Can Trump have one News Conference without Slamming and Insulting the Democrats?

[ptbw forever]

Loser and liar.

Of course, you and I both know that the parties had switched in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act. Those who used to be Democrats turned to Republicans by Goldwater, and the Republicans turned into Democrats. Why do you think the Conservative South is Republican now? If what you're saying is true, it would be Democratic. So you ignore the Southern Strategy because acknowledging it would undermine your argument that Conservatives support Civil Rights (they don't).

So when will the Conservatives start repealing civil rights then, moron?

The only "Southern Strategy" is the Democrat strategy to flood the South with Mexicans and Central and South Americans.

 

[ptbw forever]

Conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. They supported Jim Crow, they supported segregation, they opposed the Civil Rights Act, they opposed the Voting Rights Act. They oppose abortion. They love Putin. Their tax cuts don't work. They oppose SSM. They find themselves consistently on the wrong side of history when it comes to everything. Is there even one piece of legislation they passed in the last 37 years that didn't have (un)intended negative consequences? Can't think of a single thing.

Loser and liar.

True, when you break it down by political party (back then), more Republicans than Democrats supported civil rights for blacks.

... however ....

when you break it down by ideology (1964) ......

The Liberal north ... 90%

The Conservative south ... 7%

There were no "liberals" in 1964, moron.

Today's SJW crap would be unanimously rejected by both parties in both the North and South.

You fail history again....

 

[Faun]

Conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. They supported Jim Crow, they supported segregation, they opposed the Civil Rights Act, they opposed the Voting Rights Act. They oppose abortion. They love Putin. Their tax cuts don't work. They oppose SSM. They find themselves consistently on the wrong side of history when it comes to everything. Is there even one piece of legislation they passed in the last 37 years that didn't have (un)intended negative consequences? Can't think of a single thing.

Loser and liar.

True, when you break it down by political party (back then), more Republicans than Democrats supported civil rights for blacks.

... however ....

when you break it down by ideology (1964) ......

The Liberal north ... 90%

The Conservative south ... 7%

There were no "liberals" in 1964, moron.

Today's SJW crap would be unanimously rejected by both parties in both the North and South.

You fail history again....

 

[The Derp]

What the company "takes: is none of your business. If you don't like what the company "takes' go to a different company.

So you have no problem with an insurance company keeping as much as 20% of your premium for themselves while you have to pay a co-pay, deductible, co-insurance, or prescription drug costs? Now I get the feeling you are arguing against your own self-interests just for the sake of your ego. Listen to what you are saying; you are saying it's perfectly acceptable for a health insurance company to take 20% of your premium for themselves, while you pay deductibles, co-pay, co-insurance, and drug costs. So they are taking 20 cents of every dollar out of your health care in order to line their own pockets. You're not a very smart consumer if you think that's OK. I can't help the stupid and wasteful beliefs and choices you make. I can only shine a light on their absurdities.

Private insurance does not "take" the 20% you are lying about, the overhead is in the COMPANIES that provide insurance

Yes, and what is the service those companies provide? "Insurance" isn't the service. The service they provide is purely administrative. So how does that administration improve or enhance your health care? It doesn't. How BCBS administers payment to your provider doesn't affect the quality of care your provider gives you, nor should it. So since we all realize and recognize that the role insurance plays in health care is wholly administrative, doesn't it make sense to save on administrative costs by having a single payer? In any American hospital there are entire floors devoted to processing claims and reimbursements, costing providers tons in administration and non-health care expenses. In nearly all single payer countries, that job is performed by one person in one room, not an entire floor. So where's the inefficiency in the single payer system? By virtue of a single payer, there is no need for an entire floor (or two) devoted to administration of processing claims. Doesn't that save money that can then be spent on your health care, reducing your out-of-pocket costs?

So despite you lies Anthem and Cigna are not putting this overhead on the consumer.

Of course they're putting it on the customer, dude! That's what co-pays, deductibles, and coinsurance is. That's what your prescription drug co-pay is. If the 80/20 rule was 90/10, that would mean your co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance, and drug co-pays would be reduced because the insurer is reimbursing more.

 

[The Derp]

How long did it take to pass Obamacare? What bribes were used? What did we know about what was being crammed up our throats?

If it was crammed down your throat, it was the longest, sustained cramming ever. It took about a year from conception to execution for the ACA. The AHCA, however, was slapped together in secret in 18 days.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

So you have no problem with an insurance company keeping as much as 20% of your premium for themselves while you have to pay a co-pay, deductible, co-insurance, or prescription drug costs? Now I get the feeling you are arguing against your own self-interests just for the sake of your ego. Listen to what you are saying; you are saying it's perfectly acceptable for a health insurance company to take 20% of your premium for themselves, while you pay deductibles, co-pay, co-insurance, and drug costs. So they are taking 20 cents of every dollar out of your health care in order to line their own pockets. You're not a very smart consumer if you think that's OK. I can't help the stupid and wasteful beliefs and choices you make. I can only shine a light on their absurdities.

How much does Apple "keep" from the iPhone you stood in line for hours to buy?

I care about what coverage I have, what my copay is, and what caps or limits there are. I don't give a flying fuck what the company "keeps." That is just Bolshevik idiocy. Do you ask how much the margin for the store is before you buy an organic pear from Whole Foods?

Yes, and what is the service those companies provide? "Insurance" isn't the service. The service they provide is purely administrative. So how does that administration improve or enhance your health care? It doesn't. How BCBS administers payment to your provider doesn't affect the quality of care your provider gives you, nor should it. So since we all realize and recognize that the role insurance plays in health care is wholly administrative, doesn't it make sense to save on administrative costs by having a single payer? In any American hospital there are entire floors devoted to processing claims and reimbursements, costing providers tons in administration and non-health care expenses. In nearly all single payer countries, that job is performed by one person in one room, not an entire floor. So where's the inefficiency in the single payer system? By virtue of a single payer, there is no need for an entire floor (or two) devoted to administration of processing claims. Doesn't that save money that can then be spent on your health care, reducing your out-of-pocket costs?

No moron, read carefully.

The cost is to the employer providing the coverage.

Of course they're putting it on the customer, dude! That's what co-pays, deductibles, and coinsurance is. That's what your prescription drug co-pay is. If the 80/20 rule was 90/10, that would mean your co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance, and drug co-pays would be reduced because the insurer is reimbursing more.

You have absolutely no idea what you are babbling about. You think Blue Cross gets the copay when an employed person goes to the doctor?

 

[The Derp]

Yes, the $6,000 and $12,000 is the cap on what a young healthy person or couple has to spend, each year, before a nickel of insurance kicks in to pay.

WRONG, IDIOT! You are confusing out of pocket caps with deductibles. Is that intentional as you attempt to exercise sophistry in this thread? The OOPE the ACA sets include deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance. The only thing that doesn't apply to the OOPE are premiums.

If the low cost Bronze plan is what a young, healthy person or couple can afford, how can they afford $500-$1,000 a month in medical expenses? If they can afford $500-$1,000 a month, in addition to their insurance payments, why not buy a better plan?

According to the Kaiser Insurance Calculator, the cost of a Bronze Plan for a 27-year old non-smoker that makes $35K a year is $221/month which is $2,655 a year. Not sure what the fuck you're talking about, as it seems like you're just pulling shit from your ass and pretending it's gold. It's not. It's shit. These things are so easily researched, and Kaiser makes it very easy for you. So what's your excuse for getting things so wrong?

 

[The Derp]

Your ignorance is getting boring. People and companies are already fleeing California due to the astronomical costs, taxes, and fees. Ignorant about life expectancy and infant mortality as well.

Completely untrue. No one is fleeing California. In fact, CA leads the nation in job and business creation since 2012 (when they raised their taxes):

It is a right-wing myth that people are fleeing California, just like it's a right-wing myth that cutting taxes increases revenue, just like it's a right-wing myth that raising the minimum wage kills jobs, just like it's a right-wing myth that once debt reaches 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff".

Conservatives love their myths, fantasies, and alternative facts, to be sure.

Maybe next time stop using outdated right-wing rhetoric. It wasn't even accurate back before 2012, and it's not accurate today.

 

[The Derp]

So when will the Conservatives start repealing civil rights then, moron?

They've already started to try. For instance, the Conservative opposition to LGBT rights.

The only "Southern Strategy" is the Democrat strategy to flood the South with Mexicans and Central and South Americans.

Maybe those folks will bring some class to the joint, because that's a major thing lacking in the South.

But I notice you didn't deny the GOP's strategy to appeal to racist morons.

 

[Thinker101]

So when will the Conservatives start repealing civil rights then, moron?

They've already started to try. For instance, the Conservative opposition to LGBT rights.

The only "Southern Strategy" is the Democrat strategy to flood the South with Mexicans and Central and South Americans.

Maybe those folks will bring some class to the joint, because that's a major thing lacking in the South.

But I notice you didn't deny the GOP's strategy to appeal to racist morons.

Yup, we all know how classy illegals can be.

 

[The Derp]

How much does Apple "keep" from the iPhone you stood in line for hours to buy?

With Apple, you get a product back in your hand, that you can hold. An insurance company doesn't provide you with a product. In fact, the transaction the insurance company performs is a transaction you aren't even a part of. It's a transaction between the insurer and the provider. You are not even in that equation. So my point is why does that transaction have to be privatized, and hoes does privatizing it improve or enhance the care your provider gives you? Providers have entire staffs dedicated to administration, not health care. Why do you think that is? Because there are multiple payors which means multiple processes, which means administrative expenses. Those administrative expenses take a chunk out of the premiums used to pay for your health care. So you are paying for administration of a transaction you are not even a party to! What sense does that make? The more spent on administration means the less spent on health care. Don't you want your premium dollars to be spent on your health care?

I care about what coverage I have, what my copay is, and what caps or limits there are. I don't give a flying fuck what the company "keeps." That is just Bolshevik idiocy. Do you ask how much the margin for the store is before you buy an organic pear from Whole Foods?

OK, but the coverage presently is determined by the providers who contract with insurers. In a system without insurers, where there is only a single payer that does the administration, there are no contracts with providers, which means the barriers to providers no longer exist, which means you can go to a doctor who wasn't previously in your network, who may be more highly recommended by your friends or family than your present doctor. Don't you want to have a true free market for health care? Insurance companies make sure there isn't a free market. You cannot go to any doctor you want. Shouldn't you be able to without having to pay exorbitant fees?

he cost is to the employer providing the coverage.

Sigh...the employer providing coverage gets that coverage on the SHOP marketplace. That is how employer-provided care works. And furthermore, it costs on average $17,000 a year to provide coverage for an employee, with the employee paying an average of $5K and the employer paying an average of $12K. For a business of 50 employees, that's a $600,000 expense. Most small businesses barely generate that much in profit, and here it is as a massive cost on the company's budget. Wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to do away with the whole concept of employer-provided care, have a single payer that covers everyone at a flat % of income (which would be less than what people pay in premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. today), and therefore businesses don't have to devote entire departments to benefits, saving (again) on admin and overhead that could otherwise be paid back to employees by increased wages, business expansion, and dividends?

You have absolutely no idea what you are babbling about. You think Blue Cross gets the copay when an employed person goes to the doctor?

So in your sloppy rush to respond to my post, you didn't bother to actually read it. Co-pays exist because the insurer isn't reimbursing the full cost. So the less the insurer reimburses, the more you pay out of pocket. So if an insurer is using, say, 20% of your premium for their overhead, that's 20% that you have to pay by way of deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, drug co-pays, etc. Why do you think co-pays and deductibles exist??????

 

[The Derp]

Yup, we all know how classy illegals can be.

Far more classy than the welfare-taking, tank top-wearing, fat, ugly, country music-loving, inbred fuckers in the South. And I know...I live in Atlanta and see them every day.

 

[healthmyths]

What the company "takes: is none of your business. If you don't like what the company "takes' go to a different company.

So you have no problem with an insurance company keeping as much as 20% of your premium for themselves while you have to pay a co-pay, deductible, co-insurance, or prescription drug costs? Now I get the feeling you are arguing against your own self-interests just for the sake of your ego. Listen to what you are saying; you are saying it's perfectly acceptable for a health insurance company to take 20% of your premium for themselves, while you pay deductibles, co-pay, co-insurance, and drug costs. So they are taking 20 cents of every dollar out of your health care in order to line their own pockets. You're not a very smart consumer if you think that's OK. I can't help the stupid and wasteful beliefs and choices you make. I can only shine a light on their absurdities.

Private insurance does not "take" the 20% you are lying about, the overhead is in the COMPANIES that provide insurance

Yes, and what is the service those companies provide? "Insurance" isn't the service. The service they provide is purely administrative. So how does that administration improve or enhance your health care? It doesn't. How BCBS administers payment to your provider doesn't affect the quality of care your provider gives you, nor should it. So since we all realize and recognize that the role insurance plays in health care is wholly administrative, doesn't it make sense to save on administrative costs by having a single payer? In any American hospital there are entire floors devoted to processing claims and reimbursements, costing providers tons in administration and non-health care expenses. In nearly all single payer countries, that job is performed by one person in one room, not an entire floor. So where's the inefficiency in the single payer system? By virtue of a single payer, there is no need for an entire floor (or two) devoted to administration of processing claims. Doesn't that save money that can then be spent on your health care, reducing your out-of-pocket costs?

So despite you lies Anthem and Cigna are not putting this overhead on the consumer.

Of course they're putting it on the customer, dude! That's what co-pays, deductibles, and coinsurance is. That's what your prescription drug co-pay is. If the 80/20 rule was 90/10, that would mean your co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance, and drug co-pays would be reduced because the insurer is reimbursing more.

You really don't know much about health insurance financials.
Here is the financial statement for Aetna...
You idiots have NO idea why the insurance companies are dropping out but this I would think should explain for you dummies WHY!!!
You f...king idiots have NO IDEA the realities of running a business that the NET INCOME is less the 4.2% of gross revenue!
But you dummies then idiots want the rule to be 90/10????
HEY DUMMIES!!!! Where would the 10% come from??? DUMMIES the NET profits is less the 4.2%!!!!!
Where would you suggest ????
THIS is reality! NOT stupid ignorant comments!!!

Annual Financial Reports - Investor Info | Aetna

 

[Thinker101]

Yup, we all know how classy illegals can be.

Far more classy than the welfare-taking, tank top-wearing, fat, ugly, country music-loving, inbred fuckers in the South. And I know...I live in Atlanta and see them every day.

Well, don't you sound like one of them classy folks.

 

[The Derp]

You really don't know much about health insurance financials.
Here is the financial statement for Aetna...

Firstly, take whatever insurance companies tell you with a grain of salt. Particularly Aetna, since they fucking lied about their reasons for leaving the Exchanges:

From CNN Money, January 24th, 2017:
Judge: Aetna lied about quitting Obamacare
U.S. District Judge John Bates concluded this week that Aetna's real motivation for dropping Obamacare coverage in several states was "specifically to evade judicial scrutiny" over its merger with Humana.​

You f...king idiots have NO IDEA the realities of running a business that the NET INCOME is less the 4.2% of gross revenue!

What's dumb is having private insurance companies in the first place since you're admitting here that it is impossible for an insurance company to be profitable and provide universal coverage. In which case I say, "fuck insurance companies since they do nothing other than act as parasites".

So you as a Conservative have a choice to make; do you want a system that provides universal coverage, or do you not?

 

[The Derp]

View attachment 132981

So I'm actually very glad you posted this chart because it goes to exactly what I'm talking about:

General Adminstrative Expenses are 17% of the total operating expenses! So why are there $9B worth of general administrative expenses???? "General and Administrative" can mean a lot of things. But your'e here proving my point for me! That not even 80% of premium dollars go to pay for health care. And your chart there shows the company is still profitable. So, you call yourself "Thinker", but it doesn't seem like you do much thinking at all.

By the way, if you do a quick hop to the HHS site and look at the administrative expenses for Medicare, you see it is also $9B, however, Medicare's total outlays are $720B.

So doing some quick math:

$9B/$720B = 1% Administrative cost for Medicare vs. 17% administrative cost for Aetna.

So why is Medicare 1% and Aetna 17%???

 

[The Derp]

<Active Measures>

So I want to ask you, what were you hoping to prove by posting the Aetna statement? It shows the company is still profitable, yet it also shows that administrative expenses make up 17% of outlays! Whereas, looking at HHS' budget, we see Medicare's administrative expenses are 1% of its total outlays, meaning about 98-99% of Medicare's spending is on health care, not administration.

So it would seem that Medicare is far more efficient when it comes to the administration than Aetna, right? If we are looking purely at numbers and not inserting bias, it would appear that Medicare is far more cost effective than Aetna. And if it's more cost effective than Aetna, it's probably more cost-effective than all the other private insurers.

 

[Dragonlady]

It wasn't Obama that divided this country; it was Conservatives who couldn't accept responsibility for the disaster that was Bush the Dumber and a fully-Conservative Congress from 2003-7 that produced no jobs, a housing bubble, and two useless wars.

In petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama's own words from his books, ghostwritten by domestic terrorist and close friend Bill Ayers.

"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”
This is an accurate quote from the introduction to Dreams from My Father. The book chronicles Obama's experience as the son of an African father and an American mother.


"There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."
This is a quote from Dreams from My Father. It is in a section in which Obama describes a job interview with a man in Chicago. Race had been a part of their discussion and the full quote is, "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white---he'd said himself that was a problem."


It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
This one is also from Dreams from My Father. It is from a section when Obama was a college student and wrestling with his identity including as an African-American. The quote describes his observation of what was required among his fellow students.

"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela."
This is from Dreams from my Father. The more complete quote is, ""Yes, I’d seen weakness in other men— Gramps and his disappointments, Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."


###


Quotes from “Dreams of My Father”


"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”


"There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."


It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."


"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela."

That doesn't speak about racism. It's the struggle of a mixed race child to figure out his identity.

 

[healthmyths]

<Active Measures>

So I want to ask you, what were you hoping to prove by posting the Aetna statement? It shows the company is still profitable, yet it also shows that administrative expenses make up 17% of outlays! Whereas, looking at HHS' budget, we see Medicare's administrative expenses are 1% of its total outlays, meaning about 98-99% of Medicare's spending is on health care, not administration.

So it would seem that Medicare is far more efficient when it comes to the administration than Aetna, right? If we are looking purely at numbers and not inserting bias, it would appear that Medicare is far more cost effective than Aetna. And if it's more cost effective than Aetna, it's probably more cost-effective than all the other private insurers.

AND AGAIN your ignorance is on DISPLAY...

Medicare processes not ONE SINGLE CLAIM... thanks to George W Bush's 2003 Medicare Moderization Act!

Here read what the Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs ) who almost all are for PROFIT do in processing all Medicare claims!
Here is a link to show you what MAC administers what state:
https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medica...ractors/Downloads/MACs-by-State-July-2016.pdf

Currently there are 12 A/B MACs and 4 DME MACs in the program that process Medicare FFS claims for nearly 70% of the total Medicare beneficiary population, or 37.5 million Medicare FFS beneficiaries.
The other 30% are processed by Medicare Advantage Plans of which there are over 600 plans, most of them for PROFIT.

What is a MAC - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

I've worked with Medicare MACs for dozens of years. I know Medicare and the health insurance industry better then almost anyone on this board!

 

[healthmyths]

Further information about Medicare Advantage plans which process the other 30% of Medicare beneficiaries!
Here is where you can get a directory of the 638 MAs.
CMS1211780 - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services