Implying Obama care isn't another huge tax increase. My insurance would almost be twice as much than before if it weren't for my parents (god bless them). Hell, I remember that poor lady at the Hillary Clinton rally whose health care went up almost three times as much. She wanted to vote democrat too, but having a hard time. Insurance will only go up in cost as time goes on. Instead of letting states compete against each other and come up with innovative ways to lower the cost of health care, we are just going to keep pouring money into health care and let everything get more expensive. Innovation will get a lot of things done in a cost efficent matter.

No Obama care is not a tax increase for me.  My premiums did not go up but instead the money I was spending on healthcare to my provide actually went to my HCA account.  I will say some prescriptions went up but I just changed those to generics and all is good.  I was in the hosipital not to long ago and paid a 50K bill for 2500 because after 2500 all my medical care was paid 100% unlike my old plan.  Since I was putting money in my HCA account I had well over my max amount.  Not only that but I started to invest that money into other things which helps it grow which is something you could not do before.  So now my HCA account is pretty fat since I started 8 years ago.  Its a account that I can borrow from if I want and its a account I can grow beyound what my employer puts into it from my salary and their yearly contribution.  So no Obama care was not a tax increase for me, instead of was just a different way I needed to manage my healthcare and so far it paid off better than the old system.

Here is the thing about healthcare.  As long is it is a business for profit it will always rise and continue to rise and be expensive.  Is Obama care perfect, not by a long shot but it can be managed and worked to the consumer best interest especially if you have a company who did their homework and worked with providers who cut the cost properly so employees did not feel the sting.  Just like anything, you will have best case scenerios and worst case scenerios.  I know whey I was a contractor, the only insurance you could get was Cobra and you do not know what expensive is until you use that system.

https://www.savantcapital.com/uploadedImages/Savant_CMS_Website/Blogs/Sample_Blog/US-Income-Tax-Marginal-Rates.png

Tax rates have moved very little over the past 18 years. 

Also, the high cost of insurance is due to asinine laws that have enabled all links in the medical chain to charge as much as possible.  That's not an D or R thing.  That's a K Street lobby thing.

First, I don't believe your story. Most health insurance make you pay a certain percent after your deductible. https://www.bluecrossmn.com/healthy/public/personal/home/shopplans/shop-individual-family-plans/shop-how-health-ins-works

Tell me what insurance plan you have exactly and what state you live in please.

Second off a simple google search will tell you health care went up drastically for most Americans. So even if your story is true, it doesn't apply to most Americans like the woman at the Hillary rally. Like my sister who recently had a baby. She had to pay around 6k because of Obama Care. The nurse who is a family member said before it would only cost around 2.5k with her insurance. It basically screws the people who already had insurance and making them pay more.

Third, Obama Care has made premiums go up in price faster than anything in the past such as inflation. So when the insurance companies weren't under the influence of Obama Care the price was going up moderately usually to keep up with inflation. 

Please show me where D's pushed to lock insurance sales to individual states and R's fought against it.   Please show me where D's pushed to allow pharmaceutical companies to charge outrageous prices and R's fought against it. 

Insurance and medical in general is so expensive because the insurance industry pays whatever gets charged.  With that kind of guarantee, everybody in the medical chain jacks their costs up considerably.  There are no price mechanisms to keep costs low.  None.

I'm independant.  I don't give a damn about R policy or D policy because both work to divide us over minor issues while raking us over the coals behind the scenes.   But neither R or D are doing anything to address the real reason insurance and medical care cost so much. 

Hello, fatslob.  For a while I figured you were just taking your time answering my question, but I am beginning to worry that you have abandoned this conversation without justifying your position or even saying anything at all in reply, as if the position you took was indefensible.  Otherwise, what reason would there be to drop the conversation completely without warning? 

To remind you what the discussion was:  you claimed that Trump is not at fault for lying to those people in those letters (about Trump University) because he never made a legal contract with them. ("In business, a man's word is of no guarantees. Only the legal contract matters.") I will ask you again, if Trump's promises are worthless except in the context of a binding legal document, what binding legal document exists to assure us that Trump has any intention whatsoever of doing any of the things he has promised you he would do? If he's made a career out of swindling the American public as a businessman, why should we trust that he's not going to swindle the American public as a politician?  Maybe he'd be happy to let ISIS through immigration for $10,000 per terrorist, cash only.  As long as he could find a constitutional way to do it.  He doesn't want to build a wall, and if he did he wouldn't make Mexico pay for it.  He'd make New Mexico pay for it, and tell us he didn't specify "which Mexico" he was talking about.

You had mentioned that the constitution was a legal contract, which I suppose it is, but I don't really see how it's relevant to this situation.  He pretty much has to stay away from bribery, treason, etc. 

1.  I never said it was a requirement.  I said that presidential candidates have done it routinely for decades to demonstrate to the voting public that they have nothing to hide as far as their personal financial situation goes, and the natural inference to draw from Trump's refusal to do so is that he does have something to hide in that regard.  Not necessarily something illegal, but perhaps it would show that he has been lying about something that he has been claiming in the campaign about his business acumen. 

I sympathize with the viewpoint of "don't do something purely because it's tradition", but there is actually a reason why the public should want to know as much as reasonably possible about prospective Presidents.  Do you disagree? 

2.  "The constitution" is a pretty bad answer.  If the existence of the constitution guaranteed that a president would do a good job and not abuse the powers of the office, Nixon would be remembered as one of our better presidents.  For that matter, why are you worried about Hillary Clinton if all you need to do to prevent abuse of power is to remind her that the constitution exists? 

I will ask you again, if Trump's promises are worthless except in the context of a binding legal document, what binding legal document exists to assure us that Trump has any intention whatsoever of doing any of the things he has promised you he would do?  Maybe he'd be happy to let ISIS through immigration for $10,000 per terrorist, cash only.  As long as he could find a constitutional way to do it.  He doesn't want to build a wall, and if he did he wouldn't make Mexico pay for it.  He'd make New Mexico pay for it, and tell us he didn't specify "which Mexico" he was talking about. 

Nothing really for me to learn.  You have not provided an answer or defended the position.  Hillary is getting killed because she is preceived a liar.  Why would this be any different for Trump.  As I asked before, what other means can we judge Trump character if not how he does business.  Since he has served no political office, the only way voters can judge him is based on his track record as a businesman and one he used as his political platform.

I don't disagree that the public should want to know about presidential candidates as much as possible but they have the right to whether or not to disclose that information at hand and what reason would he have to lie about his business acumen ? There's more evidence to say that he's filthy rich from the financial discloure form rather than not ... 

The consititution doesn't distinguish good job or bad job, only boundaries. The difference between Trump and Clinton is that his interests are not easily bought with money when he is stinking rich so his integrity is far more protected than her's when you have to pay for a much more hefty price to even affect him and money matters even less with his existing age and fortune ... (Not like he'll care about extra cash once the grim reaper nears towards him.)

Hillary Clinton belongs to the establishment that's full of neoconservatives. Trump is the antithesis of establishments. His "I don't care" attitude in politics makes him all the more infallible to corruption when he doesn't give a damn about any parties so systematic corruption gets minimized in the process too if you can seperate political parties from power. Trump succeeded in taking power away from the republican party since it was easier to do so when it doesn't have superdelegates ... 

Also current law pretty much makes it impossible to not be persecuted for accepting bribes for handing out visa's automatically ... 

You should not confer professional life being the same as a personal life. The former is far more pragmatic. Why not go see what Trump's closest and longest known associates think of him or other former collegues if you want a fair judgement of his character ? They would know more about his character far more than anyone else here would ... 

I don't disagree that the public should want to know about presidential candidates as much as possible but they have the right to whether or not to disclose that information at hand and what reason would he have to lie about his business acumen ? There's more evidence to say that he's filthy rich from the financial discloure form rather than not ... 

The consititution doesn't distinguish good job or bad job, only boundaries. The difference between Trump and Clinton is that his interests are not easily bought with money when he is stinking rich so his integrity is far more protected than her's when you have to pay for a much more hefty price to even affect him and money matters even less with his existing age and fortune ... (Not like he'll care about extra cash once the grim reaper nears towards him.)

Hillary Clinton belongs to the establishment that's full of neoconservatives. Trump is the antithesis of establishments. His "I don't care" attitude in politics makes him all the more infallible to corruption when he doesn't give a damn about any parties so systematic corruption gets minimized in the process too if you can seperate political parties from power. Trump succeeded in taking power away from the republican party since it was easier to do so when it doesn't have superdelegates ... 

Also current law pretty much makes it impossible to not be persecuted for accepting bribes for handing out visa's automatically ... 

You should not confer professional life being the same as a personal life. The former is far more pragmatic. Why not go see what Trump's closest and longest known associates think of him or other former collegues if you want a fair judgement of his character ? They would know more about his character far more than anyone else here would ...