgender servicemen then that will only get overturned later.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

'Skinny Repeal' also fails with John McCain casting the decisive vote.

---------- Post added at 07:37 ---------- Previous post was at 07:35 ----------

It seems McConnell only revealed the plan with three hours to go!

---------- Post added at 07:42 ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 ----------

The Alaska senator who drew Trump's disapproval still voted no. Apparently because of the remoteness of the state and further still the wide distribution of people in it healthcare is normally crazy expensive without government subsidy.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Trump has just tweeted to let it implode which it will. Americans will suffer with sky high increases, the Affordable Care act that's not Affordable LOL.

But this is only half a story. New communication chief, Antony Scaramucci using colourful language in a foul mouth rant and dissing Steve Bannon and Priebus. I won't repeat what he said here but they are not 'getting on'.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

But this one would have removed the mandate, meaning people wouldn't have to get insurance. The healthy people are the compromise to allowing pre-existing conditions to have been covered. So the cost for many would have ballooned even further.

Obamacare won't fail unless they removed the government subsidy for the exchanges.

The problem here is that people want to keep their health insurance but it be cheaper. Every version of the Republican plan would have reduced the number of people insured.

If they want cheaper care they need to move to a European style single-payer system

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

Trump has just tweeted to let it implode which it will. Americans will suffer with sky high increases, the Affordable Care act that's not Affordable LOL.

But this is only half a story. New communication chief, Antony Scaramucci using colourful language in a foul mouth rant and dissing Steve Bannon and Priebus. I won't repeat what he said here but they are not 'getting on'.

Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 

But this bill would have made even bigger increases. If you remove the mandate to get insurance but keep coverage for pre-existing conditions the insurance would explode. It would be like you saying you don't need to get car insurance until you get into an accident. Insurance is meant to pool the risk, to do that you need healthy people.

Every version of the Republican bills would have increased costs and cut the numbers of people insured. This was never about making healthcare cheaper, they simply wanted Obamacare gone and the government allocation of cash to it moved to tax cuts.

---------- Post added at 08:19 ---------- Previous post was at 08:14 ----------

I saw that, it's to the New Yorker if anyone else is interested.

I think it's Scaramucci appealing to Trump who likes that kind of aggression and media hype.