rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com
Google Groups
Topic digest
View all topics
Initial thoughts about GOP healthcare bill - 20 Updates
OT: Shooting the messenger won't make the truth any more palatable for you, wingnuts. - 1 Update
Smoke? But where's the fire? - 1 Update
Looks like the Shit Stain has another slow week. Mommie money pweeze. - 1 Update
OT: Relying on Fox "News" - 1 Update
How Thomas Jefferson fucked the muslims - good read - 1 Update
Initial thoughts about GOP healthcare bill
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Mar 07 01:59PM -0800
Oh, since some people have claimed that ACA has been causing
healthcare insurance companies to lose money hand over fist,
immanent collapse and all that...
"The first seven years of the Obama administration have
been 'yuge' for the health insurance industry, to use
one of The Donald's favorite words.
To be more precise, it has been yuge — almost unbelievably
yuge, in fact — for the well-heeled folks who own stock
in the for-profit companies that dominate the industry,
including Cigna and Humana, the two insurers I used to work for."
<https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2016/03/01/no-obamacare-isnt-killing-the-insurance-industry/>
And some other takes:
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/27/profits-in-health-insurance-under-obamacare/#5637f40f3c3a>
<http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-profits-20160427-snap-htmlstory.html>
CIGNA and Humana are not in the exchanges. They were smart enough to stay out of it or withdraw early.
Do you have an explanation why 23 of the 36 co-ops that Obama started are out of business....leaving the tax payer high and dry?
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Mar 07 02:01PM -0800
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:20:11 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> > But ... because Medicaid is only for the eligible poor, just how
> > are they ever going to be able to afford the Private market?
> Subsidies via tax credit.
And just what happens to a tax credit when it is more than how
much the taxpayer owes? Is the plan for it to be refundable,
or will it simply be lost? Not all tax credits are structured
as being refundable, so this is a very important detail.
> What I'm talking about is rolling back medicaid from 125% of
> poverty level to poverty level, thus freeing up a lot working
> young people who are in between.
The Poverty Level (Household of two) is ~$20K, and 125% is $25K.
Given that the estimated Fed Income Taxes for 2017 (Std Deduction)
for $25K of income is all of $422, if the proposed tax credit isn't
structured as a refundable, then the absolute best that a current
Medicaid-qualified (125% max) candidate can ever expect to receive
in terms of a tax credit is a whopping $422 per year.
>> The only way that this would appear to be able to work is
>> if said Private market rates become cheaper than Medicare.
> It's Medicaid.
My error .. but now please actually answer the question.
> Subsidizing a private insurance plan is much cheaper than
> providing free public insurance on the taxpayers dime.
Which then means that we can quantify how much the proposed
subsidizing needs to be, to be equal to the current status quo.
See below.
> because of ACA without having the benefit of younger, healthier
> people within the insurance company's pool of clients. As
> claims rose, so the premiums to correct the deficit.
Granted, there was a higher uncertainty risk in the rates-setting
back in the 2014 timeframe, but this has been improving. But this
also doesn't address the question which was asked.
So I'll ask again, this time with notional numbers that you
can augment with your personal professional experience.
Given the notional "tax credit" reimbursement configuration, set
at 125% of Poverty, two person household and no reimbursement
provision, then the math works out to be a simple question:
Do any private healthcare insurance plans exists which will
cover a household of two (2) for less than $422/year?
Similarly, for a household of two (any age), how much more
than $422/year is the cheapest private healthcare insurance plan?
> can't wait to get off of it. Hardly any quality specialist
> take it. My primary care physician, who is an excellent
> doctor, refuses to take Medicaid.
Since there is an income test for Medicaid, your point of
desiring to get off of it is irrelevant when they can't
realistically afford the private alternative.
> And that's even before considering the religious test that
> has been hidden within a tax deductibility provision.
> Religious test?
Oh, so you haven't caught that one yet in the fine print?
Better get reading...the free clue is already listed above.
FYI, there's also reportedly an income tax break proposed
for Healthcare CEO's who earn over $0.5M; I need to verify
this one still.
>> after seven years, trying to rush things now is merely YA
>> illustration of purposeful duplicity by its proponents.
> So what is your solution?
Making price discrimination illegal would be where I'd start.
This alone might be enough to deconstruct a lot of the other
problems, such as how & why paperwork pushers get to skim
upwards of 7% profit off of the paper that they're pushing.
-hh
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Mar 07 02:03PM -0800
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:59:24 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> Do you have an explanation why 23 of the 36 co-ops that
> Obama started are out of business....leaving the tax payer
> high and dry?
Yes, and it was already provided in a post, so why don't you
go back to that post and now finally answer the points I made?
-hh
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Mar 07 02:09PM -0800
> problems, such as how & why paperwork pushers get to skim
> upwards of 7% profit off of the paper that they're pushing.
> -hh
Now watch Greg dive for cover by talking about how many paragraphs you
wrote...
:-)
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: Mar 07 02:12PM -0800
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 4:59:24 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> <http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-profits-20160427-snap-htmlstory.html>
> CIGNA and Humana are not in the exchanges. They were smart enough to stay out of it or withdraw early.
> Do you have an explanation why 23 of the 36 co-ops that Obama started are out of business....leaving the tax payer high and dry?
Can you say whose taxes have increased and by how much as a result
of the co-ops going out of business?
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Mar 07 05:35PM -0600
> Now watch Greg dive for cover by talking about how many paragraphs you
> wrote...
> :-)
He probably won't even read it all. I certainly didn't.
--
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Mar 07 03:45PM -0800
On 2017-03-07 3:35 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> wrote...
>> :-)
> He probably won't even read it all. I certainly didn't.
Yes, but with you that's because sounding out the words gets tiring for you.
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Mar 07 06:03PM -0600
> On 2017-03-07 3:35 PM, Moderate wrote:
>> He probably won't even read it all. I certainly didn't.
> Yes, but with you that's because sounding out the words gets tiring for you.
I like reading something that has a point. A little focus.
--
BobbyK@Onramp.net: Mar 07 06:06PM -0600
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:35:53 -0600 (CST), Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>
wrote:
>> wrote...
>> :-)
>He probably won't even read it all. I certainly didn't.
Of course not. You might learn something......doubtful though.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Mar 07 04:47PM -0800
Moderate
> Now watch Greg dive for cover by talking about how many paragraphs you
> wrote...
> :-)
He probably won't even read it all. I certainly didn't.
--
I read it. I took a chance. Perpetuating this folly is not worth it. What to do about the glazed look in my eye?
Hubert is not a lying troll but he definitely needs some sunshine.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Mar 07 04:53PM -0800
On 2017-03-07 4:47 PM, Dene wrote:
>> wrote...
>> :-)
> He probably won't even read it all. I certainly didn't.
Nailed it!
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Mar 07 07:00PM -0600
>>He probably won't even read it all. I certainly didn't.
> Of course not. You might learn something......doubtful though.
Not from him.
--
gibsonsgolfer <bob.cotter@gmail.com>: Mar 07 06:06PM -0800
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 5:35:22 AM UTC-8, Dene wrote:
> Most of the bill is positive and steps in the right direction. Let me start with why ACA/ObamaCare is in trouble. It's called risk pool. If it insurance company has too many sick people and not enough healthy people to offset them, then they have an imbalanced risk pool. That is what's going on with ACA and why private insurance companies have left the exchanges, with a few exceptions.
I certainly found it interesting to listen to the Dr. report on the news this morning and will want to hear more about the issue. Being a Canadian, the changes do not affect me in any way, but I do have friends who are US citizens. Thank you for your industry related commentary.
Bob
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: Mar 07 06:19PM -0800
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 5:35:22 AM UTC-8, Dene wrote:
> Most of the bill is positive and steps in the right direction. Let me start with why ACA/ObamaCare is in trouble. It's called risk pool. If it insurance company has too many sick people and not enough healthy people to offset them, then they have an imbalanced risk pool. That is what's going on with ACA and why private insurance companies have left the exchanges, with a few exceptions.
I certainly found it interesting to listen to the Dr. report on the news this morning and will want to hear more about the issue. Being a Canadian, the changes do not affect me in any way, but I do have friends who are US citizens. Thank you for your industry related commentary.
Thanks Bob. I thought Dr. Price was outstanding. I am a little chagrined by the conservatives pissing and moaning in. Hope it's just noise.
Heard one conservative "expert" on talk radio Claire he's going to drop his ACA plan the minute the individual mandate goes away and be uninsured. Wanted to throttle the punk. Guess who pays his medical bills when he shows up in the ER?
Finally, I'm amused by the headlines of the Dem media. "Millions will lose their health insurance." Course they say nothing about the fact that they will have a menu of plans to choose from. Deceptive headlines.
An aside. There are a bunch of Canadians down here enjoying the sun. Very nice people. You should be one of them. How are you liking that winter. Snowed in Western Oregon today.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Mar 07 06:22PM -0800
On 2017-03-07 6:19 PM, Dene wrote:
> lose their health insurance." Course they say nothing about the fact
> that they will have a menu of plans to choose from. Deceptive
> headlines.
A prediction!
BobbyK@Onramp.net: Mar 07 08:28PM -0600
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 19:00:44 -0600 (CST), Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>
wrote:
>>>He probably won't even read it all. I certainly didn't.
>> Of course not. You might learn something......doubtful though.
>Not from him.
I've learned by years of reading your posts....from no one.
Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>: Mar 07 08:43PM -0600
> wrote:
>>Not from him.
> I've learned by years of reading your posts....from no one.
Back at you zealot.
--
BobbyK@Onramp.net: Mar 07 09:14PM -0600
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 20:43:51 -0600 (CST), Moderate <nospam@nomail.com>
wrote:
>>>Not from him.
>> I've learned by years of reading your posts....from no one.
>Back at you zealot.
A third grade response, as expected.
P.S.
Look up the word "zealot".
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Mar 07 07:18PM -0800
> A third grade response, as expected.
> P.S.
> Look up the word "zealot".
And while he's at it, he should look up the correct use of a comma where
one ends a sentence with a name...
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com: Mar 07 07:36PM -0800
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 7:47:07 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> >> :-)
> > He probably won't even read it all. I certainly didn't.
> I read it. I took a chance. Perpetuating this folly is not worth it.
Translation: you saw that your business model is fake and will fail.
Why? Because there are no $422/year family policies being sold by
private insurers which would have friction equal/lower than Medicaid.
> Hubert is not a lying troll but he definitely needs some sunshine.
Lame name calling ... its a brave front to try to distract readers from how you failed.
Oh, and here's another nail in your coffin:
Even if there was a $422 private insurance alternative to Medicaid for two
which becomes free after the Fed tax credit, those who were on Medicaid
still won't buy it because you've not eliminated the friction problem from the
cash float timeline: this friction is from how the working poor simply can't
afford to outlay the cash and wait a year to be reimbursed...in no small part
because they can't afford such cash outlays for anything.
Case in point:
<http://fortune.com/2016/01/06/savings-unexpected-expenses/>
<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/>
-hh
PS: a follow-up: I read an update on that $0.5M 'tax cut' I mentioned; what it
actually reportedly is is the elimination of an ACA provision where only the first
$500K of fringe benefits were tax-deductible to CEO's: the 2017 proposal removes
this cap such that there's no tax-deductibility limit on benefits.
Back to top
OT: Shooting the messenger won't make the truth any more palatable for you, wingnuts.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: Mar 07 04:52PM -0800
Trump insisted (through his chosen mouthpiece, Sarah Huckabee Sanders)
that "no contacts took place between the Trump campaign and Russian
officials.
We know that was a lie.
Flynn, Sessions, Page, and Gordon all had contact with Russians.
And Trump has said he personally had no contact with any Russian
officials...
...but no less than the Wall Street Journal has shown that to be false:
'By DAMIAN PALETTA
Updated May 13, 2016
A few minutes before he made those remarks, Mr. Trump met at a VIP
reception with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Ivanovich
Kislyak. Mr. Trump warmly greeted Mr. Kislyak and three other foreign
ambassadors who came to the reception.'
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-goes-his-own-way-with-vladimir-putin-1463172396>
Newsmax reported the same:
'But on that same day, Trump met with Sergey Ivanovich Kislyak, Russia's
ambassador to the United States, at a VIP reception along with three
other foreign ambassadors. '
<http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Vladimir-Putin-Russia-Trump-Relations/2016/05/14/id/728839/>
You've got a puppet, not a president.
Enjoy.
Back to top
Smoke? But where's the fire?
"Welcome to Trumpton" <trumpton@maiIsorter.co.uk>: Mar 07 09:14PM
Dene wrote:
> Interesting perspective.
> You create something out of nothing in most of your posts.
> ROFL!!!!!
Even Michael can work out how to quote properly; what is your excuse.
You are not helping Trumpets look competent.
--
Most people believe there is truth and there are lies. "Alternative
facts" are lies.
Back to top
Looks like the Shit Stain has another slow week. Mommie money pweeze.
michaelunowho@gmail.com: Mar 07 12:23PM -0800
LOL
Back to top
OT: Relying on Fox "News"
MNMikeW <mnmiikkew@aol.com>: Mar 07 01:21PM -0600
boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing boing
Back to top
How Thomas Jefferson fucked the muslims - good read
michaelunowho@gmail.com: Mar 07 08:39AM -0800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
Back to top
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.sport.golf+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.