Clinton is a felon.

Cite case number and court!

---

One of the better run, more accurate polls, using a response of usually around 2,500 VOTERS is the Los Angeles Times poll. It is updated daily and inlcludes all candidates who will be on the ballot in California(4).

It doesn't look good for Hillary. The poll numbers now stand at the greatest deficit number for Hillary since July 28th.
The Los Angeles Times poll now shows Hillary at 41.0% trailing Trump at 47.7%

This poll asks 3 different questions of 3,000 likely voters and has the results broken down into various catagories; income, age, education, race.
For a full view of each days updated results see:
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

As per usual, The LA Times has chosen not to even print any numbers except the Republican and Democrat. So much for fair and balanced.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SEPT. 18, 2016, 4:54 P.M. E.D.T.

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Hillary Clinton on Sunday condemned what she described as "apparent terrorist attacks" in Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.

Hmmm, apparently it takes Hiliary longer than Trump to figure out the obvious....

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SEPT. 18, 2016, 4:54 P.M. E.D.T.

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Hillary Clinton on Sunday condemned what she described as "apparent terrorist attacks" in Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.

Hmmm, apparently it takes Hiliary longer than Trump to figure out the obvious....

Right thread!

Hey, you had all the forensic evidence, and forensic experience, to make it obbbvious?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Explosion, Saturday Night, Crowded New York Street, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes, or maybe it does.

Or maybe it's time to discuss what 'is' is, again.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Explosion, Saturday Night, Crowded New York Street, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes, or maybe it does.

Or maybe it's time to discuss what 'is' is, again.

It does, because it was a restaurant area, and explosions in restaurant kitchens are known to happen, Glasgow restaurant 'explosion'.

---

Explosion, Saturday Night, Crowded New York Street, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes, or maybe it does.

Or maybe it's time to discuss what 'is' is, again.

It does, because it was a restaurant area, and explosions in restaurant kitchens are known to happen, Glasgow restaurant 'explosion'.

The key word in your post is 'kitchen' not, what is reported to be, a construction tool chest on a sidewalk. And also reported was caused by a readily available product used in explosive targets for live fire ranges.

A product that is not controlled due to the fact that it is a binary, meaning two separate compounds have to be mixed before it becomes explosive. It has a very distinct odor when detonated than anyone familiar with it's use could readily deduce.

So, not a big leap.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Explosion, Saturday Night, Crowded New York Street, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes, or maybe it does.

Or maybe it's time to discuss what 'is' is, again.

It does, because it was a restaurant area, and explosions in restaurant kitchens are known to happen, Glasgow restaurant 'explosion'.

As do transformer vaults, especially a couple of years of corrosion from a super storm later.

Of course there will be tons and tons of Monday quarterbacks who will trot out tons of facts that took time to verify as having been instantaneously obvious to people who are hundreds of miles away.

Those facts only become obvious to an investigator at the scene after he has done interviews and had CSI's do a fast walk through and give an oral report.

---

Explosion, Saturday Night, Crowded New York Street, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes, or maybe it does.

Or maybe it's time to discuss what 'is' is, again.

It does, because it was a restaurant area, and explosions in restaurant kitchens are known to happen, Glasgow restaurant 'explosion'.

The key word in your post is 'kitchen' not, what is reported to be, a construction tool chest on a sidewalk. And also reported was caused by a readily available product used in explosive targets for live fire ranges.

A product that is not controlled due to the fact that it is a binary, meaning two separate compounds have to be mixed before it becomes explosive. It has a very distinct odor when detonated than anyone familiar with it's use could readily deduce.

So, not a big leap.

Donald's first comment about the explosion was less than 30 minutes after it happened, and from what he said he would have had to have heard the news several minutes at least before that. So in the ~15 mins after an explosion happened he knew it was a terrorist bomb.

Give me a break, man. Not possible.

---

Do you really believe Mr Trump's personal security staff doesn't have close contacts within the NYPD or that the Secret Service staff around him didn't know it wasn't a kitchen gas explosion(which, by the way, cause massive structural damage which did not occur).

There is a vast difference between 'rushing to judgement' and 'quickly deducing'.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Do you really believe Mr Trump's personal security staff doesn't have close contacts within the NYPD or that the Secret Service staff around him didn't know it wasn't a kitchen gas explosion(which, by the way, cause massive structural damage which did not occur).

There is a vast difference between 'rushing to judgement' and 'quickly deducing'.

In the few minutes from the time of the explosion until Trump was told of the explosion, the scene would have been at best, organised chaos. Nobody in there right mind at that point would have staed it was a bomb, the police and all the others there would have been too busy securing the immediate area, ensuring aid to the injured, getting the others in the area out of the way and clearing traffic for other police and more importantly the ambulances and medics.

I totally reject your ill founded idea's.

---

http://elections.ap.org/content/study-finds-20m-would-lose-health-coverage-under-trump-plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new study that examines some major health care proposals from the presidential candidates finds that Donald Trump would cause about 20 million to lose coverage while Hillary Clinton would provide coverage for an additional 9 million people.

The 2016 presidential campaign has brought voters to a crossroads on health care yet again. The U.S. uninsured rate stands at a historically low 8.6 percent, mainly because of President Barack Obama's health care law, which expanded government and private coverage. Yet it's uncertain if the nation's newest social program will survive the election.

Republican candidate Trump would repeal "Obamacare" and replace it with a new tax deduction, insurance market changes, and a Medicaid overhaul. Democrat Clinton would increase financial assistance for people with private insurance and expand government coverage as well.

---

The fact of the matter is that there has been an unworkable mess created that has NO fix. Obamacare tried to remake a sector that constitutes one-eighth of the economy from the ground up. But it made a mess that nobody knows how to fix. My own insurance costs rose quite a bit, (despite assertions from my left-leaning PCP who told me that "Obamacare will make everything cheaper for you"), and they are still rising on a steeper curve this year.
Part of the problem was easy to predict: The mix of people enrolling is disproportionately weighted toward the sick and old rather than the young and healthy. Not enough of the latter are choosing to enroll—opting instead to pay an annul penalty that the law imposes on them. This riskier-than-expected patient pool is forcing insurers to raise premiums, which prices even more healthy people out of the market, which causes more hikes, unleashing a death spiral of adverse selection—exactly as many critics of the law had predicted would happen.
The Obama head-in-the-sand appologists glibly dismiss this as just a temporary setback. Their short sightedness is again applied to the issue when they chant "Wait, things will get better by themselves." Further, The left has more 'brilliant' ideas on how to overcome the adverse selection death spiral and create self-sustaining exchanges. One 'brilliant' suggestion is to embrace the Swiss model, which involves imposing very stiff penalties on insurance scofflaws and then enforcing them harshly by garnishing wages. The other idea is creating a public option or a non-profit government-run insurance plan that would compete with the private underwriters on the exchanges and bring down prices.
These ideas are draconian. They are also politically unfeasible—and ultimately self defeating. Raising the penalty won't happen without a bruising fight. Given that the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty was really a tax, any hike must be approved by Congress. That'll be an uphill task even if Democrats control one or both chambers. Good luck with that.
The public option, meanwhile, would have the added problem of not even working conceptually. Private insurers can't compete with an entity that has the power and backing of the almighty federal government behind it. So, they won't lower premiums they'll just quickly leave each state, leaving the public option as the only option.
This would basicily create a single-payer system—a government-run monopoly. And the only thing worse than a private monopoly is a state monopoly. Indeed, single-payer systems in countries like Canada and Denmark only stay afloat by dipping deeply into public coffers and/or rationing care—defeating their whole purpose. Even if the left tried, it'll be nigh impossible to pull this off in a debt-ridden country already careening toward a massive entitlement spending crisis.
My health insurance costs are going from outrageous to impossibly outrageous every year. My PCP (Primary Care Physician), seems undaunted in his support of Obamacare, even though his prediction of less cost for me remain untrue. It doesn't bother him much, he has a pretty chushy job working for a university hospital and it only affects him when he has to listen to the complaints from his patients, (the lesser class), who can't afford to retire because they cant afford insurance. That isn't a problem for him.

Won't the fact that nearly 70k more people have cover in New Hampshire than in 2013 have an effect?

---

Won't the fact that nearly 70k more people have cover in New Hampshire than in 2013 have an effect?

The "effect" is that MY insurance rates are rising at a greater rate than would have been otherwise expected because of the types of patients newly insured. (untreated diabetics, COPD smokers, and people who didn't bother with healthcare are now in the que for "treatment" and I'm paying for it. (Universal Law #1. There is NO such thing as a free lunch.)
Total New Hampshire Residents - 1,304,282
Total New Hampshire uninsured residents - 10.37%
Total New Hampshire HMO enrollment - 148,360

The figure of 70k more covered does not consider an increase of risk. That needs to be tempered with Risk Adjustment just as the insurance industry uses to guarentee their own profitability.
Risk adjustment provides a relative measure for the difference in the illness burden of patients in the analysis and treated by the selected providers. Risk adjustment can be used to explain why the historical costs at one provider may exceed that at another provider. Risk adjustment considers more than the diagnoses for the visit of interest. Instead, all of the diagnoses throughout the period of the analysis are considered so that the effect of multiple comorbidities can be considered in evaluating how one patient population differs from another. Examples of the conditions checked for in a patient's history are: congestive heart failure, epilepsy, primary pulmonary hypertension, diabetes, and cancer. Patient populations that average more comorbidity or have the most severe forms of disease are expected to need greater health care resources than a less complex patient population.
Hence, adding this known risky population to the covered will eventually double insurance premiums. When insurers are not allowed to raise their rates in a specific state, they simply stop doing business in that state. I guess we are now seeing that as an "effect".
EDIT:
Sorry that I hijacked this thread on why Hillary should be next President.
I just can't agree with that and healthcare policy is brushed aside as something that has been fixed. IT HAS NOT.

The "effect" is that MY insurance rates are rising at a greater rate than would have been otherwise

Whenever Government gets involved in any human endeavor and starts mandating services and 'standards', much less guaranteeing payment, prices will rise because the skimmers and scammers and outright thieves soon infest the endeavor.

True for Healthcare, true for Government construction contracts, etc., etc., etc.. ad Nausea, ad Infinitum...........

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

The "effect" is that MY insurance rates are rising at a greater rate than would have been otherwise expected because of the types of patients newly insured.

Well put, all of your posts. Thank you. ;^)

Even with reduced plan and higher deductibles 30% increase for us and rising. As a pensioner I'm getting close to budget limit.

---

...

The "effect" is that MY insurance rates are rising at a greater rate than would have been otherwise expected because of the types of patients newly insured

Well put, all of your posts. Thank you. ;^)

Even with reduced plan and higher deductibles 30% increase for us and rising. As a pensioner I'm getting close to budget limit.

I'm a pensioner and I don't pay 1 cent and yet I am covered .

If Obama had been able to bring in our Universal heath you would not be paying 1 cent

But hey your Constitution is sacred and you can't change it to allow our type of system.

He could not introduce our system because of the penalty's .

You don't pay private health then you will pay 1% more tax . The Medicare levy

pay into a private health fund and get 30% subsidy and you won't have to pay the extra 1% Medicare levy

And that is the only reason he could not introduce it as your constitution says your Government can't tell you what to do and the Medicare levy is doing exactly that telling you to pay into a private fund or pay extra tax

So stop whining about the cost you got what you deserved for being selfish and greedy

---

Again, Glenn, you're talking out of your lower orifice.......

I'm a pensioner and I don't pay 1 cent and yet I am covered .

From the official Australian Government website........

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Health%20care%20delivery%20and%20financing~235

HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ON HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE

The Household Expenditure Survey (HES) provides estimates of expenditure on medical care and health by households across Australia. Expenditure is net of any refunds and rebates received from Medicare, private health insurance companies and employers.

According to the 2009–10 HES, households spent an average of $65.60 per week on medical care and health expenses. This was approximately 5% of an average household's expenditure on goods and services each week.

Major items contributing to overall household medical care and health expenditure were accident and health insurance (40%), health practitioners’ fees (29%), and medicines, pharmaceutical products and therapeutic appliances (27%). The remainder was mainly taken up by hospital and nursing home charges.

Health practitioners’ fees per household averaged $18.99 a week and were mainly for dental treatments (38%) and specialist doctors’ fees (33%). Fees for general practitioners accounted for 9% of all health practitioners’ fees, possibly reflecting the higher level of government subsidisation of GP services.

I too am a 'Pensioner' and for my healthcare I pay US $144 per month plus whatever co-pays and deductibles apply. So if you are paying nothing, then as Barrack and Hiliary say "You're not paying your fair share!"

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>