You should not be posting at the dinner table. Didn't Ma Ham teach you any manners?The fact I am eating a ribeye steak as I read this is maybe the third thing that irks me about this weird post.
I've always thought he's right. My opinion on Obamacare has been largely unchanged since it first passed: I wrote then, and believe now, that the minute you made different prices for pre-existing conditions illegal, you were making single payer inevitable, and any interim idea (such as the current ACA) was unworkable in the long term.BassNBrew said:So Tim, is Bill wrong?
other than the 25 million may be 13 million?
I agree, and specifically think it should be the top priority starting November 9. See, you ignored the key point. The point wasn't at all "this is how it works", despite your attempt to steer it there. The point is, how do you not see there is an inevitable binary decision looming in 35 days?The Commish said:I've never questioned that this is how it works. What I challenge is the notion that "the way it works" can't be changed and/or the notion that if we don't change our behavior as voters that it will somehow just fix itself. We can either choose to accept "this is how it works" and play the game OR we can reject it and do everything in our power to affect change.
Bill Clinton threw Bernie Sanders under the bus
No not really. I don't make it a habit to spam the thread
See....I said this when Palin got put on the ticket with McCain. I really hope you're right.Coeur de Lion said:Yeah, I don't know. What I do know is that the message sent by voters in the form of Trump is something that the Washington establishment will ignore at their very real peril. As I said earlier, they aren't stupid, and they well know that they're dodging a gigantic wrecking ball this year.The Commish said:I hear his exact words from others all too often....maybe I just hit a "special" patch of people in my area?
Yeah we are in the BCS era of single pay health care. It's a ####ed up system but better than before and what is the best is inevitable just a matter of time.I've always thought he's right. My opinion on Obamacare has been largely unchanged since it first passed: I wrote then, and believe now, that the minute you made different prices for pre-existing conditions illegal, you were making single payer inevitable, and any interim idea (such as the current ACA) was unworkable in the long term.
That being said, long term is a long time. So far ACA seems to have largely worked in keeping health costs down, and it certainly hasn't been the catastrophe that many predicted. It may be a decade or more before we reach the point when single payer becomes the only viable way to continue. But I'm convince that WILL happen. We can never go back.
Link please....but if you're going to intentionally give me group market premiums, don't bother.....saves me time trying to explain the difference for the 100th time.I've always thought he's right. My opinion on Obamacare has been largely unchanged since it first passed: I wrote then, and believe now, that the minute you made different prices for pre-existing conditions illegal, you were making single payer inevitable, and any interim idea (such as the current ACA) was unworkable in the long term.
That being said, long term is a long time. So far ACA seems to have largely worked in keeping health costs down, and it certainly hasn't been the catastrophe that many predicted. It may be a decade or more before we reach the point when single payer becomes the only viable way to continue. But I'm convince that WILL happen. We can never go back.
Not comparable. Palin was a total Hail Mary, and was chosen as a symbolic figurehead by the establishment. Trump is an entirely different animal, who won against the will of those same people -- and no matter what they've said in public, they know what he is and how dangerous he is to the country.See....I said this when Palin got put on the ticket with McCain. I really hope you're right.
Because I don't buy the notion that I can only vote for one of two candidates. Our laws say that's not true and I'm not sure why people try to frame the discussion that way other than an attempt to keep the status quo. I can vote for any of the options on my ballot. Unfortunately, I can not write in a vote in my state (the two big parties have seen to that rather nicely).I agree, and specifically think it should be the top priority starting November 9. See, you ignored the key point. The point wasn't at all "this is how it works", despite your attempt to steer it there. The point is, how do you not see there is an inevitable binary decision looming in 35 days?The Commish said:I've never questioned that this is how it works. What I challenge is the notion that "the way it works" can't be changed and/or the notion that if we don't change our behavior as voters that it will somehow just fix itself. We can either choose to accept "this is how it works" and play the game OR we can reject it and do everything in our power to affect change.
So Hillary will be revising the ACA.I've always thought he's right. My opinion on Obamacare has been largely unchanged since it first passed: I wrote then, and believe now, that the minute you made different prices for pre-existing conditions illegal, you were making single payer inevitable, and any interim idea (such as the current ACA) was unworkable in the long term.
That being said, long term is a long time. So far ACA seems to have largely worked in keeping health costs down, and it certainly hasn't been the catastrophe that many predicted. It may be a decade or more before we reach the point when single payer becomes the only viable way to continue. But I'm convince that WILL happen. We can never go back.
Because I think that, politically, she wants to move on to other things. The public is exhausted with this particular fight. Just my opinion.Why....because according to you it is working?
She and the Republicans - and healthcare industry and their lobbyists - likely have a common agenda on ACA. The only people talking about revising the ACA are Hillary and the GOP.Because I think that, politically, she wants to move on to other things. The public is exhausted with this particular fight. Just my opinion.
And because even if she wanted to, how to get enough votes to get change? The House is going to stay Republican.
Are you nuts? The public is fed up with the ACA and it is going to get worse.Because I think that, politically, she wants to move on to other things. The public is exhausted with this particular fight. Just my opinion.
And because even if she wanted to, how to get enough votes to get change? The House is going to stay Republican.
I don't think your perception of "the public" is the same as mine.Are you nuts? The public is fed up with the ACA and it is going to get worse.
Correct...the world that you think worships you in your head is no where near reality.I don't think your perception of "the public" is the same as mine.
http://i.imgur.com/3GbYRI9.jpgtimschochet said:One man's dog poop is another man's ribeye steak, cooked rare, on the bone.
You've said before that Hillary views Wall Street as a constituency.I don't think your perception of "the public" is the same as mine.
1. 29 million uninsured - FailI've always thought he's right. My opinion on Obamacare has been largely unchanged since it first passed: I wrote then, and believe now, that the minute you made different prices for pre-existing conditions illegal, you were making single payer inevitable, and any interim idea (such as the current ACA) was unworkable in the long term.
That being said, long term is a long time. So far ACA seems to have largely worked in keeping health costs down, and it certainly hasn't been the catastrophe that many predicted. It may be a decade or more before we reach the point when single payer becomes the only viable way to continue. But I'm convince that WILL happen. We can never go back.
Did you know thatLink please....but if you're going to intentionally give me group market premiums, don't bother.....saves me time trying to explain the difference for the 100th time.
At least on the macro level that matters when discussing overall healthcare cost and how component costs like premiums, federal spending , or, in this case cost sharing reflect those costs. On the micro level the masses will likely disagree as deductibles have continued to get higher each year but that is now offset by the few that greatly benefit by the elimination of annual and lifetime limits.
Thanks BFS...I just glanced at this (will have to read it in detail later) but it seems like the "They only rose $5 when they might have rose $10 the old way, so reduction!!!" argument Tim was using while using the group market.Did you know thatLink please....but if you're going to intentionally give me group market premiums, don't bother.....saves me time trying to explain the difference for the 100th time.
At least on the macro level that matters when discussing overall healthcare cost and how component costs like premiums, federal spending , or, in this case cost sharing reflect those costs. On the micro level the masses will likely disagree as deductibles have continued to get higher each year but that is now offset by the few that greatly benefit by the elimination of annual and lifetime limits.
If you read the entire interview you'll see a question that is worded in a confusing manner as to whether Trump/GOP plans are beneficial to me, or a threat. But it is a rather informative interview which touches on many of the things that I used to post in the ACA thread.
Oh, as for the individual market in a picture. (From here.)
Yep kind of like his Epipen price rant.1. 29 million uninsured - Fail
2. About 25-35 million paying double what they used to for the pleasure of higher deductibles, fewer doctors and treatment option - Fail
3. Over two dozen failed co-ops with the seed money permanently gone - Fail
If it was someone in your family that couldn't get the treatment they needed or afford the premiums, you would be raising hell on these boards. But since it's not, you say it's a success.
It's a bunch of crap.Thanks BFS...I just glanced at this (will have to read it in detail later) but it seems like the "They only rose $5 when they might have rose $10 the old way, so reduction!!!" argument Tim was using while using the group market.
Ryan is already damaged goods as far as the GOP is concerned...it would be like Jeb 2.0...The next 4 years will be paul ryan blaming the democrats and hillary for obamacare and hillary trying to destroy ryan by blaming him for obamacare. Ryan may win that battle but it will also polarize voters against ryan so he cant run for president
Well hillary is pretty much a lock to be a one termer so wether is ryan or kasich or daniels or someone else it doesnt change things muchRyan is already damaged goods as far as the GOP is concerned...it would be like Jeb 2.0...
You have to lose the primary to win the general.Ryan is already damaged goods as far as the GOP is concerned...it would be like Jeb 2.0...
She won't have any choice but to fix itBecause I think that, politically, she wants to move on to other things. The public is exhausted with this particular fight. Just my opinion.
And because even if she wanted to, how to get enough votes to get change? The House is going to stay Republican.
GOP did nothing to help pass health care reform legislation. Democrats had to deal with members of their own Party concerned about getting re-elected.We are getting a preview of what life will be like under president Clinton as the democrats are trying to walk a political tightrope by divorcing themselves from Obamacare while at the same time blaming the GOP for Obamacare. That's gonna be tough since the democrats passed it into law. We'll see. It needs massive reforms and that topic should be the bulk of Hillary's term.
I'm not getting sucked into this debate because to be honest I really don't have the energy to dig into the details enough but I will say that your statement above has not been true in my experience. Seems like every year some payment went up or less was covered before and after the ACA.It's a bunch of crap.
From the article..."the ACA creates a price-competitive and transparent market structure, where consumers can compare similar health insurance products. ACA marketplace consumers, to date, appear to be very cost-conscious and drawn to lower-cost, narrower-network offerings. As a result, many health plans have been very aggressive in negotiating lower provider payment rates and utilizing narrow networks"
Not from the article, but by BFS own admission, deductibles have been rising. In the previous environment while your premium may have gone up, the terms of the policy (deductibles and out of pockets) stayed the same year to year. Now he is right that we no longer have $1 million dollar a year and $2 million dollar lifetime caps but what is the average consumer more worried about? Basically the entire article is comparing two things that aren't similar.
The whole premise of this article is along the lines of the price of the average new car would be $20000, but now that they force everyone to by a Nissan Versa it's only $15000. And next year it looks like that Nissan Versa will cost the same as an average new car.
He believes that trickle down works. That doesn't make him a fraud.Paul Ryan is a total fraud. Pretends to be serious about fiscal issues yet repeatedly releases plans that are funded by the magical trickle-down asterisk
Believing trickle down works (if indeed he does), would make him willfully ignorant. His support of Trump and what Trump stands for is what makes him a fraud.He believes that trickle down works. That doesn't make him a fraud.
It doesn't work. People that say you can sharply cut taxes while raising significantly more revenue are a fraud.He believes that trickle down works. That doesn't make him a fraud.Paul Ryan is a total fraud. Pretends to be serious about fiscal issues yet repeatedly releases plans that are funded by the magical trickle-down asterisk
No one actually believes trickle down works.He believes that trickle down works. That doesn't make him a fraud.
wat? That's the entire basis for the Republican's economic plan. And you're telling me it doesn't work? Next you'll shatter my world by telling me it really only benefits the really rich.No one actually believes trickle down works.
sharply?It doesn't work. People that say you can sharply cut taxes while raising significantly more revenue are a fraud.
If your context stretches back to the 1950's, sharply might be an understatement. Remember the 50's - when America was great?sharply?
I must not be a man because I call the woman who delivers the mail our mailperson.![]()
Heather @VideoCafeCnL 56m56 minutes ago
He-Men Of Fox News: Emasculated Because Kaine Said 'Person'
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/10/he-men-of-fox-news?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Unfortunately, there are plenty of people that do believe it (like Tim) who continue to buy into the products of frauds like Paul RyanNo one actually believes trickle down works.