grinreaper

Don't quote schit without a link.

You don't seem to see the forest because the trees get in the way. Stockholder welfare doesn't have to mean just money. It might have to do with the health of the corporation or its reputation. Maybe it has to do with research & development or diversification. There are a myriad of things that might fall under fiduciary duties. You've narrowed your interpretation of fiduciary duties to fit your narrative.

Well, if you are a wise Latina you just follow your instincts.

I'm not usually this patient with someone who is this obtuse. Did you not get the part about an appeal board? It's sometimes a fine line between denial and acceptance and that is where the appeal board comes in to play.

Every once in awhile I see that "quote" from Limbaugh brought up. It's is taken totally out of context. Limbaugh was saying that he wanted Obama's policies to not be put in place. He wanted him to fail to pass legislation like the ACA. I didn't want the ACA either. I knew it was bound to fail because it went against the premise of insurance. I would have been happy though if for some reason it succeeded.

It's testimony from one person who at the time had switched jobs and was on an ethics committee. Her testimony may have been relevant or not at the time. Yes, insurance companies have people that review claims and approve or disapprove payment for medical procedures in advance. If the need for the procedure is at all questionable they are going to deny it and the doctors will have to prove that it is necessary to an appeal board. This is not a bad thing. It helps keep insurance rates down. BTW, each state has an insurance commission that approves rates based on insurance companies bottom line.

6/2/96? You must have had to convert that from a VCR tape. If the testimony of one person 21 years ago who reviewed eligibility and is now on some ethics review board is all you got, then you aren't going to be doing very well here.

Please show me where I am assigning beliefs and positions that are not accurate. I've been trying to get you to tell me what Trump has done that is wrong and you keep avoiding the question. Again, what has he actually done that is wrong?

Yes, he is an embarrassment but that means little to me. I want someone who will work to get the three branches of government back in their proper role of checks and balances. I want someone that can at least get the balling rolling towards making this country exceptional again. It wasn't going to be Hillary and it certainly might not be Trump, but it could be, so I'm not going to be one to tear him down.

You still don't get it, do you? Again, what action has he taken that is actually wrong?

I stupidly ignored GG's advice and read your link and it does not back up your claims. You basically said that insurance companies are required to charge as much as they can and give out as little as they can. That's why capitalism and competition are so great. It keeps those big bad corporations in check. The only time things get out of whack is when the government steps in and tries to upend market forces.

Again, other than pissing off you lefties and spouting off some stupid schit on twitter (and elsewhere) what has he actually done that is wrong? I was hoping for change in D.C. and he's still our best hope to achieve that.

Uh, can you show me where this law is?

Remember this people: It doesn't much matter what Trump says, it matters what he does.

Medicaid reimbursements are so low that it is not worth it for a doctor to spend the money to become a doctor. Fixed prices and market forces are not compatible.

It's called getting "gatored".

He's always all over the place and contradicting himself. He may very well be bi, and I don't mean in the sexual way.

You know what? This doesn't surprise me in the least. That's the sad part of it.

You're asking a lot out of him. His mind has been addled by diesel fumes at his toll booth.

I think I posted this sometime in the last year: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/seattle-sees-fallout-from-15-minimum-wage-as-other-cities-follow-suit.html Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law is supposed to lift workers out of poverty and move them off public assistance. But there may be a hitch in the plan. Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise – in a bid to keep overall income down so they don’t lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent. Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less. “If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn’t actually help get them out of poverty, all you’ve done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people,” said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM. The twist is just one apparent side effect of the controversial -- yet trendsetting -- minimum wage law in Seattle, which is being copied in several other cities despite concerns over prices rising and businesses struggling to keep up. The notion that employees are intentionally working less to preserve their welfare has been a hot topic on talk radio. While the claims are difficult to track, state stats indeed suggest few are moving off welfare programs under the new wage.

If you weren't already there, I'd say you just went off the deep end.

And the one before that and the one before that and on and on.

Nice. At least you are not driving while you are stoned. Maybe you should consider not posting when you are stoned.

http://www.upworthy.com/2-monkeys-were-paid-unequally-see-what-happens-next?g=4

Was it like a boarding house reach?