Thank you, Lincoln Project

You come up with some of the craziest BS. It is clear you really have no clue about how insurance works.

 

What part of group plans do you dislike?
Employers are free to choose the types of plans based on costs.

Of course legal cases dictate what can be sold. But one is also always free to go out on their own as well. And now, one can decide to have no insurance.

 

And I call "Republicans" who can't articulate Republicanism beyond Trump worship Trumpists.

 

Indeed. We're beyond party over country. It's one man over party. It's in the platform. What's left of Republicanism is voting for Biden.

 

It is clear you have no idea how the government and legal system work.

 

I never claimed to be a lawyer or a politician, but I can read up on it. However, I do deal with health insurance, so please tell me more about your crazy ideas on how insurance works.

 

Did you not read what I wrote earlier?

 

They are pawns controlled by cons. Most of their major donors are rabid left-wingers and most of their money is spent on contracting companies owned by its Board Members.

 

~ What happened to "Deplorables " ?

 

And it makes no sense. So please explain what you mean by this...

 

Clinton isn't running.

 

How the government tells it to as some one else said government regulates everything insurance has no special exemption from this sad rule. There was a lawsuit some years back in NYC that forced group insurance in New York to cover sexual reassignment surgery. Note while rare the surgery is extremely expensive, and takes a long time before the surgery itself is actually perfirmed. That added to the cost of everyone's insurance at that company in that state.

 

Republicans in general don't care helping the government gets as long as it doesn't interfere and think that they like.

Take Trump for example he loves eminent domain. He used it several times as a businessman to steal people's land. he would bride government officials to using that domain to take someone's property and then sell it to him. He got thwarted in New Jersey because the state supreme Court got involved and ruled that in the domain could only be used to take land for use in public works and the land could not be soldvto private parties under any circumstances.

 

According to the census bureau the poverty rate was 22% in 1960, fell to 12% in 1980 after LBJ's war on poverty began (coincidence???), and then continually rose to 13.5% in 2014. This steady rise over 35 years is not at all what the planners hoped for (foresaw). We spent an estimated $15 trillion on the war on poverty and its offspring and made things worse. Most Republicans in Nixon's time supported the wars on poverty and drugs. They are not materially different from Democrats. (side note: it was the Republicans, especially Sen. Dirksen, who got LBJ's Civil Rights and Voting Acts passed over Democrat filibustering.) Nixon started his own war on cancer to add to the pile.

 

Spending during Republican administrations can be a lot, but it is not all Republican spending. Tip O'Neill reneged greatly on his promise to Reagan to reduce spending. Nixon was a moderate spender. Bush 43 was an avid spender, mostly on the war effort. Obama's deficit was larger than all previous deficits combined. Trump is close to beating Obama mostly for unforeseen or controllable things. As I said in another post there are major differences between constitutional conservatives and Democrats, but not so much between Republicans and Democrats.

The founders and framers hoped for and wanted all citizens to do well. But they thought other than protecting their liberty it was none of the federal government's business, prerogative, or authority to aid their well being.

 

Every state has agencies that regulate health insurance companies as they should, but predominately over rates. The federal government through Obamacare placed a ton of dictates and mandates on what services insurance companies could, could not, or had to offer, and greatly limited their costs, but said nothing about rates.

 

This is one of those times when the prohibition against pasting an entire article prevents members of the board from seeing a factual refutation to the idea the "war on poverty" was a failure, and therefore is extremely frustrating. So I'll pick out some of the salient points. BTW, comparing it to the "war on drugs" is an apples to oranges comparison if there ever was one.

"The effort centered around four pieces of legislation:

The Social Security Amendments of 1965, which created Medicare and Medicaid and also expanded Social Security benefits for retirees, widows, the disabled. The Food Stamp Act of 1964, which made the food stamps program, then only a pilot, permanent.
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which established the Job Corps, the VISTA program, the federal work-study program and a number of other initiatives. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, signed into law in 1965, which established the Title I program subsidizing school districts with a large share of impoverished students.

Did it reduce poverty, actually?

It did. A recent study from economists at Columbia broke down changes in poverty before and after the government gets involved in the form of taxes and transfers, and found that, when you take government intervention into account, poverty is down considerably from 1967 to 2012, from 26 percent to 16 percent.

In fact, without government programs, poverty would have actually increased over the period in question. Government action is literally the only reason we have less poverty in 2012 than we did in 1967.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ng-you-need-to-know-about-the-war-on-poverty/

 

Would the deficits incurred during Obama's admin have anything to do with the near depression level economic contraction he inherited from Shrub, not to mention military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why fail to mention that once the economic recovery began, hamstrung by Repub obstruction, Obama focused on and succeeded in reducing annual budget deficits? Then the Orange Menace came on the scene, who inherited an economy growing at trend growth of 2-2.5%, but decided to temporarily juice it with a tax cut that grew the deficit back over $1T even before the arrival of COVID.

 

My advice, be skeptical of the "information" some posters post.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...w, association,apply to the individual market.

 

BS no one got bribed. And there is only one incident mention and Trump lost that case. Do not blame Trump for taking advantage of a decision made by a liberal supreme court that said it was constitutionally acceptable for the city to use eminent domain to improve it's tax revenue. Note Scalia wrote a scathing dissent. Oh and even under eminent domain you still get paid for your property just not as much as you'd like.

 

Congress sets spending limits not presidents. You cannot help some citizens by robbing others. And let's not forget multigenerational poverty was a rare thing before LBJ's Great Society institutionalized it.

 

The people who b**** the most about taxes also use the most in tax aid.

In the end it's really about people wanting to still use tax pay programs and just not wanting to pay their fair share of the costs.

Like a morons in the tea party who held up "keep your government hands off my medicare" signs. I guess they're too stupid to realize that Medicare is a socialist tax paid program controlled by the government. Calling taxes theft and then complaining that there's not enough money in programs like Medicare. They don't mind using taxes they just don't like to pay them.

 

Yes. What's your point?
You are not dictated to any plan. You are free to choose as you wish. Even can opt to have no health insurance plan.
We don't have gov't healthcare.

 

One can't use raw number when talking about the debt/deficit/budget.
For the size of the economy/gdp/etc are not the same.
A $$ today isn't the same as a $$ 100 yrs ago.

The best measure is debt numbers/gdp and that puts things in equal perspective.

I disagree with your thought on founding fathers. Else there'd not be the general welfare clause.
And I don't agree with holding the constitution to 1776 either.
Society and the courts determine what is or isn't fair under the constitution. No person or country can be held to values and rules from over 200 yrs ago.
Change or die, as the saying goes.

 

Your first sentence makes no sense at all. The best I can interpret from that line is that someone told you something that there was no exception.

As for the rest, the ONLY way 1 single member of that group could affect everyone's premiums so drastically is if the group plan was self-funded, meaning all they were doing with an insurance company is administering the plan but the funds for the policy was provided by the company, not joining with other companies on the same type of plan. If that were the case, then that is on the employer who may not be able to afford self-funding their plan.

Sexual reassignment is nothing financially compared to far more serious long-term health scenarios such as cancer or even premature births that require neo natal ICU. So whoever told you that was BS'ing or was just throwing a bogus answer at you.