Magox

I usually go the philosophy written in my sig. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Not one bit of what you said proves collusion. As a matter of fact if anything has a whiff of a characteristic of communism or what Russia would do is what you are doing. Which is to apply tangential and peripheral evidence and equate that as being guilty. Guilty until proven innocent. Again, start over and show me actual "proof" that there was collusion. Up to now, you haven't provided one iota of proof.

Looks to me as if it was an innocent mistake. More ignorance of the law than anything else

A) That isn't proof of collusion ----- Strike one B) http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/russian-lawyer-who-met-trump-jr-denies-shes-connected-to-the-kremlin.html ----------- Strike two C) That is a wild eyed conspiracy, provide proof of your claim (it doesn't exist) - Strike Three In other words everything you said was a bunch of bull ****

More like the outrageous lengths people will go to fabricate nonstories to stories. You stated: A) Where is the proof of collusion? B) If this was collusion this lawyer would have to be some sort of a Russian foreign agent. Is she? C) In order for there to be collusion, there would have to be a quid pro quo. Where is the quid pro quo? You stated definitively that this is proof, now that you've made the claim, explain in detail with facts and respond to each three of the points that I've brought up.

And there it is. No matter what the outcome this is the argument that will always hold in a significant if not majority of the public's view on how government should always be run.

Trump is definitely one of the most unlikable figures to have ever become president, certainly in my life time. Will he end up being a good president? Doubtful.

The more I hear and read about these Russian allegations of collusion the more I am convinced that this is one of the greatest McCarthy-like nothing burger stories ever to have been incessantly broadcast by the dishonest mainstream media.

So it appears at best they were financially inept in their decision making, at worst they are corrupt.

So the Tax cuts caused the Recession?

Sammy is free to say what he wishes, but whenever an athlete specially one who hasn't lived up to his expectations makes a comment that could easily be perceived as someone who believes that they are undervalued, it does leave them open for criticism. Some people know how to endear themselves to their fan base, others not so much. Sammy falls in the latter.

Dollar amount would be expanded vs current numbers. What is cut is the threshold. Right now it is at 400% above poverty line under GOP senate it is 350% of poverty line.

I'm in agreement with heavily funded pilot programs that would encourage this.

The Ravens must feel cheated

I believe that is the tactic as well. And he should call their bluff and be willing to go through with it if they don't come to an agreement. There is a deal to be done that could improve the status quo.

Did you read the study?

Don't be such a dingbat, it's these sort of comments that continue to weigh down your seriousness.

It is not a myth, it all depends on the market that they are going after. Your argument exists in a vacuum, if there were only minor tweaks to the existing bill in many markets you'd be correct because too many people that are in the risk pools are people that the carriers don't want. The problem B-man is that the way the law is written the incentives skew towards sicker/older people, therefore they aren't getting the necessary younger/healthier people to sign up. Which is why I said that what they need to do is change the standards of the QHP so that carriers can design plans to attract healthier people. Also, if they were to adopt these risk pools that would make a difference as well, it is clear that the American public doesn't understand how these risk pools would work so it is politically not palatable to have this as the main safeguard for Pre ex. So what they should do is still keep the Pre Ex mandate to shield against ignorant criticism and heavily fund these pre Ex pools and attempt to steer as many people there as possible. In regards to the rest of your argument, I'm in agreement with most of what you are saying.

And I can tell you this, in rural America which are most counties in the U.S the premiums are even worse, not to mention that the vast majority of the plans on the exchanges are tiny HMO networks. If they loosened up the regulations to what can be considered a QHP, you would see a lot more participation on the exchanges with lots more designs of plans that would fit more people's needs. They could keep the subsidies/tax credits, Pre ex mandate, the exchanges and just about everything else they could scrap and we would see a much better healthcare system than what we see today. The comments coming from the left are hysterical, they are ignorant and they really don't know what they are talking about. They pretend that the system as it is today has long-term viability and that what the senate GOP are initially proposing would be some sort of catastrophic deal. It's not, it truly isn't a radical change from what currently stands. Like I said, keeping the subsidies/tax credits and some of the protections for Pre Ex and the mechanism to purchase health insurance through a robust competitive exchange and I'd actually be excited to see what this would do to premiums and the forms of coverage that would be available. I think what is going to be key is loosening up the standards of what is considered to be a QHP. If they can do that, then there truly will be competition on the exchanges.

In other words this is yet another dope who has fallen for Cruz's schtick That's a bit hard to do considering that virtually everything that calculating Ted Cruz does is a facade.

Washington is one of those funny places where a decrease in growth is considered a cut. Under the GOP's Senate plan, Medicaid will still remain for the majority of people who are receiving it today, the difference is that the threshold for qualifying for Medicaid will slightly change and those people will be on the richer end of the subsidy scale. And no, you completely distorted my argument. I'm not saying Medicaid should completely be done away with, just that there should be an adjustment in benefits. That the benefits shouldn't be a gold plated policy at $0 cost. If you are going to misrepresent my position then don't bother responding.

That's not what I really said or at least meant. I suppose I could have communicated that a little better. When I said that Insurance always relied on the concept of the most responsible or in this case healthier people, I was referring that insurance in general like auto insurance or in this case for health insurance with healthier people, that they subsidize the cost for everyone else. It really depends on how the subsidies are distributed and the flexibility that will be given to the states to consider what will be QUALIFIED health plans. If they can come up with high deductible plans with doctor, urgent care, ER room and lab testing copays with wellness visits, then you could conceivably see lots of people who were eventually phased out of Medicaid obtain these sort of plans for a next to nothing price with the subsidy. Medicaid is too benefit rich in my opinion. Sure they have limited doctor networks but it's essentially a gold plated benefit plan, at virtually NO COST to the benificiary, whereas folks in the middle class often times have deductibles of a few thousand bucks paying hundreds of bucks a month. That isn't fair. So I think the idea of taking a little away from Medicaid with the option of those folks now getting a plan not as benefit rich as their Medicaid plan at little to no cost is a lot more fair.

Insurance has always relied on the concept of the most responsible or in this case healthier people subsidizing the cost of everyone else. This isn't something that is new to the ACA, the problem with the ACA is that it further disincentivized healthier people to purchase insurance. The distribution of subsidies was all out of wack, the way they capped older people's premiums relative to younger people and the community based rating all tilted in the wrong direction which in turn created unhealthier risk pools for the insurance companies. And yes, ALF was also correct in the sense that there was a pent up demand for people with medical conditions who were for the first time in years getting healthcare and without doubt that did contribute to the rate hikes. I don't know how this Senate bill will play out, so far it is going in the direction that I thought it would. Not sure if will be able to get past the senate. But no matter how this plays out, to the chagrin/disappointment of some of you on this board, what will remain are the subsidies/tax credits and covering people with pre existing medical conditions. The question is will it have something close to what the Senate Republicans are proposing? Minor fixes to Obamacare because Republicans couldn't get a deal done? or have this slow winding death of the ACA and we get single payer within a decade?

I'm mildly optimistic to where we'll be in the next 3 years.

I could possibly be interested, but it's been forever since I played the Civ games. How would this work? Do I have to be present at a specified time?