Tweet
Originally posted by ShockBand
View Post
-
Seems strong.Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille! -
If we keep the pre-existing condition coverage (even for a few years), why won't health insurance costs increase rapidly when we get rid of the individual mandate?Comment
-
That's the trillion dollar question.Originally posted by jdshock View PostKung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!Comment
-
Looks like a partial repeal of McCarran Ferguson. That's a big deal. Don't know if the industry will go for this. My thought would be industry would go for it if it TOTALLY repealed McCarran-Ferguson, but the federal government would then be in the business of insurance regulation.Originally posted by ShockBand View Post
Second, if you have a pre-existing condition, you're going to be screwed. There's nothing in the article speaking to the cost of insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, it just says that the insurance companies must cover them in the two-year period. That means the cost for some people (say, a cancer survivor) will be enormous (it did not say you could get covered at affordable rates, only that you can obtain coverage). And if they don't pay and get their insurance cancelled and it's more than two years out, they're screwed because at that point, the system reverts back to what it was pre-obamacare, meaning they're uninsurable.
Now, I'm conflating a couple of other responses into this comment. Some have talked about costs, the CBO has been ordered not to provide the costs of removing/abolishing Obamacare, so any discussion of costs is moot. My thought is that congress would not have done this unless they wanted to hide the true cost of repeal from the public. This is similar to what George Bush did when he fought the Iraq war off the country's books. It wasn't accounted for until Obama became president (he brought it back on the books and it made his budget deficit numbers look huge).
While I think this is a good start in that Sen. Paul wants to tell the public what he's going to do before he actually does it, there will be people who will not be able to afford the cost of their policy and will suffer adverse health consequences (up to even death) as a result.
That was the reason I stated I would not comment until I see something in writing from congress or President Trump. And whether the public will buy something like this may be another point of discussion. As for me, I would like to see people being able to obtain healthcare coverage in much the same manner Obamacare offers now, except with high deductibles (meaning most people will have to pay as they go) with some sort of reinsurance fund for those who have health conditions that prevent them from obtaining affordable insurance (with a diagnosis and treatment documentation of said condition, of course).Comment
-
This issue didnt have to be so divisive. Trump just should have come out and said, we're building the wall and do it. The quieter the better may have even been preferrable.Originally posted by ShockingButTrue View Post
And IDGAF who pays for it. A trillion dollars is a freaking rounding error anymore. Whats a few billion?"When life hands you lemons, make lemonade." Better have some sugar and water too, or else your lemonade will suck!Comment
-
The 20% tax will be paid for by Americans in the form of high prices, likely fueling inflation and making it even more difficult to compete globally. It's also going to damage relations with our neighbors and make other countries nervous. I don't see that having a positive effect on our economy. Walls might work. Punitive tariffs don't.
Now, if the tariff was targeted at a product/industry that would be damaged by the tariff (meaning they can't just pass along the cost to the consumer without negative consequences), then maybe it would have the desired effect.Comment
-
This is a pressure cooker that has been building for decades, so I'm glad Trump is finally addressing it but yeah I could care less how we pay for it and it shouldn't be that hard to find away. We send Mexico roughly $200 million in aid each year and I think stopping that would be a good start, then we can stop sending foreign aid to all the places that hate us and just use it to fund terrorism.
I think a wall is necessary but there is something that I believe would be more effective than a wall but is never really discussed; ending the welfare state. Milton Friedman said you can either have open borders or have a welfare state, but you can't have both, because a nation will always collapse that tries to do both.Take away the ability for them to work and get welfare benefits, that'll cut off the incentive to come illegally. I've heard people say they can't get welfare benefits but that's a lie, especially when they come here and have babies. Not to mention all of the fraud that goes on with social security numbers. We've had a few people get busted here for issuing drivers licenses to illegals.
I spent time back and forth between Dodge City and Wichita my life. From when I was a kid in the 80s to now, illegal immigration has transformed Dodge City like a great portion of southwest KS. I don't blame the families of who come, but I blame our politicians and corporations like Excel, Cargill, and National Beef that turned a blind eye if they did.Comment
-
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but I have a question for those who think a bricks-and-mortar wall will work. Since the cartels are the primary people smugglers, does anyone remember how El Chapo escaped from prison last time? Especially since he led one of the most powerful cartels.Comment
-
All the hubub and flailing about the wall is nonsensical and irrational, regardless of one's take on its actual efficacy.
There has been planning and funding appropriations made for a wall for decades, over congresses and presidents from both sides of the isle. Yes, it's finally happening... BFD.
It is really physically feasible, engineering-wise? I don't know, hop in your time machine and ask the Chinese builders from 500 years ago how they were able to construct a massive, 13,000 mile wall on the spine of a mountain range. I'm sure they can share some tips with today's snowflakes.
Asinine media, and the people who lap it up like manna in place of actual critical thinking.Last edited by SHOCKvalue; January 27, 2017, 06:26 PM.Comment
-
And the fact that there are walls and fence lines all over the border in areas right now.
Bottom line really is simple. This administration is planning on enforcing the laws currently on the books.Comment
-
I thought illegals only took on jobs that Americans wouldn't do? :disillusionment:Originally posted by Walker View Post
Of course, I really never understood that argument in favor of allowing illegals to stay here because that's not the liberal end game. Once the progressive wand passes over them making them Americans, why would they continue to do those jobs?Comment
-
-
... This one could have some legs.Comment
-
Dead link...with legs like that it's not running anywhere.Originally posted by ShockingButTrue View PostLivin the dreamComment
Comment