Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 8 topics

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 02 06:06PM -0700

The fundamental problem with pre-existing conditions is this
question....who is going to pay for it?
 
Under ACA, those who choose to be covered pay for it. Problem with that
solution is that there are not enough healthy people in the risk pool to
adequately pay for the unhealthy. So premiums rise exponentially and
healthy people drop out or have heavily subsidized premiums, if their
income is low enough. Middle class self employed person gets hosed.
 
Previous system...the one Jimmy Kimmel laments about. Pre-ex are
underwritten, therefore only the healthy can acquire health insurance,
leaving those with pre-ex out or in expensive risk pools. It was a
ridiculous system. No one insurer could afford to be liberal with
underwriting standards or else they would inherit the unhealthy people,
exclusively.
 
So what is the answer? The Republican solution. Those who have current
insurance keep their insurance, regardless of pre-ex, and pay the same
rate. But...if you let the insurance lapse or choose to go without,
then become sick, then you are forced into a taxpayer supplemented,
state run risk pool, and pay higher premiums.
 
Essentially...it becomes a matter of personal responsibility.
 
But with the nanny state culture in full bloom on all channels, nobody
is emphasizing that caveat. It's "OMG....I have to pay more if I get sick."
 
Not true. You pay more if you are irresponsible before becoming sick.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 02 07:28PM -0700

Except ...
 
An infant born with a heart condition is immediately a "pre-existing" (through no
lifestyle choice fault of their own BS) and will never be able to buy their own policy
without getting slammed.
 
So how is this solved?
 
 
-hh
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 02 07:30PM -0700

On 2017-05-02 7:28 PM, -hh wrote:
> without getting slammed.
 
> So how is this solved?
 
> -hh
 
Isn't it amazing how the very same people who insist every fetus is
sacred and must be protected have no interest whatsoever in protecting
that same sacred life after it is born?
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 02 08:17PM -0700

Alan wrote:
 
> Isn't it amazing how the very same people who insist every fetus is
> sacred and must be protected have no interest whatsoever in protecting
> that same sacred life after it is born?
 
Well, there's that too. I simply find it amazing that supposed "business" centric
types can't even recognize a definitively non-sustainable business model.
 
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for the response to my prior query of
"Whose ox gets gored?" (I.e., ends up with less money).
 
-hh
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: May 03 12:20AM -0400

On 05/02/2017 11:17 PM, -hh wrote:
> non-sustainable business model.
 
> In the meantime, I'm still waiting for the response to my prior query of
> "Whose ox gets gored?" (I.e., ends up with less money).
 
The 99%+. Meaning, everyone but stockholders in pharma, insurance, etc.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 02 09:38PM -0700

On 5/2/2017 7:28 PM, -hh wrote:
> without getting slammed.
 
> So how is this solved?
 
> -hh
 
Good question. Birth, adoption, involuntary loss of coverage, etc.
would not be subject to underwriting. Where one gets into trouble is
being irresponsible and incur a lapse of coverage, typically not paying
a premium on time.
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 02 05:59PM -0500


>http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-dollar400000-speech-to-wall-street-sparks-liberal-blowback/ar-BBApbc1?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
 
>Makes me laugh over the irony but I defend his right to collect as much
>legal loot as he can. Betcha Michelle gets more.

He's also getting a $60 million dollar book deal. Remember, this is
the same guy who for 8 years of his presidency preached to us about
income inequality.
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-book-deal-2017-2
David Laville <dlaville@bellsouth.net>: May 02 06:04PM -0500

On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:30:05 -0500 (CDT), Moderate
 
>> If it were, you could support it...
 
>> ...but you haven't, so...
 
>The cite supports it.

Here's support for the loon;
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-book-deal-2017-2
 
Remember how for 8 years he preached to us about income inequality and
how at some point some people have made enough money?
 
Funny how it doesn't apply to him, isn't it?
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 02 04:17PM -0700

On 2017-05-02 3:59 PM, David Laville wrote:
> the same guy who for 8 years of his presidency preached to us about
> income inequality.
 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-book-deal-2017-2
 
Yes, and?
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 02 04:26PM -0700

On 2017-05-02 4:04 PM, David Laville wrote:
 
> Remember how for 8 years he preached to us about income inequality and
> how at some point some people have made enough money?
 
> Funny how it doesn't apply to him, isn't it?
 
Except he's never said he doesn't believe in capitalism, so...
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: May 02 09:32PM -0400

On 05/02/2017 07:26 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>> how at some point some people have made enough money?
 
>> Funny how it doesn't apply to him, isn't it?
 
> Except he's never said he doesn't believe in capitalism, so...
 
And, the only reason he's getting a 60m book deal is the current president
is so awful that it makes him look like a genius in comparison.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 02 07:18PM -0700

On 2017-05-02 7:10 PM, Moderate wrote:
 
>> Yes, and?
 
> The anti-capitalist statements from Obama could fill a book.
 
And yet you've provided none...
 
Weird.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 02 10:53AM -0500

> It's a no win proposition. No one has ever
> gained anything from negotiating with NK.
 
Nobody has ever tried to negotiate with Kim Jong-un.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 02 02:24PM -0500

> capitalism. And anyway, Mao had nothing in common with
> Kim Jong-un, who is vicious, corrupt and untrustworthy. He
> cannot be counted on the keep his word.
 
Nixon's meeting was a significant step.
 
John rewrites history in nearly every post.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 02 09:10PM -0500

>> income inequality.
 
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-book-deal-2017-2
 
> Yes, and?
 
The anti-capitalist statements from Obama could fill a book.
--
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 02 04:32PM -0700

'Taken as a package, the 100 Days interviews sound like evidence
submitted in an involuntary commitment hearing to a mental institution.'
 
Who said it, wingnuts?
 
:-)
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: May 02 09:26PM

Seems like no one responds anymore.
 
The dick head needs to find some new suckers elsewhere.
 
Suggest Rec.alt.chinless
 
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 02 05:41AM -0700

It's a no win proposition. No one has ever
gained anything from negotiating with NK.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 02 09:08AM -0700

On 5/2/2017 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
> It's a no win proposition. No one has ever
> gained anything from negotiating with NK.
 
Nixon met with Mao and China was forever changed afterwards.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 02 09:34AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 12:08:08 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > It's a no win proposition. No one has ever
> > gained anything from negotiating with NK.
 
> Nixon met with Mao and China was forever changed afterwards.
 
China didn't change because Nixon met with Mao. It changed
because subsequent leaders opened its economy and embraced
capitalism. And anyway, Mao had nothing in common with
Kim Jong-un, who is vicious, corrupt and untrustworthy. He
cannot be counted on the keep his word.
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 02 03:38AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 12:18:04 AM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
> interesting band of offshore financial institutions, the details of which
> I am sure would go a long way towards explaining his continuing cowardice
> about releasing his taxes.
 
Not where I was expecting you to go, but also a point to note.
 
My "But..." would have been:
 
But to your point about Trump being some sort of master dealmaker, other
than the lowest of bars being that a shutdown was averted, just what
specifically did he "win" on this budget that gives himself or *any* part
of his base something to cheer about?
 
And therein lies the rub: it is hard to claim (with a straight face) that
because NIH getting a +$2B plus-up instead of a -$1.2B directed cut
that this is now a "Win" in the "Boost Infrastructure Investments" promise.
Ditto for how there's +$12B in congressionally directed additional spending
to DoD: YMMV if they were pure old school earmarks, in direct contradiction
to the ban which started in FY11 by Republicans. In any event, earmarks
are now "back" (FYI, the FY18 submission deadline already has passed):
 
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/republicans-earmarks-congress/508328/>
 
 
-hh
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 02 06:18AM -0700

On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 10:50:42 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> the Seahawks. Is the guy an asshole...yep...but he's my asshole. Right
> now...we need an asshole in the executive branch. An outsider who has
> the stones to get some essential stuff done.
 
Well, you're making progress, Greg. There may be hope for you yet.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 02 09:06AM -0700

On 5/1/2017 8:53 PM, Carbon wrote:
> NeoFascist movement who's even remotely capable of reason, so I can only
> assume this is a some sort of joke. There's nothing more to Trump than
> avarice and an unrelenting hunger for attention.
 
I'm not joking about any of these views I've presented or affirmed.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 02 09:29AM -0700

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 12:06:16 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > assume this is a some sort of joke. There's nothing more to Trump than
> > avarice and an unrelenting hunger for attention.
 
> I'm not joking about any of these views I've presented or affirmed.
 
Nobody said you were.
michaelunowho@gmail.com: May 02 04:52AM -0700

Keep up the good work. The POS will wither up and die.
 
And the world would be a better place.
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.

0 comments:

Post a Comment