Owning Trump =

[SoCal Deek]

5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

And Tibs thinks it's still popular because he's still on mom's insurance.  I can't believe what some people are paying now for insurance for themselves and their families. 

What I never understood is why does it make any difference to an insurance company who is paying for the policy? Your 25 year old kid is the same person, with the same health issues, no matter who they’re sending the bill to. Or is this all just a way to force companies of ‘older’ employees to continue paying for health coverage on their older children? 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

What I never understood is why does it make any difference to an insurance company who is paying for the policy? Your 25 year old kid is the same person, with the same health issues, no matter who they’re sending the bill to. Or is this all just a way to force companies of ‘older’ employees to continue paying for health coverage on their older children? 

 

I think it's risk.  If you're still paying for your 25 year old child's health insurance the kid is likely too dumb to keep from poking their eye out with a fork.  

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

 

I think it's risk.  If you're still paying for your 25 year old child's health insurance the kid is likely too dumb to keep from poking their eye out with a fork.  

OK....now THAT made me laugh! ?

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

What I never understood is why does it make any difference to an insurance company who is paying for the policy? Your 25 year old kid is the same person, with the same health issues, no matter who they’re sending the bill to. Or is this all just a way to force companies of ‘older’ employees to continue paying for health coverage on their older children? 

If the younger people had to pay for insurance on their own they might choose to not have any insurance.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

If the younger people had to pay for insurance on their own they might choose to not have any insurance.

Not my point. But close. The theory was that it was somehow CHEAPER if they were kept on Dad’s policy. Why should it be? If it’s not, then why can’t Dad simply write the check for the premium on their kid’s own policy? 

[Chef Jim]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Not my point. But close. The theory was that it was somehow CHEAPER if they were kept on Dad’s policy. Why should it be? If it’s not, then why can’t Dad simply write the check for the premium on their kid’s own policy? 

 

One thing insurance companies are really good at is pricing risk.  There is likely a correlation between health of kids who pay their own and kids who rely on mommy and daddy.  So though my post you quoted was a joke there is likely some truth to it.  And yeah if daddy was smart he'd have the kid get their own coverage and pay for it.  Or have the little ***** get a job and get his own insurance and pay it out of his paycheck.  

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Not my point. But close. The theory was that it was somehow CHEAPER if they were kept on Dad’s policy. Why should it be? If it’s not, then why can’t Dad simply write the check for the premium on their kid’s own policy? 

The only way it would be cheaper to keep the kid on Dad's policy would be the saving of administrative costs. The insurance companies are still going to get their due. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

 

One thing insurance companies are really good at is pricing risk.  There is likely a correlation between health of kids who pay their own and kids who rely on mommy and daddy.  So though my post you quoted was a joke there is likely some truth to it.  And yeah if daddy was smart he'd have the kid get their own coverage and pay for it.  Or have the little ***** get a job and get his own insurance and pay it out of his paycheck.  

Exactly! This was the nonsense that was/is Obamacare. The hard questions should have been asked of the insurance companies...but they were never asked.

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The only way it would be cheaper to keep the kid on Dad's policy would be the saving of administrative costs. The insurance companies are still going to get their due. 

And that should tell you something right there. If the real costs of a policy are the ‘administrative’ it’s clear we are ALL getting ripped off!

[Chef Jim]

26 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The only way it would be cheaper to keep the kid on Dad's policy would be the saving of administrative costs. The insurance companies are still going to get their due. 

 

Not necessarily.  Again they price in risk and there is probably data that shows a kid under 25 who is on mommy and daddy's insurance is a higher risk.  Kids out on their own at that age are typically more responsible.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

31 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The only way it would be cheaper to keep the kid on Dad's policy would be the saving of administrative costs. The insurance companies are still going to get their due. 

 

....LMAO...Obamacare?......it was HillaryCare with the Clinton's cardboard prop's name pasted on the front......I have 200+ employees of which 190 are Union employees and get their health care through the Union (I pay 100%) as a self-funded Plan with Excellus BCBS as their third party administrator......I maintain Excellus BCBS coverage for my remaining dozen or so which was "community rated (Rochester "community rated as a whole ala premiums versus claims dollars to establish a loss ratio)".....ObamacareLESS counted my Union employees in my employee count and I could no longer be community rated.....first year increase for my dozen non-Union employees was 35%.....I was already paying 60% of their premium but added $15,000 additional sponsorship annually to mitigate their out of pocket contribution...following year was 15% and I continued my additional sponsorship....

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

....LMAO...Obamacare?......it was HillaryCare with the Clinton's cardboard prop's name pasted on the front......I have 200+ employees of which 190 are Union employees and get their health care through the Union (I pay 100%) as a self-funded Plan with Excellus BCBS as their third party administrator......I maintain Excellus BCBS coverage for my remaining dozen or so which was "community rated (Rochester "community rated as a whole ala premiums versus claims dollars to establish a loss ratio)".....ObamacareLESS counted my Union employees in my employee count and I could no longer be community rated.....first year increase for my dozen non-Union employees was 35%.....I was already paying 60% of their premium but added $15,000 additional sponsorship annually to mitigate their out of pocket contribution...following year was 15% and I continued my additional sponsorship....

As I'm sure you know, any kind of insurance is based on "The Law of Large Numbers". The ACA tried to subvert that law that has been used by insurers for centuries. I was against the federal governments involvement in healthcare on a philosophical basis but knew that there were two other issues that would cause the ACA to be a failure. The penalties for not having insurance were too small thus skewing "The Law of Large Numbers" and the Obama administration was too incompetent to administer anything other than an Obama date night. I spoke out about this strongly 10 years ago in this very forum. We all know that the ACA was planned as a gateway to single payer. Trump's 2016 election helped hold that off and hopefully his reelection will get rid of it entirely. 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

As I'm sure you know, any kind of insurance is based on "The Law of Large Numbers". The ACA tried to subvert that law that has been used by insurers for centuries. I was against the federal governments involvement in healthcare on a philosophical basis but knew that there were two other issues that would cause the ACA to be a failure. The penalties for not having insurance were too small thus skewing "The Law of Large Numbers" and the Obama administration was too incompetent to administer anything other than an Obama date night. I spoke out about this strongly 10 years ago in this very forum. We all know that the ACA was planned as a gateway to single payer. Trump's 2016 election helped hold that off and hopefully his reelection will get rid of it entirely. 

Putting layers and layers of people, departments, and companies between the payer and the product is a sure fire way to raise the cost of anything! 

[B-Man]

DUMBING FASCISM DOWN, THEN AND NOW:

Even today, this kind of reductionist political attack remains popular, and not just among Antifa street marchers.

 

The United States, like many other countries, does contain a genuinely radicalized right-wing political fringe, including some who call themselves fascist. However, these are not influential political actors.

 

Yet that did not stop then-presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke from assailing Trump in October by declaring, “Outside of the Third Reich, give me another example of a Western leader who has called people of one faith inherently defective or dangerous or disqualified from being successful in that country.”

 

Julian Castro, another 2019-era Democratic presidential candidate, declared that Trump advisor Stephen Miller is a “neo-Nazi.” Last June, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called migrant detention centers on the Mexican border “concentration camps,” language clearly intended to signal moral equivalence with the Nazi holocaust. Six weeks later, at a sentencing hearing for two Proud Boys who got into a street fight with Antifa extremists, New York Supreme Court Judge Mark Dwyer stated, “I know enough about history to know what happened in Europe in the ’30s when political street brawls were allowed to go ahead… We don’t want that to happen in New York.”

 

While judges and lawmakers may claim to be speaking metaphorically or speculatively, some of those listening seem to be taking the comparisons literally. Before he shot and killed nine victims in Dayton, Ohio, last year, 24-year-old Antifa supporter Connor Betts frequently decried political opponents as “Nazi” on Twitter, declaring, ominously, “Nazis deserve death and nothing else.”

 

The destruction of fascism in Europe 75 years ago should be remembered as a great victory. And fascism itself should be reviled—but not in a way that inflates false fears or smears conservatism, nationalism, and even patriotism as offshoots of Nazi ideology. The millions who died fighting actual fascism did so to preserve freedom of conscience and national self-determination. And their legacy should not be distorted by those who would seek to dress every political opponent up in Death’s Head cap badges and calf-high jackboots.

 

Read the whole thing.

 

 

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

48 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

As I'm sure you know, any kind of insurance is based on "The Law of Large Numbers". The ACA tried to subvert that law that has been used by insurers for centuries. I was against the federal governments involvement in healthcare on a philosophical basis but knew that there were two other issues that would cause the ACA to be a failure. The penalties for not having insurance were too small thus skewing "The Law of Large Numbers" and the Obama administration was too incompetent to administer anything other than an Obama date night. I spoke out about this strongly 10 years ago in this very forum. We all know that the ACA was planned as a gateway to single payer. Trump's 2016 election helped hold that off and hopefully his reelection will get rid of it entirely. 

 

....absolutely DEAD ON......so my fickle Cliff Notes question would be if, IF you thought universal care was a workable situation (PLENTY of worldwide examples relative to cost, success, failure, et al as guidance), wouldn't you convene an extensive panel of insurers, health care professionals/providers to come up with the semblance of a workable plan versus letting 535 mumbling minions craft the legislation?.....naw the providers and health care professionals will only offer profiteering.....our beloved 535 would do a MUCH better job.....SMH...Medicare is a governmental WINNER, right?...........