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

[ptbw forever]

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.

"Liberals" from the north were against gay marriage in 1964, moron.

Gay marriage only became popular during the late 90s.

 

[healthmyths]

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies
First, other government agencies help administer the Medicare program. The Internal Revenue Service collects the taxes that fund the program; the Social Security Administration helps collect some of the premiums paid by beneficiaries (which are deducted from Social Security checks); the Department of Health and Human Services helps to manage accounting, auditing, and fraud issues and pays for marketing costs, building costs, and more. Private insurers obviously don't have this kind of outside or off-budget help.
Administrative costs are calculated using faulty arithmetic
But most important, because Medicare patients are older, they are substantially sicker than the average insured patient — driving up the denominator of such calculations significantly. For example: If two patients cost $30 each to manage, but the first requires $100 of health expenditures and the second, much sicker patient requires $1,000, the first patient's insurance will have an administrative-cost ratio of 30%, but the second's will have a ratio of only 3%

Medicare has higher administrative costs per beneficiary
A more accurate measure of overhead would therefore be the administrative costs per patient, rather than per dollar of medical expenses. And by that measure, even with all the administrative advantages Medicare has over private coverage, the program's administrative costs are actually significantly higher than those of private insurers.
In 2005, for example, Robert Book has shown that private insurers spent $453 per beneficiary on administrative costs, compared to $509 for Medicare. (Indeed, Robert has written the definitive paper on this subject, from which the above figure is taken.)


The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

 

[The Derp]

Probably because truly economic ignorami like you have NO idea what it means to run a for profit company.

So please spare me your hysterics and straw men. It is very clear what we are talking about here, as much as you are trying to make it about something else. For the service an insurance company provides, administration, why does there need to be a profit motive tied to that? How does tying a profit motive to administration result in anything other than higher costs. You say you have experience in this field...then you should know that privatizing administration does not have an effect on the quality of health care and how it's delivered. Because it has nothing to do with health care. All it has to do with is how health care is paid. Can you explain how privatizing that process leads to innovation, given that many insurers already use Medicare as a template when devising their own processes and procedures? Because it doesn't seem like there is much room for innovation when it comes to administrating reimbursements. What you all have failed to do is make the case that privatizing administration results in better administration. There is a strong case that the opposite is true; entire floors in hospitals/providers are dedicated solely to processing claims because of the multiple insurers, those administrative costs add up. That's precisely the reason why we spend double a % of our GDP on health care than the next closest western nation. We spend close to 20% of our GDP on health care, whereas single payer countries spend up to about 10%. So where is that cost being inflated? I'll tell you where; administration.

First of all Aetna can not lie about their profits

Maybe. But one's things for sure, Aetna lied about their reasons for leaving the Exchanges. That's court record and not something you have even bothered to address. It's like you are pretending that a federal judge didn't just rule 5 months ago that Aetna willfully and deliberately lied about leaving the exchanges for no other reason than because they weren't permitted to merge with Humana. That judge found their claims that the exchanges were making them unprofitable to be bullshit. So if they lied about that, what else are they lying about? If they deliberately and knowingly mislead the public about their reasons for leaving the exchanges, what else are they deliberately and knowingly misleading the public about? Why should anyone trust anything they say, after they displayed nothing but contempt for you, me, this country, their customers, the health care system, the ACA, providers, and the truth? I don't feel like these are unfair questions to ask, and I think we deserve an explanation and they deserve to be put under stricter scrutiny until they can get their act together.

 

[The Derp]

In Alabama, for instance, Blue Cross Blue Shield is the only insurer participating in the exchange in 2017,and it’s spending $1.20 for every $1 it collects in premiums—an unsustainable ratio, as insurance writer and analyst Louise Norris points out.
Why So Many Insurers Are Leaving Obamacare

Again, since Aetna lied about leaving the exchanges, why should we take anything other insurers say as truth?

Obamacare is doing exactly what it was supposed to do; show that health insurance companies cannot provide universal coverage and remain profitable. So that boils the argument down to a choice;

You either put patient needs ahead of corporate profits, or you don't.

So which is your position?

 

[healthmyths]

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.

Texas is nothing but an oil field and lots of desert.

The fact that Texas can even compete with California proves that Republicans are more right than you are.

OH my goodness you truly are ignorant of Texas!
This is East Texas

South Texas

Texas IS NOT a desert!

 

[The Derp]

"Liberals" from the north were against gay marriage in 1964, moron.
Gay marriage only became popular during the late 90s.

And your point is...? Conservatives still oppose gay marriage today, so what point are you trying to make?

 

[The Derp]

The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'
Medicare is partially administered by outside agencies'

So what's really funny about your post is that the first two lines of it are exactly the problem Ive been saying; Medicare doesn't have "low admin costs" because of it being partially administered by outside (re: private, for-profit) agencies. It is literally the first thing your cut-and-paste says. So...to reduce administrative costs (even though Medicare's Admin costs are 1% of its total outlays), logically you must cease contracting out to third parties.

 

[healthmyths]

In Alabama, for instance, Blue Cross Blue Shield is the only insurer participating in the exchange in 2017,and it’s spending $1.20 for every $1 it collects in premiums—an unsustainable ratio, as insurance writer and analyst Louise Norris points out.
Why So Many Insurers Are Leaving Obamacare

Again, since Aetna lied about leaving the exchanges, why should we take anything other insurers say as truth?

Obamacare is doing exactly what it was supposed to do; show that health insurance companies cannot provide universal coverage and remain profitable. So that boils the argument down to a choice;

You either put patient needs ahead of corporate profits, or you don't.

So which is your position?

I have pointed out to you how there is so much waste in the health industry and especially with the defensive medicine which YOU haven't addressed at all!
I have also pointed out that the insurance companies don't care about defensive medicine! They pay the claims and raise the premiums!
What I am is obviously a lot more informed about insurance companies, health care financing, and waste then you are!
Corporate profits ONLY exist if a good service/product is being offered.
And this bullshit about put patient needs ahead???

TELL ME WHAT ACA's position was on "patient' needs ahead of ACA???

Does ObamaCare Do Away With Dollar Limits?
ObamaCare only makes dollar limits illegal on essential health benefits on non-grandfathered qualified health plans,
your health plan may have both annual and lifetime dollar limits on non-essential treatments.

Does My Plan Still Have Dollar Limits?
All plans sold on and off the Health Insurance Marketplace, small group plans, and Government healthcare options like Medicaid and Medicare starting January 1st, 2014 or later, and any type of insurance that counts as minimum essential coverage will
offer at least ten Essential Benefits regardless of cost and no dollar limits on those essential benefits.

ObamaCare Dollar Limits

Explain to me has ACA put "profits" ahead of patient needs with LIMITING TO TEN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS?????
Starting January 1st of 2014, the following “Ten Essential Benefits” must be included under all insurance plans with no lifetime or annual dollar limits:

• Emergency services
• Hospitalizations
• Laboratory services
• Maternity care
• Mental health and substance abuse treatment
• Outpatient, or ambulatory care
• Pediatric care
• Prescription drugs
• Preventive care
• Rehabilitative and rehabilitative (helping maintain daily functioning) services
• Vision and dental care for children

Now what about that patient that NEEDS a sex change operation as it is ESSENTIAL to his mental health? Isn't that putting ACA ahead of patient needs????

 

[The Derp]

OH my goodness you truly are ignorant of Texas!

Yes, there's East Texas, filled with Evangelicals, rednecks, and the worst humidity on the entire planet (no exaggeration), and there's West Texas, filled with Evangelicals, redneck, and the worst landscape on the entire planet (also, no exaggeration).

 

[The Derp]

I have pointed out to you how there is so much waste in the health industry and especially with the defensive medicine which YOU haven't addressed at all!

Because all of that is downstream of a larger issue; namely the administrative costs that are spiking all other health care costs. Preventative Medicine (assuming what you mean by "defensive medicine") is wholly necessary and practiced by all our single payer allies. That's why their health care metrics beat ours in nearly every measurement there is including life expectancy, infant mortality, wait times, and cost per patient.

Obamacare addressed this issue in Medicare, forcing providers to cover the bill if patient conditions appear from the original treatment. For instance, pre-ACA, if you got, say, a hip replacement and then wound up with a staph infection during recovery, Medicare would pay for both treatments. Now, thanks to the ACA, Medicare no longer will reimburse for that staph infection, which means providers have to raise their game to avoid that cost. That is how you improve outcomes while bringing down costs. There exists no framework whatsoever in the private insurance realm to do the same thing.

What I am is obviously a lot more informed about insurance companies, health care financing, and waste then you are!

So you can Dunning-Kruger all you'd like, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that insurance companies do nothing to improve or enhance patient care. They do nothing to improve or enhance outcomes. They do nothing to reduce costs. All they do is restrict access and pile on high administrative fees all in service not of health care, but of profit. To this day, no one has ever been able to make the case that for-profit private health insurance does anything to improve or enhance how health care is delivered to patients. The reason is because insurance companies have nothing to do with your care other than administrating payment for it. They aren't in the exam room with you. They aren't behind the pharmacist's desk. They aren't sticking a finger up your butt to check your prostate. All they do is move money from the premium pool to your provider. For this "service", they are entitled to as much as 20% of your premium? And you don't think that's a rip-off?????

TELL ME WHAT ACA's position was on "patient' needs ahead of ACA???

All Obamacare does is provide a level playing field for insurers to compete in a marketplace for patients. Then it offers subsidies to those patients to defray some of that cost. That's all the law does. So I'm wondering why you think having a level playing field and a marketplace for consumers to compare and purchase insurance is a bad thing. Businesses already have a marketplace exactly like that (SHOP marketplace). So if it works for businesses, why won't it work for individuals?

Explain to me has ACA put "profits" ahead of patient needs with LIMITING TO TEN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS?????

Well, there were no essential benefits before. So in this instance, the ACA puts patient needs ahead of corporate profits. Not sure what argument you think you're making, but you're making one that helps me and hurts you.

 

[The Derp]

Now what about that patient that NEEDS a sex change operation as it is ESSENTIAL to his mental health? Isn't that putting ACA ahead of patient needs????

Find a plan that covers the operation. What are you trying to prove? Before the ACA there was no such thing as "essential benefits". If you are arguing that all medical conditions are essential, I wouldn't disagree, and it's exactly why I think having a for-profit insurance industry harms health care.

 

[The Derp]

The fact that Texas can even compete with California proves that Republicans are more right than you are.

But they can't compete with CA. That's the thing. Texas cannot create jobs on its own, it has to poach them from other states. The reasons are myriad, but the primary reason is that the workforce in Texas is too uneducated, too barefoot, and too pregnant to employ. So Texas companies have to poach people from other states. So Texas isn't a job creator, it's a job thief.

 

[healthmyths]

I have pointed out to you how there is so much waste in the health industry and especially with the defensive medicine which YOU haven't addressed at all!

Because all of that is downstream of a larger issue; namely the administrative costs that are spiking all other health care costs. Preventative Medicine (assuming what you mean by "defensive medicine") is wholly necessary and practiced by all our single payer allies. That's why their health care metrics beat ours in nearly every measurement there is including life expectancy, infant mortality, wait times, and cost per patient.

Obamacare addressed this issue in Medicare, forcing providers to cover the bill if patient conditions appear from the original treatment. For instance, pre-ACA, if you got, say, a hip replacement and then wound up with a staph infection during recovery, Medicare would pay for both treatments. Now, thanks to the ACA, Medicare no longer will reimburse for that staph infection, which means providers have to raise their game to avoid that cost. That is how you improve outcomes while bringing down costs. There exists no framework whatsoever in the private insurance realm to do the same thing.

What I am is obviously a lot more informed about insurance companies, health care financing, and waste then you are!

So you can Dunning-Kruger all you'd like, it doesn't change the facts. The facts are that insurance companies do nothing to improve or enhance patient care. They do nothing to improve or enhance outcomes. They do nothing to reduce costs. All they do is restrict access and pile on high administrative fees all in service not of health care, but of profit. To this day, no one has ever been able to make the case that for-profit private health insurance does anything to improve or enhance how health care is delivered to patients. The reason is because insurance companies have nothing to do with your care other than administrating payment for it. They aren't in the exam room with you. They aren't behind the pharmacist's desk. They aren't sticking a finger up your butt to check your prostate. All they do is move money from the premium pool to your provider. For this "service", they are entitled to as much as 20% of your premium? And you don't think that's a rip-off?????

TELL ME WHAT ACA's position was on "patient' needs ahead of ACA???

All Obamacare does is provide a level playing field for insurers to compete in a marketplace for patients. Then it offers subsidies to those patients to defray some of that cost. That's all the law does. So I'm wondering why you think having a level playing field and a marketplace for consumers to compare and purchase insurance is a bad thing. Businesses already have a marketplace exactly like that (SHOP marketplace). So if it works for businesses, why won't it work for individuals?

Explain to me has ACA put "profits" ahead of patient needs with LIMITING TO TEN ESSENTIAL BENEFITS?????

Well, there were no essential benefits before. So in this instance, the ACA puts patient needs ahead of corporate profits. Not sure what argument you think you're making, but you're making one that helps me and hurts you.

OH boy... Dunning-Kruger how cliched!
Now I understand. Makes a lot of sense as you are truly a biased..(Evangelicals, rednecks, and the worst humidity on the entire planet (no exaggeration), and there's West Texas, filled with Evangelicals,) ignorant person. You are a perfect example of an of illusory superiority personality combined with a low perception capability!
Your perception of insurance companies is so naive and truly ignorant. Why don't you just get rid of your auto or home or other insurance as there is no need it appears as you pay for all your expenses out of your pocket?
As far as "essential benefits" the term never existed before ACA and they put the limits on patients needs!
My goodness Derp... such a shallow biased ignorant person so brainwashed.
Too bad your lack of access to information is so indicative by your really archaic perceptions.

 

[The Derp]

OH boy... Dunning-Kruger how cliched!
Now I understand. Makes a lot of sense as you are truly a biased..(Evangelicals, rednecks, and the worst humidity on the entire planet (no exaggeration), and there's West Texas, filled with Evangelicals,) ignorant person. You are a perfect example of an of illusory superiority personality combined with a low perception capability!

So your attempt to gaslight me based on what was (obviously) a joke at the expense of Texas tells me pretty much all I need to know about you and your "experience" when it comes to health care. I just want you to know that the same argument you are making here was almost made verbatim by another right-winger on these boards (not this thread, but these boards for sure), and just like with that other poster, the main thrust of the argument (administration) is lost for hysterics and melodrama with no clear throughline or legitimate solution to the illegitimate problems raised by those opposed to single payer and (somehow, someway) content with a private insurance system that jacks up costs and offers nothing in return. Why do we need an insurance company to administer payments to providers? Why can't we just have one single entity that does that? Think of the administrative savings we'd have from that! It's staggering to think about. You showed yourself that 17% of Aetna's budget goes to administrative costs. I don't see why those costs should be that high since the only thing these insurance companies do is move money. That's $9B thrown into an Aetna hole that isn't used to pay for health care. And $9B sure buys a lot of health care.

Your perception of insurance companies is so naive and truly ignorant. Why don't you just get rid of your auto or home or other insurance as there is no need it appears as you pay for all your expenses out of your pocket?

We aren't talking about auto or home insurance. both those insurances aren't something every person needs. But every person will need health care at some point in their lives. So stay on topic. It's not me who is woefully naive when it comes to health insurance, it's you who thinks insurance companies do something more than pushing paper. That's why you are been unable to make a case for private health insurance, period. Because there is no case to be made for it. Insurance companies are middle men and paper pushers who don't employ doctors (exception being Kaiser) on staff, don't make decisions based on medical needs, and serve a profit motive at the expense of patients. They are parasites who do nothing to improve or enhance you care, only restrict it and make it more expensive.

As far as "essential benefits" the term never existed before ACA and they put the limits on patients needs!

Did they? Because it sure seems like they put patient needs first by mandating those ten benefits when before, there was no such thing as essential benefits. And if you're crying crocodile tears about what makes a benefit "essential", then you should support a single-payer system that treats all benefits as essential. So you are inadvertently arguing on behalf of a single payer system and you don't even realize it!!!

My goodness Derp... such a shallow biased ignorant person so brainwashed.
Too bad your lack of access to information is so indicative by your really archaic perceptions.

I think what happened here is that you bit off more than you could chew, your posturing about health care was about as transparent as cellophane, and your self-contradicting arguments undermine whatever weak premise you had when you started voicing your opinions on this thread.

Grow the fuck up, and get over yourself.

 

[ptbw forever]

The fact that Texas can even compete with California proves that Republicans are more right than you are.

But they can't compete with CA. That's the thing. Texas cannot create jobs on its own, it has to poach them from other states. The reasons are myriad, but the primary reason is that the workforce in Texas is too uneducated, too barefoot, and too pregnant to employ. So Texas companies have to poach people from other states. So Texas isn't a job creator, it's a job thief.

Do you really want talk about how "educated" the average retard in California is?

California is the most populous state with the most resources, which means there are literally 1 to 2 million geniuses to offset tens of millions of dumbasses who don't have as much power collectively.

Texas is just a hodgepodge of America(and Mexico), while California has all of Hollywood, tech giants and countless amounts of unearned industries that help bolster its abysmal performance(given its VAST resources).

 

[The Derp]

Do you really want talk about how "educated" the average retard in California is?

Moreso than Texas, that's for fucking sure. Texas is so terrible, it cannot create jobs on its own, instead it has to steal them from the other states that did the work of creating jobs. Texas is basically a Conservative; too lazy, stupid, and ignorant to do the hard work, producing rushed, sloppy work instead chasing short-term gains at long-term expense. The recent struggles Texas had last year is evidence of that. Texas doesn't innovate, all it does is piggyback, poach, and procure from the ground. Once that price per barrel drops, the jobs in Texas drop with it. That's why Texas became "a drag on the US economy" in 2016, as the Wall Street Journal points out.

California is the most populous state with the most resources, which means there are literally 1 to 2 million geniuses to offset tens of millions of dumbasses who don't have as much power collectively.

So your very childish and immature approach to debate is noted. The dumbasses live in Texas. That's why Texas has to steal workers from other states; the people in Texas are too dumb, barefoot, and pregnant to employ.

Texas is just a hodgepodge of America(and Mexico), while California has all of Hollywood, tech giants and countless amounts of unearned industries that help bolster its abysmal performance(given its VAST resources).

Unearned!? Those industries didn't start elsewhere and move to California. CA didn't do the TX model which is to poach from other states who did the hard work of building those industries. Texas has all the advantages (plenty of oil, gulf access, diverse climate, large population) yet can't capitalize on them because the state itself is broken.

 

[ptbw forever]

Do you really want talk about how "educated" the average retard in California is?

Moreso than Texas, that's for fucking sure. Texas is so terrible, it cannot create jobs on its own, instead it has to steal them from the other states that did the work of creating jobs. Texas is basically a Conservative; too lazy, stupid, and ignorant to do the hard work, producing rushed, sloppy work instead chasing short-term gains at long-term expense. The recent struggles Texas had last year is evidence of that. Texas doesn't innovate, all it does is piggyback, poach, and procure from the ground. Once that price per barrel drops, the jobs in Texas drop with it. That's why Texas became "a drag on the US economy" in 2016, as the Wall Street Journal points out.

California is the most populous state with the most resources, which means there are literally 1 to 2 million geniuses to offset tens of millions of dumbasses who don't have as much power collectively.

So your very childish and immature approach to debate is noted. The dumbasses live in Texas. That's why Texas has to steal workers from other states; the people in Texas are too dumb, barefoot, and pregnant to employ.

Texas is just a hodgepodge of America(and Mexico), while California has all of Hollywood, tech giants and countless amounts of unearned industries that help bolster its abysmal performance(given its VAST resources).

Unearned!? Those industries didn't start elsewhere and move to California. CA didn't do the TX model which is to poach from other states who did the hard work of building those industries. Texas has all the advantages (plenty of oil, gulf access, diverse climate, large population) yet can't capitalize on them because the state itself is broken.

Texas has countless more advantages than states like Kentucky(my state), but it is nothing compared to California(which has advantages over entire countries and even continents).

 

[Markle]

So you say here that Medicare doesn't have overhead as low as claimed, yet the chief reason for why that's the case is because it contracts with private companies!

Liar.

Remember these points the next time someone tries to tell you that Medicare is “more efficient” than private insurance.
The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

 

[Markle]

Do you really want talk about how "educated" the average retard in California is?

Moreso than Texas, that's for fucking sure. Texas is so terrible, it cannot create jobs on its own, instead it has to steal them from the other states that did the work of creating jobs. Texas is basically a Conservative; too lazy, stupid, and ignorant to do the hard work, producing rushed, sloppy work instead chasing short-term gains at long-term expense. The recent struggles Texas had last year is evidence of that. Texas doesn't innovate, all it does is piggyback, poach, and procure from the ground. Once that price per barrel drops, the jobs in Texas drop with it. That's why Texas became "a drag on the US economy" in 2016, as the Wall Street Journal points out.

California is the most populous state with the most resources, which means there are literally 1 to 2 million geniuses to offset tens of millions of dumbasses who don't have as much power collectively.

So your very childish and immature approach to debate is noted. The dumbasses live in Texas. That's why Texas has to steal workers from other states; the people in Texas are too dumb, barefoot, and pregnant to employ.

Texas is just a hodgepodge of America(and Mexico), while California has all of Hollywood, tech giants and countless amounts of unearned industries that help bolster its abysmal performance(given its VAST resources).

Unearned!? Those industries didn't start elsewhere and move to California. CA didn't do the TX model which is to poach from other states who did the hard work of building those industries. Texas has all the advantages (plenty of oil, gulf access, diverse climate, large population) yet can't capitalize on them because the state itself is broken.

Good to see you so grudgingly admit that California is driving out millions of their over taxed, over regulated citizens and companies.

If California was so grand, why would people and companies go to the huge expense, time and trouble to bail out of that beautiful state, and it is a beautiful state, it is a shame you have destroyed the state.

 

[Markle]

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.

I just proved to you the government does the same thing only far less efficiently.

List for us the countries who have developed more life-extending and life-saving drugs, technology, and techniques than the United States.

I'll not be holding my breath.