Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It’s cruel, duplicitous and ignorant.
Trump’s plan is driven by the decision to add $54 billion to military spending (above the 2017 baseline) and subtract that sum from domestic programs. Its most wrongheaded assumption is that the Pentagon, which already accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s military spending, needs more money, while diplomacy and international cooperation are simply a waste. In fact, our overstressed military needs fewer wars, which we’ll never escape without far more diplomacy, international cooperation, and institution-building.
We already spend more in our military budget than the next 7 countries combined. It's just plain lunacy to increase it by $54 billion. Trump probably thinks we need it for dog fights with ISIS and the Taliban.
Trump’s Budget Is a Perfect Reflection of Republican Values
This coming from a proud supporter of Obama and who still doesn't realize the con.It's hard to feel sorry of idiots like James Walker. How can people be so fucking gullible? Trump had flashing neon lights showing what a con man he was. They deserve their Pussy Grabber - the rest of us don't.
You know what Obama realized? How to get a health insurance bill passed.
Why? laissez-fair in foreign policy, right wingers!It’s cruel, duplicitous and ignorant.
Trump’s plan is driven by the decision to add $54 billion to military spending (above the 2017 baseline) and subtract that sum from domestic programs. Its most wrongheaded assumption is that the Pentagon, which already accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s military spending, needs more money, while diplomacy and international cooperation are simply a waste. In fact, our overstressed military needs fewer wars, which we’ll never escape without far more diplomacy, international cooperation, and institution-building.
We already spend more in our military budget than the next 7 countries combined. It's just plain lunacy to increase it by $54 billion. Trump probably thinks we need it for dog fights with ISIS and the Taliban.
Trump’s Budget Is a Perfect Reflection of Republican Values
I agree with Trumps budget, and support this move. Proudly too.
i don't have the slightest concern about what people can afford, and what they can not. I can not afford a Ferrari. my concern is whether or not someone dies simply because he has no access to insurance because he has been denied by the insurance company. before ACA, that was common. After ACA it does not happen. That is a major step forward to joining the rest of the industrialized world.
Bullshit. The ONLY thing the ACA did was to make Libs feel better about themselves.
"After ACA it does not happen"
It didn't happen prior and we're still paying for their care.
In my career as VP of underwriting, if you came to me with a history of cancer, you were denied. If you went to the emergency room and asked for chemo, you would have been told that thee only responsibility the hospital had to you was to stabilize your acute condition. In short, no breast removal operation or chemo. There was no other option for you unless your total assets were below a certain dollar amount, and if you owned a house, you would not have qualified for Medicaid. You would then have been SOL.
And yet they were not turned away and they indeed got treatment. We paid for it. NOW we pay for their Premiums AND their treatment. Such a deal. THe ACA made YOU feel better, it did nothing for them.
Nope, doc, you did not necessarily get any treatment. In fact, one grieving parent in N. Dakota sent me a photo of their child in a casket, because I had denied coverage on the kid, who was a late enrollee on a group plan, who was born with a hole in his heart .
First, allow me to apologize. The thing is I agree with you that something needs to be done. In 2013 when the ACA first went into effect I was able to help people I could never help before. The problem was that I wasn't able to help the people who needed it most, not really. As to your statement, in EVERY ER in EVEEY State there is a sign telling folks they CANNOT be turned away. The ACA was NEVER the answer. MY answer is Medicare for everyone.
This coming from a proud supporter of Obama and who still doesn't realize the con.It's hard to feel sorry of idiots like James Walker. How can people be so fucking gullible? Trump had flashing neon lights showing what a con man he was. They deserve their Pussy Grabber - the rest of us don't.
You know what Obama realized? How to get a health insurance bill passed.
He also realized the strength of the US is our people, the middle class that built this country.
RWNJ Pootarian traitors believe they want a plutocratic dictator. Will they still believe that as this effects their own lives and the lives of their families?
I hope the damn morons realize how close we came to saving the middle class and catching up to the rest of the world.
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
the middle class that built this country.
Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.
industrialized nation on earth does this, except us.
Just as the cartoon shows... you fought so hard to screw over the American people, and when you succeeded, now you are shocked we're not happy about being screwed over? How dumb are you people?
Having determined that you whole post is bullshit half way through it, I did not bother to read the rest of it.
an understanding of how insurance works.
It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.
The word "contingent" means it's a chance action. Uncertain, means something there is no guarantee of happening.
Regardless, back to the definition of insurance.
"It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."
For property and casualty, that definition applies. It's quite possible that one won't ever make a claim against one's property insurance policy. For life and health, it does not.
For life and health insurance, the only thing that's uncertain is when a qualifying claim event will occur.
- It is 100% certain that the insured's life will end and the insurer will have to pay, barring the death's being of a sort that's not covered.
- It is almost as certain that the insured will suffer a health ailment.
When you say that now they are guaranteed issue.... yeah... who do you think is paying for that guaranteed issue?
We do. The premium payers. Where do you think the insurance companies get money from?
The great majority of it comes from earnings on invested capital. The capital is the money insured parties pay as premiums, but an insurance company cannot thrive on premiums alone. Indeed, but for the "float" associated with the time between receiving premiums and paying a claim, insurers would at best break even.
Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.
Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.industrialized nation on earth does this, except us.
It's worth noting that Hong Kong, the world's most capitalist, free enterprise friendly place, has universal health care/health insurance and the standard of care is as good as one can want, save perhaps for the most arcane of procedures and treatments. And don't even try to compare the U.S. with France; the U.S. pales by large margins.
- Comparing the Health Care Systems of High-Performing Asian Countries
- Does Hong Kong Have the World's Best Health Care System? | The Huffington Post
- 8 places that do health care better than the US
- Anecdote -- Hong Kong's private health care puts US to shame
It makes no sense at all that the U.S. has the world's largest economy and the worlds largest military, yet is't not first in providing for or facilitating the good health of its populace.
Just as the cartoon shows... you fought so hard to screw over the American people, and when you succeeded, now you are shocked we're not happy about being screwed over? How dumb are you people?
Statements like that are part of why substantive discourse doesn't generally happen on here. Regardless of what the outcome be of having passed the ACA, nobody "fought hard to screw over the American people." As long as one ascribes malicious intent to the people who passed that law, thus coming to the table with an adversarial, "they're out to get me" mindset, one will not be able to have a productive discussion about it.
The unavoidable fact is that millions of people who prior to the ACA did not have health insurance obtained health insurance, and vastly more people obtained it than lost it. (Information below is from a 2014 study.)
Moreover, from what I can tell, the hoopla about health insurance has to do only with the 20% of the population that purchases it on the open market. I think that because the rise in employer-based premiums has been comparatively small, most especially after the ACA's implementation. (See also: Private Health Insurance Premiums and Federal Policy)
- Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
- Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had “other” forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
- According to [Rand's] estimates, 3.9 million were covered through the state and federal marketplaces as of mid-March 2014. This figure does not fully capture the enrollment surge that occurred in late March.
- For most people the ACA has not changed their health insurance coverage. Among adults, 80 percent still had the same form of coverage in March 2014 as in September 2013.
- Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained ESI, 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million have signed up through a marketplace, while the remainder gained coverage through other sources.
- Our estimates suggest that about one-third of new marketplace enrollees were previously uninsured.
- Among the 7.8 million people who were enrolled in off-marketplace individual market plans in early 2014, 7.3 million were previously insured; 5.4 million were previously insured through an individual market plan.
- Less than one million who previously had individual market insurance transitioned to being uninsured. While we cannot tell if these people lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number represents less than one percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64.
Another thing the ACA does that benefits everyone is that it reduces the deficit and it keeps premiums lower than they otherwise would be.
- How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums
- Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act— CBO’s March 2015 Baseline
- Estimating the Budgetary Effects of the Affordable Care Act
- Here's how GOP repeal of Obamacare would swell the federal deficit
- Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible Congress' scorekeeper confirms that the health care law will reduce deficits.
At the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: what one sees as the objectives of a nation's health care system.
What are the objectives in your mind?
- Some people think it's objective is to keep the citizenry as healthy as possible.
- Some people think it's objective is to have the best quality modes of care possible, without regard to who obtains that care when they need it.
- Some think it's to ensure a basic level of health status among the populace.
- Some think it's to make healthcare affordable (via insurance) for people who can afford the insurance, but not necessarily make it possible for everyone to obtain healthcare outside of emergency situations.
Having determined that you whole post is bullshit half way through it, I did not bother to read the rest of it.
Yes, well, when someone makes remarks like "[Democrats] fought so hard to screw over the American people," one knows one may as well have the conversation with a trained parrot.
Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.
The problem is, I've been to some of those industrial nations with free health care, and I didn't want what they had to offer. Their health care system sucks. Effectively what you are saying is "I want more people to die, like they do elsewhere."
And Medicare is going broke, if you missed it. You want to end up like Greece? Bankrupt and impoverished? Bad plan. A system that isn't' sustainable, is bad for the whole country.
Just as the cartoon shows... you fought so hard to screw over the American people, and when you succeeded, now you are shocked we're not happy about being screwed over? How dumb are you people?
Statements like that are part of why substantive discourse doesn't generally happen on here. Regardless of what the outcome be of having passed the ACA, nobody "fought hard to screw over the American people." As long as one ascribes malicious intent to the people who passed that law, thus coming to the table with an adversarial, "they're out to get me" mindset, one will not be able to have a productive discussion about it.
The unavoidable fact is that millions of people who prior to the ACA did not have health insurance obtained health insurance, and vastly more people obtained it than lost it. (Information below is from a 2014 study.)
Moreover, from what I can tell, the hoopla about health insurance has to do only with the 20% of the population that purchases it on the open market. I think that because the rise in employer-based premiums has been comparatively small, most especially after the ACA's implementation. (See also: Private Health Insurance Premiums and Federal Policy)
- Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
- Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had “other” forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
- According to [Rand's] estimates, 3.9 million were covered through the state and federal marketplaces as of mid-March 2014. This figure does not fully capture the enrollment surge that occurred in late March.
- For most people the ACA has not changed their health insurance coverage. Among adults, 80 percent still had the same form of coverage in March 2014 as in September 2013.
- Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained ESI, 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million have signed up through a marketplace, while the remainder gained coverage through other sources.
- Our estimates suggest that about one-third of new marketplace enrollees were previously uninsured.
- Among the 7.8 million people who were enrolled in off-marketplace individual market plans in early 2014, 7.3 million were previously insured; 5.4 million were previously insured through an individual market plan.
- Less than one million who previously had individual market insurance transitioned to being uninsured. While we cannot tell if these people lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number represents less than one percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64.
Another thing the ACA does that benefits everyone is that it reduces the deficit and it keeps premiums lower than they otherwise would be.
- How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums
- Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act— CBO’s March 2015 Baseline
- Estimating the Budgetary Effects of the Affordable Care Act
- Here's how GOP repeal of Obamacare would swell the federal deficit
- Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible Congress' scorekeeper confirms that the health care law will reduce deficits.
At the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: what one sees as the objectives of a nation's health care system.
What are the objectives in your mind?
- Some people think it's objective is to keep the citizenry as healthy as possible.
- Some people think it's objective is to have the best quality modes of care possible, without regard to who obtains that care when they need it.
- Some think it's to ensure a basic level of health status among the populace.
- Some think it's to make healthcare affordable (via insurance) for people who can afford the insurance, but not necessarily make it possible for everyone to obtain healthcare outside of emergency situations.
Having determined that you whole post is bullshit half way through it, I did not bother to read the rest of it.
Yes, well, when someone makes remarks like "[Democrats] fought so hard to screw over the American people," one knows one may as well have the conversation with a trained parrot.
Andy, if it makes yopu feel any better, don't call it "insurance". What they Left has been trying to do is to give everyone access to health care, just like everyone has access to public roads, that are paid for by the people, through the government. Every other industrialized nation on earth does this, except us. ACA was the only thing we could get past the republicans at the time. In the end, only expanding medicare to cover all citizens will work.
The problem is, I've been to some of those industrial nations with free health care, and I didn't want what they had to offer. Their health care system sucks. Effectively what you are saying is "I want more people to die, like they do elsewhere."
And Medicare is going broke, if you missed it. You want to end up like Greece? Bankrupt and impoverished? Bad plan. A system that isn't' sustainable, is bad for the whole country.
OH NO! Medicare is going broke!
I have been hearing that since June, 1966, the month that it went in to effect.
Please, spare me!
an understanding of how insurance works.
It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.
The word "contingent" means it's a chance action. Uncertain, means something there is no guarantee of happening.
Regardless, back to the definition of insurance.
"It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."
For property and casualty, that definition applies. It's quite possible that one won't ever make a claim against one's property insurance policy. For life and health, it does not.
For life and health insurance, the only thing that's uncertain is when a qualifying claim event will occur.
- It is 100% certain that the insured's life will end and the insurer will have to pay, barring the death's being of a sort that's not covered.
- It is almost as certain that the insured will suffer a health ailment.
When you say that now they are guaranteed issue.... yeah... who do you think is paying for that guaranteed issue?
We do. The premium payers. Where do you think the insurance companies get money from?
The great majority of it comes from earnings on invested capital. The capital is the money insured parties pay as premiums, but an insurance company cannot thrive on premiums alone. Indeed, but for the "float" associated with the time between receiving premiums and paying a claim, insurers would at best break even.
Not entirely true. There is no guarantee that I could not drop over dead right now, costing the insurance company nothing.
I'm not talking about life insurance. Death is a 100% guarantee. Even then though, level term insurance expires. So you can die after the insurance expires costing nothing. Which is why you can get level term insurance for a million dollars, and yet pay $30 to $50 a month for it.
Your point about invested float, is at the very best, irrelevant. Even your own link says very clearly:
"The insurance industry survives on premiums, but it thrives on float"
If the company "survives" on premiums, then my point stands. My point being that when you demand the insurance companies cover more, you are in effect demanding you yourself pay higher premiums.
"thriving" on float, means that investment returns are the icing on the cake. The bonus after making a profit.
I happen to look up Progressive's investor relation publication. On page 39, you can clearly see that premium revenue, is $22.4 Billion, while Investment income is only $478 Million.
What that means is that if a bunch of left-wingers get together and push through some feel-good legislation, that forces up costs on Progressive by just, let's say 5%. That would be almost a billion dollars. More than double the investment income. Which in turn would require Progressive to pass on those costs to the premium payers.
Which again... was my whole point. All that float crap, was irrelevant to the point. When you demand companies pay out more in insurance policies, you demand in effect, that they charge the consumer much higher premiums.
Which again, is exactly what we see. In 2006 I could get an insurance policy for $67 a month. Today the cheapest is $250.
"thriving" on float, means that investment returns are the icing on the cake. The bonus after making a profit.
Just as the cartoon shows... you fought so hard to screw over the American people, and when you succeeded, now you are shocked we're not happy about being screwed over? How dumb are you people?
Statements like that are part of why substantive discourse doesn't generally happen on here. Regardless of what the outcome be of having passed the ACA, nobody "fought hard to screw over the American people." As long as one ascribes malicious intent to the people who passed that law, thus coming to the table with an adversarial, "they're out to get me" mindset, one will not be able to have a productive discussion about it.
The unavoidable fact is that millions of people who prior to the ACA did not have health insurance obtained health insurance, and vastly more people obtained it than lost it. (Information below is from a 2014 study.)
Moreover, from what I can tell, the hoopla about health insurance has to do only with the 20% of the population that purchases it on the open market. I think that because the rise in employer-based premiums has been comparatively small, most especially after the ACA's implementation. (See also: Private Health Insurance Premiums and Federal Policy)
- Of the 40.7 million who were uninsured in 2013, 14.5 million gained coverage, but 5.2 million of the insured lost coverage, for a net gain in coverage of approximately 9.3 million. This represents a drop in the share of the population that is uninsured from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.
- Medicaid enrollment increased by 5.9 million. New enrollees are primarily drawn from those who were uninsured in 2013, or those who had “other” forms of insurance, including Medicare, retiree health insurance, and other government plans.
- According to [Rand's] estimates, 3.9 million were covered through the state and federal marketplaces as of mid-March 2014. This figure does not fully capture the enrollment surge that occurred in late March.
- For most people the ACA has not changed their health insurance coverage. Among adults, 80 percent still had the same form of coverage in March 2014 as in September 2013.
- Of those who were previously uninsured but are now insured, 7.2 million gained ESI, 3.6 million are now covered by Medicaid, 1.4 million have signed up through a marketplace, while the remainder gained coverage through other sources.
- Our estimates suggest that about one-third of new marketplace enrollees were previously uninsured.
- Among the 7.8 million people who were enrolled in off-marketplace individual market plans in early 2014, 7.3 million were previously insured; 5.4 million were previously insured through an individual market plan.
- Less than one million who previously had individual market insurance transitioned to being uninsured. While we cannot tell if these people lost their insurance due to cancellation or because they simply felt the cost was too high, the overall number represents less than one percent of people between the ages of 18 and 64.
Another thing the ACA does that benefits everyone is that it reduces the deficit and it keeps premiums lower than they otherwise would be.
- How Repealing Portions of the Affordable Care Act Would Affect Health Insurance Coverage and Premiums
- Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act— CBO’s March 2015 Baseline
- Estimating the Budgetary Effects of the Affordable Care Act
- Here's how GOP repeal of Obamacare would swell the federal deficit
- Obamacare Is (Still) Fiscally Responsible Congress' scorekeeper confirms that the health care law will reduce deficits.
At the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: what one sees as the objectives of a nation's health care system.
What are the objectives in your mind?
- Some people think it's objective is to keep the citizenry as healthy as possible.
- Some people think it's objective is to have the best quality modes of care possible, without regard to who obtains that care when they need it.
- Some think it's to ensure a basic level of health status among the populace.
- Some think it's to make healthcare affordable (via insurance) for people who can afford the insurance, but not necessarily make it possible for everyone to obtain healthcare outside of emergency situations.
Having determined that you whole post is bullshit half way through it, I did not bother to read the rest of it.
Yes, well, when someone makes remarks like "[Democrats] fought so hard to screw over the American people," one knows one may as well have the conversation with a trained parrot.
I've been down this road with Andy before. He wants his multimillion dollar maximum benefit, zero deductible and copay insurance for free, and ACA did not do that, so he is pissed.
It’s cruel, duplicitous and ignorant.
Trump’s plan is driven by the decision to add $54 billion to military spending (above the 2017 baseline) and subtract that sum from domestic programs. Its most wrongheaded assumption is that the Pentagon, which already accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s military spending, needs more money, while diplomacy and international cooperation are simply a waste. In fact, our overstressed military needs fewer wars, which we’ll never escape without far more diplomacy, international cooperation, and institution-building.
We already spend more in our military budget than the next 7 countries combined. It's just plain lunacy to increase it by $54 billion. Trump probably thinks we need it for dog fights with ISIS and the Taliban.
Trump’s Budget Is a Perfect Reflection of Republican Values
an understanding of how insurance works.
It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.
The word "contingent" means it's a chance action. Uncertain, means something there is no guarantee of happening.
Regardless, back to the definition of insurance.
"It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."
For property and casualty, that definition applies. It's quite possible that one won't ever make a claim against one's property insurance policy. For life and health, it does not.
For life and health insurance, the only thing that's uncertain is when a qualifying claim event will occur.
- It is 100% certain that the insured's life will end and the insurer will have to pay, barring the death's being of a sort that's not covered.
- It is almost as certain that the insured will suffer a health ailment.
When you say that now they are guaranteed issue.... yeah... who do you think is paying for that guaranteed issue?
We do. The premium payers. Where do you think the insurance companies get money from?
The great majority of it comes from earnings on invested capital. The capital is the money insured parties pay as premiums, but an insurance company cannot thrive on premiums alone. Indeed, but for the "float" associated with the time between receiving premiums and paying a claim, insurers would at best break even.
Not entirely true. There is no guarantee that I could not drop over dead right now, costing the insurance company nothing.
I'm not talking about life insurance. Death is a 100% guarantee. Even then though, level term insurance expires. So you can die after the insurance expires costing nothing. Which is why you can get level term insurance for a million dollars, and yet pay $30 to $50 a month for it.
Your point about invested float, is at the very best, irrelevant. Even your own link says very clearly:
"The insurance industry survives on premiums, but it thrives on float"
If the company "survives" on premiums, then my point stands. My point being that when you demand the insurance companies cover more, you are in effect demanding you yourself pay higher premiums.
"thriving" on float, means that investment returns are the icing on the cake. The bonus after making a profit.
I happen to look up Progressive's investor relation publication. On page 39, you can clearly see that premium revenue, is $22.4 Billion, while Investment income is only $478 Million.
What that means is that if a bunch of left-wingers get together and push through some feel-good legislation, that forces up costs on Progressive by just, let's say 5%. That would be almost a billion dollars. More than double the investment income. Which in turn would require Progressive to pass on those costs to the premium payers.
Which again... was my whole point. All that float crap, was irrelevant to the point. When you demand companies pay out more in insurance policies, you demand in effect, that they charge the consumer much higher premiums.
Which again, is exactly what we see. In 2006 I could get an insurance policy for $67 a month. Today the cheapest is $250."thriving" on float, means that investment returns are the icing on the cake. The bonus after making a profit.
Ahh, no. "Thriving" is the profit. I don't think you understand what "thrive" means. You should click the link.
