info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Trump Care
58 views
Skip to first unread message
Dene
Jun 22, 2017, 1:47:04 PM6/22/17
to
Pluses and minuses.
Pluses are that insurance companies can get creative with formulating plans that do not cover items that people want, such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will spur competition and lower cost.
Another plus...States will manage Medicaid and the expansion will be phased out. Medicaid should be a Band-Aid…not a long-term solution, especially for those recipients who are adults.
Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake. There will be more young/healthy people gaming the system. Choosing to go uninsured and then showing up in the ER, using bankruptcy as a means to escape the bill.
Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
Subsidies will not be solely based on income but on age. Conceivably, a millionaire could get a subsidy.
Finally, Obama care taxes are being eliminated. That will not be a benefit to most Americans.
If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance companies to be creative with coverages but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping subsidies for those who need it. I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
Interesting times ahead. It's pathetic that the Democrats and their presstitutes will nitpick this to death without offering any solutions on their own. Perhaps a few will break away from their so-called leadership.
Pluses are that insurance companies can get creative with formulating plans that do not cover items that people want, such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will spur competition and lower cost.
Another plus...States will manage Medicaid and the expansion will be phased out. Medicaid should be a Band-Aid…not a long-term solution, especially for those recipients who are adults.
Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake. There will be more young/healthy people gaming the system. Choosing to go uninsured and then showing up in the ER, using bankruptcy as a means to escape the bill.
Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
Subsidies will not be solely based on income but on age. Conceivably, a millionaire could get a subsidy.
Finally, Obama care taxes are being eliminated. That will not be a benefit to most Americans.
If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance companies to be creative with coverages but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping subsidies for those who need it. I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
Interesting times ahead. It's pathetic that the Democrats and their presstitutes will nitpick this to death without offering any solutions on their own. Perhaps a few will break away from their so-called leadership.
golf with a rump sell out
Jun 22, 2017, 1:55:24 PM6/22/17
to
toms...@gmail.com
Jun 22, 2017, 2:31:56 PM6/22/17
to
> Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake. There will be more young/healthy people gaming the system. Choosing to go uninsured and then showing up in the ER, using bankruptcy as a means to escape the bill.
The individual mandate has, effectively, already been eliminated (it's not being enforced).
>
> Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
>
> Subsidies will not be solely based on income but on age. Conceivably, a millionaire could get a subsidy.
>
> Finally, Obama care taxes are being eliminated. That will not be a benefit to most Americans.
>
> If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance companies to be creative with coverages but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping subsidies for those who need it. I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
>
> Interesting times ahead. It's pathetic that the Democrats and their presstitutes will nitpick this to death without offering any solutions on their own. Perhaps a few will break away from their so-called leadership.
Carbon
Jun 22, 2017, 3:36:37 PM6/22/17
to
On 06/22/2017 01:47 PM, Dene wrote:
> Pluses and minuses.
>
> Pluses are that insurance companies can get creative with formulating plans that do not cover items that people want, such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will spur competition and lower cost.
>
> Another plus...States will manage Medicaid and the expansion will be phased out. Medicaid should be a Band-Aid…not a long-term solution, especially for those recipients who are adults.
>
> Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake. There will be more young/healthy people gaming the system. Choosing to go uninsured and then showing up in the ER, using bankruptcy as a means to escape the bill.
>
> Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
>
> Subsidies will not be solely based on income but on age. Conceivably, a millionaire could get a subsidy.
>
> Finally, Obama care taxes are being eliminated. That will not be a benefit to most Americans.
>
> If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance companies to be creative with coverages but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping subsidies for those who need it. I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
>
> Interesting times ahead.
The point of this bill is tax cuts for the Republican donor class, which it will definitely provide if it manages to pass.
> Pluses and minuses.
>
> Pluses are that insurance companies can get creative with formulating plans that do not cover items that people want, such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will spur competition and lower cost.
>
> Another plus...States will manage Medicaid and the expansion will be phased out. Medicaid should be a Band-Aid…not a long-term solution, especially for those recipients who are adults.
>
> Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake. There will be more young/healthy people gaming the system. Choosing to go uninsured and then showing up in the ER, using bankruptcy as a means to escape the bill.
>
> Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
>
> Subsidies will not be solely based on income but on age. Conceivably, a millionaire could get a subsidy.
>
> Finally, Obama care taxes are being eliminated. That will not be a benefit to most Americans.
>
> If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance companies to be creative with coverages but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping subsidies for those who need it. I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
>
> Interesting times ahead.
> It's pathetic that the Democrats and their presstitutes will nitpick this to death without offering any solutions on their own. Perhaps a few will break away from their so-called leadership.
-hh
Jun 22, 2017, 3:51:56 PM6/22/17
to
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 1:47:04 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> Pluses and minuses.
I've not read it yet to get into details.
> Pluses and minuses.
> Pluses are that insurance companies can get creative with
> formulating plans that do not cover items that people want,
> such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will
> spur competition and lower cost.
What will happen is that people will pay less and get less,
and this "flexibility" will actually end up being how the
companies will create policies which initially appear to
look good, but are actually crap that doesn't pay anything.
Its the "Payday Loan" bit all over again, where the less
educated will be rip-off victims.
> Another plus...States will manage Medicaid and the expansion
> will be phased out. Medicaid should be a Band-Aid…not a
> long-term solution, especially for those recipients who
> are adults.
intended to be a safety net for the poor. Broadly, we're
seeing the Middle Class erode away and the trend has been
that four have gone down for every one that went up in income.
As such, the need for a safety net for the poor is growing,
not shrinking, so planning for future costs to be lower is
fiscally irresponsible.
> Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake.
> Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger
> people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
If so, I'm not optimistic that the rates will really decline
for the young by as much as they notionally should.
> Subsidies will not be solely based on income but on age.
> Conceivably, a millionaire could get a subsidy.
> Finally, Obama care taxes are being eliminated. That will
> not be a benefit to most Americans.
an age-based subsidy).
> If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance
I don't mind a certain degree of 'creativity', but I do have
concerns with not having minimum standards as well as the
consequences of inviting excessive complexity: from the
consumer's standpoint, simpler is better for cross-comparison
shopping. Trying to use the competitive forces of capitalism
simply doesn't work when it becomes harder to compare products.
Just look at shopping for a mattress: stores sell the same
brands, but with different model#s at each store, which makes
it impossible to price-shop for the same product.
> ...but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping
> subsidies for those who need it.
Agreed, don't roll tax cuts for the rich into this, and also
have some sort of "means test" for the poor. BTW, this also
means that tax credits are a horribly bad way to implement
this, since the poor don't have the free cash to float the
cost of a healthcare policy for a year (until tax time).
> I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
Medicaid is for assistance to the poor, what is the plan
to have fewer poor people?
> Interesting times ahead.
Indeed it is.
> It's pathetic that the Democrats and their presstitutes will
> nitpick this to death without offering any solutions on their
> own. Perhaps a few will break away from their so-called leadership.
is how any of these change initiatives will actually reduce the
real costs of medical services.
The only point that's even close to this is to permit insurance
companies to sell policies which have lower premiums because
they cover less, but that's a dodge because it does not actually
reduce the real costs of medical care ... its merely a transference
of who pays the bill from the Insurance Company back to the Individual.
OTOH, if this transference also comes with the Individual being able
to pay the lower rate that the Ins Co traditionally pays, then there
may be some potential for real cost reductions ... but that's another
example of where there's opportunities for the Insurance providers
to increase product complexity through schemes which aren't easy for
a consumer to assess the value of and cross-compare.
Thus, it still comes back to the basic question I asked months ago,
which was noting that for true costs to come down, someone has to
ultimately receive less money for their services - - "whose ox will
be gored?" was how I expressed it.
-hh
B...@onramp.net
Jun 22, 2017, 4:17:21 PM6/22/17
to
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 13:35:16 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>golf with a rump sell out <golf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message.
> costly price.
It was flawed and set for changes, but better than the first two tries
by the GOP this year. I don't think this last one will pass either.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>golf with a rump sell out <golf...@gmail.com> Wrote in message.
>>
>> They had an entire health care programs as a solution. Let the shit for brains repugs pass it and watch them fall flat on their faces. But I'm certain that they will continue, after o-care is gone, blaming the health care problems on it and not their piece of shit toss-together.
>>
>
>Obamacare was not a solution. It failed. It failed at a very
>> They had an entire health care programs as a solution. Let the shit for brains repugs pass it and watch them fall flat on their faces. But I'm certain that they will continue, after o-care is gone, blaming the health care problems on it and not their piece of shit toss-together.
>>
>
> costly price.
It was flawed and set for changes, but better than the first two tries
by the GOP this year. I don't think this last one will pass either.
Dene
Jun 22, 2017, 5:02:34 PM6/22/17
to
This device makes it very difficult to respond line by line so I will postpone that until later.
I do want to address the more permanent solution, which neither ACA or this GOP bill does. The efficient solution to the healthcare delivery and purchase.
I think the solution is single payer.
Now before Carbs has a heart attack, I'm not suggesting the Canadian system. I'm suggesting that every American be entitled to a hospital only catastrophic plan, with a $10,000 out-of-pocket max. Premiums would be paid for upon completion of our tax returns with rates based on age. $100/mo. for those under 30 and rising incrementally as one ages.
Those who want to can supplement this catastrophic coverage through group employer policies or purchase individually, using the same open enrollment rules as are in place now. Similar to what people do with Medicare plans.
Medicaid would be scaled back and cover the legitimately poor or disabled.
IMO, this system allows insurance companies to compete heavily with each other, same as the doctors and other providers. This is occurring already with Medicare plans. Quite successfully!
Thoughts?
I do want to address the more permanent solution, which neither ACA or this GOP bill does. The efficient solution to the healthcare delivery and purchase.
I think the solution is single payer.
Now before Carbs has a heart attack, I'm not suggesting the Canadian system. I'm suggesting that every American be entitled to a hospital only catastrophic plan, with a $10,000 out-of-pocket max. Premiums would be paid for upon completion of our tax returns with rates based on age. $100/mo. for those under 30 and rising incrementally as one ages.
Those who want to can supplement this catastrophic coverage through group employer policies or purchase individually, using the same open enrollment rules as are in place now. Similar to what people do with Medicare plans.
Medicaid would be scaled back and cover the legitimately poor or disabled.
IMO, this system allows insurance companies to compete heavily with each other, same as the doctors and other providers. This is occurring already with Medicare plans. Quite successfully!
Thoughts?
Dene
Jun 22, 2017, 5:56:15 PM6/22/17
to
Carbon
Jun 22, 2017, 6:45:46 PM6/22/17
to
B...@onramp.net
Jun 22, 2017, 7:06:13 PM6/22/17
to
discussion. Even most of the Republican Congressmen were this time.
That's one reason that it probably won't change a thing. Obamacare is
alive and still needs change.
>
B...@onramp.net
Jun 22, 2017, 7:20:17 PM6/22/17
to
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:13:36 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>Not better, worse.
>
Wrong
>Complete repeal, even better.
Wronger
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>
Wrong
>Complete repeal, even better.
Wronger
B...@onramp.net
Jun 22, 2017, 7:27:11 PM6/22/17
to
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:16:18 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
Yours isn't correct.
>'We have to pass the Bill to find out what is in it.'
Pelosi actually said;
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away
from the fog of the controversy"
Completely changes the intent of the quote, but then you seldom post
anything that does.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>> On 06/22/2017 05:56 PM, Dene wrote:
>>>
>>> We all agree that ACA is flawed. What confounds me is why aren't the Democrats working for a solution? What ideas they bring to the table?
>>
>> Are you serious? The whole thing was done behind closed doors.
>>
>
>Carbon's memory is nonexistent.
>>>
>>> We all agree that ACA is flawed. What confounds me is why aren't the Democrats working for a solution? What ideas they bring to the table?
>>
>> Are you serious? The whole thing was done behind closed doors.
>>
>
Yours isn't correct.
>'We have to pass the Bill to find out what is in it.'
Pelosi actually said;
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away
from the fog of the controversy"
Completely changes the intent of the quote, but then you seldom post
anything that does.
John B.
Jun 22, 2017, 7:34:28 PM6/22/17
to
Any ideas they might have brought to the table would have been ignored by the Republicans. They wrote the bill in secrecy. Alll the Republicans have done is move pieces around on the chessboard. They now have to reconcile it with the House version, which is an exercise in cruelty. If they end up with something they can pass, it won't be any better than ACÁ.
Carbon
Jun 22, 2017, 7:56:26 PM6/22/17
to
B...@onramp.net
Jun 22, 2017, 8:45:25 PM6/22/17
to
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 18:30:48 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>Not at all. Dims kept Obamacare secret. Changed the rules of
> Congress to pass it.
You were wrong about Pelosi's quote...completely. Your memory is what
you want things to be.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
> Congress to pass it.
You were wrong about Pelosi's quote...completely. Your memory is what
you want things to be.
John B.
Jun 22, 2017, 8:54:08 PM6/22/17
to
The Democrats did not pass ACA in secret. It was an open process from beginning to end.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 22, 2017, 10:18:13 PM6/22/17
to
On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:54:06 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Democrats did not pass ACA in secret. It was an open process from beginning to end.
With absolutely no help from Republicans. Unfortunately we'll see the
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Democrats did not pass ACA in secret. It was an open process from beginning to end.
same from the Democrats now.
I don't think that there are more than a couple of dozen out of the
535 Congressmen who could be counted on to be bipartisan.
toms...@gmail.com
Jun 23, 2017, 12:13:49 AM6/23/17
to
On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 5:54:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
> The Democrats did not pass ACA in secret. It was an open process from beginning to end.
WHAT planet were you living on?
> The Democrats did not pass ACA in secret. It was an open process from beginning to end.
Alan Baker
Jun 23, 2017, 12:43:17 AM6/23/17
to
Alan Baker
Jun 23, 2017, 12:45:16 AM6/23/17
to
>> On 06/22/2017 05:56 PM, Dene wrote:
>>>
>>> We all agree that ACA is flawed. What confounds me is why aren't the Democrats working for a solution? What ideas they bring to the table?
>>
>> Are you serious? The whole thing was done behind closed doors.
>>
>
>>>
>>> We all agree that ACA is flawed. What confounds me is why aren't the Democrats working for a solution? What ideas they bring to the table?
>>
>> Are you serious? The whole thing was done behind closed doors.
>>
>
> Carbon's memory is nonexistent.
>
>
> 'We have to pass the Bill to find out what is in it.'
>
>
Sorry, but that was a metaphorical statement that in order to truly
>
>
understand how it would work out in practice, one would have to
experience it.
The bill itself was debated and discussed and available for all
legislators to read for quite a time before it was passed.
Alan Baker
Jun 23, 2017, 12:45:47 AM6/23/17
to
MNMikeW
Jun 23, 2017, 9:41:43 AM6/23/17
to
B...@onramp.net
Jun 23, 2017, 10:46:44 AM6/23/17
to
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:24:19 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>How is that substantially different?
I forgot. You're intelligently challenged. If you don't understand
that, no explanation is possible.
Oh, you have been replaced as the most retarded poster here.
Tomsein has that, in spades.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
I forgot. You're intelligently challenged. If you don't understand
that, no explanation is possible.
Oh, you have been replaced as the most retarded poster here.
Tomsein has that, in spades.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 23, 2017, 10:48:22 AM6/23/17
to
Alan Baker
Jun 23, 2017, 11:36:03 AM6/23/17
to
It makes what you are trying to insist was literal and makes it obvious
that it was rhetorical.
DumbedDownUSA
Jun 23, 2017, 11:50:04 AM6/23/17
to
Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
> Not at all. Dims kept Obamacare secret. Changed the rules of
> Congress to pass it.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-context-behind-nancy-pelosis-famous-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-quote/
> Congress to pass it.
Apparently you are pervers; who knew.
Alan Baker
Jun 23, 2017, 12:43:38 PM6/23/17
to
On 2017-06-23 9:17 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
> Bwaahaahaa. Two tools from the same shed.
>
Did you read the speech from which that was excerpted, doofus?
CAN you read something that's longer than a single line?
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>
Did you read the speech from which that was excerpted, doofus?
CAN you read something that's longer than a single line?
Dene
Jun 23, 2017, 1:29:53 PM6/23/17
to
On 6/22/2017 12:36 PM, Carbon wrote:
> On 06/22/2017 01:47 PM, Dene wrote:
>> Pluses and minuses.
>>
>> Pluses are that insurance companies can get creative with formulating plans that do not cover items that people want, such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will spur competition and lower cost.
>>
>> Another plus...States will manage Medicaid and the expansion will be phased out. Medicaid should be a Band-Aid…not a long-term solution, especially for those recipients who are adults.
>>
>> Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake. There will be more young/healthy people gaming the system. Choosing to go uninsured and then showing up in the ER, using bankruptcy as a means to escape the bill.
>>
>> Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
>>
>> Subsidies will not be solely based on income but on age. Conceivably, a millionaire could get a subsidy.
>>
>> Finally, Obama care taxes are being eliminated. That will not be a benefit to most Americans.
>>
>> If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance companies to be creative with coverages but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping subsidies for those who need it. I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
>>
>> Interesting times ahead.
>
> The point of this bill is tax cuts for the Republican donor class, which it will definitely provide if it manages to pass.
Point of this bill is to bandaid the failing ACA.
> On 06/22/2017 01:47 PM, Dene wrote:
>> Pluses and minuses.
>>
>> Pluses are that insurance companies can get creative with formulating plans that do not cover items that people want, such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will spur competition and lower cost.
>>
>> Another plus...States will manage Medicaid and the expansion will be phased out. Medicaid should be a Band-Aid…not a long-term solution, especially for those recipients who are adults.
>>
>> Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake. There will be more young/healthy people gaming the system. Choosing to go uninsured and then showing up in the ER, using bankruptcy as a means to escape the bill.
>>
>> Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
>>
>> Subsidies will not be solely based on income but on age. Conceivably, a millionaire could get a subsidy.
>>
>> Finally, Obama care taxes are being eliminated. That will not be a benefit to most Americans.
>>
>> If I were to write the bill, I would allow for insurance companies to be creative with coverages but maintain the individual mandate and the taxes, keeping subsidies for those who need it. I would do away with the expansion of Medicaid.
>>
>> Interesting times ahead.
>
> The point of this bill is tax cuts for the Republican donor class, which it will definitely provide if it manages to pass.
Alan Baker
Jun 23, 2017, 1:31:41 PM6/23/17
to
the richest.
Dene
Jun 23, 2017, 1:35:04 PM6/23/17
to
On 6/22/2017 12:51 PM, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 1:47:04 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>> Pluses and minuses.
>
> I've not read it yet to get into details.
>
>
>> Pluses are that insurance companies can get creative with
>> formulating plans that do not cover items that people want,
>> such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will
>> spur competition and lower cost.
>
> I disagree.
>
> What will happen is that people will pay less and get less,
> and this "flexibility" will actually end up being how the
> companies will create policies which initially appear to
> look good, but are actually crap that doesn't pay anything.
Due diligence and/or the use of a broker is always a good idea.
> On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 1:47:04 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>> Pluses and minuses.
>
> I've not read it yet to get into details.
>
>
>> Pluses are that insurance companies can get creative with
>> formulating plans that do not cover items that people want,
>> such as mandatory mental health, maternity, etc. This will
>> spur competition and lower cost.
>
> I disagree.
>
> What will happen is that people will pay less and get less,
> and this "flexibility" will actually end up being how the
> companies will create policies which initially appear to
> look good, but are actually crap that doesn't pay anything.
>> Another plus...States will manage Medicaid and the expansion
>> will be phased out. Medicaid should be a Band-Aid…not a
>> long-term solution, especially for those recipients who
>> are adults.
>
> My understanding of Medicaid (right or wrong) was that it is
> intended to be a safety net for the poor. Broadly, we're
> seeing the Middle Class erode away and the trend has been
> that four have gone down for every one that went up in income.
> As such, the need for a safety net for the poor is growing,
> not shrinking, so planning for future costs to be lower is
> fiscally irresponsible.
the state, and that is a good thing.
>> Downsides. Elimination of the individual mandate is a mistake.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> Older people will pay more for health insurance but younger
>> people will pay less. I'm 58 so I can expect to pay more.
>
> Is this a change in the allowed ratio (eg, 1:3 to 1:5)?
increases will be enacted.
-hh
Jun 23, 2017, 2:15:55 PM6/23/17
to
any need or justification to have cuts to its revenue sources.
And as you've already told us, there's multiple places where they quite
deliberately cut their own revenue streams, such as the tax on Capital Gains.
-hh
B...@onramp.net
Jun 23, 2017, 2:27:30 PM6/23/17
to
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:15:31 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
No dodge. You're dense.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:24:19 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>> <nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>>>>
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 05:24:19 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
>> <nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>> Pelosi actually said;
>>>> "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away
>>>> from the fog of the controversy"
>>>>
>>>> Completely changes the intent of the quote, but then you seldom post
>>>> anything that does.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How is that substantially different?
>>
>> I forgot. You're intelligently challenged. If you don't understand
>> that, no explanation is possible.
>>
>> Oh, you have been replaced as the most retarded poster here.
>> Tomsein has that, in spades.
>>
>
>Nice dodge.
>>>> "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away
>>>> from the fog of the controversy"
>>>>
>>>> Completely changes the intent of the quote, but then you seldom post
>>>> anything that does.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How is that substantially different?
>>
>> I forgot. You're intelligently challenged. If you don't understand
>> that, no explanation is possible.
>>
>> Oh, you have been replaced as the most retarded poster here.
>> Tomsein has that, in spades.
>>
>
No dodge. You're dense.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 23, 2017, 2:28:27 PM6/23/17
to
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:17:37 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>Bwaahaahaa. Two tools from the same shed.
That actually know the difference between literal and rhetorical.
You don't.
DumbedDownUSA
Jun 23, 2017, 4:17:11 PM6/23/17
to
John B.
Jun 23, 2017, 5:24:32 PM6/23/17
to
John B.
Jun 23, 2017, 5:25:44 PM6/23/17
to
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 1:29:53 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
toms...@gmail.com
Jun 23, 2017, 8:29:11 PM6/23/17
to
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/26/health-reform-transparency-opaque-to-critics/
I know - I watched the closed-door meetings (from the outside) night after night on the news.
Dimocrats now want to rewrite history - surprise, surprise.
Alan Baker
Jun 23, 2017, 8:35:39 PM6/23/17
to
number was 160)?
toms...@gmail.com
Jun 23, 2017, 8:35:48 PM6/23/17
to
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/25/lets-recall-why-the-affordable-care-act-is-so-messed-up/?utm_term=.1f26ed852a91
Alan Baker
Jun 23, 2017, 8:38:06 PM6/23/17
to
to provide a quote that you think supports your claims.
John B.
Jun 23, 2017, 11:10:11 PM6/23/17
to
field hearings, posted the bill online, allowed for amendments and
subjected it to weeks of floor debate. That's how it worked and
that's how it's supposed to work. The Republicans have not done
any of those things with the pile of shit they're called a health
care reform bill.
Dene
Jun 24, 2017, 12:53:04 AM6/24/17
to
- show quoted text -
POS? Let's hear your brilliant solution.
Once they had a draft bill, they submitted it to hearings including
field hearings, posted the bill online, allowed for amendments and
subjected it to weeks of floor debate. That's how it worked and
that's how it's supposed to work. The Republicans have not done
any of those things with the pile of shit they're called a health
care reform bill.
They had the luxury of time. ACA is in a free fall.
field hearings, posted the bill online, allowed for amendments and
subjected it to weeks of floor debate. That's how it worked and
that's how it's supposed to work. The Republicans have not done
any of those things with the pile of shit they're called a health
care reform bill.
POS? Let's hear your brilliant solution.
Alan Baker
Jun 24, 2017, 1:16:46 AM6/24/17
to
bill until the last possible moment?
Do you deny that there have been no hearings whatsoever on the bill?
-hh
Jun 24, 2017, 7:36:40 AM6/24/17
to
Greg wrote:
> [...]
> ACA is in a free fall.
in no small part due to market uncertainty: the insurance companies are afraid
they'll sign commitment contracts to individuals, and then their subsidy from the Fed
will be cut out from under them during that contract's period of performance.
> POS? Let's hear your brilliant solution.
0. Keep ACA's current revenue streams, individual mandate & no lifetime cap
1. Assure market stability (Fed's to commit to subsidize for 10+ years! renewed annually)
2. Prohibit service price deviance based on payment method (same market price for all)
3. Negotiate drug prices for Fed programs, including permitting re-import;
4. Cap on tax-deductibility of compensation for all executives (all industries) to be 10x poverty level.
5. Have defined simple insurance products & require all insurers offer them (they can also
choose to have complicated stuff, they but must identify that it isn't compliant);
6. Mandate single common reporting system (streamlining paperwork - cost control);
7. crushing penalties on insurers who deliberately delay payments to providers
8. More actions that drive down true costs;
A good start....and this would be a stretch goal:
9. Expand Medicaid further ... until rate of bankruptcies due to medical expenses
drops from their current rate of 80% to be < 50% ... although I think this should
probably be limited to households not in nursing homes while (significantly?) above
SS retirement age.
-hh
> [...]
>>Once they had a draft bill, they submitted it to hearings including
>>field hearings, posted the bill online, allowed for amendments and
>>subjected it to weeks of floor debate. That's how it worked and
>>that's how it's supposed to work. The Republicans have not done
>>any of those things with the pile of shit they're called a health
>>care reform bill.
>
>They had the luxury of time.
Yes, the Republicans had 7 years to develop their plan.
>>field hearings, posted the bill online, allowed for amendments and
>>subjected it to weeks of floor debate. That's how it worked and
>>that's how it's supposed to work. The Republicans have not done
>>any of those things with the pile of shit they're called a health
>>care reform bill.
>
>They had the luxury of time.
> ACA is in a free fall.
they'll sign commitment contracts to individuals, and then their subsidy from the Fed
will be cut out from under them during that contract's period of performance.
> POS? Let's hear your brilliant solution.
1. Assure market stability (Fed's to commit to subsidize for 10+ years! renewed annually)
2. Prohibit service price deviance based on payment method (same market price for all)
3. Negotiate drug prices for Fed programs, including permitting re-import;
4. Cap on tax-deductibility of compensation for all executives (all industries) to be 10x poverty level.
5. Have defined simple insurance products & require all insurers offer them (they can also
choose to have complicated stuff, they but must identify that it isn't compliant);
6. Mandate single common reporting system (streamlining paperwork - cost control);
7. crushing penalties on insurers who deliberately delay payments to providers
8. More actions that drive down true costs;
A good start....and this would be a stretch goal:
9. Expand Medicaid further ... until rate of bankruptcies due to medical expenses
drops from their current rate of 80% to be < 50% ... although I think this should
probably be limited to households not in nursing homes while (significantly?) above
SS retirement age.
-hh
John B.
Jun 24, 2017, 9:45:50 AM6/24/17
to
does: single-payer health care.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 24, 2017, 12:04:24 PM6/24/17
to
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:54:26 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
That re-qualifies you as an idiot.
>>
>> Do you deny that there have been no hearings whatsoever on the bill?
>>
>
>Too busy with Russia.
>> Do you deny that there have been no hearings whatsoever on the bill?
>>
>
Only the committees, not the whole Senate doofus.
Carbon
Jun 24, 2017, 12:37:40 PM6/24/17
to
John B.
Jun 24, 2017, 2:27:30 PM6/24/17
to
with Obamacare until hell freezes over and they'll never
come up with a plan that works.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 24, 2017, 9:38:35 PM6/24/17
to
On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:21:06 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Haven't you realized yet that it will never happen? Obamacare gave the
country a taste of what was needed. The Repubs HAVE to come up with
something similar and they've failed.
Wake up.
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>"John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>
>>
>> You're probably right, but they can continue tinkering around
>> with Obamacare until hell freezes over and they'll never
>> come up with a plan that works.
>>
>
>Which is why they should just repeal it.
>>
>> You're probably right, but they can continue tinkering around
>> with Obamacare until hell freezes over and they'll never
>> come up with a plan that works.
>>
>
Haven't you realized yet that it will never happen? Obamacare gave the
country a taste of what was needed. The Repubs HAVE to come up with
something similar and they've failed.
Wake up.
DumbedDownUSA
Jun 25, 2017, 1:25:22 AM6/25/17
to
> > You're probably right, but they can continue tinkering around
> > with Obamacare until hell freezes over and they'll never
> > come up with a plan that works.
> >
>
> > with Obamacare until hell freezes over and they'll never
> > come up with a plan that works.
> >
>
> Which is why they should just repeal it.
You seem to have forgotten the second half of your slogan...
"and replace"
I know all that Trump has managed to do so far is to repeal a lot of
the Obama statutes ( that's what he calls "passing a bill" ) that were
their to safeguard Americans from the corporations BUT in this case you
can't just turn back the clock.
People deserve healthcare and anyone with the slightest hint of
compassion in their soul is not going to let you selfish narcisists
take it away.
The republicans inabilty to "replace" is only making this worse at an
accelerated rate.
It's about time you lot stopped whining and actually did something
about it.
-hh
Jun 25, 2017, 6:24:07 AM6/25/17
to
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 1:25:22 AM UTC-4, DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> Moderate wrote:
>
> > "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > >
> > >
> > > You're probably right, but they can continue tinkering around
> > > with Obamacare until hell freezes over and they'll never
> > > come up with a plan that works.
> > >
> >
> > Which is why they should just repeal it.
>
> You seem to have forgotten the second half of your slogan...
>
> "and replace"
Oh, but they did, namely:
> Moderate wrote:
>
> > "John B." <john...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> > >
> > >
> > > You're probably right, but they can continue tinkering around
> > > with Obamacare until hell freezes over and they'll never
> > > come up with a plan that works.
> > >
> >
> > Which is why they should just repeal it.
>
> You seem to have forgotten the second half of your slogan...
>
> "and replace"
"...and replace it with tax cuts for the Rich".
> People deserve healthcare and anyone with the slightest hint of
> compassion in their soul is not going to let you selfish narcisists
> take it away.
done with the terminology so say that Healthcare is a "Right" ... and that
has become a source of pushback (MDs as "slaves", even).
But what the true "Right" that is present here is that people have a right to
be treated equally when a business provides their services.
That means that you don't get asked to pay $500 for the same medical test
that I only pay $50 for because I'm white ^H^H^H^H .. I have "Insurance".
Insurance is supposed to pay the bill - - not negotiate a 90% discount.
If you had a car accident and your car worth $40K gets totaled, would you be
okay with getting a replacement car that the insurance company claims is
worth $40K, even when their own paperwork reveals only actually cost $4K?
Of course not!
When the worth of the product is $40K, that's what the insurance should pay,
and that's what we expect them to pay.
But that's not the way it works in Healthcare. That's what's broken.
-hh
Dene
Jun 25, 2017, 10:49:29 AM6/25/17
to
> People deserve healthcare and anyone with the slightest hint of
> compassion in their soul is not going to let you selfish narcisists
> take it away.
"Deserve" here is an interesting word, as there's been political sound-biting
done with the terminology so say that Healthcare is a "Right" ... and that
has become a source of pushback (MDs as "slaves", even).
But what the true "Right" that is present here is that people have a right to
be treated equally when a business provides their services.
That means that you don't get asked to pay $500 for the same medical test
that I only pay $50 for because I'm white ^H^H^H^H .. I have "Insurance".
Insurance is supposed to pay the bill - - not negotiate a 90% discount.
If you had a car accident and your car worth $40K gets totaled, would you be
okay with getting a replacement car that the insurance company claims is
worth $40K, even when their own paperwork reveals only actually cost $4K?
Of course not!
When the worth of the product is $40K, that's what the insurance should pay,
and that's what we expect them to pay.
But that's not the way it works in Healthcare. That's what's broken.
DumbedDownUSA
Jun 25, 2017, 12:26:13 PM6/25/17
to
If you don't see a problem with what you are saying you don't deserve
to be called civilised.
AND FFS learn to quote.
Misattribution isn't just childishly lazy, technically inept and
irritating, it is fraud.
Dene
Jun 25, 2017, 1:40:32 PM6/25/17
to
What's broken is the morals of people like you.
If you don't see a problem with what you are saying you don't deserve
to be called civilised.
AND FFS learn to quote.
Misattribution isn't just childishly lazy, technically inept and
irritating, it is fraud.
John B.
Jun 25, 2017, 2:28:49 PM6/25/17
to
than about people's access to health insurance? There is no perfect
system and there never will be.
DumbedDownUSA
Jun 25, 2017, 3:13:21 PM6/25/17
to
Moderate wrote:
> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> I don't buy into slogans.
Bollocks. That's all you have.
> Just get rid of government health care.
Your latest slogan?
What is "government healthcare?
What level of healthcare do you think should be available to those that
can't afford insurance?
Who do you prefer your money supporting, healthcare providers or
insurance company investors?
> "DumbedDownUSA" <dumb.a...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
Bollocks. That's all you have.
> Just get rid of government health care.
Your latest slogan?
What is "government healthcare?
What level of healthcare do you think should be available to those that
can't afford insurance?
Who do you prefer your money supporting, healthcare providers or
insurance company investors?
DumbedDownUSA
Jun 25, 2017, 3:14:21 PM6/25/17
to
Dene
Jun 25, 2017, 4:12:55 PM6/25/17
to
Why are you more concerned about the prerogatives of insurance cos.
than about people's access to health insurance? There is no perfect
system and there never will be.
-hh
Jun 25, 2017, 6:05:45 PM6/25/17
to
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 10:49:29 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > DumbedDownUSA wrote:
> > > People deserve healthcare and anyone with the slightest hint of
> > > compassion in their soul is not going to let you selfish narcisists
> > > take it away.
> >
> "Deserve" here is an interesting word, as there's been political sound-biting
> > done with the terminology so say that Healthcare is a "Right" ... and that
> > has become a source of pushback (MDs as "slaves", even).
> >
> > Health providers have a right to be paid for services rendered and not be
> > stiffed because someone is too irresponsible to acquire health insurance.
No, *everyone* deserves to be paid for services rendered: there's nothing
> > > People deserve healthcare and anyone with the slightest hint of
> > > compassion in their soul is not going to let you selfish narcisists
> > > take it away.
> >
> "Deserve" here is an interesting word, as there's been political sound-biting
> > done with the terminology so say that Healthcare is a "Right" ... and that
> > has become a source of pushback (MDs as "slaves", even).
> >
> > Health providers have a right to be paid for services rendered and not be
> > stiffed because someone is too irresponsible to acquire health insurance.
unique about healthcare in this regards.
But where the crux of the matter is that they charge vastly different rates
for the same damn services, where the differentiation is based on if you
have insurance or not.
Sorry, that's not insurance - - its a classical "Mafia" protection scheme,
where those who didn't pay in get their kneecaps broken.
Which is precisely why I said:
>> But what the true "Right" that is present here is that people have a right to
>> be treated equally when a business provides their services.
>>
>> That means that you don't get asked to pay $500 for the same medical test
>> that I only pay $50 for because I'm white ^H^H^H^H .. I have "Insurance".
>>
> Insurance is supposed to pay the bill - - not negotiate a 90% discount.
>
> Fail to see what is wrong with negotiating a better deal.
only costs $50, then charging **anyone** $500 for the same service is the
poster child for "usury."
>> If you had a car accident and your car worth $40K gets totaled, would you be
>> okay with getting a replacement car that the insurance company claims is
>> worth $40K, even when their own paperwork reveals only actually cost $4K?
>>
>> Of course not!
>> When the worth of the product is $40K, that's what the insurance should pay,
>> and that's what we expect them to pay.
>
> And thus pay a higher premium???
Hint: most folks wouldn't think it was right or fair if a dealership selling the
same car were to tell you that if a white guy was the buyer, its $40K, but when
they sell the same car to your wife (or a black neighbor, etc) that its cost
magically becomes $400K and not a penny less.
>> But that's not the way it works in Healthcare. That's what's broken.
>
> What is broken is the insured paying the claims of the uninsured.
turn away any patients based on any means test (e.g., ability to pay).
In an emergency room setting, this is what saves your ass when your
wallet didn't make it from your crashed car to the ER with you.
In classical government terms, that's an "unfounded mandate", since
the lawmakers didn't include the means to pay the hospitals directly
for this regulatory mandate. Instead, they copped out and chose to hide
the cost of that public policy by putting it on the backs of regular insured.
> Also broken is a system that insurance companies have to take all comers.
> It is possible to wait until you're sick and then buy health insurance.. or run
> up a hospital bill and then claim bankruptcy.
but these are also inherent factors in risk pooling that Actuaries do. Overall,
in insurance in general, they're not particularly significant to the bottom line,
particularly in those instances where fraud is involved.
And FYI, here's is an example of why families go bankrupt: just contemplate
having to pay just one of these bills at the claimed "Full MSRP" rate:
<http://www.scarymommy.com/mom-shares-son-hospital-bill-twitter/>
Without the Healthcare "Mafia" Insurance program to knock this bill down,
even just a relatively "short" (2 weeks) hospital stay becomes a bankruptcy event.
That's why 80% of all domestic household bankruptcies in the USA are
primarily due to healthcare expenses.
-hh
John B.
Jun 25, 2017, 7:22:26 PM6/25/17
to
Health insurance is so expensive that very few people can afford to
pay for it on their own. If we let insurance cos. off the hook for
pre-existing conditions, then we give them license to screw people
for conditions they used to have, like they did before ACA. That's
why ACA stopped them from denying those policies to those people.
Insurance cos. have armies of lobbyists in DC who pour money into
their campaign funds and so-called leadership PACs. Several of the
Senators who wrote the current bill are among their favorite
beneficiaries. People who struggle to pay for health insurance
don't have anybody here. That's not fair.
Dene
Jun 25, 2017, 8:32:55 PM6/25/17
to
Not a very compelling analogy. Homeowners' insurance is cheap.
Health insurance is so expensive that very few people can afford to
pay for it on their own. If we let insurance cos. off the hook for
pre-existing conditions, then we give them license to screw people
for conditions they used to have, like they did before ACA. That's
why ACA stopped them from denying those policies to those people.
Insurance cos. have armies of lobbyists in DC who pour money into
their campaign funds and so-called leadership PACs. Several of the
Senators who wrote the current bill are among their favorite
beneficiaries. People who struggle to pay for health insurance
don't have anybody here. That's not fair.
That's the trouble with liberal thinking. You're great at spending other people's money. Part of that is the erroneous belief that insurance companies have an endless amount of money. If you allow people to be irresponsible with their pre-existing conditions, I.e. go without coverage, then acquire it after, you have it unsustainable business model. This is also known as the death spiral. It's happening right now.
Health insurance is so expensive that very few people can afford to
pay for it on their own. If we let insurance cos. off the hook for
pre-existing conditions, then we give them license to screw people
for conditions they used to have, like they did before ACA. That's
why ACA stopped them from denying those policies to those people.
Insurance cos. have armies of lobbyists in DC who pour money into
their campaign funds and so-called leadership PACs. Several of the
Senators who wrote the current bill are among their favorite
beneficiaries. People who struggle to pay for health insurance
don't have anybody here. That's not fair.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 25, 2017, 9:17:33 PM6/25/17
to
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 17:32:53 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:
Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
"deadbeats". What about those who had coverage and were dropped
because of a major illness? And that does happen.
wrote:
represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
"deadbeats". What about those who had coverage and were dropped
because of a major illness? And that does happen.
Dene
Jun 25, 2017, 9:47:09 PM6/25/17
to
Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
"deadbeats".
So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
"deadbeats".
What about those who had coverage and were dropped
because of a major illness? And that does happen.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 25, 2017, 10:02:20 PM6/25/17
to
On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:
>Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
>represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
>should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
>mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
>really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
>"deadbeats".
>
>So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
From what most right wingers generally espouse, everyone on welfare is
a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
people's money" is. Check it out. Go downtown to a large city and
see the people living on the streets. Do you actually think that ALL
of them want to be in that situation?
You didn't respond to the major part of my post.
wrote:
>Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
>represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
>should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
>mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
>really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
>"deadbeats".
>
>So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
people's money" is. Check it out. Go downtown to a large city and
see the people living on the streets. Do you actually think that ALL
of them want to be in that situation?
You didn't respond to the major part of my post.
-hh
Jun 25, 2017, 10:19:16 PM6/25/17
to
Bobby wrote:
> Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
> represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible.
Or reality. Unfortunately, a class in Civics isn't a required part of our education
> Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
> represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible.
system, so too many of our native-born don't even understand the basics as well as
a naturalized immigrant had to learn to pass their citizenship test. But them there
foreigners can't be trusted because they're non-Christians, and in the Bible, Jesus
said to Love ... oh, wait: that's .. **Look! Bad Guy! Terrorism! Be Afraid & Obey!**
> Taxes should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
> mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
> really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
> "deadbeats".
a handout, while overlooking how they're driving on public roads (taxpayer-paid)
through the countryside (which has its infrastructure thanks to Rural Electrification
& Communication programs ... also paid for by taxpayers & never to ever be
economically repaid by who uses it), and so on.
> What about those who had coverage and were dropped
> because of a major illness? And that does happen.
-hh
-hh
Jun 25, 2017, 10:33:47 PM6/25/17
to
Re: NYT:
Looks like the article isn't online yet.
On the hard copy, it's on the bottom of Page 1 in the "Sunday Review" section.
Title is "I Am the Man Who Denied Your Claims"
Author is Justin Ordoñez
-hh
Looks like the article isn't online yet.
On the hard copy, it's on the bottom of Page 1 in the "Sunday Review" section.
Title is "I Am the Man Who Denied Your Claims"
Author is Justin Ordoñez
-hh
John B.
Jun 25, 2017, 11:26:35 PM6/25/17
to
other people's money. The government spends my money and
if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
then I'm happy to pay. Conservatives are all about me, me, me. My
money. My guns. If others don't have their own, then tough shit for
them.
John B.
Jun 25, 2017, 11:29:22 PM6/25/17
to
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:47:09 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
> represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
> should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
> mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
> really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
> "deadbeats".
>
> So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
Yes, they increased. There was a severe recession and the
> Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
> represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
> should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
> mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
> really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
> "deadbeats".
>
> So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
unemployment rate hit 10%. Obama didn't cause any of that.
He got stuck with it.
>
> What about those who had coverage and were dropped
> because of a major illness? And that does happen.
>
> That has never happened in my 27 year career.
It happens. Try to enlighten yourself about it.
> What about those who had coverage and were dropped
> because of a major illness? And that does happen.
>
> That has never happened in my 27 year career.
Dene
Jun 25, 2017, 11:36:11 PM6/25/17
to
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:47:09 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
> represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
> should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
> mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
> really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
> "deadbeats".
>
> So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
Yes, they increased. There was a severe recession and the
unemployment rate hit 10%. Obama didn't cause any of that.
He got stuck with it.
Wait...due to his enlightened leadership, we were out of the recession by his 2nd term. So why the increase? Potential votes?
> Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
> represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
> should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
> mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
> really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
> "deadbeats".
>
> So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
Yes, they increased. There was a severe recession and the
unemployment rate hit 10%. Obama didn't cause any of that.
He got stuck with it.
> What about those who had coverage and were dropped
> because of a major illness? And that does happen.
>
> That has never happened in my 27 year career.
It happens. Try to enlighten yourself about it.
Dene
Jun 25, 2017, 11:37:38 PM6/25/17
to
- show quoted text -
That's the trouble with conservative thinking. I don't spend
other people's money. The government spends my money and
if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
then I'm happy to pay. Conservatives are all about me, me, me. My
money. My guns. If others don't have their own, then tough shit for
them.
Conservatives are about personal responsibility...and guns. :-)
other people's money. The government spends my money and
if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
then I'm happy to pay. Conservatives are all about me, me, me. My
money. My guns. If others don't have their own, then tough shit for
them.
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 1:52:05 AM6/26/17
to
On 2017-06-24 7:54 AM, Moderate wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-06-23 9:53 PM, Dene wrote:
> Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>> On 2017-06-23 9:53 PM, Dene wrote:
>>> - show quoted text -
>>> Once they had a draft bill, they submitted it to hearings including
>>> field hearings, posted the bill online, allowed for amendments and
>>> subjected it to weeks of floor debate. That's how it worked and
>>> that's how it's supposed to work. The Republicans have not done
>>> any of those things with the pile of shit they're called a health
>>> care reform bill.
>>>
>>> They had the luxury of time. ACA is in a free fall.
>>>
>>> POS? Let's hear your brilliant solution.
>>>
>>
>>> field hearings, posted the bill online, allowed for amendments and
>>> subjected it to weeks of floor debate. That's how it worked and
>>> that's how it's supposed to work. The Republicans have not done
>>> any of those things with the pile of shit they're called a health
>>> care reform bill.
>>>
>>> They had the luxury of time. ACA is in a free fall.
>>>
>>> POS? Let's hear your brilliant solution.
>>>
>>
>> Do you deny that the Republicans have attempted to completely hide their
>> bill until the last possible moment?
>
> Absolutely.
Explain that.
>> bill until the last possible moment?
>
> Absolutely.
>>
>> Do you deny that there have been no hearings whatsoever on the bill?
>>
>
> Too busy with Russia.
>
hearings on a healthcare bill?
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 2:03:16 AM6/26/17
to
:-)
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 2:05:55 AM6/26/17
to
-hh
Jun 26, 2017, 6:41:28 AM6/26/17
to
On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:26:35 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:32:55 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:32:55 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > John B wrote:
> > > Not a very compelling analogy. Homeowners' insurance is cheap.
> > > Health insurance is so expensive that very few people can afford to
> > > pay for it on their own. If we let insurance cos. off the hook for
> > > pre-existing conditions, then we give them license to screw people
> > > for conditions they used to have, like they did before ACA. That's
> > > why ACA stopped them from denying those policies to those people.
> > > Insurance cos. have armies of lobbyists in DC who pour money into
> > > their campaign funds and so-called leadership PACs. Several of the
> > > Senators who wrote the current bill are among their favorite
> > > beneficiaries. People who struggle to pay for health insurance
> > > don't have anybody here. That's not fair.
> >
> > That's the trouble with liberal thinking. You're great at spending other
> > people's money. Part of that is the erroneous belief that insurance
> > companies have an endless amount of money. If you allow people
> > to be irresponsible with their pre-existing conditions, I.e. go without
> > coverage, then acquire it after, you have it unsustainable business
> > model. This is also known as the death spiral. It's happening right now.
>
> That's the trouble with conservative thinking. I don't spend
> other people's money. The government spends my money and
> if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
> then I'm happy to pay.
And before we start to yell about how taxes are too high, let's not forget
> > > Not a very compelling analogy. Homeowners' insurance is cheap.
> > > Health insurance is so expensive that very few people can afford to
> > > pay for it on their own. If we let insurance cos. off the hook for
> > > pre-existing conditions, then we give them license to screw people
> > > for conditions they used to have, like they did before ACA. That's
> > > why ACA stopped them from denying those policies to those people.
> > > Insurance cos. have armies of lobbyists in DC who pour money into
> > > their campaign funds and so-called leadership PACs. Several of the
> > > Senators who wrote the current bill are among their favorite
> > > beneficiaries. People who struggle to pay for health insurance
> > > don't have anybody here. That's not fair.
> >
> > That's the trouble with liberal thinking. You're great at spending other
> > people's money. Part of that is the erroneous belief that insurance
> > companies have an endless amount of money. If you allow people
> > to be irresponsible with their pre-existing conditions, I.e. go without
> > coverage, then acquire it after, you have it unsustainable business
> > model. This is also known as the death spiral. It's happening right now.
>
> That's the trouble with conservative thinking. I don't spend
> other people's money. The government spends my money and
> if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
> then I'm happy to pay.
to ignore the degree of institutionalized Corporate Welfare present today.
> Conservatives are all about me, me, me. My money. My guns. If others
> don't have their own, then tough shit for them.
BTW, here's the NYT article I mentioned:
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/opinion/obamacare-cancer-pre-existing-conditions.html?_r=0>
And just one long quote, unabridged, which is illustrative:
"By now I had moved on to a new job focused on Medicaid clients, which
meant I encountered a pillar of Obamacare, the Medicaid expansion. Many
more chronically ill people were now being covered by the government.
This was my opportunity to see the costs of uninsured America, a giant pool
of liability so muddied by the complexities of coding and poor data tracking
that no one knew if it was two or 20 feet deep. I suspected America was far
sicker than the politicians described.
One issue that stood out was the number of patients who had contracted sepsis,
a blood infection. Unable to get medical care, patients had lived with infections
for weeks, maybe months, until bacteria caught a ride into their blood streams.
Now Medicaid was paying bills as large as $100,000, and those patients who
did not die were facing months of recovery, and not a premium payment had
been made to compensate for it.
[FYI, sepsis is another one of those big hidden problems; "Sepsis occurs in
just 10% of U.S. hospital patients, but it contributes to as many as half of all
hospital deaths, according to new research published in JAMA." - URL: <https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2014/05/21/jama-up-to-of-hospital-deaths-linked-to-sepsis> ]
President Trump has portrayed Obamacare as a cesspool. The problem was
never Obamacare. It was uninsured America — people who had been cut out
of the system, but who were nonetheless pushing us toward collective
bankruptcy. Obamacare just cleaned the water enough for us to finally see
the time bomb in the depths.
Republican plans to fix health care simply put mud back into the pool, finding
new ways to stop covering sick Americans. Medicaid rolls will shrink again;
insurers in certain states may cut what they cover. Even pre-existing conditions
could become a problem again. While the draft of the Senate bill still technically
requires insurers to cover these patients, it would let states petition to limit that
coverage — who knows by how much. And the House version would let insurers
charge them much more, putting private insurance out of reach for many.
In the short term, all this is beneficial from the industry’s perspective. It’s easier
to balance the books if you don’t count the sick. In the long term, everyone
gets sick, and for those people to be profitable, they need to be making
premium payments throughout their entire lives — not just when they’re sick
and not just when they have a job that offers benefits. This is why no health
care legislation can work if it drops the mandate to buy coverage, as both
the House bill and the draft of the Senate bill do."
The whole scheme of delegating to the States is really a deliberate cop-out.
-hh
Carbon
Jun 26, 2017, 7:21:55 AM6/26/17
to
No, Thomas. That would just make them lazy.
Then shouldn't you at least heal them, Supply Side Jesus?
No, James. Leprosy is a matter of personal responsibility. If people knew I was healing lepers, there would be no incentive to avoid leprosy.
From The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus... https://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 12:28:01 PM6/26/17
to
On 2017-06-26 5:47 AM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:47:07 -0700 ?
> recipients look for work.
>
> Rolls dropped by 85%. Similarly in Maine.
Let's see your sources...
Quote AND link!
>
> You are blatantly wrong.
>
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:47:07 -0700 ?
>>
>> From what most right wingers generally espouse, everyone on welfare is
>> a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
>> people's money" is. Check it out. Go downtown to a large city and
>> see the people living on the streets. Do you actually think that ALL
>> of them want to be in that situation?
>
> BS. Just this year 13 Alabama ciunties mandated able body SNAP
>> From what most right wingers generally espouse, everyone on welfare is
>> a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
>> people's money" is. Check it out. Go downtown to a large city and
>> see the people living on the streets. Do you actually think that ALL
>> of them want to be in that situation?
>
> recipients look for work.
>
> Rolls dropped by 85%. Similarly in Maine.
Let's see your sources...
Quote AND link!
>
> You are blatantly wrong.
>
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 12:40:40 PM6/26/17
to
The more you factually rebut what he claims: the sooner he'll declare
you a "troll".
:-)
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 12:42:37 PM6/26/17
to
On 2017-06-25 7:02 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
>> represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
>> should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
>> mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
>> really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
>> "deadbeats".
>>
>> So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
>
> From what most right wingers generally espouse, everyone on welfare is
> a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
> people's money" is. Check it out. Go downtown to a large city and
> see the people living on the streets. Do you actually think that ALL
> of them want to be in that situation?
>
> You didn't respond to the major part of my post.
What a shock...
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Spending other people's money. Another right wing motto that doesn't
>> represent the morals of our founding fathers, or the Bible. Taxes
>> should be partly to care for the ill, poor and downtrodden. I don't
>> mind paying tax for that, and those that bitch about it usually can
>> really afford it, or are wannabes. They also exaggerate the numbers of
>> "deadbeats".
>>
>> So the welfare rolls under Obama did not increase?
>
> From what most right wingers generally espouse, everyone on welfare is
> a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
> people's money" is. Check it out. Go downtown to a large city and
> see the people living on the streets. Do you actually think that ALL
> of them want to be in that situation?
>
> You didn't respond to the major part of my post.
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 12:44:40 PM6/26/17
to
corporation with its hand out.
:-)
B...@onramp.net
Jun 26, 2017, 1:02:49 PM6/26/17
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 07:47:59 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 18:47:07 -0700 ?
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>>
>> From what most right wingers generally espouse, everyone on welfare is
>> a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
>> people's money" is. Check it out. Go downtown to a large city and
>> see the people living on the streets. Do you actually think that ALL
>> of them want to be in that situation?
>
>> From what most right wingers generally espouse, everyone on welfare is
>> a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
>> people's money" is. Check it out. Go downtown to a large city and
>> see the people living on the streets. Do you actually think that ALL
>> of them want to be in that situation?
>
>BS. Just this year 13 Alabama ciunties mandated able body SNAP
> recipients look for work.
>
>Rolls dropped by 85%. Similarly in Maine.
>
>You are blatantly wrong.
> recipients look for work.
>
>Rolls dropped by 85%. Similarly in Maine.
>
You are blatantly showing your stupidity. Just like saying that ALL
liberals are____________. Fill in the blank you fucking moron.
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 3:30:20 PM6/26/17
to
>
Where's your proof of your statements?
B...@onramp.net
Jun 26, 2017, 3:37:26 PM6/26/17
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:20:03 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
compatriots you just call it a lie. That's your way of ducking the
truth.
>Here is what you said:
>
>
>"From what most right wingers generally espouse, everyone on welfare is
>a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
>people's money"
>
>a deadbeat. That's blatantly wrong, just as the "spending other
>people's money"
>
>Tell another lie to deflect from the one you just posted.
LOL.Where's the lie? If you don't like what is said about your
compatriots you just call it a lie. That's your way of ducking the
truth.
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 4:26:42 PM6/26/17
to
>> Where's your proof of your statements?
>>
>
> I told you. Alabama and Maine.
>>
>
>
Nope. Your claims haven't been supported with anything.
Re-mentioning particular places is not support.
John B.
Jun 26, 2017, 4:41:26 PM6/26/17
to
their misfortunes.
Dene
Jun 26, 2017, 5:16:30 PM6/26/17
to
Remember Biden's tax return.
I want to help those who want to help themselves.
You just want to distribute wealth and keep people on the government tit.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 26, 2017, 7:36:24 PM6/26/17
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 15:24:00 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:
>>
>> Where's your proof of your statements?
>>
>
>>
>
>I told you. Alabama and Maine.
Drops in the bucket. That doesn't mean widespread.
John B.
Jun 26, 2017, 7:46:24 PM6/26/17
to
On Monday, June 26, 2017 at 5:16:30 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:37:38 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > - show quoted text -
> > That's the trouble with conservative thinking. I don't spend
> > other people's money. The government spends my money and
> > if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
> > then I'm happy to pay. Conservatives are all about me, me, me. My
> > money. My guns. If others don't have their own, then tough shit for
> > them.
> >
> > Conservatives are about personal responsibility...and guns. :-)
>
> And about selfishness and greed and blaming the unfortunate for
> their misfortunes.
>
> The Right gives far more money to charitable causes than the Left.
Because they have more money.
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:37:38 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > - show quoted text -
> > That's the trouble with conservative thinking. I don't spend
> > other people's money. The government spends my money and
> > if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
> > then I'm happy to pay. Conservatives are all about me, me, me. My
> > money. My guns. If others don't have their own, then tough shit for
> > them.
> >
> > Conservatives are about personal responsibility...and guns. :-)
>
> And about selfishness and greed and blaming the unfortunate for
> their misfortunes.
>
> The Right gives far more money to charitable causes than the Left.
> Remember Biden's tax return.
> I want to help those who want to help themselves.
> You just want to distribute wealth and keep people on the government tit.
I most certainly do not. You don't know anything about poverty.
> I want to help those who want to help themselves.
> You just want to distribute wealth and keep people on the government tit.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 26, 2017, 8:46:12 PM6/26/17
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:
Just like one of Moderate's wild ass broad statements. That's not
what anyone wants.
wrote:
what anyone wants.
Alan Baker
Jun 26, 2017, 8:58:17 PM6/26/17
to
On 2017-06-26 5:57 PM, Moderate wrote:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
> B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>
So you claim...
...but never actually support.
Carbon
Jun 26, 2017, 8:59:27 PM6/26/17
to
On 06/26/2017 08:46 PM, B...@Onramp.net wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:37:38 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>
>>> That's the trouble with conservative thinking. I don't spend
>>> other people's money. The government spends my money and
>>> if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
>>> then I'm happy to pay. Conservatives are all about me, me, me. My
>>> money. My guns. If others don't have their own, then tough shit for
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Conservatives are about personal responsibility...and guns. :-)
>>
>> And about selfishness and greed and blaming the unfortunate for
>> their misfortunes.
>>
>> The Right gives far more money to charitable causes than the Left.
>> Remember Biden's tax return.
I would be very interested to see Biden's charitable giving compared to Trump's last return. Too bad Trump's being such a pussy about it.
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 11:37:38 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
>>
>>> That's the trouble with conservative thinking. I don't spend
>>> other people's money. The government spends my money and
>>> if it goes to help people who can't afford health insurance,
>>> then I'm happy to pay. Conservatives are all about me, me, me. My
>>> money. My guns. If others don't have their own, then tough shit for
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Conservatives are about personal responsibility...and guns. :-)
>>
>> And about selfishness and greed and blaming the unfortunate for
>> their misfortunes.
>>
>> The Right gives far more money to charitable causes than the Left.
>> Remember Biden's tax return.
>> I want to help those who want to help themselves.
>> You just want to distribute wealth and keep people on the government tit.
B...@onramp.net
Jun 26, 2017, 10:10:27 PM6/26/17
to
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 19:57:58 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
>It is widespread.
Because you say so? LOL
<nos...@noemail.com> wrote:
>B...@Onramp.net Wrote in message:
Because you say so? LOL
0 new messages