Biden's America

[Guy Chamberlin]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yep...I've been saying this for a long time.  Anyone who seriously tries to act like they are for a booming economy but wants to drastically limit immigration, doesn't have a clue.

 

Big Agribusiness here in California typically votes and heavily funds Republicans, but they would lose their a$$ without the illegal immigrants they hire, not to mention the subsidized water and other benefits they get from Big Government. Those guys could curtail illegal immigration in one harvest season if they didn't mind losing money.

 

Immigration is cyclical, especially when economic crisis and gang violence in Mexico and Central America peak, and nobody is advocating for open borders, certainly not liberal Gavin Newsom. It cuts both ways, but people forget the Obama/Biden administration deported more immigrants than any administration in U.S. history, and that includes Trump. The immigrant community kinda hated Obama, fwiw.

 

Obama was more successful because they focussed on immigrants with criminal records and new arrivals. Trump complicated matters with a policy that simply wanted to get rid of all (darker skinned) immigrants. 

 

Doesn't help anyone to pretend this isn't a problem. But given the long depressing history of using immigrants to fuel partisan over-reaction it's worth both context and compassion. 

[nic]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

If the border is open, without enforcement, how are so many illegals getting caught?

The question is why are the mayor of Denver and governor Newsome declaring they are going to be overwhelmed when 42 expires?  Maybe they just want more $

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, nic said:

The question is why are the mayor of Denver and governor Newsome declaring they are going to be overwhelmed when 42 expires?  Maybe they just want more $

If the border is open like Republicans want us to all believe, then why are so many getting caught?  Simple question.

 

42 is still in place and the administration has asked to extend it.

[suh_fan93]

 

[suh_fan93]

 

[suh_fan93]

 

[ZRod]

3 hours ago, suh_fan93 said:

 

That's great, but what about juvenile diabetics? Or you know, just normal adults that aren't seniors who are diabetic?

[teachercd]

3 hours ago, ZRod said:

That's great, but what about juvenile diabetics? Or you know, just normal adults that aren't seniors who are diabetic?

Yeah...seemed like an odd place too start.

[NM11046]

Not sure if you were posting with sarcasm Teach ... but only about 245k children and teens have Type 1 of about 1.9 million in total who have Type 1.  And the number of Srs with Type 1 is higher than the norm, so it's exactly where they needed to start, with limited income and insurance coverage (vs those younger, many who are still employed with better benefits).  

 

I haven't seen the whole plan though - are they making adjustments for all at some point?

[teachercd]

10 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Not sure if you were posting with sarcasm Teach ... but only about 245k children and teens have Type 1 of about 1.9 million in total who have Type 1.  And the number of Srs with Type 1 is higher than the norm, so it's exactly where they needed to start, with limited income and insurance coverage (vs those younger, many who are still employed with better benefits).  

 

I haven't seen the whole plan though - are they making adjustments for all at some point?

It should be the same price for everyone. 

[teachercd]

If people can pick their gender (which they should) and if you can pick you marry (which you should) you should get to pick your age.

 

It is that simple.  The young people with diabetes are being discriminated against based off something that we should be able to pick, our age.

 

What if they said...only white people or only black people or females or males.  Why are we still protecting age when for years we have all agreed that "age is just a number" and that in fact you are "as old as you feel"

 

This is wrong.

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

If people can pick their gender (which they should) and if you can pick you marry (which you should) you should get to pick your age.

You can keep repeating this mantra but it's not getting any less ridiculous.

[teachercd]

7 hours ago, RedDenver said:

You can keep repeating this mantra but it's not getting any less ridiculous.

Sadly, with people that will not open their mind to change, I fear that you are correct.  

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 12/26/2022 at 2:53 PM, ZRod said:

That's great, but what about juvenile diabetics? Or you know, just normal adults that aren't seniors who are diabetic?

 

Is it a Medicare mandate? My guess is that the Biden Administration can take action on Medicare policies that the government controls (hence the over 65s) but faces a lot more challenges dictating free market drug prices. 

15 hours ago, teachercd said:

If people can pick their gender (which they should) and if you can pick you marry (which you should) you should get to pick your age.

 

It is that simple.  The young people with diabetes are being discriminated against based off something that we should be able to pick, our age.

 

What if they said...only white people or only black people or females or males.  Why are we still protecting age when for years we have all agreed that "age is just a number" and that in fact you are "as old as you feel"

 

This is wrong.

 

I will never assume you are using sarcasm.

[JJ Husker]

17 hours ago, teachercd said:

It should be the same price for everyone. 

I agree but at least they started somewhere and with the greatest impact. They could/should be doing this with many drugs across the board, for all ages. But, you know, big pharma political contributions etc. 
 

I imagine they started with seniors because it will also benefit medicare and therefore the government’s ability to keep providing benefits.