Digest for rec.sport.golf@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 9 topics

Thursday, May 4, 2017

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 04 01:09PM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 3:48:39 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > of how adults would answer the same questions.
 
> Leftist intolerance has been on full display ever since Trump was
> elected. There are examples after examples.
 
Yes, they're intolerant of Trump, as well they should be.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 01:45PM -0700

On 5/4/2017 1:09 PM, John B. wrote:
 
>> Leftist intolerance has been on full display ever since Trump was
>> elected. There are examples after examples.
 
> Yes, they're intolerant of Trump, as well they should be.
 
They are intolerant of conservatives. Your own hero stated that Trump
is not an ideologue. In theory, your ilk should be happy with him in
comparison to Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: May 04 07:32PM -0400

On 05/04/2017 03:48 PM, Dene wrote:

> Leftist intolerance has been on full display ever since Trump was
> elected. There are examples after examples.
 
Is George Will a leftist?
 
https://goo.gl/gnfsqe
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 04 04:46PM -0700

On 2017-05-04 4:32 PM, Carbon wrote:
>> elected. There are examples after examples.
 
> Is George Will a leftist?
 
> https://goo.gl/gnfsqe
 
According to our wingnuts, if you don't approve of every single thing
that Trump has done, accept every lie he tells...
 
...then you're a leftist.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 05:04PM -0700

On 5/4/2017 4:32 PM, Carbon wrote:
>> elected. There are examples after examples.
 
> Is George Will a leftist?
 
> https://goo.gl/gnfsqe
 
Nope...he's a centrist who doesn't like Trump. Bet he doesn't shun
people on either side.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 04 04:30PM -0700

'As legislators and the executive branch renew their efforts to repeal
and replace the Affordable Care Act this week, they might want to keep
in mind a little-known financial consequence of the ACA: Since its
adoption, far fewer Americans have taken the extreme step of filing for
personal bankruptcy.
 
Filings have dropped about 50 percent, from 1,536,799 in 2010 to 770,846
in 2016 (see chart, below). Those years also represent the time frame
when the ACA took effect. Although courts never ask people to declare
why they're filing, many bankruptcy and legal experts agree that medical
bills had been a leading cause of personal bankruptcy before public
healthcare coverage expanded under the ACA. Unlike other causes of debt,
medical bills are often unexpected, involuntary, and large.'
 
<http://www.consumerreports.org/personal-bankruptcy/how-the-aca-drove-down-personal-bankruptcy/>
Carbon <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>: May 04 07:42PM -0400

On 05/04/2017 07:30 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
 
> healthcare coverage expanded under the ACA. Unlike other causes of debt,
> medical bills are often unexpected, involuntary, and large.'
 
> <http://www.consumerreports.org/personal-bankruptcy/how-the-aca-drove-down-personal-bankruptcy/>

This should be required reading for the ideologues on the right. The
backlash is going to be severe when voters see measurable harm being done
as a result of Republican changes to the ACA.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 04 05:01PM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 7:42:41 PM UTC-4, Carbon wrote:
 
> This should be required reading for the ideologues on the right. The
> backlash is going to be severe when voters see measurable harm being done
> as a result of Republican changes to the ACA.
 
The bill should have been required reading for House Republicans,
but most of them didn't read it before voting for it. And you can
the farm that Trump hasn't read it and has no idea what's in it.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 05:03PM -0700

On 5/4/2017 4:42 PM, Carbon wrote:
 
> This should be required reading for the ideologues on the right. The
> backlash is going to be severe when voters see measurable harm being done
> as a result of Republican changes to the ACA.
 
Create a thread and link without Baker and I'll be happy to read it.
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 04 05:04PM -0700

On 2017-05-04 5:03 PM, Dene wrote:
>> backlash is going to be severe when voters see measurable harm being done
>> as a result of Republican changes to the ACA.
 
> Create a thread and link without Baker and I'll be happy to read it.
 
Coward.
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: May 05 12:00AM

We on the planet Chinless are humored by your existence.
 
Are you typical of the human species?
 
If so, how fucking sad. We will bypass visiting your planet.
 
We do not tolerate trolls on the planet Chinless!
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 04 04:45PM -0700

'I won't mince words. The health-care bill that the House of
Representatives passed this afternoon, in an incredibly narrow
217-to-213 vote, is not just wrong, or misguided, or problematic or
foolish. It is an abomination. If there has been a piece of legislation
in our lifetimes that boiled over with as much malice and indifference
to human suffering, I can't recall what it might have been. And every
member of the House who voted for it must be held accountable.'
 
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/04/every-republican-who-voted-for-this-abomination-must-be-held-accountable/>
 
'All that matters. But the real problem is what's in the bill itself.
Here are some of the things it does:
 
Takes health insurance away from at least 24 million Americans; that was
the number the CBO estimated for a previous version of the bill, and the
number for this one is probably higher.
 
Revokes the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid, which provided
no-cost health coverage to millions of low-income Americans.
 
Turns Medicaid into a block grant, enabling states to kick
otherwise-eligible people off their coverage and cut benefits if they so
choose.
 
Slashes Medicaid overall by $880 billion over 10 years.
 
Removes the subsidies that the ACA provided to help middle-income people
afford health insurance, replacing them with far more meager tax credits
pegged not to people's income but to their age. Poorer people would get
less than they do now, while richer people would get more; even Bill
Gates would get a tax credit.
 
Allows insurers to charge dramatically higher premiums to older patients.
 
Allows insurers to impose yearly and lifetime caps on coverage, which
were outlawed by the ACA. This also, it was revealed today, may threaten
the coverage of the majority of non-elderly Americans who get insurance
through their employers.
 
Allows states to seek waivers from the ACA's requirement that insurance
plans include essential benefits for things such as emergency services,
hospitalization, mental health care, preventive care, maternity care,
and substance abuse treatment.
 
Provides hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for families making
over $250,000 a year.
 
Produces higher deductibles for patients.
 
Allows states to try to waive the ACA's requirement that insurers must
charge people the same rates regardless of their medical history. This
effectively eviscerates the ban on denials for preexisting conditions,
since insurers could charge you exorbitant premiums if you have a
preexisting condition, effectively denying you coverage.
 
Shunts those with preexisting conditions into high-risk pools, which are
absolutely the worst way to cover those patients; experience with them
on the state level proves that they wind up underfunded, charge enormous
premiums, provide inadequate benefits and can't cover the population
they're meant for. Multiple analyses have shown that the money the bill
provides for high-risk pools is laughably inadequate, which will
inevitably leave huge numbers of the most vulnerable Americans without
the ability to get insurance.
 
Brings back medical underwriting, meaning that just like in the bad old
days, when you apply for insurance you'll have to document every
condition or ailment you've ever had.'
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: May 04 11:20PM

Why post if no one responds?
 
Shit stain tell us why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: May 04 11:20PM

We have been watching your behavior for many hears.
 
You humans are very strange.
 
you are very strange.
 
Fucking strange in fact.
 
Is your hair typical of most earthlings?
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 04 03:16PM -0500

> On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 11:20:48 AM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
 
>> Which poll predicted Trump would win the presidency?
 
> Why does that matter? Be specific.
 
This is when you know you are dealing with an asshole and not
someone interested in a response.
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 04 04:42PM -0500


> They are intolerant of conservatives. Your own hero stated that Trump
> is not an ideologue. In theory, your ilk should be happy with him in
> comparison to Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.
 
I certainly am :-)
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 04 04:45PM -0500

> when you put a bunch of grey-haired, white, male conservatives
> in charge of deciding what's best for everyone else. It's
> not the Dems who are out of touch.
 
I congressional actions through an email service. Dems have done
nothing, but fuck up Healthcare.
--
Moderate <nospam@noemail.com>: May 04 06:11PM -0500


> The Republicans just voted for a bill that defines having had children
> as a "pre-existing" condition...
 
> ...along with having been raped.
 
Bwaahaahaa.
--
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>: May 04 01:18PM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 2:49:38 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> > there's been a lot of Congressional Mandates to do it even when
> > it ends up costing more.
 
> If not for efficiency, why does Congress continue to mandate it?
 
Because private corporations make bigger political donations.
 

> > Even so, how do the profits of these providers compare to
> > those in the rest of the market?
 
> What?
 
Compare the respective profit margins. What do you find?
 

> > tossing it down to the States either.
 
> Single payor would be a disaster...even if the states ran it.
> Single payor will never happen.
 
Single payor is probably the best chance we have to drive down
total system costs...but you're right, it probably will never
happen, because the Corporate interests who spend millions to
lobby Congress will be an influence in setting policy.
 
 
> Only a minority in our country trust the government to that extent.
 
But how much of the underlying reason for that distrust is because
of very deliberate and systematic sabotage of government institutions
by politically motivated entities?
 

> > entity and/or a Mutual doesn't have this same contradiction.
 
> Many health insurance companies...like Blue Cross...are non profit
> entities.
 
Better check your fine print:
 
"In 1994, BCBS changed to allow its licensees to be for-profit
corporations.[3] During 2010, Health Care Service Corporation,
the parent company of BCBS in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico,
Montana and Illinois, nearly doubled its income to $1.09 billion
in 2010, and began four years of billion-dollar profits.[10]"
 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Cross_Blue_Shield_Association>
 
There's many different flavors & nuances of 'nonprofits' today.
 
 
<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124807720>
 
 
-hh
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 04 01:18PM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 3:53:26 PM UTC-4, Dene wrote:
> fixes or solutions.
 
> Americans are watching. The Dems are out of touch. Vision is needed.
> Ask those who are honest about HRC's failed campaign.
 
How do you know there's no Dem bill? Are you aware of every
health-care-related bill that's been introduced in the House?
When one party controls the legislative process, the other
party's bills tend not to be considered. What we have now is
a bill that throws millions of people off of Medicaid and cuts
taxes for rich people and corporations. That's what you get
when you put a bunch of grey-haired, white, male conservatives
in charge of deciding what's best for everyone else. It's
not the Dems who are out of touch.
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com>: May 04 01:25PM -0700

On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 4:18:02 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
 
> There's many different flavors & nuances of 'nonprofits' today.
 
> <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124807720>
 
> -hh
 
Let's not forget what Trump promised: a bill that would insure
more people, cost them less, and give them access to better
care and better coverage than Obamacare. Does this bill do
that? Absolutely not. It's an abomination.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 01:42PM -0700

On 5/4/2017 1:25 PM, John B. wrote:
 
> more people, cost them less, and give them access to better
> care and better coverage than Obamacare. Does this bill do
> that? Absolutely not. It's an abomination.
 
Results depends on the individual states but younger, healthier people
will definitely pay less, if they choose to participate (more about that
below). Boomers like me will pay more but that could be offset if we
have choices in what we buy...like no maternity, mental health, etc. I
have a $6000 deductible plan that I'm perfectly comfortable with. I can
afford the doctor visits and routine Rx. It's the hospital bill I want
insurance for.
 
A big factor is Medicaid reform, which is a key reason why ACA is
failing. With it's ridiculous expansion, too many young, healthy people
are on it instead of being part of a private insured risk pool. With
Medicaid being rolled back, insurance companies can compete for this
desired business...and they will.
 
The only hole in the plan is the elimination of the penalty. Too many
freeloaders will risk being uninsured and show up in the ER, leaving the
insured to foot their bill. The good news is that when they buy a plan,
they will be screened for their pre-existing condition, put into a
special pool, and pay alot more for coverage.
 
But...that is the fitting price for being a freeloader.
Dene <gdstrue@aol.com>: May 04 01:43PM -0700

On 5/4/2017 1:18 PM, John B. wrote:
> when you put a bunch of grey-haired, white, male conservatives
> in charge of deciding what's best for everyone else. It's
> not the Dems who are out of touch.
 
Name the bill, John.
What is your solution for what was announced in Iowa?
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net>: May 04 04:07PM -0700

On 2017-05-04 12:53 PM, Dene wrote:
> fixes or solutions.
 
> Americans are watching. The Dems are out of touch. Vision is needed.
> Ask those who are honest about HRC's failed campaign.
 
Americans should watch.
 
The Republicans just voted for a bill that defines having had children
as a "pre-existing" condition...
 
...along with having been raped.
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org>: May 04 10:39PM

The dude had a life.
 
Unlike the son, the son with the really bad haircut!
 
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Take a moment out of your busy day and laugh at the shit stain troll.
 
loolololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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