Politics, Politics, Politics

the ACA provided a lot of cost containment features like the 80/20 and 85/15 rules
Bullshit. This has been pointed out to you multiple times by myself and Torp. The 80/20 and 80/15 rules don't contain costs. They initially limit for a given year how much an insurance company can make to cover costs and make a profit. However ultimately they incentivize the insurance company to allow & encourage increases in health care costs. If MacnFries Insurance Inc. spends 800 million on claims this year, they can keep no more than 200 million for costs & profit. But if they allow costs they pay providers to go up so next year they spend 1,600 million on claims....they get to keep 400 million for costs and profit.

Here's a plot of single and family premiums from 1999 through 2016. The ACA did exactly zilch to control costs for people. But of course things like the 80/20 rule sound good to all the useful idiots who can't think for themselves.

upload_2017-9-8_7-15-38.png

http://www.kff.org/interactive/prem...ibutions/#/?compare=true&coverageGroup=family
 
They initially limit for a given year how much an insurance company can make to cover costs and make a profit.

nothing wrong with that!
stats already show they ARE making a profit...... I guess it boils down to how much!

there needs to be limits...wall street has shown that... we give them money they just increase the amount of the ceo's bonus!

if there were limits maybe they could cut down the ceo's wages to around a million instead of 5 million!
 
Last edited:
Two Republicans Say They Didn’t Mean to Sign Brief Against Gerrymandering
Greg Stohr

Two conservative Republican House members said they didn’t intend to put their names on a legal filing that urges the U.S. Supreme Court to curb partisan gerrymandering for the first time. Representatives Mark Meadows and Walter Jones of North Carolina had been among 36 current and former House members of both parties who submitted the brief. It argues that gerrymandering -- the practice of drawing voting lines to maximize partisan advantage -- has "corrosive effects." The filing includes several quotes from Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. Meadows’ spokesman, Ben Williamson, said in an email the congressman’s name was "added in error" after he had agreed to review the document. ...
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/2daef9da-bac4-36e8-833d-d6fb4d5293ed/two-republicans-say-they.html
 
Good ole Sweet & Cordial Mac! Can't debate the facts....hmmm how about stoop to posting idiotic memes.
...I don't know, but I've told you at least a dozen times I don't go "back & forth" debating so you say, is because you never start a thread, never start a conversation, and pick fragments of others comments to 'snipe' with your BS. So, don't expect me to put out a nice snack and beverage to welcome conversation with you, h-h. You must just get lonely not having anyone to snipe, huh.
...The meme is not meant to be factually, you bozo, its meant to be humorous & a reflection of Trump's attitude toward everyone else he interacts with. God you're so dense!
The 80/20 and 80/15 rules don't contain costs.
As for the 80/20 rule, it most certainly does limit the profiting from overpriced, private insurance, dickwad. I didn't say it contained cost, it controls cost. At least that was one of its intentions. Refunds of premiums cut the costs to the insureds, did they not? Its just one kind of cost control for the insureds. IF the Republicans had allowed Obama & Democrats to further refine that rule, the hiking of costs to recover profits wouldn't occur. Like the Exchanges the Republican run states refused to set up to help create competition and lower rates, and the reimbursement to the insurance companies for loses that Pres Trump has just implemented ... all to make the ACA fail, so they can stick out their chest and say "Seeeeeeeeeeeee, that worthless Obamacare was a failure."
...So they tear it down, then try to blame everyone else for its failure ... just like Trump does NOW! No replacement with no intention to HAVE a replacement. And when all those uninsurables can't get coverage and start dying, who will Republicans blame .... you guys are a worthless pile of gif_CRAP.gif
...Listen up SLICK .... I'll say this again and probably again, again, and again ....
..pic_FuckOff2.jpg ........pic_MacNfries-signature.jpg
 
I didn't say it contained cost, it controls cost.

Uh...yes you did. Read your post again....I'll resist the childish name calling you're so "eloquent" at

the ACA provided a lot of cost containment features like the 80/20 and 85/15 rules

Even if you had said control, you're just arguing semantics and trying to make a distinction where there is no real difference. Use whatever verbiage you wish, the bottom line is the 80/20 rule does NOT control/contain/restrain/hold down/"make em cheapur" etc. cost in the long run. It incentivizes the INCREASE of health care costs. Because insurance company scum get to keep 20% of their health care payouts to cover their internal costs and make a profit.....the more they allow costs to go up, the more profit they can make.

Put another way, if my company's expenses go up 10%, our profits drop dramatically. We try to do things to cut our expenses to make up for it. If MacNFries insurance health expense costs go up 10%....Yee Haa...you get to raise rates and keep even more money as a profit. Your customers have to buy your product no matter what you charge since your buddy Obummer made it a law to buy your product. My company doesn't have the same luxury with the feds. So if we raise the cost of our widget, people can choose to not buy.

IF the Republicans had allowed Obama & Democrats to further refine that rule

Once again...Obummer had a control of the House and a supermajority in the Senate. The democrats could have made Obummercare anything they wanted.
 
Last edited:
Once again...Obummer had a control of the House and a supermajority in the Senate. The democrats could have made Obummercare anything they wanted.

they did do a pretty good job.... but being new and not real sure what was the best and what would work or not

BUT unlike any new program that the gov puts out... it was never "tweaked".... no work on it to repair anything at all... instead... the right did everything they could to destroy it!




Why Republicans Hate Obamacare So Much

When President Barack Obama was first sworn into office in January 2009, he immediately began the process for passing his key policy issue - reforming the country’s expensive and haphazard health insurance industry. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which would eventually be known as the Affordable Care Act, the ACA, or simply “Obamacare,” was then introduced in the fall of 2009. By November, it passed with a mere five-vote majority in the House, and the following month, it passed the Senate 60 to 39.

In both chambers, not one single Republican voted in favor of the bill.

It didn’t have to be that way. Health-care reform was an issue both parties were in favor of and previous efforts had enjoyed bipartisan support. The most hopeful-looking option was the “Healthy Americans Act,” a reform bill introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, and Sen. Robert Bennett, a Republican from Utah. The 2007 bill had multiple co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle but never managed to make it out of committee.
Still, when it came to the Affordable Care Act, Republican politicians were lockstep in their refusal to so much as consider any sort of common ground - even though many aspects of the plan were quite similar to a 2006 Massachusetts law developed and signed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney. Their opposition was immediate, total, and relentless, to the point where many find themselves wondering just what do they hate so much about Obamacare?

Based solely on official conservative principles, there are actually a number of issues that the GOP legitimately would have with the ACA. Just like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, they view Obamacare as an entitlement program they would be more than happy to discontinue, believing that the government should never be involved in assuring minimum standards of living are met. “ome conservatives oppose it for the same reason that liberals favor it. Through the Medicaid expansion and the exchanges, it subsidizes insurance coverage for people of modest means by raising taxes on people of less-modest means,” explains Reilhan Salam at Slate, adding, “Conservatives tend not to be enthusiastic about redistribution, and they’re particularly skeptical about redistribution that isn’t transparent.”
The industry regulations that are a part of the Affordable Care Act are also another stumbling block for fiscal conservatives who believe that businesses should always be allowed to govern themselves and are justified in gaining as much profit as they can for shareholders. As part of health-care reform, insurance agencies were ****** to spend 85 percent of all revenues on medical care rather than administration costs or bonuses or perks. They could also no longer cap how much they spend per patient in coverage due to medical conditions or other need for chronic care, either on an annual or lifetime basis. These restrictions on profitability are opposed by Republicans who think free market principles will keep businesses in check.

And of course there were issues with reproductive health care such as abortion and birth control. Anti-abortion groups claimed the Affordable Care Act to be “the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade” due to the inclusion of some insurance plans in the exchange that allowed coverage for elective abortions. They considered plans purchased on state and federal exchanges to be a means of forsing other taxpayers to “subsidize” elective abortion coverage, despite the fact that the government set up additional steps to ensure that federal funding to private insurance plans that cover abortions remain separate, and the president’s additional executive order reaffirming the Hyde Amendment’s federal ban on abortion funding. They also demanded exceptions for all companies - for-profit and nonprofit - who had religious objections to birth control. The birth control mandate declared contraception an essential service for women’s health and required all companies to offer plans that included hormonal birth control, emergency contraception, long-acting birth control methods, and female sterilization procedures. Religious institutions were allowed a conscientious objection to the coverage, but social conservatives wanted the loophole extended to any business or organization whose owners disapproved of any birth control use for moral reasons – regardless of how many of their own employees or other insurees may have different opinions on the issue
Yet while the GOP has strenuously opposed all of these individual aspects of the ACA, it was the individual mandate that appeared to irk them the most - and had the least reason to do so. Republicans, using language that originated with the conservative Heritage Institute, were advocating for a requirement that all people be required some form of health insurance as long ago as the late 1980s and it was championed by GOP Congress members during much of the early 1990s. It was even a key component in the Massachusetts health care law approved by Gov. Romney in 2006. But the individual mandate instead went from being something that Republicans were willing to support in order to bring down the costs of insurance to a policy they claim strips personal liberty and is even tantamount to slavery.

So what flipped the switch? Election Day, 2008. When Obama won his first presidential election, that also put both the House and Senate into Democratic control. The House Democrats outnumbered Republicans 257 to 178, and Democrats and their two independent allies outnumbered the Senate Republicans 59 to 41. According to the Brookings Institute’s Thomas Mann, GOP strategy experts decided that the best way to win back majorities would be to keep their entire conservative block united in rejecting any legislation that could potentially be viewed as a Democratic success if it passed. Congressional Republicans were urged to filibuster any bill that came before the Senate and harshly criticize any law that they couldn’t stop in an attempt to make what did pass as unpopular as possible. That decision doomed any chance for bipartisan health-care reform.
The GOP’s refusal to vote in favor of Obamacare’s passage and their aggressive opposition to every element of the bill - even those they had agreed with in the past - served to help them sweep into power in both Congress and a number of state legislatures when the 2010 midterms came around. And by taking over a number of state legislatures and governors’ mansions, Republicans could then block portions of the ACA from going into effect, further hampering the reforms. Red-state legislatures often refused to expand Medicaid so more people could receive subsidized insurance plans, leaving their residents with far more expensive out-of-pocket costs than blue-state counterparts. They also often opted out of opening their own state exchanges, forsing the uninsured to enroll through the federal exchange instead, which limited their coverage options and put a greater burden on the federal site. By first refusing to support Obamacare and then purposefully trying to make it fail, Republicans believed any consumer dissatisfaction would rest completely on the shoulders of the Democrats, since they were the only ones to vote in favor of the law.
So do Republicans really despise the Affordable Care Act? Despite the fact that they have voted in some way, shape, or form to repeal some or all of the ACA more than 60 times in the six years since it was signed into law, the answer may surprisingly be no. Or at least, not as much of it as they claim. But they do hate the “Obamacare” that was passed solely with Democratic votes and signed by a Democratic president, and they will do anything to tear that down completely. And when they later replace it with a new plan that has a surprising number of policies similar to the law they just undid, well, then we will know the thing they hated most about Obamacare was always Obama.
 
How Could Americans Turn a Blind Eye to Such Blatant Racism, Injustice and *******?
Newsweek Neil H. Buchanan,Newsweek

Donald Trump's pardon of former Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joseph Arpaio will almost surely sink into the morass of outrages that somehow seem to cancel each other out, rather than accumulating in the public's mind.

That in itself is an indictment of our political system.

Before that happens, however, we should use this opportunity to take notice of just how corrupt a system of government has to be for someone like Arpaio to have done what he did, for as long as he did it, and with the impunity that he enjoyed.

Even though Trump's pardon was an affront to simple decency, and even though that pardon might well be the next big leap toward Trump's goal of becoming an unchecked dictator, the deeper issue that the Arpaio story should also ******* us to confront is the failure of accountability (and basic reasoning) at all levels of government in this country.

The citizens and politicians of Maricopa County, the citizens and politicians of Arizona, local and national Republicans, and ultimately all of us allowed a monster to terrorize innocent people for decades.

What is wrong with us?

Before getting back into the grim details of the Arpaio story, however, a short digression will be useful. In a classic click-bait-and-switch headline this past weekend, The Washington Post offered this: "Letting Teens Sleep In Would Save the Country Roughly $9 Billion a Year."

As the headline writers surely intended, I began to read the story, thinking that it would be light fare about some bogus study where teenagers say that they should be allowed to sleep until noon. Instead, the article examined a fascinating new study by researchers at RAND that showed that starting the school day no earlier than 8:30am would almost immediately (that is, in two years) pay for itself, and then some.


It turns out that early school starting times predictably are "a significant public health problem," linked to car crashes and reduced academic performance. And this is not based on some random study by someone looking for publicity. The article cites recommendations by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics in support of the RAND researchers' conclusions.

The quantifiable benefits of reducing that significant public health problem would more than outweigh the costs of adding more school buses and installing lights for after-school activities -- again, in only two years

Here is the big takeaway: "Co-author Marco Hafner added that the rapid return on investment from implementing the change is 'unprecedented in economic terms.'"

Here is the big takeaway: "Co-author Marco Hafner added that the rapid return on investment from implementing the change is 'unprecedented in economic terms.'"

That is, even when economists like me tout the benefits of public investment, we never expect to see such immediate payoffs to any policy initiative. The nature of investment all but requires longer time frames. This study's findings are, in short, astounding.

Even so, my first thought after reading the article was simple: "That's never going to be happen." Based on everything that I know about this country's decision making processes, it is impossible for me to imagine that people and their representatives are going to believe the study or act on it.

True, some pockets of sanity like Ithaca, New York, have responded to the evidence and changed their school schedules accordingly. Those isolated examples aside, it seems clear that the public's suspicion of experts will combine with their refusal to consider changing long-established norms to ******* any broad-based move to save lives and improve education.

In short, people can be relied upon to reject out of hand perfectly good policies, not for any good reason but simply because of groupthink and inertia.

Now consider the problems that arise when we try to change law enforcement practices. Earlier this summer, Trump decided to tell a police ******* on Long Island not to be "too nice" to criminal suspects. The good news is that police leaders across the country quickly denounced Trump's suggestion, and Trump's spinners quickly claimed that he had been merely making a joke.

The bad news is that this is something that Trump thinks is funny.

While I continue to reject the abuse of the word "genius" to describe Trump's political instincts, there is no doubt that he is able to link to a particularly dark view of the world that he shares with a politically potent non-majority of the population. (I say non-majority rather than minority because I am sure that Trump would not want to be associated with minorities -- and vice versa.)

And it is those people to whom Trump is appealing with the pardon of Arpaio. What is even worse, however, is that the national revulsion to the pardon has focused almost exclusively on the question of what it means about Trump.

Again, I understand that. Trump is the president, and what he is doing is truly dangerous. But we need to think carefully about what Arpaio's career means about our ability as a nation to deal with even the most obvious and extreme problems facing us.

By now, the press has compiled a sort of "greatest hits" of Arpaio's barbarism. In my first column about the pardon, I quoted part of a long list provided by Harper's , including abuses of people who were not convicted of any crimes, the breaking of a paraplegic prisoner's neck, and a female prisoner's delivery of a baby while in shackles.

With a seemingly bottomless well of stories about the depravity over which Arpaio presided, the one that broke my heart the most was the time in 2004 when Arpaio's department sent a SWAT team to break into the house of a man who was wanted on a misdemeanor warrant for "a couple of traffic citations."

Why is that one so memorable? Because during the operation, the house caught fire, and when the owners tried to call their puppy from the house, Arpaio's officers blasted the puppy in the face with a fire extinguisher to ******* it back into the house, where it burned to death.

Amazingly, I cannot say that this is definitely the most vicious thing on the bill of particulars against Arpaio, but it certainly is stomach churning. Moreover, it is the kind of thing that ought to have gotten some negative attention.

Yet according to the Phoenix New Times, "the Arizona Republic , where Arpaio's *******-in-law, Phil Boas, serves as deputy editor of the editorial pages, buried the story in a community section," while another local paper "ignored it entirely."

Even though that particular story (and most of the others, including a false-arrest case from 1999 in which Arpaio framed a man for supposedly trying to ******* the sheriff, causing the innocent man to spend four years behind bars) was not well known to the public, Arpaio's reputation as " America's Worst Sheriff " certainly was.

Indeed, it was Arpaio's reputation as a racist and an anti-immigration vigilante that brought him to Trump's attention. If people knew nothing else about Arpaio, they knew that he hates immigrants and that he thinks that he is above the law.

No wonder Trump loves him.

And even if the good people of Maricopa County were not sickened by Arpaio's shamelessness and thuggish tactics, they were also paying for his illegal activities, to the tune of $141 million in (disclosed) settlements from taxpayer funds. One might think that this would get some attention.

Arpaio's story, then, is not limited to his refusal to obey the 2011 federal court order banning Arpaio's blatant racial profiling -- a case that actually began in 2007 but took ten years to reach the point where Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt.

Arpaio was reelected to his fourth term in office. He was reelected twice more, in 2008 and 2012, before finally losing last year. Public condemnation of ******* abuse quite appropriately derailed an NFL quarterback's career, but even as only one part of a parade of horribles, burning a puppy alive did not stop people from voting for Arpaio again and again.

Even if Trump had not pardoned the unrepentant bigot, justice delayed is surely justice denied for Arpaio's countless victims.

Again, long before Trump came along, local voters were perfectly happy to reelect a monster -- an expensive monster -- to be their sheriff. Local Republicans were too scared to cross him, and too many voters bought into the "tough on crime" excrement that people like Arpaio are all too happy to serve them.

Why did Arpaio keep winning? It is not as though Arpaio was benefiting from gerrymandering, which prevents Louie Gohmert's blithering idiocy or Steve King's hateful ignorance from costing them their seats in Congress.

As a matter of basic politics, is this merely a matter of local elections being low-turnout affairs in which voters know virtually nothing about the candidates, such that name recognition alone can explain electoral longevity? If so, is Arpaio's career merely proof that professional positions of government should not be elected?

We know, of course, that plenty of Arpaio clones have thrived over the years in appointed office. J. Edgar Hoover's career at the FBI comes to mind. Even so, it is at least possible that the Arpaios of the world would be paradoxically more accountable if they were not on the ballot.

Imagine being the Republican candidate for governor of your state and having to defend Arpaio's record when you reappoint him (and then when you run for reelection).

Again, that is by no means a perfect solution. After all, Trump believes that he will win reelection in 2020 even with the Arpaio pardon on his list of offenses against the republic. And like all autocrats, he will surely respond to claims about Arpaio's deplorable record with retorts about criminal-hugging liberals.

As a matter of probabilities, however, it is at least a testable proposition whether popularly elected sheriffs (and judges and other state and local professionals) are worse than they would be if those positions were appointed by public officials.

There is in fact a large literature addressing just such questions. My ultimate point here, however, is yet again a concern about hopelessness. As worried as I am about what Trump will do to the country, I look at the decades of criminal behavior for which Arpaio was rewarded and wonder how much abuse is going unchecked around the country every day, year after year after year.

If there is virtually no prospect that the American political system can do something as basic as save lives and money by changing school schedules, how much hope is there to stop the entrenched despotism that Arpaio represents?

As always, the response cannot be to give up. This is, however, a reminder of how deep the rot is in America, where many voters and pandering right-wing politicians alike cannot be bothered to notice that people are suffering and dying unnecessarily.

We have a lot of work to do, and Trump's outrages should not make us forget about everything else.
 
Even if you had said control, you're just arguing semantics and trying to make a distinction where there is no real difference. Use whatever verbiage you wish, the bottom line is the 80/20 rule does NOT control/contain/restrain/hold down/"make em cheapur" etc. cost in the long run.
Now THAT'S funny ... and I suppose conservatives have a "long term plan" to medical care, right? Surely it isn't similar to their awesome health care plans they unveiled recently....gif_YellowBall-laughing6.gif
Results of the Medical Loss Ratio the past 5 years
2012= $1.1 billion refunded to insured
2013= $504 million refunded
2014= $335 million refunded
2015= $469 million refuned - average= $139 per indiv. $134= per sml group $102= lge. group

Administrative costs & profits dropped from 15.3% (2011) to 11.7% (2013)


https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/medical-loss-ratio-returns-nearly-2b-to-consumers/
https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/rate-review/

Annual Medical inflation runs 1.5-2.5X higher than regular inflation, which has been manually suppressed for years while hospital inflation has not, resulting in a 12-15% premium increase on premium strictly due to technology costs associated with medical science research & development plus prescription ******* costs.
And what should we expect medical care costs to go to if Republicans manage to implement their thoughtless plan? And don't forget, they don't give a rat's ass about the expense of health care ... they simply wish to move the cost totally to the tax payer so more TAX CUTS for the wealthy & corporations are made available.

 
Last edited:
Give it a rest, hoping hubby ... go to church today, go beat off, spit off a bridge, or something .... just quit annoying me, ok? I really don't have the time of back & forth with you. Hey, I got a really good idea, why don't YOU start a thread for a change .... seriously. That way, when I get roudy, you can simply kick me and my comment off your thread. Do you have any ideas for a thread? Kite flying? Sidewalk Chalk Art? Maybe something really challenging ... Self Healthcare?

And once again ...
..............................pic_FREEfuckyourselfTicket.jpg
 
Results of the Medical Loss Ratio the past 5 years
2012= $1.1 billion refunded to insured
2013= $504 million refunded
2014= $335 million refunded
2015= $469 million refuned - average= $139 per indiv. $134= per sml group $102= lge. group
I didn't say the 80/20 rule didn't have any impact in a given year. I specifically said it did. The point it is INCENTIVIZES the INCREASE of medical costs over time. You can try your straw man argument bullshit with others but I'm quite adept at spotting them and hammering those who try them with me. Again for the record, here's proof that obummercare did exactly ZILCH to control medical costs:

upload_2017-9-8_7-15-38-png.1438996


Give it a rest, hoping hubby ... go to church today, go beat off, spit off a bridge, or something
As I've told you umpteen times now, I take orders from my boss at work and my wife at home. Let's see...you're down to number 12,792 on my don't give a fuck what you order me to do list...congratulations on improving slightly ;)
I really don't have the time of back & forth with you.
Then why did you try to draw me back into these discussions??? I took a month or so off posting in here. Wasn't long you were trying to draw me back in. Post 2325 of Trump Wins, you started talking about me in the third person...something you have repeatedly chastised myself and others about when we mention you. Then in post 10647 you were desperate enough for attention you dug up a post of mine that was over a month and a half old and replied to it out of the blue. (I'll also point out that post you dug up was one where I initiated a topic of discussion....oooops sorry to negate yet another of your complaints)

That way, when I get roudy, you can simply kick me and my comment off your thread.
I have no interest in kicking you or your comments off any of these threads. You're free to make a fool of yourself anytime you please on here ;)
 
...You might note, by the way, h-h, that the chart you provide is a Kaiser survey on employer-sponsored health benefits, not individual health plans.
...What totally mystifies me is how you can blame Obama and the ACA (Obamacare) for issues CAUSED by the Republicans obstructing the ACA operations. They've dedicated over eight years into obstructing Obamacare to make it fail ... the list is too time consuming to type, and yet you and your conservative dildos like to point to it as the Obama and democrats fault. Had Republicans simply stayed out of it, and the plan failed, you'd have some points, but Republicans made it their MISSION and 62 efforts in Congress to FAIL PPACA. Now that THEY have control with all their gerrymandering, lies, and WikiLeaks & Russian involvement, we find they can't even make day-to-day decisions, much less present the American people with a better health plan.
So I don't think you and your conservative friends have ANYTHING to talk about. Afterall, the first $10 trillion of National Debt was put on the books with Republicans supporting trickle down Supply-Side. And NOW, they will to double down on cutting taxes more, even after two major hurricaines ... more NATIONAL DEBT.
 
Last edited:
You can thank Republicans for most of these, Torp ... the ACA provided a lot of cost containment features like the 80/20 and 85/15 rules which had already resulted in "billions" of premium refunds back to payors. Here's a good article on many of these things, but the bottom line, REPUBLICANS had stopped most in order to make PPACA fail. Thing is, it would be understandable IF they had a true, competitive plan of their own to replace it with ... but they didn't and Dumb Nuts Trump knows NOTHING about anything in Washington, much less health care.
Come on Mac that was nicely contrived to convince the general public what the Democratic insurance program was doing some cost control. I have often wondered how the industry picked their sacrificial goats and how they were compensated There wasn't a damn thing that kept the medical industry from raising their prices. The insurance companies didn't care. If their costs went up they raised their rates and if it looked like the comsumers might balk they went after more subsidies.

Interestingly enough there is a surprising amount of rumbling about the time being right for a single payer system. Maybe the insurance industry and the medical industry have overplayed their hands?
 
You might note, by the way, h-h, that the chart you provide is a Kaiser survey on employer-sponsored health benefits, not individual health plans.
Was there supposed to be a point to this statement or were you just trying to say something...anything...to make others think you were making a point? The 80/20 or 80/15 rule applies to both. They both get the same medical cost inflationary effect.

The rest of your reply is just your typical Gish Gallop. You can't argue the facts that are against you so lets throw out as much BS from semi/un related topics to make it impractical for anyone to argue all of them. Jesus H Christ, you went from the reply subject on the 80/20 rule to gerrymandering, WikiLeaks, Russia and the national debt in just a few short sentences. Might be time for another Valium!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
 
Back
Top