Trump

[atlwsu]

Never mind -

This is all just silly. It's so incredibly infuriating that this is the direction the topic went. 99% of the members of this board agree on the abortion issue.

I have yet to put forth an argument for abortion. I refuse to engage in that debate.

Its not a silly cartoon.


I didnt even address the indefensible argument that all perspectives/opinions are equal, which is implied in your insistence on "different perspectives." It is the argument of last resort when there is no truly logical response. Maybe I have read just enough philosophy and history of ethics to be dangerous, but it appears to me from an Emotivism foundation.

[shocka khan]

Never mind -

This is all just silly. It's so incredibly infuriating that this is the direction the topic went. 99% of the members of this board agree on the abortion issue.

I have yet to put forth an argument for abortion. I refuse to engage in that debate.

That would be a wise thing to do. While there are some on this board, like DUShock, who try to live their lives in a Christian manner 100 percent of the time (and I respect him for it), there are others out here who claim to be religious but the only moments they behave like a Christian are when they are actually in the church. Note that many Christians have very strong anti-abortion beliefs, but if you really looked in their hearts you would have to wonder if they were really Christians or they feign to be religious for other reasons.

When you start getting into social issues like religion and abortion, you stir up a hornet's nest. I think that was the intent of the person who hijacked this thread yesterday.

[Kung Wu]

I think that was the intent of the person who hijacked this thread yesterday.

You'd be incorrect. The conversation went like this:

1) What is a progressive's end game? What does failure in society look like?
2) A progressive said, "well one answer is failure might look like 'death', but if you take a deeper look at it, even that is not as obvious."
3) A conservative said, "no, death can't be a part of the answer because the progressives ferociously advocate for a law directly causing an exorbitant amount of death"

Just because the topic is a hot button issue doesn't mean I should have to shy away from it if it is relevant to an argument that was made. It was not my intention to derail the thread, it was my intention to point out that conservatives are way ahead of progressives in terms of preventing death in society -- just not in the way that the progressive was thinking about it.

[Kung Wu]

Of course there are some that may act like that cartoon, and I do know one or two, the vast majority of conservative Christians look more like my congregation. Those type cartoons are conversation killers

The work and charity your church is doing is outstanding! It's making a difference.

I'll say that even though that cartoon is frustrating to Christians doing outstanding work like your church is, that I don't believe @jdshock really meant to offend anybody by it, but only meant to poke fun at ME for offering the strong, compelling, fantastic and practically inarguable counterargument to his. :)

I honestly think he meant it to be a lighthearted and sarcastic "obvious" counterpoint that would be made by progressives if we were to go down the pro-life/anti-abortion debate rabbit hole.

If you didn't read the entire exchange, you could easily misunderstand his intention. I wouldn't read too much into it.

[atlwsu]

Sorry for overreacting to that cartoon. This board is supposed to be fun, and I took this format to a place I, nor the administrators, meant. Free speech is not always free of stress, and I unnecessarily interjected more than my share and got too heavy. Now back to my observation platform, and to the regularly scheduled program.

[jdshock]

I'll say that even though that cartoon is frustrating to Christians doing outstanding work like your church is, that I don't believe @jdshock really meant to offend anybody by it, but only meant to poke fun at ME for offering the strong, compelling, fantastic and practically inarguable counterargument to his. :)

I honestly think he meant it to be a lighthearted and sarcastic "obvious" counterpoint that would be made by progressives if we were to go down the pro-life/anti-abortion debate rabbit hole.

I really appreciate this. You hit the nail on the head.

[shocka khan]

You'd be incorrect.
Just because the topic is a hot button issue doesn't mean I should have to shy away from it if it is relevant to an argument that was made. It was not my intention to derail the thread, it was my intention to point out that conservatives are way ahead of progressives in terms of preventing death in society -- just not in the way that the progressive was thinking about it.

I'm sure we will have this conversation again after the republicans repeal the ACA and replace it with ?????<crickets chirping>?????

I will, though, hold my fire until Trump unveils his master plan. Who knows, I might get surprised. There are some aspects of the ACA that I don't really like either. I think if we have universal health care, it should only cover those big things (major medical conditions that would bankrupt many people - cancer, heart disease and so forth). It is absolutely true that many major medical conditions (for instance the most expensive disease - diabetes) can be fixed or greatly amended through living a more healthy lifestyle, so I'm thinking we as a society, should focus on living healthy and not depending on the government to bail us out.

By the way, I appreciate your reaching out to people today with such a positive tone, and I hope you have a happy and enjoyable weekend (since it's Friday and all).

[Kung Wu]

?????<crickets chirping>?????

What we had prior to ACA but with increased competition where insurance companies can cross any state line they want (as long as the state doesn't restrict them) coupled with mandatory pre-existing conditions coverage subject to some very large pre-existing condition deductible.

This won't be enough to stop the medicare/aid trainwreck but it will clean up the ACA mess for in the short term.

By the way, I appreciate your reaching out to people today with such a positive tone, and I hope you have a happy and enjoyable weekend (since it's Friday and all).

Now don't go gettin' all mushy on me ... ;). But, yeah, I hope we all have a great weekend!

[ShockTalk]

I thought so to. It will now take evidence to restore my confidence that he is anthing but shallow in his analysis. That cartoon was created in ignorance and forwarded out of malice.

While anecdotal, I offer the following:
I belong to a very conservative Presbyterian church, right of center. Attendance is 40/50 per Sunday. In spite of 3 with cancer, 2 waiting on kidney transplants, two heart surgeries in the last 3 years we have expressed much grace. We have 2 biracial families, 3 minority families, 2 families with multiple adopted children, 1 family took a disabled family of 5 into their home 5 years ago and counting, with very minimal governmental help (small food stamps and heathcare benefit).

Of course there are some that may act like that cartoon, and I do know one or two, the vast majority of conservative Christians look more like my congregation. Those type cartoons are conversation killers

While I agree with you and understand your frustration, it is also important that in quoting JH4P, @jdshock:'s reply to that same quote should also be included.

[ShockingButTrue]

The drums are beating...

[shocka khan]

What we had prior to ACA but with increased competition where insurance companies can cross any state line they want (as long as the state doesn't restrict them) coupled with mandatory pre-existing conditions coverage subject to some very large pre-existing condition deductible.

Restrictions particular to each state:
Company licensed to write insurance in the state in question (called a certificate of authority). I have seen companies pay millions of dollars for shell companies who were writing no business at all simply because they had licenses to write in all states (or X state if the company wanted to start writing business there) and it was cheaper and faster for the acquiring company to get a certificate of authority in that particular state in that particular manner.
Approved policy forms (insurance companies have to submit their policy forms in each state they're writing in for approval).
Licensing. Agents must be registered to write business in the state where the subject of the policy resides. When I worked for the department of insurance (Texas) we always had problems with agents in El Paso (or Las Cruces) who were not licensed in New Mexico (or Texas) writing business.
What you're talking about here is repeal of the Mc-Carran-Ferguson act. The states and the NAIC will fight this. Republicans have held the notion traditionally that insurance regulations were primarily a state responsibility. Democrats, in particular, John Dingell didn't agree.

We'll have to see how the pre-existing conditions thing works out as well. By the way, the ACA also removed lifetime maximums. Before the ACA, I had a friend who got throat cancer. His treatment went through our company's million-dollar lifetime limit and the cancer came back. He had to get another round of chemo and fortunately, the insurance company waived the lifetime limit. You would have liked that guy. IMS DBA knew mainframes inside and out. Typical southern redneck (no offense intended as I am probably one of those as well) from San Antonio with a great sense of humor. Might have been dead if not for the insurance company agreeing to the waiver.

We'll have to see whether lifetime limits also return when the ACA is repealed.


This won't be enough to stop the medicare/aid trainwreck but it will clean up the ACA mess for in the short term.

Agreed. Medicaid is a mess. It is also affecting Medicare. I could see the republicans turning Medicaid into block grants. Medicare, on the other hand is different. Many elderly/retired people voted for Trump and if he messes with their benies, he'll be $h!tt!ng in his own nest. I don't see this happening, but if it does, it will be very difficult come re-election time.



Now don't go gettin' all mushy on me ... ;). But, yeah, I hope we all have a great weekend!

Thanks!

[ShockBand]

Those on this thread that seem to be better versed than I in the insurance world, what do you think of Rand Paul's proposal that has been raised?

http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-introduced-obamacare-replacement-act-2017-1

[ShockerPrez]

At the end of the day, we are still looking at a problem of wanting to cover infinite needs with finite means. And trying to factor in the notion of fairness just complicates it all.

[Kung Wu]

Thanks!

Oh yeah, beefing up support for HSA plans would be key as well.

[Kung Wu]

At the end of the day, we are still looking at a problem of wanting to cover infinite needs with finite means. And trying to factor in the notion of fairness just complicates it all.

HSA mitigates that by putting the onus the end user to decide how to spend their money because the deductibles are large enough that you don't go to the doctor for every sniffle (unless thats more important to you than an alternative use of your money).