MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
[LMAO ... He is describing Trump ...]
[Meso Trumpsters ...]
master.on
New Member
I'm serious about the dunce cap proposal
read below
Probably not.
Reason why they're ignoring my dunce cap proposal.
read below
Time to see if the Clinton Foundation survives an unbiased FBI director.
Probably not.
Reason why they're ignoring my dunce cap proposal.
Mister Sandman
New Member
Putin's orange cock-holster is now also Xi Jinping's...
For all us used to eating tons of chicken ... I would advise to look for a alternate [emoji849]
For all us used to eating tons of chicken ... I would advise to look for a alternate [emoji849]
If it becomes law, it will harm millions of Americans, including the poor, sick and elderly. But it will be especially disastrous for women. Among other damaging provisions, it:
STRIPS FUNDING FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD About half of the 2.5 million patients who visit Planned Parenthood centers every year, and about 20 percent of women of reproductive age nationwide, rely on Medicaid for their health coverage. Under the House bill, they would no longer be able to use Medicaid for care at Planned Parenthood centers, more than half of which are in rural or underserved areas. In 105 counties, Planned Parenthood operates the only clinic offering a full range of reproductive health services.
PUTS ESSENTIAL SERVICES AT RISK The House bill eliminates the Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers cover certain essential services. Many of these services, like mammograms, birth control, and prenatal and maternity care, are used primarily by women. Women are more likely than men to use mental health care and prescription drugs, both of which are considered essential under the Affordable Care Act. If the requirement is scrapped, plans could choose not to offer such services. Plans that offer maternity care could become prohibitively expensive.
SLASHES MEDICAID By cutting $880 million from Medicaid over 10 years, the House bill removes a crucial source of coverage for many women’s health services. Almost half of all births in the country, and 75 percent of publicly funded family planning services, are covered by Medicaid. Slashing Medicaid funds would be especially harmful to black and Latina women, who are more likely than white women to be insured through Medicaid.
ELIMINATES PRE-EXISTING CONDITION PROTECTIONS The bill allows states to waive the requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing conditions without charging higher premiums. While it’s not yet clear how insurers would respond, many of the conditions that prompted insurers to deny coverage or raise premiums before the requirement was in place, including depression, lupus and multiple sclerosis, are more common in women. Some insurers also denied coverage or charged higher premiums to women who had given birth by C-section.
ENDANGERS ABORTION COVERAGE The bill bars anyone from using federal subsidies to buy insurance that covers abortion. It also bars small employers from using tax credits to pay for plans that cover abortion for their employees. The likely result: Most insurers would drop abortion coverage, and the few plans that did cover abortion would become prohibitively expensive.
So I’ve been thinking about comparisons between Watergate and the murky, fast-changing Comey-Russia-Flynn-Trump affair. As with anything involving Donald Trump, we have no idea where this will lead, what is “true,” and when the next bombshell will go off.
But based simply on what is known so far, this scandal looks worse than Watergate. Worse for and about the president. Worse for the overall national interest. Worse in what it suggests about the American democratic system’s ability to defend itself.
This week, The Economist published an in-depth interview with Donald Trump about his economic policy. The piece, which described Trump's economic strategy as "unimaginative and incoherent," picked up a lot of attention. The president's speech was riddled with falsehoods and confusion, drawing critics and social media commentators out of the woodwork.
The Economist’s own analysis was even more scalding than the snarky tweets. The magazine declared: "The impulsiveness and shallowness of America's president threaten the economy as well as the rule of law." The article goes on to compare Trump to a modern-day Henry VIII, which is never a good thing: "Donald Trump rules over Washington as if he were a king and the White House his court. His displays of dominance, his need to be the centre of attention and his impetuousness have a whiff of Henry VIII about them. Fortified by his belief that his extraordinary route to power is proof of the collective mediocrity of Congress, the bureaucracy and the media, he attacks any person and any idea standing in his way."
Ouch.
We at The World have been somewhat obsessed with this interview, and we were dying to hear more. So we spoke to The Economist’s Washington bureau chief David Rennie, who was on the team of four reporters that conducted the interview. Rennie, with his classic British understatement, confessed that Trump's responses to questions of trade and fiscal policy were “not 100 percent reassuring.”
We haven't seen morons like that since Munich in 37. Stupid mother fuckers. I see Mesos lasted douche bag is still here. I thought I told you to go fuck your mother @1gram of pcp a day.
You stupid mother fucker. Someone needs to give your cunt a hot shot soon.
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
My First Cycle results TEST+TREN+ANAVAR+ANADROL +20KG
- Latest: Trainedbytylerlofthouse19
-
-
