GOP Health Plan Released

[ClydeR]

Their long-awaited proposal, unveiled Monday evening, would among other things kill a 3.8 percent investment tax on the well-to-do that Democrats had used to help finance the health care law, as well as a 0.9 percent surcharge on wages above $250,000.

Though the legislation is focused on making good on Republican promises to repeal and replace the health program, it would likely also amount to the first big tax cut of the Trump administration, one that comes even before lawmakers tackle tax reform in earnest. The plan should make rewriting the tax code easier by moving the cost of some tax cuts into separate legislation.

More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/obamacare-tax-cut-repeal-235752)



In addition to the tax changes, it has different coverages and stuff too, which is probably of greater interest to some of you.

[ClydeR]

It started major meme mania on Twitter..

https://twitter.com/i/moments/838933782128308224

[time4fun]

Well millions of people will lose insurance, premiums for the sick and elderly will skyrocket, the individual market will head back to collapse, and Medicaid's trust fund will run out in 2025 now, but hey- my taxes are going down.

And when you think about it- isn't that the real point of healthcare reform?

[Neveragain]

Well millions of people will lose insurance, premiums for the sick and elderly will skyrocket, the individual market will head back to collapse, and Medicaid's trust fund will run out in 2025 now, but hey- my taxes are going down.

And when you think about it- isn't that the real point of healthcare reform? So people like me can take an extra vacation?

And millions of people will still get healthcare like they always were before. If we are trying to improve healthcare, why were we bailing out insurance companies?


Medicaid's trust fund will run out in 2025

So why the fuck do you insist on giving the Government even more power?


So people like me can take an extra vacation?

Extra? You are so out of touch with the reality of the middle and lower income classes, these people don't take vacations they take staycations. You're not even in the same universe as these people.

[ClydeR]

(CNN)Low-income Americans may have to prioritize purchasing health care coverage over gadgets such as iPhones under Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said Tuesday.

More... (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/jason-chaffetz-health-care-iphones/)

The Nokia 3310 timed its return (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39095127) perfectly.

[time4fun]

And millions of people will still get healthcare like they always were before. If we are trying to improve healthcare, why were we bailing out insurance companies?



So why the fuck do you insist on giving the Government even more power?



Extra? You are so out of touch with the reality of the middle and lower income classes, these people don't take vacations they take staycations. You're not even in the same universe as these people.

I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

But I do know how to explain to you that **lower and middle income people are the ones who are getting screwed over here**. People like me will get another vacation because the tax breaks only apply to people making over 200k a year- for reasons that have literally nothing to do with expanding health care.

So they're going to kick a bunch of people off of the medicaid rolls (no insurance), turn the up-front ACA credits into tax deductions (which is great if you aren't poor and can afford to pay your full premiums up front), increase premiums for people with pre-existing conditions who don't have steady work and end up with lapses by 30%, and, oh yeah, it'll help with health savings accounts, which again, only apply to people who can actually save. Oh, and ending the mandate means younger, healthier people are going to pull out of the individual market- which is going to speed up its collapse and send premiums skyrocketing.

I grew up so poor we didn't always know when the next meal would be. I spent most of my life dead poor. And, unlike you, I vote for people who help the poor because I believe that tax cuts for people like me are stupid. There are people who need food, people who need medicine, people who need homes, and people who deserve quality education for their kids. Helping them is infinitely more important than giving some rich a-holes a second Tesla.

So before you jump in telling me I don't understand what it's like to be lower and middle income, you might want to not support legislation that screws those exact people over in the same post.

[Wrathbringer]

Well millions of people will lose insurance, premiums for the sick and elderly will skyrocket, the individual market will head back to collapse, and Medicaid's trust fund will run out in 2025 now, but hey- my taxes are going down.

And when you think about it- isn't that the real point of healthcare reform?

U r dumb

[Parkbandit]

Well millions of people will lose insurance, premiums for the sick and elderly will skyrocket, the individual market will head back to collapse, and Medicaid's trust fund will run out in 2025 now, but hey- my taxes are going down.

And when you think about it- isn't that the real point of healthcare reform?

Maybe you can use that extra money to help your brother become a citizen..
Or, you can always give that money to charity... or better yet, pay the IRS extra money because liberals always believe the government can spend their money more wisely than they can.

[Wrathbringer]

I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

But I do know how to explain to you that **lower and middle income people are the ones who are getting screwed over here**. People like me will get another vacation because the tax breaks only apply to people making over 200k a year- for reasons that have literally nothing to do with expanding health care.

So they're going to kick a bunch of people off of the medicaid rolls (no insurance), turn the up-front ACA credits into tax deductions (which is great if you aren't poor and can afford to pay your full premiums up front), increase premiums for people with pre-existing conditions who don't have steady work and end up with lapses by 30%, and, oh yeah, it'll help with health savings accounts, which again, only apply to people who can actually save. Oh, and ending the mandate means younger, healthier people are going to pull out of the individual market- which is going to speed up its collapse and send premiums skyrocketing.

I grew up so poor we didn't always know when the next meal would be. I spent most of my life dead poor. And, unlike you, I vote for people who help the poor because I believe that tax cuts for people like me are stupid. There are people who need food, people who need medicine, people who need homes, and people who deserve quality education for their kids. Helping them is infinitely more important than giving some rich a-holes a second Tesla.

So before you jump in telling me I don't understand what it's like to be lower and middle income, you might want to not support legislation that screws those exact people over in the same post.

Omg guys, not only does time4fun make more than you, she also has been poorer than you.

[Donquix]

so here's the thing with this proposal.

Let's table the debate about whether you like, you know...should be ok with people not having healthcare. You shouldn't, but for the sake of argument let's say it's OK to let people just like, die and stuff.

So that leaves you two options to support: to rescind the ACA entirely and go back to the awesomeness of the free market which was TOTALLY working.

or

If you are forced to endure the horrors of socialized medicine you should at least want it be an effective plan. Obamacare was not what it should have been, even people who can get behind that it brought insurance to a lot of those without know it needed work.

Why do think this new plan is an improvement? Like, honestly? It seems like the first draft health company CEOs drew up while drinking and were like "lol, we can't get this to pass....can we? nah...this wouldn't work..."
It guts required coverages, especially for things like mental health that aren't REAL problems, right? Just get over it! Gives health company salaries tax exemptions for anything over 500k, has bailouts for them, etc. It literally only benefits the insurance providers, do you think they're going to help because of that windfall? That's worked out well in the past.

So supporting this, at all, makes no sense. It will help far less people, cost pretty much everyone the same, and just give a shit ton of money to insurance providers for doing less. If you want to get back to fully privatized insurance I disagree with that sentiment but I understand it. I don't understand supporting this, unless you're an insurance company exec then I guess congrats?

It should also be troubling for you they're trying to rush it to the floor for a vote within the next week. Obamacare had something like 150 sessions/reviews/roundtables/etc. between the house and senate before it was brought to a vote.

[Neveragain]

I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.

But I do know how to explain to you that **lower and middle income people are the ones who are getting screwed over here**. People like me will get another vacation because the tax breaks only apply to people making over 200k a year- for reasons that have literally nothing to do with expanding health care.

So they're going to kick a bunch of people off of the medicaid rolls (no insurance), turn the up-front ACA credits into tax deductions (which is great if you aren't poor and can afford to pay your full premiums up front), increase premiums for people with pre-existing conditions who don't have steady work and end up with lapses by 30%, and, oh yeah, it'll help with health savings accounts, which again, only apply to people who can actually save. Oh, and ending the mandate means younger, healthier people are going to pull out of the individual market- which is going to speed up its collapse and send premiums skyrocketing.

I grew up so poor we didn't always know when the next meal would be. I spent most of my life dead poor. And, unlike you, I vote for people who help the poor because I believe that tax cuts for people like me are stupid. There are people who need food, people who need medicine, people who need homes, and people who deserve quality education for their kids. Helping them is infinitely more important than giving some rich a-holes a second Tesla.

So before you jump in telling me I don't understand what it's like to be lower and middle income, you might want to not support legislation that screws those exact people over in the same post.

I think I know poor all too well you judge MENTAL twat. Family of 6 in a 2 bedroom apartment for most of my kids lives, never did we go without healthcare, not once. I vote republican because I know from personal experience just how corrosive government programs are to the nuclear family structure and how being a fucknut liberal half my life lead to those conditions in the first place. Your ilk and your illogical policies have ruined the family structure that made the middle class so strong and leave the poor in an ongoing struggle.

You tards said the same shit in the 90's about cuts to government programs and you were completely wrong. Your shitty programs lead to a continuing cycle of poverty and single parent homes that breed criminals.

[Ravenwood]

So before you jump in telling me I don't understand what it's like to be lower and middle income, you might want to not support legislation that screws those exact people over in the same post.

Liberal policies have been screwing over those with lower and middle income for years............youre just not intelligent enough to see through the carefully crafted veneer of lies that makes up your parties ideology.

Having a 5000 - 8000 dollar deductible is the same as having no insurance for many of us. Even worse, were being forced to pay for something we cannot afford to use and being "fined' for it if we dont......making us even poorer in the process.

If idiots like you would stop choosing political parties like some people choose football teams, if you paused for just a moment to actually think about what youre saying, instead of spewing a steady stream of ever deepening bullshit, just to justify your thoughtless actions, this country and this world would be a LOT better off.

Liberalism is riddled with hypocrisy because its built on a foundation of lies and half-truths.

Like how you care about poor people. Actions speak louder than words ever will. And your party has systematically oppressed the poor for decades.

You think with your head, not with your heart.Feelings arent facts, no matter how much brain dead liberals like you wish otherwise.

[ClydeR]

Having a 5000 - 8000 dollar deductible is the same as having no insurance for many of us.

I assume you're referring to the deductible for a family plan. Right? Policies on the Obamacare exchanges have family deductibles with "embedded" individual deductibles. If you are referring to individual deductibles, then the cited figures are far outside of the average.



Even worse, were being forced to pay for something we cannot afford to use and being "fined' for it if we dont......making us even poorer in the process.

You'll be happy to know that the new Republican plan fixes that problem. Unlike Obamacare, which "mandated" that you buy insurance or pay a fine on your taxes, the Republican plan allows you to choose not to a plan but imposes a significantly higher premium on you in the future if you ever decide to get one. My strong advice if the Republican plan passes is not to ever skip a year.

Another good thing about the Republican plan is that it gets rid of insurance premium subsidies paid by the government directly the insurance companies if the insured has a low enough income. Instead, the Republican plan will give the insured a credit against the insured's taxes. With that extra money, the insured can buy his own insurance, or he can spend it on a new iPhone.

And the main thing, of course, is Medicaid, which is a whole other thing that is too long to discuss here today.

[Kembal]

The economics of this bill don't make sense to me. It's literally Obamacare-lite, but it doesn't actually improve any outcome for working class Americans nor restore the previous pre-ACA market.

Curious to see if it even can get past the House.

[Parkbandit]

The economics of this bill don't make sense to me. It's literally Obamacare-lite, but it doesn't actually improve any outcome for working class Americans nor restore the previous pre-ACA market.

Curious to see if it even can get past the House.

Why do the Republicans believe "OMG Obamacare is bad, but we can make a government healthcare program better!"

I swear, todays Republicans are yesterdays Democrats and todays Democrats are fucking nuts.

[Back]

After all this time this is the best they could come up with? I'm open minded enough to at least hear them out on what could be better than the original ACA. All this seems to be is a tax cut for wealthy insurance CEOs while screwing over the elderly.

[Whirlin]

Having a 5000 - 8000 dollar deductible is the same as having no insurance for many of us. Even worse, were being forced to pay for something we cannot afford to use and being "fined' for it if we dont......making us even poorer in the process.


I agree. However, the additional facets of the ACA enabled newly employed individuals to be contributing to a HSA that was not expiring like an FSA, and HSAs (once you surpass like, 2k in them), were meant to replace 401(k)s in terms of having investment opportunities and the ability to utilize the money for growth and retirement potential.

But, for anyone that had already entered the job market, and already had an established plan/401(k)/etc, it was absolutely a step back. If it was a phased approach with the new generation of workers being able to utilize the new structure, I think it would have had a more successful implementation. In theory, it's not a bad idea to be able to utilize a single fund with the dual purpose of a 401(k) and HSA, but it's getting that initial funding to compensate for the sting of transition that was poorly managed. And I agree, the 'high' deductible plans were too damn high!

I always considered the ACA to be watered down from it's initial intent due to everyone trying to get their footnotes added, and that it was really meant as a first attempt to get something more universal established. I never thought of it as a be all-end all, but it was at least placing the government in a position where it had more skin in the game to learn/manipulate some of the complexities in the market, learn from being engaged, and be able to make more thoughtful reforms in the future.

I also completely understand that republicans want no part in it, and that the ideal situation for health insurance would likely be a more socialist means. That's just an underlying ideological disagreement, and I'd also argue that since hospitals cannot turn people away... the people end up paying for it one way or another.

And Per Parkbandit's comment, I agree with him, but at the same time, there's also the batshit crazy people on the other side too. It's like the fringes are just pulling away at a core moderate group whose views probably aren't as different... but the fringes just keeps them pulling them away from working together.

[ClydeR]

I agree. However, the additional facets of the ACA enabled newly employed individuals to be contributing to a HSA that was not expiring like an FSA, and HSAs (once you surpass like, 2k in them), were meant to replace 401(k)s in terms of having investment opportunities and the ability to utilize the money for growth and retirement potential.

That doesn't sound right.

[Androidpk]

lolRyancare.. 8 years bitching about Obamacare and this is the best they could come up with? :jerkit:

[~Rocktar~]

Why do the Republicans believe "OMG Obamacare is bad, but we can make a government healthcare program better!"

I swear, todays Republicans are yesterdays Democrats and todays Democrats are fucking nuts.

This, so much this!

[Parkbandit]

I'm open minded

All this seems to be is a tax cut for wealthy insurance CEOs while screwing over the elderly.

In two simple sentences, you proved you aren't open minded at all.

Like at all.

[Parkbandit]

And Per Parkbandit's comment, I agree with him, but at the same time, there's also the batshit crazy people on the other side too. It's like the fringes are just pulling away at a core moderate group whose views probably aren't as different... but the fringes just keeps them pulling them away from working together.

Where we mostly differ: I don't view not having the government in charge of all health care being in a "fringe" group.

[Parkbandit]

This, so much this!

Establishment Republicans are just as bad as establishment Democrats. They are doing/voting ONLY for the sole reason to get re-elected. Nothing else.

Two words: TERM LIMITS

[Back]

In two simple sentences, you proved you aren't open minded at all.

Like at all.
What happened to having choices across state lines? Better rates? A better program than the original?

So far TrumpCare is worse for the public and good for the insurers.

[Kembal]

Why do the Republicans believe "OMG Obamacare is bad, but we can make a government healthcare program better!"

I swear, todays Republicans are yesterdays Democrats and todays Democrats are fucking nuts.

Full repeal can't get 51 votes in the Senate. Collins and Murkowski would definitely flip, Cassidy probably flips, and I think there's two more Republican Senators that aren't in favor of full repeal.

Based on that, everyone should just give up assuming they're going to get their ideological win, pass a technical corrections bill to fix the actual problems with the system, and just move on. Don't expect that to happen til 2020 though.

But the longer this goes, the more it turns into a nuclear disaster for the GOP, and nothing happens on Trump's budget plan/tax cut plan/infrastructure plan.

[Whirlin]

Where we mostly differ: I don't view not having the government in charge of all health care being in a "fringe" group.

Hey now, I never said you'd be a part of the fringe group for that belief! However, I think that if they focused on the problem of "Health care costs are too damn high" they may have been able to create a more comprehensive, multi-faceted approach that was more than just a national healthcare option.

[Thondalar]

Doesn't matter who comes up with what. The last 10 years have taught me this.

If your "side" comes up with it, you're going to approve of it.

If the other "side" comes up with it, you're going to not approve of it.

The thing in question is so massive and complicated that either side can cherry pick whatever info they want to show that theirs is "better".

[Back]

Doesn't matter who comes up with what. The last 10 years have taught me this.

If your "side" comes up with it, you're going to approve of it.

If the other "side" comes up with it, you're going to not approve of it.

The thing in question is so massive and complicated that either side can cherry pick whatever info they want to show that theirs is "better".

So basically you are not going to take responsibility for your vote in this mess?

[Thondalar]

So basically you are not going to take responsibility for your vote in this mess?

My vote? I'm not sure I follow.

I voted for pot-smoking, didn't-know-what-Aleppo-was Gary Johnson.

Last time I checked, he has nothing to do with any of this.

[Androidpk]

So basically you are not going to take responsibility for your vote in this mess?

Have you taken responsibility for your vote?

[Back]

Have you taken responsibility for your vote?

I'm very comfortable with my choices. Thank you.

Ever have an original thought?

[Androidpk]

I'm very comfortable with my choices. Thank you.

Ever have an original thought?

Choices? I'm talking about your POTUS choice which I'm assuming, correct me if i'm wrong, was Hillary?

[Geijon Khyree]

Plan is garbage. I said that one page 1, but deleted it.

[drauz]

Ever have an original thought?

Says the person that votes Democrat just because the person is a Democrat on the ballot...

[Androidpk]

I like the healthcare plan that members of Congress are given at taxpayer expense. Why not just give that to all Americans and call it a day?

[Thondalar]

I like the healthcare plan that members of Congress are given at taxpayer expense. Why not just give that to all Americans and call it a day?

Mainly because that plan is the same as all Federal and State employees get...a lot of City employees as well. It is almost entirely funded by taxpayer dollars...but not the way Medicare is.

If we keep in mind that "insurance", be it life or health or auto or whatever, is ultimately a ponzi scheme...you can understand it. Works great for a small few with many paying...works not so well for a whole bunch with a relative few paying.

Fairly simple math.


edit: I know this because I was on it for several years. When I worked for FDOC I had full family coverage Blue Cross Blue Shield...$5 copays, see whatever doctor or specialist I wanted, $500 deductible annually...I paid $68 dollars a month. Taxpayers picked up the rest.

[Androidpk]

Mainly because that plan is the same as all Federal and State employees get...a lot of City employees as well. It is almost entirely funded by taxpayer dollars...but not the way Medicare is.

If we keep in mind that "insurance", be it life or health or auto or whatever, is ultimately a ponzi scheme...you can understand it. Works great for a small few with many paying...works not so well for a whole bunch with a relative few paying.

Fairly simple math.


edit: I know this because I was on it for several years. When I worked for FDOC I had full family coverage Blue Cross Blue Shield...$5 copays, see whatever doctor or specialist I wanted, $500 deductible annually...I paid $68 dollars a month. Taxpayers picked up the rest.

So the US can't afford it?

[Thondalar]

So the US can't afford it?

That sort of insurance for everyone? No, we couldn't.

Well ok yes, we could...but it would require tons of cuts in other areas to make up the difference...and even that would only be temporary.

Healthcare is the most notable, visual failure of our hybrid communist/capitalist system. It is the definition of crony capitalism. We have to fix THAT part of it before we can even attempt to fix anything else...we can have 10000 different versions of Obamacare or Trumpcare or Whatevercare between now and then, but if we don't change the fundamental system, the massive circle-jerk between Washington, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies...nothing is going to change.

[~Rocktar~]

The most fucked up part of healthcare is the third party payer (insurance company/government). When you effectively remove the consumer from the payment equation, the market, corruption and inflation go all to hell. It happens in healthcare, higher education and so on. There is never a case where the addition of a third party payer is good for the system long term.

[Trump]

Yeah I actually read the 57 page version front to back, effectively this isn't a healthcare plan as it is a massive tax cut between 500 billion to 800 billion to the top 2% of the income bracket. Like seriously. As a Repub myself, I'm kinda disappointed because I don't make 250k+ and yeah I actually benefited somewhat from O-care. Whatever.

[Geijon Khyree]

There is about 4 reasons to be a Republican. Making $250,000 is a big one of them.

[Parkbandit]

There is about 4 reasons to be a Republican. Making $250,000 is a big one of them.

https://media.tenor.co/images/1295b475b1df44fe8e73492f78890f41/raw

[Trump]

There is about 4 reasons to be a Republican. Making $250,000 is a big one of them.

Trump hasn't yet endorsed the plan, and he's distancing himself asking the media not to call it Trumpcare.

And no, he's right, one of the best things about being a Republican is the irrevocable fact that regardless of race, religion, or sexual preference you can make $250,000 in this country with sacrifice and hard work. Although, I think that ships starting to drift away from the dock at this point.

[Back]

Choices? I'm talking about your POTUS choice which I'm assuming, correct me if i'm wrong, was Hillary?

Yes. Very much so. Against Trump? Hands down. No contest. I'm not bitter enough with the DNC to jump over to Trump just because Sanders wasn't nominated. I would have preferred Sanders but hey this is the system we have. Work with what you've got. Had the Democrats nominated Trump I'd have jumped ship in a heartbeat. I'd have probably gone Green. It did not play out that way though.


Says the person that votes Democrat just because the person is a Democrat on the ballot...

Well, lets review the choices since I've been able to vote...

Clinton - Bush - Perot
Clinton - Dole - Perot
Gore - Bush Jr.
Kerry - Bush Jr.
Obama - McCain
Obama - Romney
Clinton - Trump

My principals align with the Democrats in all of those elections. I will confess that a Kerry-Edwards win in 2004 might have been worse than Bush Jr. No way of knowing really. Here we are now.

When a Republican really comes forward in a compassionate way, is inclusive regardless of race, economic status, class, sexual orientation, or religion, I'll be all ears.

The big issue for me is exclusion. Don't tell me how to run my life and I won't tell you how to run yours. Put everyone on equal footing and go from there.

[Androidpk]

Yes. Very much so. Against Trump? Hands down. No contest. I'm not bitter enough with the DNC to jump over to Trump just because Sanders wasn't nominated. I would have preferred Sanders but hey this is the system we have. Work with what you've got. Had the Democrats nominated Trump I'd have jumped ship in a heartbeat. I'd have probably gone Green. It did not play out that way though.



Well, lets review the choices since I've been able to vote...

Clinton - Bush - Perot
Clinton - Dole - Perot
Gore - Bush Jr.
Kerry - Bush Jr.
Obama - McCain
Obama - Romney
Clinton - Trump

My principals align with the Democrats in all of those elections. I will confess that a Kerry-Edwards win in 2004 might have been worse than Bush Jr. No way of knowing really. Here we are now.

When a Republican really comes forward in a compassionate way, is inclusive regardless of race, economic status, class, sexual orientation, or religion, I'll be all ears.

The big issue for me is exclusion. Don't tell me how to run my life and I won't tell you how to run yours. Put everyone on equal footing and go from there.


So you have no problem with your pick, even though camp Hillary is the very fucking reason why we have Trump. GG

[Androidpk]

When a Republican really comes forward in a compassionate way, is inclusive regardless of race, economic status, class, sexual orientation, or religion, I'll be all ears.

Rand Paul. derp

[Parkbandit]

When a Republican really comes forward in a compassionate way, is inclusive regardless of race, economic status, class, sexual orientation, or religion, I'll be all ears.

The big issue for me is exclusion. Don't tell me how to run my life and I won't tell you how to run yours. Put everyone on equal footing and go from there.

You've been sold a bill of goods and you just keep buying it.

It's hilarious.

I'd say "sucker", but a "sucker" usually should know better.

[Back]

Choices? I'm talking about your POTUS choice which I'm assuming, correct me if i'm wrong, was Hillary?


So you have no problem with your pick, even though camp Hillary is the very fucking reason why we have Trump. GG

In my mind Hillary won.

Two republican wins in recent history based on the electoral college? C'mon. Trump is not the people's choice. Neither was Bush Jr.

[Back]

Rand Paul. derp

I don't recall him being nominated. I like him more over establishment Republicans... but at some point man you have to accept it is going to be establishment rule. This whole democrat vs. republican thing is meant to keep us at odds while they stay in power.

[Gelston]

In my mind Hillary won.

Two republican wins in recent history based on the electoral college? C'mon. Trump is not the people's choice. Neither was Bush Jr.

Every President ever has been based on the Electoral College.

[Back]

Every President ever has been based on the Electoral College.

True. Not going to dispute that.

Look at all the times it has happened. Two being very more recent than the other. In all cases it is not an insignificant difference in the number of people who actually voted. This last one is the biggest yet at near 3 million people.

Think about that number. 3 million voting Americans. Not an insignificant number of the voting population.

I suppose in theory it proves we are more of a Republic than an actual Democracy.

[Androidpk]

I don't recall him being nominated. I like him more over establishment Republicans... but at some point man you have to accept it is going to be establishment rule. This whole democrat vs. republican thing is meant to keep us at odds while they stay in power.

So your solution is to keep voting establishment... :jerkit:

[Gelston]

True. Not going to dispute that.

Look at all the times it has happened. Two being very more recent than the other. In all cases it is not an insignificant difference in the number of people who actually voted. This last one is the biggest yet at near 3 million people.

Think about that number. 3 million voting Americans. Not an insignificant number of the voting population.

I suppose in theory it proves we are more of a Republic than an actual Democracy.

And candidates don't campaign for popular votes. I assure you the dynamic would be a lot different if anyone cared about the popular vote, but no one does. Trump never campaigned in California at all, he attended two fundraisers, hardly campaigning.

There is a report out now saying Hillary lost because she didn't campaign enough in key states that would have gained her more electorals. She ignored those states because she thought they were a sure thing.

[Back]

So your solution is to keep voting establishment... :jerkit:

I'm an idealist but a realist. What is your big plan? Love to hear it.

[Thondalar]

True. Not going to dispute that.

Look at all the times it has happened. Two being very more recent than the other. In all cases it is not an insignificant difference in the number of people who actually voted. This last one is the biggest yet at near 3 million people.

Think about that number. 3 million voting Americans. Not an insignificant number of the voting population.

I suppose in theory it proves we are more of a Republic than an actual Democracy.

3 million is less than 1% of the population.

I would hope it proves we're a Republic, because...we are. Not the Republic Franklin envisioned, I'd imagine, but still a Republic.

[Androidpk]

I'm an idealist but a realist. What is your big plan? Love to hear it.

You endorsed a corrupt, warmongering liberal-neocon and you have no problem with continuing the status quo. You're not a realist you're a defeatist.

[Back]

You endorsed a corrupt, warmongering liberal-neocon and you have no problem with continuing the status quo. You're not a realist you're a defeatist.

Really? I asked you what your plan was and you attack me. What is the plan, dude? Whats your big idea?

[Back]

3 million is less than 1% of the population.

I would hope it proves we're a Republic, because...we are. Not the Republic Franklin envisioned, I'd imagine, but still a Republic.

3 million people is a whole hell of a lot of people. Don't even try to discount 3 million people's voices by deflating that number into a percentage. Congress can decide things by 1 vote.

[Parkbandit]

In my mind Hillary won.

Exactly. That win is all in your head.


Two republican wins in recent history based on the electoral college? C'mon. Trump is not the people's choice. Neither was Bush Jr.

When Presidents are elected via the popular vote, you will have a point.

Until then, you're being a time4fun.

[Parkbandit]

3 million people is a whole hell of a lot of people. Don't even try to discount 3 million people's voices by deflating that number into a percentage. Congress can decide things by 1 vote.

Not really, given that Hillary won California alone by more than 3 million people.

Sore losers put more weight into that 3 million number than realists do. There's nothing real about dwelling on a number that amounted to 0 difference between winning and losing the actual race.

[Back]

Exactly. That win is all in your head.



When Presidents are elected via the popular vote, you will have a point.

Until then, you're being a time4fun.

You need a better argument than attempted insults. Attempted insults make your point weak. Give us some real substance! Give us something more than an insult to prove your point.


Not really, given that Hillary won California alone by more than 3 million people.

Sore losers put more weight into that 3 million number than realists do. There's nothing real about dwelling on a number that amounted to 0 difference between winning and losing the actual race.

Basically... you disagree with me that 3 million people is not an insignificant number. 3 million people's votes. 3 million people's voices. Noted.

You really want to talk about sore losers, PB? Really? Trump won. Get over it.

[Androidpk]

Give us something more than an insult to prove your point.




Ever have an original thought?

.

[Parkbandit]

You need a better argument than attempted insults. Attempted insults make your point weak. Give us some real substance! Give us something more than an insult to prove your point.

Where was the insult. I was agreeing with you. Hillary won.. in your head.

I'm not expecting that suddenly you would be living in the real world with the rest of us. You've shown no ability to do such in the past decade.


Basically... you disagree with me that 3 million people is not an insignificant number. 3 million people's votes. 3 million people's voices. Noted.

Nevermind that the Presidential Election has never been determined by popular vote....

I am stating that Hillary won by 3 million people.. which was 1% of the total vote.. and she won in California by more than 3 million people.


You really want to talk about sore losers, PB? Really? Trump won. Get over it.

I would say you are making no sense.. but since you never do, it's useless.

If anything, I'm a sore winner. YOU'RE a sore loser. Get the fuck over it. Elections have consequences.

[Parkbandit]

.

He's a whining liberal.. they are all hypocrites.

[Back]

.

You were insulted by that?

[Back]

If anything, I'm a sore winner. YOU'RE a sore loser. Get the fuck over it. Elections have consequences.

Except that you and Trump still seem butthurt that Obama had 8 years. Trump won. Get over it.

[Androidpk]

You were insulted by that?

Not in the slightest, doesn't mean it wasn't you trying to insult me over a simple question. Stop using the liberal playbook of acting like a bully while playing the victim card at the same time.

[drauz]

Basically... you disagree with me that 3 million people is not an insignificant number. 3 million people's votes. 3 million people's voices. Noted.

You really want to talk about sore losers, PB? Really? Trump won. Get over it.

That isn't how the election works though. By that logic everyone who voted, and their candidate didn't win the state, that their vote was silenced. There has to be a winner and loser, there is no participation trophy.

[Back]

Not in the slightest, doesn't mean it wasn't you trying to insult me over a simple question. Stop using the liberal playbook of acting like a bully while playing the victim card at the same time.

Get the story straight. Are liberals bullies or limp wristed fags? Who tells you what to think these days? It's not Cheney anymore.

[Androidpk]

Get the story straight. Are liberals bullies or limp wristed fags? Who tells you what to think these days? It's not Cheney anymore.

I thought I was being perfectly clear and I've never called liberals limp wristed fags and Cheney never told me what to think. If you haven't been able to tell by now I dislike both establishments. Both sides have become toxic and neither of them have the moral high ground.

[Thondalar]

3 million people is a whole hell of a lot of people. Don't even try to discount 3 million people's voices by deflating that number into a percentage. Congress can decide things by 1 vote.

"Congress" is a representation of millions of people. 1 vote in Congress carries the weight of millions.

[Androidpk]

I don't really have any grand ideas. If I were to toss one idea out there though it would be that I think we need to revisit our Declaration of Independence. Figure out, as a country, what we want for ourselves. Find our vision again.

[Neveragain]

Get the story straight. Are liberals bullies or limp wristed fags? Who tells you what to think these days? It's not Cheney anymore.

They use bully tactics by silencing anyone that disagrees with their views, Liberals have to do this because they support limp wristed policies that have no substance to the common voter. They focus on stupid shit like where to go potty, protecting illegal citizens and women's marches for rights that women already have. The moment anyone points out how retarded their message is liberals label them a racist.

[Parkbandit]

Except that you and Trump still seem butthurt that Obama had 8 years. Trump won. Get over it.

What?

Where did I even mention Obama?

You're an idiot. Wait until at least it's Tuesday and blame it on the alcohol.

[Back]

They use bully tactics by silencing anyone that disagrees with their views, Liberals have to do this because they support limp wristed policies that have no substance to the common voter. They focus on stupid shit like where to go potty, protecting illegal citizens and women's marches for rights that women already have. The moment anyone points out how retarded their message is liberals label them a racist.

When you trivialize important issues that pertain to actual people you have lost my attention and respect.

[Wrathbringer]

When you point out how retarded my party is you have lost my attention and respect.

Fixed.

[Neveragain]

When you trivialize important issues that pertain to actual people you have lost my attention and respect.

You deserve no respect, we learned where to go potty at like age 3, illegals are illegal by law and women have every right men do. When you keep fighting for policy that has no substance to the majority of voters, don't be surprised that your party continues to shrink.

[Jeril]

Put everyone on equal footing and go from there.

I have said it quite a few times here that the place to start for this is education. One of the biggest benefits to starting out rich is getting a better education. Whether this means they can afford to be sent to a better school or the schools in their area are simply better because they can afford it. We need good schools and good teachers to be the minimum standard that is held all across the nation not the messed up idiotic system we have now. WB has mentioned that schools are often paid for through property taxes which is a large part of the problem. I think teachers low wages and lack of a national standard also don't help.

[Back]

I have said it quite a few times here that the place to start for this is education. One of the biggest benefits to starting out rich is getting a better education. Whether this means they can afford to be sent to a better school or the schools in their area are simply better because they can afford it. We need good schools and good teachers to be the minimum standard that is held all across the nation not the messed up idiotic system we have now. WB has mentioned that schools are often paid for through property taxes which is a large part of the problem. I think teachers low wages and lack of a national standard also don't help.

Amen, brother.

[Thondalar]

I have said it quite a few times here that the place to start for this is education. One of the biggest benefits to starting out rich is getting a better education. Whether this means they can afford to be sent to a better school or the schools in their area are simply better because they can afford it.

Agreed.


We need good schools and good teachers to be the minimum standard that is held all across the nation not the messed up idiotic system we have now.

Agreed.


WB has mentioned that schools are often paid for through property taxes which is a large part of the problem.

Other than funneled Federal money, or payouts from State Lotteries, for the States that have them...I'm fairly certain all public schools are paid for primarily from property taxes, as are most of the other "services" we receive, like firefighters and whatnot. That's pretty much how it works.


I think teachers low wages and lack of a national standard also don't help.

Here is where we start to have a rub. When you include the full package of benefits, your average teacher makes quite a bit more than other vocations requiring the same level of training. Salary to salary they don't quite stack up, on average, but teachers get some pretty solid benefits that the vast majority of comparable private sector jobs don't get.

As far as a "National Standard" goes...like what? Common Core?

[Thondalar]

This whole democrat vs. republican thing is meant to keep us at odds while they stay in power.

You understand that enough to state it as a seeming negative, but yet you still prescribe to it fully.

Does not compute.

[Trump]

I'm certain Trump's got the right mentality,ambition, and spirit for the country. I'm just afraid all the 'Wall Street people' are gonna play him hard, they've already gotten rid of their arch-nemesis Bharara DA for SDNY through him. People have no idea how crazy rat smart Wall Street guys are, they put hustlers to shame. I just hope Trump can see things clearly.

[Jeril]

As far as a "National Standard" goes...like what? Common Core?

Something like that? It is one of those things were it was a great idea but seems to be horribly implemented. Classes with the same course title aren't always counted the same because different schools adhere to different standards. Even credit per credit schools aren't always the same and they should be.

[Back]

You understand that enough to state it as a seeming negative, but yet you still prescribe to it fully.

Does not compute.

Something has to change from the ground up. What is it? I honestly don't know. In one sense we should be lucky we only have a two party system. But that system is being abused by BOTH sides so they can keep their power and keep us in check.

If we move away from a capitalist rule then maybe things will change. That idea is too radical right now. If anyone even mentions it they get labeled all kinds of bad names. The world is still run by the almighty dollar.

[~Rocktar~]

Something has to change from the ground up.

You could start with the getting rid of the idea that anyone is owed the labor or fruits ot the labor of another by means of force.

Then you could remove the idea that it is possible to have equality of outcome in any but the most destructive and harmful cases.

[Neveragain]

Something has to change from the ground up. What is it? I honestly don't know. In one sense we should be lucky we only have a two party system. But that system is being abused by BOTH sides so they can keep their power and keep us in check.

If we move away from a capitalist rule then maybe things will change. That idea is too radical right now. If anyone even mentions it they get labeled all kinds of bad names. The world is still run by the almighty dollar.

Capitalism functions just like natural law, it rewards success and punishes failure. Quit being a loser, the only thing that prevents you from being a success under capitalism is you.

[Back]

Capitalism functions just like natural law, it rewards success and punishes failure. Quit being a loser, the only thing that prevents you from being a success under capitalism is you.

I disagree. We have the capability to care for everyone on this planet and more. We can house, clothe, feed, provide potable water, and healthcare for everyone. The issue is we allow people to have more money than they could ever spend in their, or their inheritor's, lifetimes. Humans can, and already do, stand above Darwin's law.

[Parkbandit]

Something has to change from the ground up. What is it? I honestly don't know. In one sense we should be lucky we only have a two party system. But that system is being abused by BOTH sides so they can keep their power and keep us in check.

One Party had the game stacked for one specific candidate and did everything they could to make sure that candidate won. The other Party let the Primary play out and an outsider beat out 16 other candidates. To say both sides are equally corrupt is bullshit.


If we move away from a capitalist rule then maybe things will change. That idea is too radical right now. If anyone even mentions it they get labeled all kinds of bad names. The world is still run by the almighty dollar.

What other economic "rule" is better than capitalism and what does capitalism have to do with the Democrats stacking the game for Clinton?

[Parkbandit]

I disagree. We have the capability to care for everyone on this planet and more. We can house, clothe, feed, provide potable water, and healthcare for everyone. The issue is we allow people to have more money than they could ever spend in their, or their inheritor's, lifetimes. Humans can, and already do, stand above Darwin's law.

How much time/effort/money have you given away to these endeavors that you claim are very important to you?

Seriously... you are all talk and zero action. Who is forcing you to be a waiter/manager/owner of a restaurant.. when you could be living in 3rd world countries like Africa making a real difference.

Walk the walk and stop just talking the talk.

[ClydeR]

I'm confused about something. The following two aspects of the GOP plan seem in conflict. First, according to Paul Ryan the GOP plan bars insurance companies from discriminating against applicants with pre-existing conditions, and it also prohibits lifetime benefit limits. That's just like Obamacare. But second, it also establishes state high risk pools.

Why do you need high risk pools if everybody can buy insurance and there are no lifetime limits? It doesn't make sense.

[Trump]

Capitalism functions just like natural law, it rewards success and punishes failure. Quit being a loser, the only thing that prevents you from being a success under capitalism is you.

Unfettered capitalism's natural course is for 1 man to get all the resources of a society..eventually. The problem we have is that once you start getting into the .01% you start changing the rules of the game so it makes it harder for those of the bottom to rise and to keep yourself and your offspring continually in power. Don't believe me? We've been living in it until the late 1700's, Kings, landed nobles etc. until through mass information (printing press) revolution and class warfare the bottom got wiser and started demanding rights.

It's not natural law because you can't just dismiss or add on more or less natural laws willy nilly depending upon how it suits you. That is to say you when you fall off a building you can't just lobby some committee with your billions of $ and suddenly gravity disappears. Capitalisms main function is to eat... and eat.. until eventually there's nobody else to eat from and it eats itself. You can't run a large, complicated society like that, it's a country not a company.

[Neveragain]

I disagree. We have the capability to care for everyone on this planet and more. We can house, clothe, feed, provide potable water, and healthcare for everyone. The issue is we allow people to have more money than they could ever spend in their, or their inheritor's, lifetimes. Humans can, and already do, stand above Darwin's law.

The great thing about Capitalism, it allows you the freedom to freely choose who and how you want to help.


We can house, clothe, feed, provide potable water, and healthcare for everyone.

Why the fuck would anyone work?

Who gets to dictate what is "too much", what is the standard? As much as it hurts your brain, human nature is human nature, you want to punish success and reward failure. This will ALWAYS fail.

[Neveragain]

Unfettered capitalism's natural course is for 1 man to get all the resources of a society..eventually. The problem we have is that once you start getting into the .01% you start changing the rules of the game so it makes it harder for those of the bottom to rise and to keep yourself and your offspring continually in power. Don't believe me? We've been living in it until the late 1700's, Kings, landed nobles etc. until through mass information (printing press) revolution and class warfare the bottom got wiser and started demanding rights.

It's not natural law because you can't just dismiss or add on more or less natural laws willy nilly depending upon how it suits you. That is to say you when you fall off a building you can't just lobby some committee with your billions of $ and suddenly gravity disappears. Capitalisms main function is to eat... and eat.. until eventually there's nobody else to eat from and it eats itself. You can't run a large, complicated society like that, it's a country not a company.

You're not allowing for failure, which would mean it's not capitalism.

There's no revolutions in socialist societies?

There's always going to be winners and losers. Capitalism has lead more people out of poverty than any system yet conceived.

[Trump]

You're not allowing for failure, which would mean it's not capitalism.

There's no revolutions in socialist societies?

There's always going to be winners and losers. Capitalism has lead more people out of poverty than any system yet conceived.

You're absolutely right. And don't get me wrong, I'm a brutal capitalist myself and the mantra in the business community now is fail but fail fast to get to success. But going back to the .01% changing the rules of the game, look what happened on Wall Street back in 08', the entire fucking place failed, failure so spectacular it brought the world down, but what did Goldman, JP Morgan, Citi etc. do? "Yeah, U.S. Gov we fucked up big time, lost everything, and blew up your economy and the economies of a 100 different nations, um... can I get a trillion dollar bailout?"

That's what happens when you get unchecked capitalism, you get one sector of your country that's so big so rich and so vital to the proper function of your entire economy it can take the entire American people hostage, "give me a trillion bucks or kiss civilization good bye!" Again, like most things in life and business and even more complicated the running of a country you need balance.

[Neveragain]

You're absolutely right. And don't get me wrong, I'm a brutal capitalist myself and the mantra in the business community now is fail but fail fast to get to success. But going back to the .01% changing the rules of the game, look what happened on Wall Street back in 08', the entire fucking place failed, failure so spectacular it brought the world down, but what did Goldman, JP Morgan, Citi etc. do? "Yeah, U.S. Gov we fucked up big time, lost everything, and blew up your economy and the economies of a 100 different nations, um... can I get a trillion dollar bailout?"

That's what happens when you get unchecked capitalism, you get one sector of your country that's so big so rich and so vital to the proper function of your entire economy it can take the entire American people hostage, "give me a trillion bucks or kiss civilization good bye!" Again, like most things in life and business and even more complicated the running of a country you need balance.

Have to let it fall, to blame only wall street, corporations and banks for '08 is a fallacy. Lazy consumerism was just as much at fault, of course what allowed a lot of this consumerism were laws that were based on the principals of "but we can house, feed, provide water and clothing to everyone."

Since no real punishments were handed out, except to those that were responsible consumers, we are bound to make the same mistakes.

[time4fun]

Capitalism functions just like natural law, it rewards success and punishes failure. Quit being a loser, the only thing that prevents you from being a success under capitalism is you.

It would be easier to take you seriously if you had any idea what capitalism is. You're thinking of free markets.

And pure free markets are dangerous and unpredictable. That's why they don't exist. You're venerating an imaginary creature, misunderstanding how it works, and then calling it something totally different.

It's like listening to an eighth grader talk about their 7th grade econ class.

[Trump]

Have to let it fall, to blame only wall street, corporations and banks for '08 is a fallacy. Lazy consumerism was just as much at fault, of course what allowed a lot of this consumerism were laws that were based on the principals of "but we can house, feed, provide water and clothing to everyone."

Since no real punishments were handed out, except to those that were responsible consumers, we are bound to make the same mistakes.

Agree that consumers were part of the problem and deserve blame but it was Wall Street that created the ability. CDS and junk mortgages, that they knew without any doubt will flop (since they bet the farm on insurance covering the eventual blowup). Then the insurance they sold each other wouldn't payout so they turn to Uncle Sam with hands out.

Consumers were like a car that Wall Street drove into a bunch of people. Do you blame the car? Sure, maybe it could be partly to blame. Do you blame the driver, yeah definitely. Do you blame the bunch of people that got run over? Well, no, but that was what happened in 08', the people who got ran over paid for the entire accident including hospital fees and a brand new car for the driver. It's nuts. And no, the driver never spent a single day in jail. Go figure.

[time4fun]

Agree that consumers were part of the problem and deserve blame but it was Wall Street that created the ability. CDS and junk mortgages, that they knew without any doubt will flop (since they bet the farm on insurance covering the eventual blowup). Then the insurance they sold each other wouldn't payout so they turn to Uncle Sam with hands out.

Consumers were like a car that Wall Street drove into a bunch of people. Do you blame the car? Sure, maybe it could be partly to blame. Do you blame the driver, yeah definitely. Do you blame the bunch of people that got run over? Well, no, but that was what happened in 08', the people who got ran over paid for the entire accident including hospital fees and a brand new car for the driver. It's nuts. And no, the driver never spent a single day in jail. Go figure.

You're ignoring the fact that banks were specifically targeting first time home owners... Especially those that didn't speak English. That's why they are referred to as predatory loans.

Banks knew these people couldn't afford the homes, and that they didn't understand the variable rates they were getting.

[Neveragain]

It would be easier to take you seriously if you had any idea what capitalism is. You're thinking of free markets.

And pure free markets are dangerous and unpredictable. That's why they don't exist. You're venerating an imaginary creature, misunderstanding how it works, and then calling it something totally different.

It's like listening to an eighth grader talk about their 7th grade econ class.

I'll take your comments with a grain of salt, you're still working on how representative republic elections work and what illegal immigration is.

The only way a pure free market is dangerous is when consumers become lazy and irresponsible. What you want is a no risk, no winners, no losers society and only idiots think this is manageable.

[Neveragain]

You're ignoring the fact that banks were specifically targeting first time home owner... Especially those that didn't speak English. That's why they are referred to as predatory loans.

Banks knew these people couldn't afford the homes, and that they didn't understand the variable rates they were getting.

It's pretty fucking easy to say to yourself "you know what, I probably can't afford this million dollar home on my field workers salary." and the banks would not have been loaning this money if not for pressure from the federal government to loan money to minorities based off being a minority alone instead of the ability to pay the debt.

[ClydeR]

I'm confused about something. The following two aspects of the GOP plan seem in conflict. First, according to Paul Ryan the GOP plan bars insurance companies from discriminating against applicants with pre-existing conditions, and it also prohibits lifetime benefit limits. That's just like Obamacare. But second, it also establishes state high risk pools.

Why do you need high risk pools if everybody can buy insurance and there are no lifetime limits? It doesn't make sense.


I think I figured it out. Although AHCA plans will cover pre-existing conditions, there will still need to be high risk pools for people who get pregnant and people who cannot afford the insurance premiums. People who get pregnant will, of course, be young women. And people who cannot afford the premiums will mostly be people in their late 50s or early 60s who are not old enough for Medicare but who cannot afford the higher premiums they will face under the AHCA. That's the only explanation I can think of.

[Parkbandit]

You're ignoring the fact that banks were specifically targeting first time home owners... Especially those that didn't speak English. That's why they are referred to as predatory loans.

Banks knew these people couldn't afford the homes, and that they didn't understand the variable rates they were getting.

So... why would a bank give people loans that they knew they couldn't afford and would eventually default on them?

Kindness?

[Back]

So... why would a bank give people loans that they knew they couldn't afford and would eventually default on them?

Kindness?

Tax payer bailouts.

[Parkbandit]

Tax payer bailouts.

Close. They didn't know that they would get bailed out when they did it.

So... why would a company in the money business give loans that they knew could never be repaid...

You're so close Backlash... think back a little bit further....

[Ardwen]

You mean the same companies buying out the loans on shopping malls, that are clearly failing? Look it up, they expect 20 cents on the dollar on that investment, yet they are buying the loans.

[Parkbandit]

You mean the same companies buying out the loans on shopping malls, that are clearly failing? Look it up, they expect 20 cents on the dollar on that investment, yet they are buying the loans.

One thing at a time.

So... why would a company in the money business give loans that they knew could never be repaid...

[Ardwen]

because buying a loan at 75 cents on the dollar you can write off on your taxes at 100 percent is legal and utterly repugnant

[ClydeR]

One thing at a time.

So... why would a company in the money business give loans that they knew could never be repaid...


A company only acts through it employees. The company made loans because its employees were incentivized to make the loans.

[Parkbandit]

A company only acts through it employees. The company made loans because its employees were incentivized to make the loans.

Why would a company create an incentive for employees to make bad loans?

[Ardwen]

Because the company may lose money but the executives don't comes to mind. Bonuses are based on sales after all.

[Whirlin]

There's a little more complexity on default rates and other aspects of faulty loans though, and new accounting regulations were imposed last year by FASB.

Previously, loans were written off at the time that it became no longer reasonable to expect payment.

In the world of tomorrow once the "Incurred Losses" model changes to the "current expected credit loss" model, companies will need to establish new financial models in order to determine the likelihood of defaulting rate based on their loaning programs' attributes (credit score, amount:amount secured, average anticipated return on re-possession/etc), all while also evaluating the loans based on their lifecycle.

While the FASB regulations don't put this into required reporting until 2020, there's a lot of speculation in the banking market that one bank will be an early adopter of the program... and once one bank does it, everyone immediately follows suit instantly to make it appear that they're able to keep up with the changes in reporting requirements. They're expecting that the first reporting cycles will occur in Q1 2019, with knowledge sharing between financial institutions' modeling occurring mid-2018.



So, how is that relevant? With the previous Incurred Losses model, there was some wiggle room in when you decide to write off a given loan, which could enable a company to accrue debt, and regulate their income and losses depending on how many loans they wished to write off as incurred losses. However, with the new 'current expected losses model', they will lose the flexibility over when to incur those losses, and must account for the potential losses as soon as the loans fall under their possessions.

None of this is directly related to on White House or Governmental Regulations, but accounting standards set forth by FASB.

[Parkbandit]

Because the company may lose money but the executives don't comes to mind. Bonuses are based on sales after all.

Have you ever worked for someone before? It may be a reason in the very short term.. but that shit always catches up.

You're missing a big picture part here.

Why would a bank, who is in business to actually make money, give out loans that they know cannot every be repaid?

[Ardwen]

why would a bank apply millions of illegal accounts to people that never signed up for them? It also clearly happened, or are you going to deny what Wells Fargo did? People do stupid things all the time, probably because they think they aren't the one that will get caught. That's one of the reasons many criminals use to justify crimes.

[Ardwen]

And yes I have worked for people before, and in 30+ years working three of those companies broke laws, once they were closed by the feds and postal police, so yes I know people regularly do stupid things thinking no one will ever know.

[Whirlin]

Why would a bank, who is in business to actually make money, give out loans that they know cannot every be repaid?
It all depends on risk appetite, and risk posture of their classes of assets. High risk portfolios tend to have high returns associated with them. Since Risk management proliferated the banking industry in the last 3 years, there's been a huge effort to identify and classify the risk posture of investments and assets. Typically things like mortgages tend to be relatively lower risk due to the security of collateral and high due diligence performed, same for HELOC. Auto are a bit riskier, and anything unsecured even more risky than that. And you have the interest rates and expected rate of return reflect the risk.

So... why would you buy high-risk items? Because if you dedicate yourself to lower risk investments, your money is not making as high a rate of return as what you're capable of, and you're not making your investors any money (after all, it all comes down to investors with any public company). There's high incentive to maximize potential investment pools across the risk spectrum in a way that properly hedges your high risk against your low risk assets.

It's worth noting... Banks' have an incredibly mature, established collections process. The overall costs of performing additional collections on potentially terrible loans is pretty much nill because the scalable infrastructure and processes are already in place. A well run bank is already aware of the anticipated rate of return on relatively high risk loans, so if they can expect 85 cents to the dollar when aggregated out, they absolutely will buy at 70 cents per the dollar.

That being said... you're right, if a bank is knowledgeable about a particular loan will be unable to be repaid, then yes, it would be foolish to engage with the customer. However, it doesn't sound like that's what's occurring here. Sales of debt/loans are typically bundled into asset classes with meta data associated with them to provide information to the potential purchasers. Purchasing high risk loans at pennies on the dollar? Well, there's a reason to do that.

[time4fun]

Why would a company create an incentive for employees to make bad loans?

Because they were re-packaging them and selling them off?

That's why the whole thing tanked. The Banks gave out loans they knew were high risk, but then they turned around, bundled them up, and sold them off to other lenders. That's why they were intentionally giving out bad loans by the truckload to people who didn't understand the terms-they weren't going to be the ones responsible when the loans defaulted. By then, they'd be someone else's problem.

That's what happens when you roll back banking regulations. YOU CRASH EVERYTHING.

[time4fun]

I'll take your comments with a grain of salt, you're still working on how representative republic elections work and what illegal immigration is.

The only way a pure free market is dangerous is when consumers become lazy and irresponsible. What you want is a no risk, no winners, no losers society and only idiots think this is manageable.

Uh yeah. You mean that time Thondalar said we don't live in a Democracy, and I told him he was wrong? Sure, I'm the one who doesn't understand how elections work.

You don't understand 100% free markets- that part is clear. Partially because- and I can't stress this enough- you've never actually seen one. They don't exist outside of Econ 101 classes.

[Neveragain]

Uh yeah. You mean that time Thondalar said we don't live in a Democracy, and I told him he was wrong? Sure, I'm the one who doesn't understand how elections work.

You don't understand 100% free markets- that part is clear. Partially because- and I can't stress this enough- you've never actually seen one. They don't exist outside of Econ 101 classes.

If you knew how elections worked you would have never said "but 3 million votes!".

Oh I do understand how Capitalism\free market works. Using your logic since there has never been one, you don't know either but can somehow predict it would be the worse thing EVER. Do you even think about what you're saying at all?

[Parkbandit]

That's what happens when you roll back banking regulations. YOU CRASH EVERYTHING.

So rolling back banking regulations were responsible in 2008?

That was the cause??

[Somedude]

So rolling back banking regulations were responsible in 2008?

That was the cause??

Problem was mostly two-fold, Banks started to securitize these bad loans and mixed them with solid loans and the ratings agencies slapped AAA status on the lot. Then they turned around and started buying CDS on the loans they just incurred. Credit Default Swaps (CDS) was like an insurance policy on these securitized loans, in that, when they blow up they wouldn't lose and in the case of Goldman will actually profit. So, a bunch of banks started selling this stuff, hey it's against AAA rated mortgages right? so how can we lose? Then some jackasses decided nahh and started shorting (bet against) the whole thing. This triggered the Lehman collapse (as Lehman was hocked up to it's eyeballs on this stuff) and it was an easy vehicle to ride down (large publicly traded stock). Lehman's collapse suddenly triggered the panic as noone seemed to know if their insurance was actually worth a damn and then the apocalypse.

[Kembal]

Have you ever worked for someone before? It may be a reason in the very short term.. but that shit always catches up.

You're missing a big picture part here.

Why would a bank, who is in business to actually make money, give out loans that they know cannot every be repaid?

Waiting for PB to spout out a conspiracy theory here, or blame the FHA/Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.

You may want to look up securitization, PB. Whiriin already gave a detailed explanation, but securitization of subprime mortgages and the ability to sell off all the risk associated with the mortgages allowed banks to make loans without worrying about repayment. The GSEs (Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae) had only a minor role to play.

I still recommend reading The Big Short by Michael Lewis for anyone interested.

EDIT: Or hell, Somedude's post sums it up pretty good.

[time4fun]

Problem was mostly two-fold, Banks started to securitize these bad loans and mixed them with solid loans and the ratings agencies slapped AAA status on the lot. Then they turned around and started buying CDS on the loans they just incurred. Credit Default Swaps (CDS) was like an insurance policy on these securitized loans, in that, when they blow up they wouldn't lose and in the case of Goldman will actually profit. So, a bunch of banks started selling this stuff, hey it's against AAA rated mortgages right? so how can we lose? Then some jackasses decided nahh and started shorting (bet against) the whole thing. This triggered the Lehman collapse (as Lehman was hocked up to it's eyeballs on this stuff) and it was an easy vehicle to ride down (large publicly traded stock). Lehman's collapse suddenly triggered the panic as noone seemed to know if their insurance was actually worth a damn and then the apocalypse.

Plus the fact that Glass-Steagall was no longer requiring investment and commercial banks to operate separately (via a holding company loophole introduced in the late 90s). The ensuing mergers left us with about 6 banks who controlled almost 70% of all the financial assets in the US- all of whom were incentivized to engage in high risk/high reward practices to satisfy their investment wings.

So it was only a matter of time before they crashed, and when they crashed, they pulled the whole US economy down with them.

So yes, Virginia (PB), banking regulations are there for a reason.

[ClydeR]

The CBO report is out. Read it at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486

Or don't read it. Just rely on my summary below..

Reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
Reduce revenue by $0.9 trillion over 10 years.
Net deficit reduction of $0.3 trillion over 10 years.

Reduce number of insured by 14 million in 2018.
That number would increase to 24 million in 2026 as Medicaid expansion is phased out.

Doing some math..
$0.3 trillion over 10 years is an average of $30 million per year.
Divide that by 14 million who will be newly uninsured.
That means keeping Obamacare would require the government to spend $2.14 per year per person to keep those 14 million insured. That's not what government is for!

[time4fun]

The CBO report is out. Read it at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486

Or don't read it. Just rely on my summary below..

Reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
Reduce revenue by $0.9 trillion over 10 years.
Net deficit reduction of $0.3 trillion over 10 years.

Reduce number of insured by 14 million in 2018.
That number would increase to 24 million in 2026 as Medicaid expansion is phased out.

Doing some math..
$0.3 trillion over 10 years is an average of $30 million per year.
Divide that by 14 million who will be newly uninsured.
That means keeping Obamacare would require the government to spend $2.14 per year per person to keep those 14 million insured. That's not what government is for!

Translation: it would basically undo everything the ACA did- putting us more or less where we were before.

Silly me, I thought the point of health care reform was to make sure more people had healthcare. Apparently not.

[Wrathbringer]

Translation: it would basically undo everything the ACA did- putting us more or less where we were before.

Silly me, I thought the point of health care reform was to make sure more people had healthcare. Apparently not.

Just shut up already. You lost.

[Geijon Khyree]

Garbage. It won't pass.

[Ardwen]

Pelosi and Schumer calling for them to pull the bill

[Geijon Khyree]

The point of this reform is to help big single contributors like farmers who make 400-800K that pay in too much while managing offers (to increase insured or historically uninsured like mechanics) and costs (Gov. and insurers) to smooth out everything that was blocked in the ACA or missing.

They just don't get it, can't agree or their agenda is somewhere else in the good ole boys clubs. Gut'm and get rich instead of a genuine effort to make it work.

[Ardwen]

CBO is a republican appointee, that report is damning

[Alashir]

So rolling back banking regulations were responsible in 2008?

That was the cause??

I often wonder if you're a troll or whether you mean what you say. A week ago you were arguing that trumps claims of wiretapping happened and weren't up for debate. Now you're acting as if you're blindsided as to how or why banks would ever possibly conceive of making bad loans?

Assuming you aren't a troll, it makes me curious as to what you're like in person. I'm leaning towards the spiteful smelly dude who wears a tinfoil hat that works night shift in a call center somewhere but ya never know.

[Parkbandit]

Pelosi and Schumer calling for them to pull the bill

If this was the greatest bill in the history of all bills, Pelosi and Schumer would be calling for them to pull the bill.

Pelosi and Schumer are idiots.. I wouldn't use their actions to judge anything. At all.

[Parkbandit]

I often wonder if you're a troll or whether you mean what you say. A week ago you were arguing that trumps claims of wiretapping happened and weren't up for debate. Now you're acting as if you're blindsided as to how or why banks would ever possibly conceive of making bad loans?

Assuming you aren't a troll, it makes me curious as to what you're like in person. I'm leaning towards the spiteful smelly dude who wears a tinfoil hat that works night shift in a call center somewhere but ya never know.

1) I honestly have never, ever heard of you.
2) I don't wonder anything about you at all.
3) It's a bit creepy to think someone like you are sitting there, spending all this time thinking about me.
4) Maybe you should spend less time thinking about other people on the Internet and get a job?
5) How about you put forth some sort of effort to make an intelligent post, contributing something? Anything is better than you creeping on strangers.
6) Seriously though, fuck off creep. I'm married and you certainly aren't my type.
7) Thanks though for your thoughtful post. Really.
8) Creepy little fuck.

[time4fun]

If this was the greatest bill in the history of all bills, Pelosi and Schumer would be calling for them to pull the bill.

Pelosi and Schumer are idiots.. I wouldn't use their actions to judge anything. At all.

Really? Because they managed to pass a bill that actually got more people insured. So far, all the GOP has shown it knows how to do is to get fewer people insured.

[Kembal]

If this was the greatest bill in the history of all bills, Pelosi and Schumer would be calling for them to pull the bill.

Pelosi and Schumer are idiots.. I wouldn't use their actions to judge anything. At all.

Objectively, the bill sucks. When the CBO (headed by a Republican appointee, no less) says 24 million people will lose insurance coverage (14 million of them next year alone) and it'll cause premiums to jump 15-20% next year, that basically says that Trump and Ryan have been lying the entire time about what the bill will achieve.

I expect Schumer and Pelosi are doing reverse psychology by saying they should pull the bill now - if I were them, I'd want the House to try and pass it, knowing that every Republican who voted for the bill will get blasted by attack ads for their yes vote in 2018. (Congressman X voted to make your insurance premiums go up by 20%!) This bill, as currently constructed, is dead in the Senate.

[Kembal]

The CBO report is out. Read it at https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52486

Or don't read it. Just rely on my summary below..

Reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
Reduce revenue by $0.9 trillion over 10 years.
Net deficit reduction of $0.3 trillion over 10 years.

Reduce number of insured by 14 million in 2018.
That number would increase to 24 million in 2026 as Medicaid expansion is phased out.

Doing some math..
$0.3 trillion over 10 years is an average of $30 million per year.
Divide that by 14 million who will be newly uninsured.
That means keeping Obamacare would require the government to spend $2.14 per year per person to keep those 14 million insured. That's not what government is for!

Bad math above. $0.3 trillion over 10 years $30 billion per year. Government spends $2,142 per year per person to keep those 14 million insured.

[time4fun]

I expect Schumer and Pelosi are doing reverse psychology by saying they should pull the bill now - if I were them, I'd want the House to try and pass it, knowing that every Republican who voted for the bill will get blasted by attack ads for their yes vote in 2018. (Congressman X voted to make your insurance premiums go up by 20%!) This bill, as currently constructed, is dead in the Senate.

They definitely want the House to pass this bill. It would be Christmas come early.

[ClydeR]

Bad math above. $0.3 trillion over 10 years $30 billion per year. Government spends $2,142 per year per person to keep those 14 million insured.

I was wondering who would win the prize. Congratulation, Kembal!

I made the math error on purpose, of course, to see who in this forum reads my posts most closely.

[Parkbandit]

Objectively, the bill sucks. When the CBO (headed by a Republican appointee, no less) says 24 million people will lose insurance coverage (14 million of them next year alone) and it'll cause premiums to jump 15-20% next year, that basically says that Trump and Ryan have been lying the entire time about what the bill will achieve.

I expect Schumer and Pelosi are doing reverse psychology by saying they should pull the bill now - if I were them, I'd want the House to try and pass it, knowing that every Republican who voted for the bill will get blasted by attack ads for their yes vote in 2018. (Congressman X voted to make your insurance premiums go up by 20%!) This bill, as currently constructed, is dead in the Senate.

I don't disagree. I think Obamacare should simply be repealed. Period. The put forth some real healthcare reform without having the government making it another handout program.

But because politicians are out to secure their own power/re-election... it'll never happen.

Term limits.

[Kembal]

I don't disagree. I think Obamacare should simply be repealed. Period. The put forth some real healthcare reform without having the government making it another handout program.

But because politicians are out to secure their own power/re-election... it'll never happen.

Term limits.

What is real healthcare reform to you? Just curious.

[Parkbandit]

What is real healthcare reform to you? Just curious.

Off the top of my head:

Free market conditions.. allowing more choice and driving down the prices
Tort reform
Health Savings Accounts

What it does not mean to me:

Government controlled healthcare
Subsidized healthcare
Mandates

[time4fun]

Off the top of my head:

Free market conditions.. allowing more choice and driving down the prices
Tort reform
Health Savings Accounts

What it does not mean to me:

Government controlled healthcare
Subsidized healthcare
Mandates

It's interesting the way you're more concerned with *how* health reform happens than the *results* of said reform.

That's exactly what led to the GOP-sponsored Bill- which would eviscerate the progress we've made.

[drauz]

It's interesting the way you're more concerned with *how* health reform happens than the *results* of said reform.

That's exactly what led to the GOP-sponsored Bill- which would eviscerate the progress we've made.

I mean I guess its progress.. It was sold as a lie. If it did everything we were told it would do, it would have been ok. But it didn't, and now people like you are saying well its better than nothing. Well its not better than nothing for quite a few people.

[Kembal]

I want to discuss all 3 of these, because I'm not sure I understand fully what you're asking for here and/or prior data exists that indicates what outcomes this might have.


Off the top of my head:

Free market conditions.. allowing more choice and driving down the prices


Can you define what choice you're looking for here, keeping in mind that you've specified that prices should be driven down as part of this?

1. Choice of doctors/hospitals?
2. Choice of insurance plans?
3. Choice of something else?

Is there anything else you consider as part of free market conditions?

Do you believe that prices should be individually determined between medical provider and patient?


Tort reform

So the goal of tort reform, as I understand it, is to drive down medical malpractice insurance rates, which reduces costs for doctors/hospitals, which theoretically means they can charge lower prices.

Texas is the example I'm most familiar with. It definitely lowered insurance rates, and there's an argument that more doctors came to the state after the law was passed, although population increase explains it as well. But costs didn't go down.


Health Savings Accounts

These only work well with an insurance plan that takes care of all costs after the deductible. (my company has one, though I bought up to a higher plan that doesn't utilize a HSA) Otherwise, it just puts a massive hole in your pocket.

[Thondalar]

Really? Because they managed to pass a bill that actually got more people insured. So far, all the GOP has shown it knows how to do is to get fewer people insured.

A bill that Pelosi said we had to pass to see what was in it, now she wants full investigation of the GOP bill before it goes to vote...humm.

While getting more people on Medicaid is, I guess, getting more people "insured"...the reality is, that didn't do much for anyone. I had share-of-cost Medicaid many years ago, which is what pretty much everyone given "insurance" under Obamacare now has...all these "millions" of people who now magically have insurance, they don't have insurance, they have share-of-cost Medicaid. That means you still have to pay between $500 and $2500 out of pocket before Medicaid picks up anything. For the relative tiny percentage of people who have catastrophic conditions, that might be considered a boon, although they were most likely receiving medical treatment anyway, because hospitals aren't allowed to turn people away for inability to pay. For the rest of them, they're STILL not going to go to "wellness checkups" or preventative screenings because Medicaid still makes you pay something for those things, and they still aren't going to pay out of pocket to meet the threshold. Most people, especially poor people, don't generally think about healthcare unless they're sick. All these numbers you like to bring up of people potentially dying earlier than they should because they haven't had preventive care means jack dick. No private insurance makes these things 100% free, and healthy people aren't going to pay for something they don't think they need.

[Neveragain]

A bill that Pelosi said we had to pass to see what was in it, now she wants full investigation of the GOP bill before it goes to vote...humm.

While getting more people on Medicaid is, I guess, getting more people "insured"...the reality is, that didn't do much for anyone. I had share-of-cost Medicaid many years ago, which is what pretty much everyone given "insurance" under Obamacare now has...all these "millions" of people who now magically have insurance, they don't have insurance, they have share-of-cost Medicaid. That means you still have to pay between $500 and $2500 out of pocket before Medicaid picks up anything. For the relative tiny percentage of people who have catastrophic conditions, that might be considered a boon, although they were most likely receiving medical treatment anyway, because hospitals aren't allowed to turn people away for inability to pay. For the rest of them, they're STILL not going to go to "wellness checkups" or preventative screenings because Medicaid still makes you pay something for those things, and they still aren't going to pay out of pocket to meet the threshold. Most people, especially poor people, don't generally think about healthcare unless they're sick. All these numbers you like to bring up of people potentially dying earlier than they should because they haven't had preventive care means jack dick. No private insurance makes these things 100% free, and healthy people aren't going to pay for something they don't think they need.

It's easy as fuck to get healthcare when you're poor, hell they even go back 3 months and pay for any medical care you received. The whole line about the poor not getting healthcare is a giant fucking joke.

The whole topic is a bullshit scheme to bailout insurance companies who can't clear a profit while insuring the baby boomers.

[Thondalar]

It's easy as fuck to get healthcare when you're poor, hell they even go back 3 months and pay for any medical care you received. The whole line about the poor not getting healthcare is a giant fucking joke.

The whole topic is a bullshit scheme to bailout insurance companies who can't clear a profit while insuring the baby boomers.

The point I was making is that the whole "millions more covered under Obamacare" is a smoke-and-mirrors job...while technically true, what they don't mention is that the VAST majority of these numbers come from increasing the limit for Medicaid to 138% of the poverty line, and the "insurance" these people now have is Medicaid, NOT private insurance through the marketplace.

[Parkbandit]

It's interesting the way you're more concerned with *how* health reform happens than the *results* of said reform.

It's *interesting* that I *honestly* don't care if 15 more million people get on *Healthcare* with sky high *deductables* because that's shitty *healthcare* in my *opinion* even though you will *tout* that as some sort of *win* that more people *have* healthcare even though they can't *use* it because they *can't* afford *$10,000* deductables*.


That's exactly what led to the GOP-sponsored Bill- which would eviscerate the progress we've made.

Obamacare wasn't *eviscerated* by the GOP, it was *eviscerated* by being a shitty law that was *passed* through bullshit *loopholes* and *bribes* and had no way of being *sustainable* at all and the *"progress"* was to *eventually* make it into a *single* *payer* *system*. That transition was *fucked* by the *American* people deciding to be *sexists* and not voting for *Hillary* even though *3 million* more *people* *voted* for *Her* than *him* *.*

[Kembal]

A bill that Pelosi said we had to pass to see what was in it, now she wants full investigation of the GOP bill before it goes to vote...humm.

While getting more people on Medicaid is, I guess, getting more people "insured"...the reality is, that didn't do much for anyone. I had share-of-cost Medicaid many years ago, which is what pretty much everyone given "insurance" under Obamacare now has...all these "millions" of people who now magically have insurance, they don't have insurance, they have share-of-cost Medicaid. That means you still have to pay between $500 and $2500 out of pocket before Medicaid picks up anything. For the relative tiny percentage of people who have catastrophic conditions, that might be considered a boon, although they were most likely receiving medical treatment anyway, because hospitals aren't allowed to turn people away for inability to pay. For the rest of them, they're STILL not going to go to "wellness checkups" or preventative screenings because Medicaid still makes you pay something for those things, and they still aren't going to pay out of pocket to meet the threshold. Most people, especially poor people, don't generally think about healthcare unless they're sick. All these numbers you like to bring up of people potentially dying earlier than they should because they haven't had preventive care means jack dick. No private insurance makes these things 100% free, and healthy people aren't going to pay for something they don't think they need.

Share of cost Medicaid is when you exceed the income eligibility limit but still partially qualify via one of the eligible categories. Only a few states have it though, from what I see online. Where were you living when you were on? (also, according to the Medicaid website, individuals who qualify via the ACA aren't in one of those categories that can have share of cost imposed - https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/cost-sharing/index.html)

Preventive care visits are now completely covered by insurance, btw. That's for everybody. (private insurance, Medicaid, etc.) Just had my annual checkup and didn't pay a copay.

[Whirlin]

Off the top of my head:

Free market conditions.. allowing more choice and driving down the prices
Tort reform
Health Savings Accounts

What it does not mean to me:

Government controlled healthcare
Subsidized healthcare
Mandates
When you say more free market conditions, do you mean removing the state lines from providers? Because that would be the single handed largest free market action available... However, it also deteriorates states rights, which tends to be contrary to republican actions.

Regarding Tort Reform, the effects were probably the most anti-consumer set of reforms ever passed after the wave of calls for tort reforms after the McDonalds coffee incident. I know you're smart enough to know a lot of the details over the case, so we don't need to go into a tangent, but I do not like the idea of taking powers away from the Judicial system when they determine punitive damages are a reasonable form of punishment.

Non-expiring HSA was a concept introduced by Obamacare, so repealing Obamacare means no more HSAs... I know you know this... just worth pointing out. It always bothered me that FSAs expire at the end of a calendar year.

[Parkbandit]

When you say more free market conditions, do you mean removing the state lines from providers? Because that would be the single handed largest free market action available... However, it also deteriorates states rights, which tends to be contrary to republican actions.

It's ridiculous that I can buy pretty much anything from anywhere in the country.. but when it comes to healthcare, I have 1 or 2 real choices. It's less about state rights and more about opening the market for real competition.


Regarding Tort Reform, the effects were probably the most anti-consumer set of reforms ever passed after the wave of calls for tort reforms after the McDonalds coffee incident. I know you're smart enough to know a lot of the details over the case, so we don't need to go into a tangent, but I do not like the idea of taking powers away from the Judicial system when they determine punitive damages are a reasonable form of punishment.

Malpractice insurance not only increases the costs associated with healthcare, but it also forces doctors to perform procedures / give medication that they know won't help, but are afraid if they don't they will be sued.


Non-expiring HSA was a concept introduced by Obamacare, so repealing Obamacare means no more HSAs... I know you know this... just worth pointing out. It always bothered me that FSAs expire at the end of a calendar year.

Obamacare has some things that are good... elimination of pre-existing conditions, non-expiring HSA, some of the preventative services that are now covered, adult children up to age 26 can be covered, etc... but a new plan can institute these items as well.

[time4fun]

I mean I guess its progress.. It was sold as a lie. If it did everything we were told it would do, it would have been ok. But it didn't, and now people like you are saying well its better than nothing. Well its not better than nothing for quite a few people.

How was it sold as a lie?

The biggest problem with the ACA was when SCOTUS said the medicaid expansions were optional, and most of the GOP Governors in the country declined to take them. Not only did it reduce the number of people who were insured by millions, but it also caused the premiums in those states to jump up. Part of the point of the medicaid expansion was to get a high risk population out of the individual market. The GOP knew this- which is why they declined the medicaid expansions. They knew it would damage the program.

So there you go- you want to talk about lies? How about the GOP saying they want to do the best for their people and then literally letting people die for political points.

[time4fun]

When you say more free market conditions, do you mean removing the state lines from providers? Because that would be the single handed largest free market action available... However, it also deteriorates states rights, which tends to be contrary to republican actions.

The whole GOP argument about this is a pipe dream. Insurance companies have to negotiate contracts with the medical providers and hospitals in their area of coverage. It's an incredibly resource-intensive process that's hard enough to do as it is. Negotiating national contracts with 50 times more providers is borderline impossible.

And costs of care are highly regional. It costs a lot more to get care in San Francisco, for example, than it does in Wyoming. That's why premiums really have to be determined regionally. If they had to come up with premiums that accommodated the entire country's worth of cost variations, they'd end up with a price that was much higher than what half of this country already pays.

This is never going to happen, and it would never work if it did.

[Whirlin]

It's ridiculous that I can buy pretty much anything from anywhere in the country.. but when it comes to healthcare, I have 1 or 2 real choices. It's less about state rights and more about opening the market for real competition.

But, it comes down to states determining their own threshold and regulations for managing and protecting personal health information and aspects of health care, and establishing a national baselines could destroy a particular state's rights to manage their own health care systems for their residents. How would something like that impact Mass Health or Vermont's Green Mountain Care?

I completely agree with your statements though, I really think that it would greatly benefit the marketplace to remove the state lines, I just think it goes against the Republican Party's platform, and it's unlikely to be implemented when they're constantly preaching for states' rights.



Malpractice insurance not only increases the costs associated with healthcare, but it also forces doctors to perform procedures / give medication that they know won't help, but are afraid if they don't they will be sued.

I agree... but I don't think Tort reform is the proper venue. The outcomes of previous tort reforms in the 90s ended up being incredibly anti-consumer.



Obamacare has some things that are good... elimination of pre-existing conditions, non-expiring HSA, some of the preventative services that are now covered, adult children up to age 26 can be covered, etc... but a new plan can institute these items as well.
[/quote]
But then is it a total repeal? If there's some good, do we want to rip out HSAs, contributions, figure out what to do with existing HSAs, etc, and then establish something new after stepping away from the existing?

[Kembal]

Obamacare has some things that are good... elimination of pre-existing conditions, non-expiring HSA, some of the preventative services that are now covered, adult children up to age 26 can be covered, etc... but a new plan can institute these items as well.

Wait wait - you don't want a mandate, but you like the elimination of excluding pre-existing conditions.

Under that type of system, you'd only buy health insurance when you're sick. Healthy people would have no incentive to buy insurance.

Insurance companies go into death spirals with that framework.

[Neveragain]

Wait wait - you don't want a mandate, but you like the elimination of excluding pre-existing conditions.

Under that type of system, you'd only buy health insurance when you're sick. Healthy people would have no incentive to buy insurance.

Insurance companies go into death spirals with that framework.

Thanks for exposing the evils of a mandate, I love it when it spills from the goats mouth.

Only insurance companies should have a right to cost efficiency. Fuck the individual tax payer and their right to spend their money as they see fit. The only choices that should be legal is for a woman to slaughter their child, that's FREEDOM!

[Kembal]

Thanks for exposing the evils of a mandate, I love it when it spills from the goats mouth.

Only insurance companies should have a right to cost efficiency. Fuck the individual tax payer and their right to spend their money as they see fit. The only choices that should be legal is for a woman to slaughter their child, that's FREEDOM!

....try spelling out your argument in less hyperbole, and maybe we can actually discuss it. As of right now, all I can conclude is that you still don't understand how insurance works.

[Geijon Khyree]

Thanks for exposing the evils of a mandate, I love it when it spills from the goats mouth.

Only insurance companies should have a right to cost efficiency. Fuck the individual tax payer and their right to spend their money as they see fit. The only choices that should be legal is for a woman to slaughter their child, that's FREEDOM!

.......

[Parkbandit]

Wait wait - you don't want a mandate, but you like the elimination of excluding pre-existing conditions.

Under that type of system, you'd only buy health insurance when you're sick. Healthy people would have no incentive to buy insurance.

Insurance companies go into death spirals with that framework.

Good point.

Scrap the entire law and let's go back to what we had previously. THEN, let's work to make the free market system better.

[Shaps]

I'll say this with regards to insurance and the above mentioned points on this page.

Think of it like car insurance. My car insurance company (competing against many other companies) covers me wherever I go in the country. Does the cost vary based upon location.. yes. Does my coverage change based upon location.. no.

Think of employer insurance. You work for a larger company and they have an office in New York and they provide medical insurance to it's employees. You are then transferred to a satellite office they maintain in Seattle. Does the cost vary based upon location.. yes. Does the coverage change based upon locations.. no.

Why personal health insurance does not utilize a similar model I am not sure when considering it's framework. It's a system already built and validated through other insurance practices. So opening up insurance to a national level should not hinder, but help, current situations IMO.

I never liked the ACA, not because it didn't have some valid changes necessary for better healthcare.. but because it had to many other pieces of shit regulations tied to it as well. So as a whole, it sucked.

In my opinion, if we start with 3 simple things and add to them 1 at a time to progressively improve the system for all of us it would be a much better way. Take the politics out of it.

So let's try that on the PC. My first 3 starting points are:

1. No state borders to insurance companies. National level competition.
2. Health savings accounts up to $10,000 a year tax deductible. Anything put into the account over 10,000 in that year is still considered taxable income, but you could put 250,000 in it if you wanted to.
-This account is managed by an individual, but "gifted" amounts should be allowed. ie. a family member can invest 10,000 into a family members account for the year and every year after (again tax deductible; anything over 10 taxed income).
-Funds from this account could only be utilized for health care purposes. Direct pay to medical providers, facilities, or prescriptions.
-A persons HSA funds can be transferred to family members via a will. This would allow families to ensure their follow on generations are provided for if they wish.
3. Health insurance policies: Family members should be able to retain immediate family members on their policies as long as they wish to (not just 26 years old). I say immediate family so that it could be a brother helping their sister, or sister helping their mother, or mother helping their son, etc.
-The 26 age limit always seemed arbitrary to me. It should not matter who is paying the cost of the insurance nor their reasons for it, even if you are a 50 year old basement dwelling still living at home person who's parents pay for your insurance. Who cares. Person is covered and bills are paid.

So starting with those 3 items is my baseline idea. Someone add 1 point they think would be beneficial or needed and maybe the PC can write the fucking health care laws that our elected officials keep fucking up so badly :) .

[Neveragain]

....try spelling out your argument in less hyperbole, and maybe we can actually discuss it. As of right now, all I can conclude is that you still don't understand how insurance works.

I completely understand how insurance works, that's why I have always said this monstrosity totally falls flat in it's face without a mandate. It changes nothing about my previous comment.

This is liberals in a nutshell "I have to be able to kill my baby, I have to be able to choose my gender identity, you have no choice but to buy this product under threat of force." <-- None of this is hyperbole, it's how retarded the Democrats have become.

~Neg Rep. (lol) No you're just a clueless idiot.

This is everything you fuckwits have been arguing for over the past 8 years, of course I would add "no borders. no country". You're fucking losers that have destroyed a party that at one time at least tried to fight for the middle class.

[Whirlin]

I'll say this with regards to insurance and the above mentioned points on this page.

Think of it like car insurance. My car insurance company (competing against many other companies) covers me wherever I go in the country. Does the cost vary based upon location.. yes. Does my coverage change based upon location.. no.

Think of employer insurance. You work for a larger company and they have an office in New York and they provide medical insurance to it's employees. You are then transferred to a satellite office they maintain in Seattle. Does the cost vary based upon location.. yes. Does the coverage change based upon locations.. no.

Why personal health insurance does not utilize a similar model I am not sure when considering it's framework. It's a system already built and validated through other insurance practices. So opening up insurance to a national level should not hinder, but help, current situations IMO.

I never liked the ACA, not because it didn't have some valid changes necessary for better healthcare.. but because it had to many other pieces of shit regulations tied to it as well. So as a whole, it sucked.

In my opinion, if we start with 3 simple things and add to them 1 at a time to progressively improve the system for all of us it would be a much better way. Take the politics out of it.

So let's try that on the PC. My first 3 starting points are:

1. No state borders to insurance companies. National level competition.
2. Health savings accounts up to $10,000 a year tax deductible. Anything put into the account over 10,000 in that year is still considered taxable income, but you could put 250,000 in it if you wanted to.
-This account is managed by an individual, but "gifted" amounts should be allowed. ie. a family member can invest 10,000 into a family members account for the year and every year after (again tax deductible; anything over 10 taxed income).
-Funds from this account could only be utilized for health care purposes. Direct pay to medical providers, facilities, or prescriptions.
-A persons HSA funds can be transferred to family members via a will. This would allow families to ensure their follow on generations are provided for if they wish.
3. Health insurance policies: Family members should be able to retain immediate family members on their policies as long as they wish to (not just 26 years old). I say immediate family so that it could be a brother helping their sister, or sister helping their mother, or mother helping their son, etc.
-The 26 age limit always seemed arbitrary to me. It should not matter who is paying the cost of the insurance nor their reasons for it, even if you are a 50 year old basement dwelling still living at home person who's parents pay for your insurance. Who cares. Person is covered and bills are paid.

So starting with those 3 items is my baseline idea. Someone add 1 point they think would be beneficial or needed and maybe the PC can write the fucking health care laws that our elected officials keep fucking up so badly :) .

Under ACA, HSA contributions are pre-tax reductions in AGI... being deductible contributions would double dip on medical expense deductions, and would be a step backwards in their advantageous tax status.

[time4fun]

Good point.

Scrap the entire law and let's go back to what we had previously. THEN, let's work to make the free market system better.

The free market system doesn't work. The free market system displaces high risk populations, requiring the government to pay for their care indirectly (Emergency Room visits) and letting people die. Why do you think pre-existing condition exclusions were created? THOSE were the products of free markets.

The way an insurance market works, things are most *profitable* when only the healthy are in the pool (which is what insurance companies worked to do), but they are most *stable* when everyone is in the pool. And they are at their worst when only the sick are in the pool.

All of this diatribe about free markets is just an attempt to head to the goal of making the insurance market the most profitable. But healthcare is a social good that has huge ramifications for all of us. We should be working to make the markets more stable, not more profitable.

And that means universal health care coverage in a single payer system. (which is also the most cost-effective)

[Whirlin]

So, two things: Free Market doesn't work because health isn't an elastic commodity that can be traded like a good, it's a captive audience that you can essentially suck every last penny of savings that they'll have because the alternative is death.

Secondly... Swapping to a single payer system would result in erosion of employee pay/benefits. While I don't currently have any statistics/knowledge of how much an employer contributes towards employee health insurance costs from an aggregated perspective, I'd say it's fairly reasonable that any cost savings that an employer would see from a swap to single-payer would not be reflected in take-home pay to the employee, and would likely result in a reduction in employee discretionary income.

[Parkbandit]

The free market system doesn't work. The free market system displaces high risk populations, requiring the government to pay for their care indirectly (Emergency Room visits) and letting people die. Why do you think pre-existing condition exclusions were created? THOSE were the products of free markets.

The way an insurance market works, things are most *profitable* when only the healthy are in the pool (which is what insurance companies worked to do), but they are most *stable* when everyone is in the pool. And they are at their worst when only the sick are in the pool.

All of this diatribe about free markets is just an attempt to head to the goal of making the insurance market the most profitable. But healthcare is a social good that has huge ramifications for all of us. We should be working to make the markets more stable, not more profitable.

And that means universal health care coverage in a single payer system. (which is also the most cost-effective)

Unfortunately for you, Bernie was screwed out of the nomination and Hillary lost.

Elections have consequences. Hopefully, Obamacare is one of those consequences.

[time4fun]

So, two things: Free Market doesn't work because health isn't an elastic commodity that can be traded like a good, it's a captive audience that you can essentially suck every last penny of savings that they'll have because the alternative is death.

Secondly... Swapping to a single payer system would result in erosion of employee pay/benefits. While I don't currently have any statistics/knowledge of how much an employer contributes towards employee health insurance costs from an aggregated perspective, I'd say it's fairly reasonable that any cost savings that an employer would see from a swap to single-payer would not be reflected in take-home pay to the employee, and would likely result in a reduction in employee discretionary income.

Interesting that you bring that up. I'd argue the exact opposite. It's true health insurance was initially added as a way to lure talent (remember back in the day- we taxed top levels of income at a much higher rate. Insurance benefits were a way to circumvent this).

But the truth of the matter is that the benefits "income" that some employees get isn't going into their pockets. It's going to insurance companies. It's not like they'd notice that their employer were no longer sending a check to an insurance company on their behalf.

But they'd notice that they're not longer paying a few hundred dollars a month out of their own pocket for insurance.

[time4fun]

Unfortunately for you, Bernie was screwed out of the nomination and Hillary lost.

Elections have consequences. Hopefully, Obamacare is one of those consequences.

Yeah, I hope millions of people lose their insurance too.

Oh no wait- I don't. Because I'm not a sociopath.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, I hope millions of people lose their insurance too.

Oh no wait- I don't. Because I'm not a sociopath.

What happened to the millions of people prior to Obamacare getting snuck through like a thief in the night?

Oh, they were still ok.

Repeal Obamacare.. then let's put more money into the INS and get to work deporting illegals.

:thumbup:

[drauz]

How was it sold as a lie?

The biggest problem with the ACA was when SCOTUS said the medicaid expansions were optional, and most of the GOP Governors in the country declined to take them. Not only did it reduce the number of people who were insured by millions, but it also caused the premiums in those states to jump up. Part of the point of the medicaid expansion was to get a high risk population out of the individual market. The GOP knew this- which is why they declined the medicaid expansions. They knew it would damage the program.

So there you go- you want to talk about lies? How about the GOP saying they want to do the best for their people and then literally letting people die for political points.

Really? You don't know the lies associated with the ACA from democrats....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpa-5JdCnmo

[drauz]

The free market system doesn't work. The free market system displaces high risk populations, requiring the government to pay for their care indirectly (Emergency Room visits) and letting people die. Why do you think pre-existing condition exclusions were created? THOSE were the products of free markets.

The way an insurance market works, things are most *profitable* when only the healthy are in the pool (which is what insurance companies worked to do), but they are most *stable* when everyone is in the pool. And they are at their worst when only the sick are in the pool.

All of this diatribe about free markets is just an attempt to head to the goal of making the insurance market the most profitable. But healthcare is a social good that has huge ramifications for all of us. We should be working to make the markets more stable, not more profitable.

And that means universal health care coverage in a single payer system. (which is also the most cost-effective)

No thanks, I've seen how the government handles healthcare. The VMA comes to mind. I'll pass.

[drauz]

Yeah, I hope millions of people lose their insurance too.

Oh no wait- I don't. Because I'm not a sociopath.

You have people with such high deductibles that they aren't seeking treatment anyways. So there is a little loss but I don't think as much as you are thinking there will be.

[~Rocktar~]

Interesting that you bring that up. I'd argue the exact opposite. It's true health insurance was initially added as a way to lure talent (remember back in the day- we taxed top levels of income at a much higher rate. Insurance benefits were a way to circumvent this).

You are an idiot. What was a way to circumvent taxes on income were reimbursement accounts. Once a plan covers pretty much everything at 100% there isn't anything more you can give. With a reimbursement account, you can cover anything the employer was able to claim has some medical use and pay back anything the employee spent on it. For example, health club and spa memberships.


But the truth of the matter is that the benefits "income" that some employees get isn't going into their pockets.

And here is where you prove that you are an absolute fucking moron and have less than zero clue about how insurance really works. If you don't think that basic insurance to cover things like Dr office sick visits and urgent care/ER visits isn't money in someone's pocket, then you need to come talk to the people I do on a daily basis. I now work for one of the top 10 medical insurance companies in the US and every day I get calls about claims that did not pay like the member wanted or where they have a substantial deductible and they sure do talk about it as money in their pocket. Heaven forbid I get a state/local government employee or a fucking teacher calling in. The deductible goes up and they have a family so there is a good chance they use their insurance and it is money out of their pocket. Better yet dumbass, go ask around to see how many people work someplace they don't love because of the insurance.


It's going to insurance companies. It's not like they'd notice that their employer were no longer sending a check to an insurance company on their behalf.

Next moron, you absolutely have no fucking clue about insurance companies and how insurance works these days. Here is a short course.

Insurance companies have a capped profit margin based on the size of the groups that buy insurance. It is based on a percentage of the total premiums taken in and called the Minimum Medical Loss Ratio. For small groups, that number is 80% and for large groups that is 85%. That means that after taxes and regulatory fees, they must spend that percentage on health care to the member. Since actuaries are pretty good at estimating the cost of medical care, the government keeps a good eye on this. Please note that this is based on premiums minus taxes minus regulatory fees and NOT on operating costs which have to come out of that profit margin. The real profit margin on medical insurance is pretty small, much like on other retailers like grocery stores (they operate around 1/4-1/2% net profit on sales if they are considered very efficient and profitable). reference source (http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/04/does-obamacare-limit-profits-for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/)

Next shitbag, since most (Around 63% (http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2015-section-ten-plan-funding/)) employees who have insurance get it through a fully or partially self funded insurance plan if the employer does not submit payments to the plan's fund then the claims don't get paid, you can damn sure bet that employees notice. Don't believe me, go online and search up commentary about State of Illinois employees and retirees insurance plan not paying because the state is bankrupt. Here are some links Plan stopped payments (http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150914/NEWS/150919741) and Plan delays (https://www.illinois.gov/cms/Employees/benefits/StateEmployee/Pages/QCHPQCDPClaimPaymentDelay.aspx)

On the last link there, you will see the most recent date of service that claims are being paid for from this plan.

Now, there is an issue with several HCP refusing to take State of Il plans and requiring payment up front. This is what happens when the employer stops putting money into the account for self insured plans.

For fully funded plans, if the employer doesn't pay, the insurance stops on that date of service instantly. This means that if a person goes to a HCP or pharmacy or whatever, they get told they don't have insurance and have to pay up front or make other arrangements. I take several calls a day for this kind of thing where the employer HR simply fucks up much less they really get canceled. So your idea that people won't notice is simply idiotic and elitist shit.

For those that don't know, a self funded plan is where the employer is the one putting money into the account to pay the claims. If they don't put money in, the claims don't get paid and that happens nearly instantly since most employers don't put a lot of cash into that account because they don't get the interest on it in many cases. Self funded plans are cheaper to the employer because they just pay the insurance company a fee to administer the coverage and they don't have to follow a lot of idiot laws across the states, only the ones for their state. Fully funded plans are where the insurance company is the one putting out the money and they cost more because the insurance company makes sure that the risk they assume is covered by the premiums they charge so that they can stay in business.

Someone else mentioned that they didn't know how much it cost the employer to insure people, well, here is some pretty recent information on that.

http://kff.org/health-costs/report/2016-employer-health-benefits-survey/

Be sure to read that first paragraph carefully.


Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $18,142 this year, up 3 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $5,277 towards the cost of their coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Education Trust 2016 Employer Health Benefits Survey. (emphasis added)

So time4fun your asinine assertions are just that and simply demonstrate just how little you really know.

[Kembal]

Good point.

Scrap the entire law and let's go back to what we had previously. THEN, let's work to make the free market system better.

Ok, this is at least economically consistent. I disagree with it entirely, but that's a different story.

(also, will never pass the Senate)

[Pin]

Secondly... Swapping to a single payer system would result in erosion of employee pay/benefits. While I don't currently have any statistics/knowledge of how much an employer contributes towards employee health insurance costs from an aggregated perspective, I'd say it's fairly reasonable that any cost savings that an employer would see from a swap to single-payer would not be reflected in take-home pay to the employee, and would likely result in a reduction in employee discretionary income.

Wouldn't the fact that I'd no longer have to pay my part of my employers plan reflect in my take-home pay regardless of whether or not my company decided to compensate me with the money they were also saving?

[drauz]

Wouldn't the fact that I'd no longer have to pay my part of my employers plan reflect in my take-home pay regardless of whether or not my company decided to compensate me with the money they were also saving?

This assumes your tax burden doesn't increase.

[Kembal]

Wouldn't the fact that I'd no longer have to pay my part of my employers plan reflect in my take-home pay regardless of whether or not my company decided to compensate me with the money they were also saving?

Also assumes that your employer isn't paying 100% of the insurance premium. (my company does that, for the base plan)

[Shaps]

Under ACA, HSA contributions are pre-tax reductions in AGI... being deductible contributions would double dip on medical expense deductions, and would be a step backwards in their advantageous tax status.

Interesting. Suggestion to alter or refine the point then?

I see you're the only one to comment on my post, as everyone else just keeps arguing political points or about who is the most humane among themselves.

Any other ideas to add on to the list?

[Fortybox]

You are an idiot. What was a way to circumvent taxes on income were reimbursement accounts. Once a plan covers pretty much everything at 100% there isn't anything more you can give. With a reimbursement account, you can cover anything the employer was able to claim has some medical use and pay back anything the employee spent on it. For example, health club and spa memberships.



And here is where you prove that you are an absolute fucking moron and have less than zero clue about how insurance really works. If you don't think that basic insurance to cover things like Dr office sick visits and urgent care/ER visits isn't money in someone's pocket, then you need to come talk to the people I do on a daily basis. I now work for one of the top 10 medical insurance companies in the US and every day I get calls about claims that did not pay like the member wanted or where they have a substantial deductible and they sure do talk about it as money in their pocket. Heaven forbid I get a state/local government employee or a fucking teacher calling in. The deductible goes up and they have a family so there is a good chance they use their insurance and it is money out of their pocket. Better yet dumbass, go ask around to see how many people work someplace they don't love because of the insurance.



Next moron, you absolutely have no fucking clue about insurance companies and how insurance works these days. Here is a short course.

Insurance companies have a capped profit margin based on the size of the groups that buy insurance. It is based on a percentage of the total premiums taken in and called the Minimum Medical Loss Ratio. For small groups, that number is 80% and for large groups that is 85%. That means that after taxes and regulatory fees, they must spend that percentage on health care to the member. Since actuaries are pretty good at estimating the cost of medical care, the government keeps a good eye on this. Please note that this is based on premiums minus taxes minus regulatory fees and NOT on operating costs which have to come out of that profit margin. The real profit margin on medical insurance is pretty small, much like on other retailers like grocery stores (they operate around 1/4-1/2% net profit on sales if they are considered very efficient and profitable). reference source (http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/04/does-obamacare-limit-profits-for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/)

Next shitbag, since most (Around 63% (http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2015-section-ten-plan-funding/)) employees who have insurance get it through a fully or partially self funded insurance plan if the employer does not submit payments to the plan's fund then the claims don't get paid, you can damn sure bet that employees notice. Don't believe me, go online and search up commentary about State of Illinois employees and retirees insurance plan not paying because the state is bankrupt. Here are some links Plan stopped payments (http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150914/NEWS/150919741) and Plan delays (https://www.illinois.gov/cms/Employees/benefits/StateEmployee/Pages/QCHPQCDPClaimPaymentDelay.aspx)

On the last link there, you will see the most recent date of service that claims are being paid for from this plan.

Now, there is an issue with several HCP refusing to take State of Il plans and requiring payment up front. This is what happens when the employer stops putting money into the account for self insured plans.

For fully funded plans, if the employer doesn't pay, the insurance stops on that date of service instantly. This means that if a person goes to a HCP or pharmacy or whatever, they get told they don't have insurance and have to pay up front or make other arrangements. I take several calls a day for this kind of thing where the employer HR simply fucks up much less they really get canceled. So your idea that people won't notice is simply idiotic and elitist shit.

For those that don't know, a self funded plan is where the employer is the one putting money into the account to pay the claims. If they don't put money in, the claims don't get paid and that happens nearly instantly since most employers don't put a lot of cash into that account because they don't get the interest on it in many cases. Self funded plans are cheaper to the employer because they just pay the insurance company a fee to administer the coverage and they don't have to follow a lot of idiot laws across the states, only the ones for their state. Fully funded plans are where the insurance company is the one putting out the money and they cost more because the insurance company makes sure that the risk they assume is covered by the premiums they charge so that they can stay in business.

Someone else mentioned that they didn't know how much it cost the employer to insure people, well, here is some pretty recent information on that.

http://kff.org/health-costs/report/2016-employer-health-benefits-survey/

Be sure to read that first paragraph carefully.

(emphasis added)

So time4fun your asinine assertions are just that and simply demonstrate just how little you really know.

You used facts. She will put you on ignore now.

[Geijon Khyree]

Times for health care sure are tough...

http://fortune.com/2016/06/13/biggest-us-health-care-companies/

#6, #33, #46 and #52 in 2016.

http://beta.fortune.com/fortune500

United Healthcare had $157 billion in revenue putting them #16th in the entire world. They are Obamacare's biggest complainer. The "RICHEST" and most "PROFITABLE" healthcare company in the "WORLD".

[time4fun]

You are an idiot. What was a way to circumvent taxes on income were reimbursement accounts. Once a plan covers pretty much everything at 100% there isn't anything more you can give. With a reimbursement account, you can cover anything the employer was able to claim has some medical use and pay back anything the employee spent on it. For example, health club and spa memberships.



And here is where you prove that you are an absolute fucking moron and have less than zero clue about how insurance really works. If you don't think that basic insurance to cover things like Dr office sick visits and urgent care/ER visits isn't money in someone's pocket, then you need to come talk to the people I do on a daily basis. I now work for one of the top 10 medical insurance companies in the US and every day I get calls about claims that did not pay like the member wanted or where they have a substantial deductible and they sure do talk about it as money in their pocket. Heaven forbid I get a state/local government employee or a fucking teacher calling in. The deductible goes up and they have a family so there is a good chance they use their insurance and it is money out of their pocket. Better yet dumbass, go ask around to see how many people work someplace they don't love because of the insurance.



Next moron, you absolutely have no fucking clue about insurance companies and how insurance works these days. Here is a short course.

Insurance companies have a capped profit margin based on the size of the groups that buy insurance. It is based on a percentage of the total premiums taken in and called the Minimum Medical Loss Ratio. For small groups, that number is 80% and for large groups that is 85%. That means that after taxes and regulatory fees, they must spend that percentage on health care to the member. Since actuaries are pretty good at estimating the cost of medical care, the government keeps a good eye on this. Please note that this is based on premiums minus taxes minus regulatory fees and NOT on operating costs which have to come out of that profit margin. The real profit margin on medical insurance is pretty small, much like on other retailers like grocery stores (they operate around 1/4-1/2% net profit on sales if they are considered very efficient and profitable). reference source (http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/02/04/does-obamacare-limit-profits-for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/)

Next shitbag, since most (Around 63% (http://kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2015-section-ten-plan-funding/)) employees who have insurance get it through a fully or partially self funded insurance plan if the employer does not submit payments to the plan's fund then the claims don't get paid, you can damn sure bet that employees notice. Don't believe me, go online and search up commentary about State of Illinois employees and retirees insurance plan not paying because the state is bankrupt. Here are some links Plan stopped payments (http://www.sj-r.com/article/20150914/NEWS/150919741) and Plan delays (https://www.illinois.gov/cms/Employees/benefits/StateEmployee/Pages/QCHPQCDPClaimPaymentDelay.aspx)

On the last link there, you will see the most recent date of service that claims are being paid for from this plan.

Now, there is an issue with several HCP refusing to take State of Il plans and requiring payment up front. This is what happens when the employer stops putting money into the account for self insured plans.

For fully funded plans, if the employer doesn't pay, the insurance stops on that date of service instantly. This means that if a person goes to a HCP or pharmacy or whatever, they get told they don't have insurance and have to pay up front or make other arrangements. I take several calls a day for this kind of thing where the employer HR simply fucks up much less they really get canceled. So your idea that people won't notice is simply idiotic and elitist shit.

For those that don't know, a self funded plan is where the employer is the one putting money into the account to pay the claims. If they don't put money in, the claims don't get paid and that happens nearly instantly since most employers don't put a lot of cash into that account because they don't get the interest on it in many cases. Self funded plans are cheaper to the employer because they just pay the insurance company a fee to administer the coverage and they don't have to follow a lot of idiot laws across the states, only the ones for their state. Fully funded plans are where the insurance company is the one putting out the money and they cost more because the insurance company makes sure that the risk they assume is covered by the premiums they charge so that they can stay in business.

Someone else mentioned that they didn't know how much it cost the employer to insure people, well, here is some pretty recent information on that.

http://kff.org/health-costs/report/2016-employer-health-benefits-survey/

Be sure to read that first paragraph carefully.

(emphasis added)

So time4fun your asinine assertions are just that and simply demonstrate just how little you really know.

You're hilarious. First, it's very much true that health benefits were initially used as a way to attract employees and circumvent the income issue.- it dates back to the late 1800s. Go look it up.

I think you need to go back and read my post and the post I was responding to. You just went batshit crazy because you fundamentally misunderstood my argument. Someone indicated that if companies were no longer paying insurance benefits (in a government-sponsored single payer system), that suddenly peoples' pay would go down. The implication being that some percentage of what employers are paying for insurance (**TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES**) is going into the employee's pocket.

My point- sister freak out- was that if they stopped paying that money to the insurance companies, it wouldn't impact the employee's paycheck negatively.

I have no idea where you got the bad meth, but you just had an aneurysm for no clear reason.

[drauz]

My point- sister freak out- was that if they stopped paying that money to the insurance companies, it wouldn't impact the employee's paycheck negatively.

It is still a percieved loss of income because that was a form of payment the employee was getting that they aren't any longer. This also assumes that taxes wouldn't be raised to cover the cost of healthcare. If they are it could be a further loss of income.

[Seizer]

My point- sister freak out- was that if they stopped paying that money to the insurance companies, it wouldn't impact the employee's paycheck negatively.

I have no idea where you got the bad meth, but you just had an aneurysm for no clear reason.
Out of pure curiosity will you be invoking Godwin's law?

[time4fun]

Out of pure curiosity will you be invoking Godwin's law?

I'm pretty sure that's his next move. There's really nowhere else to go after that rant.

[~Rocktar~]

You're hilarious. First, it's very much true that health benefits were initially used as a way to attract employees and circumvent the income issue.- it dates back to the late 1800s. Go look it up.

I think you need to go back and read my post and the post I was responding to. You just went batshit crazy because you fundamentally misunderstood my argument. Someone indicated that if companies were no longer paying insurance benefits (in a government-sponsored single payer system), that suddenly peoples' pay would go down. The implication being that some percentage of what employers are paying for insurance (**TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES**) is going into the employee's pocket.

My point- sister freak out- was that if they stopped paying that money to the insurance companies, it wouldn't impact the employee's paycheck negatively.

I have no idea where you got the bad meth, but you just had an aneurysm for no clear reason.

Because reacting to your actual words and not your deflection afterwards is such a freak out. Please shut the fuck up you raving moron.

[~Rocktar~]

I'm pretty sure that's his next move. There's really nowhere else to go after that rant.

I don't typically compare people to Hitler since I am a conservative. That is a Liberal/Socialist battle tactic.

[Trump]

Honestly, at some point you have to call it for what it is... the one thing that came out of his budget that struck me the most:

"I'm very concerned about these cuts," she said. "Ronald Reagan didn't cut heating assistance for poor people."

Then the mantra of the "conservatives" is...

http://blog.seattlepi.com/davidhorsey/files/2011/03/Class-war-3-8-11-color.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Wut?

[Kembal]

Wut?

Probably a reference to Trump's budget cutting all sorts of things. Going after Meals on Wheels for seniors and afterschool meals for kids seems ridiculous though. Looks like heating assistance for poor people is on the chopping block too.

[Tgo01]

Going after Meals on Wheels for seniors

FAKE NEWS ALERT!

The federal government does not fund Meals on Wheels.

[Kembal]

FAKE NEWS ALERT!

The federal government does not fund Meals on Wheels.

Incorrect. Many states use the Community Development Block Grant provided by the federal government to provide funding to Meals on Wheels programs. The Block Grant is being wiped out, for the most part.

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney was asked this question specifically, and directly answered it.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/842461816479453185

Literally said it sounds great, but it's not showing any results.

[Tgo01]

Incorrect. Many states use the Community Development Block Grant provided by the federal government to provide funding to Meals on Wheels programs.

Exactly, hence the federal government does not fund Meals on Wheels. The federal government provides grants to state governments and the state governments then decide how to allocate that grant money. The states always had the option of providing money to Meals on Wheels, reduce funding, withdrawing funding altogether, or never funding Meals on Wheels in the first place, which a lot of states did. There is also nothing stopping state governments from providing their own funding towards Meals on Wheels.

Not to mention these grants only provided about 3% of the total funding of Meals on Wheels, they still rely on private donations for the VAST majority of their funding.

Democrats have fallen for yet more fake news bullshit because the headline sounded good.

[Parkbandit]

Exactly, hence the federal government does not fund Meals on Wheels. The federal government provides grants to state governments and the state governments then decide how to allocate that grant money. The states always had the option of providing money to Meals on Wheels, reduce funding, withdrawing funding altogether, or never funding Meals on Wheels in the first place, which a lot of states did. There is also nothing stopping state governments from providing their own funding towards Meals on Wheels.

Not to mention these grants only provided about 3% of the total funding of Meals on Wheels, they still rely on private donations for the VAST majority of their funding.

Democrats have fallen for yet more fake news bullshit because the headline sounded good.

Why do you hate Seniors so much?

[Tgo01]

Why do you hate Seniors so much?

Everyone needs a hobby.

[Shaps]

Way the Trump and the GOP are handling the health care bill is dumb. Same shit Obama did. I think worse since they had 8 f'in years to really develop a bill that truly is better for all of us, not this half-assed crap they are doing now. F'in politicians.

[time4fun]

They never bothered to have a plan. Now they've got one that kicks 24 million people off of healthcare, reduces the quality of healthcare, and gives tax breaks to the wealthy.

That they have the nerve to try to pass such a bill is disgusting.

#GOPSolutions

[Shaps]

They never bothered to have a plan. Now they've got one that kicks 24 million people off of healthcare, reduces the quality of healthcare, and gives tax breaks to the wealthy.

That they have the nerve to try to pass such a bill is disgusting.

#GOPSolutions

Obamacare sucked. This plan sucks. So if you say that Obama when he passed his bill was "disgusting", then we may be in agreement overall. I doubt you will, but I can hope you are objective about it.

I'm just pissed that all politicians, regardless of party affiliation.. are so fucking selfish and politically driven. I'll give Trump credit for at least exposing it so blatantly. Previously people that followed politics noticed it, but this has just spread it wide open... because career politicians on both sides have no idea what to do with him.

We'll see what happens, but I hope they just pull it.. fix it.. and make it better based on less government intrusion, and more personal choice. But at this point I think we're all fucked.

[time4fun]

If we have record low rates of uninsurance, and kids no longer dying from cancer because they hit their lifetime cap...How does it suck?

Look it's not what liberals wanted. We wanted a public option at least, single payer at best, but over 20 million more people have insurance now. And a lot of them can afford it for the first time.

At some point, we have to start valuing the human lives saved and focus less on how we saved them. There are miles to go, but the Democrats managed to do more to help this crisis than the GOP ever has.

[Tgo01]

and kids no longer dying from cancer because they hit their lifetime cap...How does it suck?

Can you please link me to an article of this EVER happening? In the US that is.

[time4fun]

Trump is pushing for a vote today despite not being certain they've lined up the votes necessary. Sounds to me like Bannon is finally getting that bus he's wanted to throw Ryan under for years.

[Shaps]

If we have record low rates of uninsurance, and kids no longer dying from cancer because they hit their lifetime cap...How does it suck?

Look it's not what liberals wanted. We wanted a public option at least, single payer at best, but over 20 million more people have insurance now. And a lot of them can afford it for the first time.

At some point, we have to start valuing the human lives saved and focus less on how we saved them. There are miles to go, but the Democrats managed to do more to help this crisis than the GOP ever has.

I get it's not what liberals wanted fully.. thank goodness.

This bill is not what conservatives want at all.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The situation is that some good ideas, were put into a really bad overall bill (ACA). This current bill has the same issue.

What confuses and frustrates me.. is if our Politicians would actually talk to each other, be accepting of ideas, and do what is right.. they could make a really good bill. Because of politics though and their hope to make the other side look bad, we get screwed with the current system... or another bad one if they pass the current legislation.

Build a system on a shitty foundation, we will all suffer in the long term. And sadly, that is coming.

[Methais]

Look it's not what liberals wanted. We wanted a public option at least, single payer at best, but over 20 million more people have insurance now.

You mean when people are forced by law to buy X the end result is more people have X? Golly.


And a lot of them can afford it for the first time.

How many is a lot? And what about the ones who can't afford it but have it forced on them anyway?

Sounds like a winner.

If your nickname is Corky.

[SHAFT]

Wow, more failure! Not only does the health care plan get rejected, but now the democrats are on stage gloating!

Trump sucks. They can't do anything right.

Sorry, Trump pulled it because he knew it wouldn't go through. Loser.

[time4fun]

You're wrong. He's going to win so much, we're going to get tired of the winning!

[SHAFT]

You're wrong. He's going to win so much, we're going to get tired of the winning!

I feel sorry for the idiots who bought into his BS. Sorry you got sold a bunch of BS and sorry people are so fucking stupid to believe the guy.

[Parkbandit]

If we have record low rates of uninsurance, and kids no longer dying from cancer because they hit their lifetime cap...How does it suck?

Did you hear this folks!? Obama cured all kids from dying from cancer!

YAY!


Look it's not what liberals wanted. We wanted a public option at least, single payer at best, but over 20 million more people have insurance now. And a lot of them can afford it for the first time.

Who cares if these 20 million can actually USE their insurance.. with sky high deductables and ever growing prices due to the AFFORDABLE Care Act...........................................


At some point, we have to start valuing the human lives saved and focus less on how we saved them. There are miles to go, but the Democrats managed to do more to help this crisis than the GOP ever has.

LOL.. you're delusional.

[Geijon Khyree]

Obamacare > Paul Ryan's career.

[Parkbandit]

Wow, more failure! Not only does the health care plan get rejected, but now the democrats are on stage gloating!

Trump sucks. They can't do anything right.

Sorry, Trump pulled it because he knew it wouldn't go through. Loser.

Someone needs to go back to 5th grade and take a civics class.

Trump didn't put forth the bill.. Congress did. Congress didn't have enough votes for it to pass.

Personally, I'm happy. We don't need a shitty bill to replace an already shitty law.

Repeal Obamacare.

Period.

[Tgo01]

Trump decided to move onto other things, I think it's a bit premature for Democrats to decide Trump is a failure who can't get anything done. Slow your roll there a bit, guys.

"Trump is literally a failure because he decided not to waste 2 years working on legislation that ultimately gave nothing that it originally promised unlike the ACA!!!11111" -- Oh yeah, that was WITH a super majority in both houses too.

[Whirlin]

Trump decided to move onto other things, I think it's a bit premature for Democrats to decide Trump is a failure who can't get anything done. Slow your roll there a bit, guys.

"Trump is literally a failure because he decided not to waste 2 years working on legislation that ultimately gave nothing that it originally promised unlike the ACA!!!11111" -- Oh yeah, that was WITH a super majority in both houses too.
You absolutely can't discount his success in his Muslim bans.

[Tgo01]

You absolutely can't discount his success in his Muslim bans.

He got that shit done, it's just stupid judges overstepping their authority on that one. "The federal government has no say in visa and immigration and shit, because, um....I....said...so...?"

[SHAFT]

Someone needs to go back to 5th grade and take a civics class.

Trump didn't put forth the bill.. Congress did. Congress didn't have enough votes for it to pass.

Personally, I'm happy. We don't need a shitty bill to replace an already shitty law.

Repeal Obamacare.

Period.

I just like talking shit. I was hoping his head would explode on national TV during his appearance just now, but sadly he kept his cool.

I love how when things go wrong he just blames other people. Today it was the Democrats fault. The ultimate deal maker can't make deals. Loser

[Parkbandit]

I just like talking shit.

:thumbup:

[SHAFT]

:thumbup:

So far the only deal he's made is with the Russians (allegedly).

[time4fun]

Trump decided to move onto other things, I think it's a bit premature for Democrats to decide Trump is a failure who can't get anything done. Slow your roll there a bit, guys.

"Trump is literally a failure because he decided not to waste 2 years working on legislation that ultimately gave nothing that it originally promised unlike the ACA!!!11111" -- Oh yeah, that was WITH a super majority in both houses too.

Let's see:

-Unconstitutional Muslim Ban #1 causes mass chaos internationally and gets thrown out. International Tourism to the US subsequently drops.

-Questionable Muslim Ban #2 is immediately tied in the Courts before ever going into effect

-ACA Repeal is the world's worst health care bill and has to be pulled twice and then given up on

-Currently under investigation for potential collusion with a foreign power by the House, Senate, and FBI

-Currently in Court for potential violations of the Emoluments Clause

-Sitting at a historically low approval rating for a President in their first 100 days- lower than anyone else in at least 70 years (37% at the start of this week)

-Ex-Campaign Manager under investigation for corruption due to his role in installing a Putin-backed President in Ukraine. Now this week also turns out was paid millions to come up with a plan to twist American media to Putin's advantage

-Caught lying through his teeth multiple times (crowd sizes, fake wiretapping scams, etc). Was fact checked live by the head of the FBI and the NSA during their public testimony in one of said investigations- the same one where they confirmed the Russia-Trump Campaign Collusion investigation

-Got into a very public fight with the US Intelligence Agencies because he refused to acknowledge Russian meddling in our election

Yeah, things are going super well. I mean, just so much winning!

[Parkbandit]

You're wrong. He's going to win so much, we're going to get tired of the winning!

He beat your girl!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHaaaaa!

In before 3 million votes............................................. ..............................

[Parkbandit]

So far the only deal he's made is with the Russians (allegedly).

If you are trying for time4fun's belt, you are going to have to put forth a better effort than one liners.

I know you have it in you.

Come on.. go for it!

[Tgo01]

Let's see:

-Unconstitutional Muslim Ban #1 causes mass chaos internationally and gets thrown up. International Tourism to the US subsequently drops.

-Questionable Muslim Ban #2 is immediately held up in the Courts.

-ACA Repeal is the world's worst health care bill and has to be pulled twice and then given up on

-Currently under investigation for potential collusion with a foreign power by the House, Senate, and FBI

-Currently in Court for potential violations of the Emoluments Clause

-Sitting at a historically low approval rating for a President in their first 100 days- lower than anyone else in at least 70 years (37% at the start of this week)

-Ex-Campaign Manager under investigation for corruption due to his role in installing a Putin-backed President in Ukraine. Now this week also turns out was paid millions to come up with a plan to twist American media to Putin's advantage

-Caught lying through his teeth multiple times (crowd sizes, fake wiretapping scams, etc). Was fact checked live by the head of the FBI and the NSA during their public testimony in one of said investigations- the same one where they confirmed the Russia-Trump Campaign Collusion investigation

Yeah, things are going super well. I mean, just so much winning!

And Hillary STILL couldn't beat him. Man, that must be so embarrassing for you to know what a worthless piece of shit candidate you supported that she couldn't beat someone so apparently morally corrupt and such a failure.

Show us on the doll where the mean Trump touched you.

I also like how over half your list is just bullshit Russian shit that you and your fellow brain dead Democrats dreamed up. Oh and of course the polling numbers! Because the polls sure showed how accurate they were on November 8th right? Oh...sorry...that's right...too soon for that I suppose.

Obamacare took what, almost 2 years to be signed into law? Trump has been in office what, 64 days? It's a bit premature to decide he's a failure who can't get shit done isn't it? But enjoy your "victory" while it lasts. Just keep telling your elected officials that you like it when they call everyone who disagrees with them a racist and a bigot because you don't want politicians in office who actually know how to govern and to come up with ideas and policies that appeal to people. You just want to see your favorite drooling, aging retard on TV saying "Trump is a racist and a Russian stooge. That is all."

[time4fun]

He got that shit done, it's just stupid judges overstepping their authority on that one. "The federal government has no say in visa and immigration and shit, because, um....I....said...so...?"

Do you EVER read things accurately?

First- it's not overstepping bounds. It's called checks and balances. The first ban gave preferential treatment based on religion and prevented people with green cards from entering the US.

And nothing in your rephrase of the 9th Circuit's decision even comes close to reality. Seriously Tgo, I think you need to go get checked out. I've never seen anyone who was so incapable of accurately understanding the written word. At least, not over the age of 8.

You're not living in the real world. You're living in a made up world. You read everything to say what you want it to so and never what it actually says.

[time4fun]

And Hillary STILL couldn't beat him. Man, that must be so embarrassing for you to know what a worthless piece of shit candidate you supported that she couldn't beat someone so apparently morally corrupt and such a failure.

Show us on the doll where the mean Trump touched you.

I also like how over half your list is just bullshit Russian shit that you and your fellow brain dead Democrats dreamed up. Oh and of course the polling numbers! Because the polls sure showed how accurate they were on November 8th right? Oh...sorry...that's right...too soon for that I suppose.

Obamacare took what, almost 2 years to be signed into law? Trump has been in office what, 64 days? It's a bit premature to decide he's a failure who can't get shit done isn't it? But enjoy your "victory" while it lasts. Just keep telling your elected officials that you like it when they call everyone who disagrees with them a racist and a bigot because you don't want politicians in office who actually know how to govern and to come up with ideas and policies that appeal to people. You just want to see your favorite drooling, aging retard on TV saying "Trump is a racist and a Russian stooge. That is all."

LOL

Seriously, it must be fabulous living in a fact-free world like you do.

[Fallen]

Any ideas what Trump and Co. are moving onto next, legislatively speaking?

[Tgo01]

First- it's not overstepping bounds. It's called checks and balances. The first ban gave preferential treatment based on religion and prevented people with green cards from entering the US.

The courts could have simply struck down the green card thing. In fact, didn't Trump's administration do that on by their lonesome without the need for court intervention?

And your religion argument bullshit is just that, bullshit.

[Tgo01]

LOL

Seriously, it must be fabulous living in a fact-free world like you do.

"Fact-free world." Coming from the mongoloid who thinks Trump is a Russian spy because it "looks" like he's a Russian spy. I can't even make this shit up.

[Gelston]

"Fact-free world." Coming from the mongoloid who thinks Trump is a Russian spy because it "looks" like he's a Russian spy. I can't even make this shit up.

She said she is white, so she'd be a Caucasoid.

[SHAFT]

I'm hungry, just can't think of what I need....

Oh yeah, a WIN would be nice! What happened to all the WINNING? #winning

So hungry...

[time4fun]

Any ideas what Trump and Co. are moving onto next, legislatively speaking?

Tax Reform- which is going to be impossible. He needed the win of the ACA repeal not just for the credit on The Hill but also because he needed the money they were going to save to help with negotiations.

The GOP is going to try to cut taxes massively for the wealthy and modestly for everyone else. And they'll never get the 60 votes they need in the Senate. AND, on top of it, they'll give Democrats even more fodder for 2018 for being the party of the wealthy. Unless they've got something up their sleeves, their agenda is DOA at this point.

[Tgo01]

She said she is white, so she'd be a Caucasoid.

time4fun is white now? I can't keep up with her nonsense.

[Parkbandit]

time4fun is white now? I can't keep up with her nonsense.

She used to be white, before she self identified as multicolor.

She knows about all colors of all humans. Don't question her authority.

[Parkbandit]

I'm hungry, just can't think of what I need....

Oh yeah, a WIN would be nice! What happened to all the WINNING? #winning

So hungry...

https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/G47.Z02p_.EOAJG_mMRyhw--/aD05NjA7dz0xMDQyO3NtPTE7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w1042/db27bcf998293f019251ae8bbe445e5c18ace6b9.gif

[Nathala Crane]

Any ideas what Trump and Co. are moving onto next, legislatively speaking?

They're going to build Trump's wall out of L's.

[Fallen]

They're going to build Trump's wall out of L's.

I guess it's going to create jobs, even if it's an expensive way of going about it.

[Parkbandit]

I guess it's going to create jobs, even if it's an expensive way of going about it.

We could just pretend there's a barrier there like Democrats have for years.

Or we could just come out and say we should have open borders, which is essentially what we currently have.

[Fortybox]

time4fun is white now? I can't keep up with her nonsense.

Race isn't permanent to them...it's what you identify at the moment. Maybe she is transracial?

[Trump]

Race Change Potion - 50000 Simucoins

[SHAFT]

Obviously Donald is learning on the job. It's a tough job.

I'd say he's in a slump, but to be in a slump you had to be on a streak or at least competent prior to the slump.

[Fallen]

Obviously Donald is learning on the job. It's a tough job.

I'd say he's in a slump, but to be in a slump you had to be on a streak or at least competent prior to the slump.

Eh, this is his first major defeat in office. He's likely playing it smart by dumping healthcare and moving on to greener pastures.

[SHAFT]

PB, you must be pissed. No wall, no deals, Obamacare lives, and Isis just took credit for an attack in London.

Can you get your vote back?

[SHAFT]

PB, are you concerned trump is an illigitamate president? If you're not you should be. Nothing like the president and everyone around him being investigated for colluding with a foreign government.... the Manaforte (SP?) thing is certainly troubling.

Everything from this point forward involving trump needs to be questioned and honestly, his entire presidency and agenda shut down. Fucking nightmare.

[tyrant-201]

PB, are you concerned trump is an illigitamate president? If you're not you should be. Nothing like the president and everyone around him being investigated for colluding with a foreign government.... the Manaforte (SP?) thing is certainly troubling.

Everything from this point forward involving trump needs to be questioned and honestly, his entire presidency and agenda shut down. Fucking nightmare.

PB gives no shit about facts. He'll just reply with another tired crying kid meme and tell you to wipe your liberal tears. BTW Hillary lost. Get over it!!!1!1!one

[time4fun]

Eh, this is his first major defeat in office. He's likely playing it smart by dumping healthcare and moving on to greener pastures.

Um, Muslim Bans #1 and 2?

Congressional investigations into possible treason?

FBI publicly announcing their own investigation into possible treason?

Ridiculous fight over crowd sizes?

Court case on potential violations of the Emoluments Clause?

Historically low approval ratings?

Several gaffes with US Allies?

A little over 2 months into office, mind you.


You are apparently grading on a pretty severe curve.

[Fortybox]

Um, Muslim Bans #1 and 2?

Congressional investigations into possible treason?

FBI publicly announcing their own investigation into possible treason?

Ridiculous fight over crowd sizes?

Court case on potential violations of the Emoluments Clause?

Historically low approval ratings?

Several gaffes with US Allies?

A little over 2 months into office, mind you.


You are apparently grading on a pretty severe curve.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/EJIFaXV55556M/200.webp#11

[time4fun]

PB, are you concerned trump is an illigitamate president? If you're not you should be. Nothing like the president and everyone around him being investigated for colluding with a foreign government.... the Manaforte (SP?) thing is certainly troubling.

Everything from this point forward involving trump needs to be questioned and honestly, his entire presidency and agenda shut down. Fucking nightmare.

Yeah, this is honestly worse than most of us imagined. I think at this point in time it's pretty clear that some of his associates are going to be facing criminal charges. And at that point- whether or not Trump ends up with charges against him- it's going to be really hard to convinced the majority of Americans that it was just his National Security Adviser, Campaign Manager, and top adviser who were colluding with Russia, and that he had no idea any of it was going on. (regardless of whether or not that's true)

And that's not even getting into the Russian money laundering cases being pursued right now by a bank he happens to owe $300m to, which is also tied to another major Russian money laundering bank whose former Vice Chairman is now Trump's Secretary of Commerce. Nor the scandal of him abruptly firing the prosecutors looking into that case. Or the whole Trukish kidnapping escapade (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/24/michael-flynn-discussed-covert-extradition-plan-with-turkish-government/) Flynn was reportedly trying to make happen. The list goes on. For whatever reason everywhere you look around Trump, you find Russia. Regardless of the truth, the optics really couldn't be worse.

At best, he just ends up dogged by this Russian news cycle through the next 4 years as more and more shoes drop. At worst, he's out of here in a year or two and lives out the rest of his life in jail. Most likely the end result lives somewhere in between the extremes.

[Fortybox]

Yeah, this is honestly worse than most of us imagined. I think at this point in time it's pretty clear that some of his associates are going to be facing criminal charges. And at that point- whether or not Trump ends up with charges against him- it's going to be really hard to convinced the majority of Americans that it was just his National Security Adviser, Campaign Manager, and top adviser who were colluding with Russia, and that he had no idea any of it was going on. (regardless of whether or not that's true)

And that's not even getting into the Russian money laundering cases being pursued right now by a bank he happens to owe $300m to, which is also tied to another major Russian money laundering bank whose former Vice Chairman is now Trump's Secretary of Commerce. Nor the scandal of him abruptly firing the prosecutors looking into that case. Or the whole Trukish kidnapping escapade (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/24/michael-flynn-discussed-covert-extradition-plan-with-turkish-government/) Flynn was reportedly trying to make happen. The list goes on. For whatever reason everywhere you look around Trump, you find Russia. Regardless of the truth, the optics really couldn't be worse.

At best, he just ends up dogged by this Russian news cycle through the next 4 years as more and more shoes drop. At worst, he's out of here in a year or two and lives out the rest of his life in jail. Most likely the end result lives somewhere in between the extremes.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/Uqu8j4FUbMDJe/200.webp#116

[Tgo01]

Yeah, this is honestly worse than most of us imagined. I think at this point in time it's pretty clear that some of his associates are going to be facing criminal charges. And at that point- whether or not Trump ends up with charges against him- it's going to be really hard to convinced the majority of Americans that it was just his National Security Adviser, Campaign Manager, and top adviser who were colluding with Russia, and that he had no idea any of it was going on. (regardless of whether or not that's true)

Just out of curiosity; what crime do you think they will be charged with for "colluding" with Russia? There is no crime for "collusion" in this scenario.

We've already ruled out the hacking our election, right? Or are Democrats still desperately clinging to that?

[Parkbandit]

PB, you must be pissed. No wall, no deals, Obamacare lives, and Isis just took credit for an attack in London.

Can you get your vote back?

What? Why would I want my vote back? So I could vote for your girl Hillary? LOL.. no thank you.

Trump > Hillary

[Parkbandit]

PB, are you concerned trump is an illigitamate president? If you're not you should be. Nothing like the president and everyone around him being investigated for colluding with a foreign government.... the Manaforte (SP?) thing is certainly troubling.

Not concerned in the least. I've said it hundreds of times: Trump is still a far better choice than Hillary ever was.. Just look at the entertainment idiots like you have given me! You've done nothing but cried since Hillary lost. I'm entertained.


Everything from this point forward involving trump needs to be questioned and honestly, his entire presidency and agenda shut down. Fucking nightmare.

What you are saying is: You're still upset.. almost 5 months later.

http://i.imgur.com/salQsDI.gif

Tell us all about it.

[Parkbandit]

PB gives no shit about facts. He'll just reply with another tired crying kid meme and tell you to wipe your liberal tears. BTW Hillary lost. Get over it!!!1!1!one

Facts? What facts are you trying to talk about?

Lol.. you're a fucking retard.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, this is honestly worse than most of us imagined. I think at this point in time it's pretty clear that some of his associates are going to be facing criminal charges. And at that point- whether or not Trump ends up with charges against him- it's going to be really hard to convinced the majority of Americans that it was just his National Security Adviser, Campaign Manager, and top adviser who were colluding with Russia, and that he had no idea any of it was going on. (regardless of whether or not that's true)

And that's not even getting into the Russian money laundering cases being pursued right now by a bank he happens to owe $300m to, which is also tied to another major Russian money laundering bank whose former Vice Chairman is now Trump's Secretary of Commerce. Nor the scandal of him abruptly firing the prosecutors looking into that case. Or the whole Trukish kidnapping escapade (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/24/michael-flynn-discussed-covert-extradition-plan-with-turkish-government/) Flynn was reportedly trying to make happen. The list goes on. For whatever reason everywhere you look around Trump, you find Russia. Regardless of the truth, the optics really couldn't be worse.

At best, he just ends up dogged by this Russian news cycle through the next 4 years as more and more shoes drop. At worst, he's out of here in a year or two and lives out the rest of his life in jail. Most likely the end result lives somewhere in between the extremes.

http://www.picgifs.com/alphabets/alphabets/clown-2/alphabets-clown-2-324733.gif

time4fun puts the "T" in Retard

[Fallen]

Um, Muslim Bans #1 and 2?

Congressional investigations into possible treason?

FBI publicly announcing their own investigation into possible treason?

Ridiculous fight over crowd sizes?

Court case on potential violations of the Emoluments Clause?

Historically low approval ratings?

Several gaffes with US Allies?

A little over 2 months into office, mind you.


You are apparently grading on a pretty severe curve.

Muslim bans could be blamed on biased courts or some such handwaving. He tried to fulfill his campaign promise and outside forces intervened.

The Russia stuff hasn't stuck yet, and I doubt it ever will. If anyone gets busted, it'll be someone on his campaign staff who everyone else will disavow. That's "best case" scenario for those waving that flag.

I don't think approval ratings are much of a factor in anything, which is odd, but look at the general election.

Crowd size arguments and gaffes are not major blows to a presidency by any metric.

It was his own party that stone walled him on healthcare. Many Trump supporters wanted nothing to do with this revision to the ACA, and he was actively stumping for it.

[Methais]

Yeah, this is honestly worse than most of us imagined. I think at this point in time it's pretty clear that some of his associates are going to be facing criminal charges. And at that point- whether or not Trump ends up with charges against him- it's going to be really hard to convinced the majority of Americans that it was just his National Security Adviser, Campaign Manager, and top adviser who were colluding with Russia, and that he had no idea any of it was going on. (regardless of whether or not that's true)

And that's not even getting into the Russian money laundering cases being pursued right now by a bank he happens to owe $300m to, which is also tied to another major Russian money laundering bank whose former Vice Chairman is now Trump's Secretary of Commerce. Nor the scandal of him abruptly firing the prosecutors looking into that case. Or the whole Trukish kidnapping escapade (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/24/michael-flynn-discussed-covert-extradition-plan-with-turkish-government/) Flynn was reportedly trying to make happen. The list goes on. For whatever reason everywhere you look around Trump, you find Russia. Regardless of the truth, the optics really couldn't be worse.

At best, he just ends up dogged by this Russian news cycle through the next 4 years as more and more shoes drop. At worst, he's out of here in a year or two and lives out the rest of his life in jail. Most likely the end result lives somewhere in between the extremes.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YAMZOG_9gno/hqdefault.jpg

[Parkbandit]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YAMZOG_9gno/hqdefault.jpg

To be honest, that is a direct insult to the intelligence of Mr. Fratelli.

I expect a full retraction.

[Methais]

To be honest, that is a direct insult to the intelligence of Mr. Fratelli.

I expect a full retraction.

I apologize to Sloth.

Furthermore, I apologize to the Jews.


https://youtu.be/WPMCdlqN3lc


http://funnygif.bdsmlr.com/uploads/pictures/2015/03/138/bdsmlr-126-sx9PWhq1NQ1.gif

I fapped.

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17362921_1018282258304221_8948305169238258439_n.jp g?oh=7480185768e1c93570ef476d9040ab70&oe=5950F1BB