Protesting is so good for the soul.....

[jp1]

the rest of us knew how complicated it was and it was not going to happen. And as I believe Alan has pointed out it seems impossible without some rationing. And getting the insurance companies out of the mix. And the government contracting directly with drug companies so they can't increase the price of life saving medicine by 200% in a year.

For some fun morning reading here here is the Donald's 100 day contract with America to make America white again. I am even tempted to print out hats. Note how major money was going to be redirected at infrastructure. How is that going? I am not thinking the swamp has been drained very much, just different predators.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_lan...ontractv02.pdf

Yes, those of us in the "reality based community", to recall a quaint phrase from the more innocent times of the W administration, know that healthcare is complicated and expensive and that republicans don't give a flying fig about regular people beyond lying their asses off to them to get their votes so no good changes were going to happen. But I can't even tell you how many articles I've read where trump supporters are stunned at how they are now likely to be hurt by trumpcare. And we don't even really know what trumpcare is because trump is so unconcerned about this issue that his only goal is to pass a bill. Any bill. Regardless of the contents of it. He's such a good negotiator that without even worrying about the bill's contents he'll be able to claim that the new plan is the best plan. A very beautiful plan. Thankfully the likelihood of that happening is as small as his hands.

[jp1]

Start with page 9, post #82, through post #99 on page 10. He is using language without a clue what it means. Mandatory means force of law, and there have been cases over it, because if it is mandated, then it also has to be paid for. My income would classify me as working class. (above poverty, below middle) Rob, incorrectly lists his social class in the same as economic class, as my "social class" would be in a vastly different category, then my income.
I am still waiting for him to come up with the money, to pay for myself having a smart phone. I still use a candy bar style phone, with no texting (blocked, even), that costs me around $60 to $100 a year on a heavy year. A smart phone is a luxury, to me, not a necessity.

Exactly. Rob misused the word, and got beat up for it by a number of people. I don't recall him ever saying "yes, now that I understand the word mandatory better, I think the state should be buying everyone a smart phone."

[Teacher Terry]

For all of you drooling over the free obama phone it is a cheap flip phone. YOur income must be very low to qualify. A good friend of mine at 57 had to retire from the state because of severe MS. She worked her whole life at low paying jobs and unfortunately for her only 11 years with the state. That gave her a whopping 900/month pension of which 500 went to pay for her health insurance. She had to wait till 62 to get SS. She did not qualify for disability SS because she retired from a state that did not pay in. I tried to get her low income housing, etc and was always rejected. Without that cheap, free phone she would have had no phone service. Luckily her sister died young and left her 60k which she used to supplement her income until 62. It was not accessible where she lived in a one room and bath so she was basically stuck home. By the time you are qualifying for free stuff your life is basically in the toilet so don't waste your time being envious. Ironically we finally got her into a decent, accessible apartment because she qualifies by having more $ . If you are too poor they don't let you in but if your income falls within guidelines you can get in and not have to pay full market rate which is really expensive where we live.

[JaneV2.0]

Thanks for telling your friend's story. And the "Obamaphone" hardly started with him. Basic telephone service has been available to the poorest among us at least since the sixties.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Exactly. Rob misused the word, and got beat up for it by a number of people. I don't recall him ever saying "yes, now that I understand the word mandatory better, I think the state should be buying everyone a smart phone."

There is no need for the state to buy anyone but the poorest of the poor a phone these days - a basic entry level smart phone can be yours for free for switching to Boost or Metro PCS, with low data plans including unlimited text and calls for $30 a month. This freebie cheapie smartphone may not be the best one out there but it is indeed good enough to take video to download in the event of filming wrongs. I'd even go so far to say in this rare case here the free market actually works! Is anyone on the floor after this statement? It is indeed a rare statement coming from me and I don't believe (mostly) in turbo-charged capitalism that we all suffer under currently but in this one isolated case, it works in the sense that almost anyone can afford an entry level smartphone with video capability sufficient to protect themselves from America. Rob

[flowerseverywhere]

For all of you drooling over the free obama phone it is a cheap flip phone. YOur income must be very low to qualify. A good friend of mine at 57 had to retire from the state because of severe MS. She worked her whole life at low paying jobs and unfortunately for her only 11 years with the state. That gave her a whopping 900/month pension of which 500 went to pay for her health insurance. She had to wait till 62 to get SS. She did not qualify for disability SS because she retired from a state that did not pay in. I tried to get her low income housing, etc and was always rejected. Without that cheap, free phone she would have had no phone service. Luckily her sister died young and left her 60k which she used to supplement her income until 62. It was not accessible where she lived in a one room and bath so she was basically stuck home. By the time you are qualifying for free stuff your life is basically in the toilet so don't waste your time being envious. Ironically we finally got her into a decent, accessible apartment because she qualifies by having more $ . If you are too poor they don't let you in but if your income falls within guidelines you can get in and not have to pay full market rate which is really expensive where we live.

i know that but for many Trump voters their perception was they were working so hard but lowlifes, illegals and lazy people were living high on the hog on the backs of the middle class. Illegals were taking their jobs. Regulations closed the coal mines. Foreign aid robbed us of updating our infrastructure. And every candidate talks about government waste. I think that we are not drooling over others having free phones, but rather discussing some of the social issues that are confronting all of us.


Perception is 90% regardless of how it actually is.

[ToomuchStuff]

Exactly. Rob misused the word, and got beat up for it by a number of people. I don't recall him ever saying "yes, now that I understand the word mandatory better, I think the state should be buying everyone a smart phone."

So Rob understood the legal term mandated, and still chooses to tell people how to spend their money, and that is OK?

There is no need for the state to buy anyone but the poorest of the poor a phone these days - a basic entry level smart phone can be yours for free for switching to Boost or Metro PCS, with low data plans including unlimited text and calls for $30 a month. This freebie cheapie smartphone may not be the best one out there but it is indeed good enough to take video to download in the event of filming wrongs. I'd even go so far to say in this rare case here the free market actually works! Is anyone on the floor after this statement? It is indeed a rare statement coming from me and I don't believe (mostly) in turbo-charged capitalism that we all suffer under currently but in this one isolated case, it works in the sense that almost anyone can afford an entry level smartphone with video capability sufficient to protect themselves from America. Rob

Around these parts, when the "Obamaphone" thing happened they set up tents several places, including one of the closest gas stations to me. They were signing up everybody, that includes those whose income didn't qualify. Those signing them up, weren't getting in trouble, but those who signed up could later be charged with fraud. I saw no need to commit fraud.
The phones they provide are smart phones, and they cost more then mine.
Two months of that is what my year will cost me this year. That doesn't even count the other differences between them. You didn't like what or how United treated people, yet you have this love for an electronic phallus , that the more people play and stroke it, the more information they are providing to Google/Apple, whichever company provides the OS and connections. You choose no privacy and are happy to be a product to be marketed to?
You expect me to give up my privacy, that to me means the same as federal mandates to the state, I expect your funding of it!

[bae]

There is no need for the state to buy anyone but the poorest of the poor a phone these days - a basic entry level smart phone can be yours for free for switching to Boost or Metro PCS, with low data plans including unlimited text and calls for $30 a month.

Check your privilege.

I live in a county that by some measures is often the poorest county in the state. $30/month of expense isn't doable for many folks. I've had people show up at meetings of our water and power and sewer system to seriously make their case that rate increases of $2-$5/month were going to be a problem for them. I've worked with our affordable housing organizations here, and helped people work their budgets. $30 may sound like chump change to you, but it isn't.

[JaneV2.0]

i know that but for many Trump voters their perception was they were working so hard but lowlifes, illegals and lazy people were living high on the hog on the backs of the middle class. Illegals were taking their jobs. Regulations closed the coal mines. Foreign aid robbed us of updating our infrastructure. And every candidate talks about government waste. I think that we are not drooling over others having free phones, but rather discussing some of the social issues that are confronting all of us.


Perception is 90% regardless of how it actually is.

Oddly, they never point fingers at the high-rolling grifters at the top, who are scamming us out of billions with their tax avoidance and subsidies.

[creaker]

Oddly, they never point fingers at the high-rolling grifters at the top, who are scamming us out of billions with their tax avoidance and subsidies.

Actually you have to question whether Obamaphones were a freebie for the poor, or just another scheme to shove money into the pockets of the wealthy. It's interesting so much flak was dedicated to who got phones, but very little over who got the money for the phones - or how much:

The richest man in the world, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, is making millions in profits from a government program that supplies poor Americans with free cell phones.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/26/tech...e-free-phones/